Shubhra Mishra

Background There are limited studies on the impact of gender on training and career advancement in gastroenterology. Aim The aim was to study this impact and understand the perceptions of work-life balance and beliefs regarding gender dynamics among gastroenterologists in India and other South Asian countries. Methods A web-based survey was conducted among trainees and attending physicians in South Asia from November 15, 2021, to March 30, 2022. The survey instrument had four components: demographic features, training, career advancement and work-life balance. Results As many as 622 gastroenterologists completed the survey, of which 467 responses were from India (mean age: 41.1 years; females: 11.5%). A higher proportion of female respondents from India believed that gender bias in recruiting and training had negatively impacted their careers (40.7% females vs. 1.5% males). Radiation hazard for fertility (11.1% females vs. 1.9% males, p < 0.001) and as a health concern (14.8% females vs. 5.1% males, p = 0.005) were significant career deterrents for females. A higher proportion of female participants from India faced a career interruption (59.3% females vs. 30.3% males, p ≤ 0.001). Common reasons were pregnancy (37%) and childcare provision (25.9%). More females believed that women were more productive than men (40.8% females vs. 16.9% males, p < 0.001) and that a salary gap existed (44.7% females vs. 29.1% males, p < 0.001). The incidence of self-perceived burnout was 63% among females and 51.6% among males (p = 0.115). Conclusion Gender-related factors impact the training and career of female gastroenterologists. Graphical abstract

There is abundant literature reporting about the use of antibiotics in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but their role in the management of IBD is not entirely clear. Diverse infectious organisms have been implicated in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease. Also, infections are believed to be a trigger for flares of ulcerative colitis. The benefit of the routine use of antibiotics in IBD is equivocal. However, there are certain situations, where antibiotics have a clear role and evidence of benefit: perianal fistula, intra-abdominal abscesses in Crohn’s disease, acute pouchitis and infection-related flares. However, there is a lack of supportive evidence for the routine use of antibiotics in all disease-related flares. Evidence indicates a lack of benefit of intravenous antibiotics in acute severe ulcerative colitis and only limited benefit in active ulcerative colitis. Limited evidence suggests the role of a combination of oral antibiotics in pediatric ulcerative colitis. Certain targeted antibiotic regimens have been used in IBD. In ulcerative colitis, limited evidence suggests the benefit of the use of an antibiotic cocktail directed against Fusobacterium varium. Therapy directed against Escherichia coli does not seem to have a benefit in inflammatory Crohn’s disease. In Crohn’s disease, antimycobacterial therapy may result in symptomatic improvement but no durable benefit. Antitubercular therapy (ATT), on the contrary, may result in fibrotic transformation, suggesting a need to avoid misdiagnosis and limit the duration of ATT in Crohn’s disease. This review assesses the published literature with respect to antibiotic use and provides guidance to clinicians in appropriate antibiotic use in various situations in the setting of IBD.

Background and Aim: Discrimination of gastrointestinal tuberculosis (GITB) and Crohn's disease (CD) is difficult. Use of artificial intelligence (AI)‐based technologies may help in discriminating these two entities.Methods: We conducted a systematic review on the use of AI for discrimination of GITB and CD. Electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) were searched on June 6, 2022, to identify relevant studies. We included any study reporting the use of clinical, endoscopic, and radiological information (textual or images) to discriminate GITB and CD using any AI technique. Quality of studies was assessed with MI‐CLAIM checklist.Results: Out of 27 identified results, a total of 9 studies were included. All studies used retrospective databases. There were five studies of only endoscopy‐based AI, one of radiology‐based AI, and three of multiparameter‐based AI. The AI models performed fairly well with high accuracy ranging from 69.6–100%. Text‐based convolutional neural network was used in three studies and Classification and regression tree analysis used in two studies. Interestingly, irrespective of the AI method used, the performance of discriminating GITB and CD did not match in discriminating from other diseases (in studies where a third disease was also considered).Conclusion: The use of AI in differentiating GITB and CD seem to have acceptable accuracy but there were no direct comparisons with traditional multiparameter models. The use of multiple parameter‐based AI models have the potential for further exploration in search of an ideal tool and improve on the accuracy of traditional models.

Tofacitinib has emerged as a useful drug for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC).There is an unmet need for cost-effective, non-immunogenic drugs with a safe adverse effect profile to treat pa...

Background Procalcitonin may be increased in active ulcerative colitis (UC). We investigated the role of procalcitonin in predicