To date, there are limited data regarding IBD and COVID-19, but evidence with a higher quality has been gradually accumulated recently. We aimed to review the management of IBD in the COVID-19 era. RISK OF COVID-19 IN IBD PATIENTSIn addition to fever and respiratory symptoms, 8 about 15% of COVID-19 patients complain of gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and anorexia, with variable frequencies. 9 These symptoms are more likely to be noted in patients with severe This could be associated with the expression of angiotensin conversion enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) in the enterocytes, which play an important role in the entrance of viruses into human cells and the regulation of the binding to the receptors. 11,12 Interestingly, ACE2 and TMPRSS2 were

Background/Aims: Chromoendoscopy (CE) has been shown to be superior to white light endoscopy (WLE) for neoplasia detection in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to compare the yield of CE and WLE for the detection of overall neoplasia and advanced neoplasia in IBD. Methods: Patients who underwent surveillance colonoscopy from 1999 to 2017 were identified from our IBD database. CE procedures were compared with their respective WLE controls in a paired comparison, and frequency of all neoplasia, advanced neoplasia, and serrated neoplasia was assessed for both targeted and random biopsies.Results: A total of 290 procedures performed in 98 individuals were identified with a median follow-up 4 years (median 3 colonoscopies/patient). CE and WLE were performed in 159 and 131 episodes, respectively. CE detected neoplasia in 40.9% of colonoscopies versus 23.7% with WLE (<i>P</i>= 0.002). In addition, CE detected more advanced neoplasia (18.2% vs. 6.1%, <i>P</i>= 0.002) and serrated lesions (14.5% vs. 6.1%, <i>P</i>= 0.022). Significantly fewer samples were obtained per procedure with CE (14.9 ± 9.7 vs. 20.9 ± 11.1, <i>P</i>< 0.001). Cancer was diagnosed in 2 cases.Conclusions: CE has a higher detection rate than WLE for advanced neoplasia and serrated lesions in patients with IBD under surveillance. Further prospective studies evaluating the impact of CE on decreasing the risk of interval cancer and colectomy in IBD patients are warranted.

Background Because of its efficacy and safety, polyethylene glycol (PEG) is generally used to prepare for colonoscopy. However, the side effects of PEG, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal discomfort, pain, and general weakness, tend to decrease patient compliance and satisfaction. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of PEG with 0.1 mg ramosetron on colonoscopy patients who had difficulty taking PEG due to side effects or large volume. Methods From January to August in 2012, 28 patients who visited Yeungnam University hospital for a colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled. All enrolled patients were previous history underwent colonoscopy using PEG only in our hospital. The efficacy and safety of ramosetron were assessed through the use of a questionnaire, and compared previous bowel preparation.Results Compared to previous examination, the patients using the ramosetron reported less nausea, vomiting, abdominal discomfort, and abdominal pain, as well as a higher degree of compliance and satisfaction of the patient. There were no side effects reported with the use of ramosetron. However, overall bowel preparation quality was not better than the previous examination. Conclusion In case of the use of ramosetron in combination with PEG for bowel preparation, patients experienced a higher rate of compliance and tolerance. Looking forward, ramosetron may become an option of pretreatment for bowel preparation.

Background and Aims We evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of novel oral sulphate tablets [OSTs] vs 2 L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbate [PEG/Asc] in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. Patients and Methods A total of 110 patients with clinically inactive IBD were enrolled in this single-blind multicentre non-inferiority study. Patients were randomly assigned to the OST or 2 L PEG/Asc group and we applied a split-dose regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint was bowel cleansing success rate defined as Harefield Cleansing Scale Grade A or B. The secondary endpoints were perfect preparation rate, the presence of air bubbles, safety as assessed by laboratory abnormalities and self-reported adverse events, or IBD symptom flare-ups. Tolerability was assessed by a pre-procedural visual analog scale [VAS] interview. Results Both groups showed high cleansing success rates [98.1%] and there was no significant difference in perfect preparation rate. The proportion of a bubble score 0 was significantly higher in the OST group [94.5% vs 50.0%, p &lt; 0.001]. There was no significant intergroup difference in vomiting or bloating. Symptom flare-ups occurred in two OST group patients. No clinically significant blood test abnormalities were noted in either group. Ease of ingestion and taste scores were significantly higher in the OST group. More patients in the OST group [94.5%] wanted to take the same preparation agent for their next colonoscopy. Conclusions Both OST and 2 L PEG/Asc demonstrated high successful cleansing and safety in patients with inactive IBD. OST achieved higher satisfaction than 2 L PEG/Asc. Our results suggest that the OST split-dose regimen is effective and safe for patients with inactive IBD.

Endoscopy is vital for diagnosing, assessing treatment response, and monitoring surveillance in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). With the growing importance of mucosal healing as a treatment target, the assessment of disease activity by endoscopy has been accepted as the standard of care for IBD. There are many endoscopic activity indices for facilitating standardized reporting of the gastrointestinal mucosal appearance in IBD, and each index has its strengths and weaknesses. Although most endoscopic indices do not have a clear-cut validated definition, endoscopic remission or mucosal healing is associated with favorable outcomes, such as a decreased risk of relapse. Therefore, experts suggest utilizing endoscopic indices for monitoring disease activity and optimizing treatment to achieve remission. However, the regular monitoring of endoscopic activity is limited in practice owing to several factors, such as the complexity of the procedure, time consumption, inter-observer variability, and lack of a clear-cut, validated definition of endoscopic response or remission. Although experts have recently suggested consensus-based definitions, further studies are needed to define the values that can predict long-term outcomes.

With emerging more effective drugs, the therapeutic goal of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has progressed from clinical remission to mucosal healing. Although the inflammation could be controlled more effectively than before, symptoms such as abdominal pain and bowel habit change is still bothersome to some IBD patients. Recently, these "refractory functional gastrointestinal symptoms" in quiescent IBD patients has been paid more attention. The pathophysiology could be multifactorial with genetics, change in gut motility associated with post inflammatory condition, increased permeability, impaired colorectal function, visceral hypersensitivity and gut microbiota. Because both IBD and functional gastrointestinal disease (FGID) could share similar symptoms and some pathophysiology, it is sometimes challenging to distinguish them exactly. However, to reduce the risk of overtreatment or insufficient control of inflammation, exact diagnosis of functional disease or symptoms in quiescent IBD patients is important. Because there is limited randomized controlled trials or prospective study currently, most of the therapeutic approach in IBD patients are empirical or referred to those of functional gastrointestinal disorders. However, approaches based on pathophysiological mechanisms could give appropriate therapies for both IBD and FGIDs.