Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) (collectively termed inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)) are complex disorders reflected by wide variation in clinical practice. These guidelines, commissioned by the Clinical Services’ Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) for clinicians and allied professionals caring for patients with IBD in the United Kingdom, provide an evidence based document describing good clinical practice for investigation and treatment. The guidelines are intended to bring consistency, but should not necessarily be regarded as the standard of care for all patients. Individual cases must be managed on the basis of all clinical data available for that case. Patient preferences should be sought and decisions jointly made between patient and health professional.

### 1.1 Development of guidelines

A comprehensive literature search was performed using electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, and Ovid; keywords: “inflammatory bowel disease”, “ulcerative colitis”, and “Crohn’s disease”) by Dr Carter. A preliminary document was drafted by Dr Carter, Dr Lobo, and contributing authors. This was summarised by Dr Travis and revised after circulation first to the committee and then to members of the IBD section of the BSG, before submission to the Clinical Services’ Committee.

### 1.2 Grading of recommendations1

The guidelines conform to the North of England evidence based guidelines development project. The grading of each recommendation is dependent on the category of evidence supporting it:





### 1.3 Scheduled review of guidelines

The content and evidence base …

https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/53/suppl_5/v1.full.pdf

Guidelines for the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

/pdf/second-european-evidence-based-consensus-on-the-diagnosis-hg0loy9hft.pdf

Second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis Part 2: Current management

The management of inflammatory bowel disease represents a key component of clinical practice for members of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). There has been considerable progress in management strategies affecting all aspects of clinical care since the publication of previous BSG guidelines in 2004, necessitating the present revision. Key components of the present document worthy of attention as having been subject to re-assessment, and revision, and having direct impact on practice include: The data generated by the nationwide audits of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management in the UK in 2006, and 2008. The publication of 'Quality Care: service standards for the healthcare of people with IBD' in 2009. The introduction of the Montreal classification for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The revision of recommendations for the use of immunosuppressive therapy. The detailed analysis, guidelines and recommendations for the safe and appropriate use of biological therapies in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The reassessment of the role of surgery in disease management, with emphasis on the importance of multi-disciplinary decision-making in complex cases. The availablity of new data on the role of reconstructive surgery in ulcerative colitis. The cross-referencing to revised guidelines for colonoscopic surveillance, for the management of metabolic bone disease, and for the care of children with inflammatory bowel disease. Use of the BSG discussion forum available on the BSG website to enable ongoing feedback on the published document http://www.bsg.org.uk/forum (accessed Oct 2010). The present document is intended primarily for the use of clinicians in the United Kingdom, and serves to replace the previous BSG guidelines in IBD, while complementing recent consensus statements published by the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) https://www.ecco-ibd.eu/index.php (accessed Oct 2010).

https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/60/5/571.full.pdf

aDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Porto; MedInUP, Centre for Drug Discovery and Innovative Medicines; Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal bIBD Unit, DIMEC, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy cDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel dGastrointestinal Unit ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco—University of Milan—Milan, Italy eIBD Unit Complesso Integrato Columbus, Gastroenterological and Endocrino-Metabolical Sciences Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli Universita’ Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy fDepartment of Gastroenterology, IBD Unit, University Hospital Santiago De Compostela (CHUS), A Coruña, Spain gDepartment of Gastroenterology, North Zealand University Hospital, Frederikssund, Denmark hFirst Department of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary iIBD Unit, St Mark’s Hospital, Middlesex, UK jDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium kInstitute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria lDepartment of Gastroenterology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust; Institute of Inflammation and Repair, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK mUnit of General Surgery, Second University of Naples, Napoli, Italy nMaria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Department of Oncological Gastroenterology Warsaw; Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Oncology, Warsaw, Poland oDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK pImperial College London; Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK qDepartment of Pathobiology /NC22, Lerner Research Institute; Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition/A3, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

/pdf/third-european-evidence-based-consensus-on-diagnosis-and-2g4pj48jlg.pdf

Third European Evidence-based Consensus on Diagnosis and Management of Ulcerative Colitis. Part 1: Definitions, Diagnosis, Extra-intestinal Manifestations, Pregnancy, Cancer Surveillance, Surgery, and Ileo-anal Pouch Disorders.

,2,3Department of Medicine 1, Agaplesion Markus Hospital, Wilhelm-Epstein-Str. 4, D-60431 Frankfurt/Main, GermanyDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, MtSinai Hospital and University Health Network;University of Toronto, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 and University of Leuven, BelgiumReceived 26 August 2012; accepted 3 September 2012KEYWORDS

Second European evidence-based Consensus on the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis: Current management

BackgroundRestorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) has become an established surgery for patients with chronic ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis.PurposeThe authors report the results of an 11-year experience of restorative proctocolectomy and IPAA at a

Ileal pouch-anal anastomoses complications and function in 1005 patients

Forty of 416 patients with familial adenomatous polyposis were noted to have intra-abdominal desmoid tumors, and a subgroup of 16 were treated with noncytotoxic drug therapy. Drugs used were sulindac (14 patients), sulindac plus tamoxifen (3 patients), indomethacin (4 patients), tamoxifen (4 patients), progesterone (DEPO-PROVERA; Upjohn Co., Kalamazoo, MI) (2 patients), and testolactone (1 patient). Therapy with these drugs for continuous periods of six months or more resulted in three complete and seven partial remissions. When treated patients were compared with untreated patients (n = 12), there were significant benefits for the treated group, both in reduction of desmoid size and in improvement of symptoms, despite the inherent selection bias against this. Sulindac was the only drug used in enough patients to permit independent evaluation of its effect, with one complete and seven partial reductions of tumor size. Some patients had a delayed response to sulindac, with tumor shrinkage occurring after an initial period of tumor enlargement. When using sulindac for the treatment of desmoid tumors, this phenomenon should be considered.

Noncytotoxic drug therapy for intra-abdominal desmoid tumor in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

Assessment of complex sphincteric defects in patients with fecal incontinence by digital rectal examination and intraoperative dissection can be difficult in the presence of excessive scarring. Adjunctive investigation such as endoluminal ultrasound (ELUS) and needle electromyography (EMG) may provide objective evidence of the nature and extent of the sphincteric defects. In a series of 11 patients, ELUS of the anal canal with a 10-MHz transducer (focal zone of 1–4 cm) accurately detected defects in the external anal sphincter (EAS) in seven of seven patients, defects in the internal anal sphincter (IAS) in eight of eight patients, and integrity of both sphincters in two patients. These findings were confirmed by needle EMG of the EAS alone in five patients, by operative findings at a perineal sphincteroplasty operation in six patients, and by both in two patients. ELUS was associated with less pain than was needle EMG (pain score 4vs. 10, 10 being most painful) and provided high-resolution radial images of both the EAS and the IAS. Thus, ELUS seems preferable to EMG in mapping anal sphincteric defects and can be a useful anatomic adjunct to physiologic studies of anorectal function in patients with fecal incontinence.

Endoluminal ultrasound is preferable to electromyography in mapping anal sphincteric defects

This study was designed to evaluate the impact of childbirth on anal sphincter integrity and function, functional outcome, and quality of life in females with restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. The patients who had at least one live birth after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis were asked to return for a comprehensive assessment. They were asked to complete the following questionnaires: the Short Form-36, Cleveland Global Quality of Life scale, American Society of Colorectal Surgeons fecal incontinence severity index, and time trade-off method. Additionally, anal sphincter integrity (endosonography) and manometric pressures were measured by a medical physician blinded to the delivery technique. Anal sphincter physiology also was evaluated with electromyography and pudendal nerve function by nerve terminal motor latency technique. Of 110 eligible females who had at least one live birth after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, 57 participated in the study by returning for clinical evaluation to the clinic and 25 others by returning the quality of life and functional outcome questionnaires. Patients were classified into two groups: patients who had only cesarean section delivery after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (n = 62) and patients who had at least one vaginal delivery after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (n = 20). The mean follow-up from the date of the most recent delivery was 4.9 years. The vaginal delivery group had significantly higher incidence of an anterior sphincter defect by anal endosonography (50 percent) vs. cesarean section delivery group (13 percent; P = 0.012). The mean squeeze anal pressure was significantly higher in the patients who had only cesarean section delivery (150 mmHg) after restorative proctocolectomy than patients who had at least one vaginal delivery (120 mmHg) after restorative proctocolectomy (P = 0.049). Quality of life evaluated by time trade-off method also was significantly better in the cesarean section delivery group (1) vs. vaginal delivery group (0.9; P < 0.001). The risk of the sphincter injury and quality of life measured by time trade-off method are significantly worse after vaginal delivery compared with cesarean section in patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. In the short-term, this does not seem to substantially influence pouch function or quality of life; however, the long-term effects remain unknown, thus obstetric concern may not be the only factor dictating the type of delivery in this group of patients. A planned cesarean section may eliminate these potential and factual concerns in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis patients.

Tom Schroeder

Papers

Ileal pouch-anal anastomoses complications and function in 1005 patients

Noncytotoxic drug therapy for intra-abdominal desmoid tumor in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

Endoluminal ultrasound is preferable to electromyography in mapping anal sphincteric defects

Vaginal Delivery After Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis: A Word of Caution

Congenital Hypertrophy of the Retinal Pigment Epithelium in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis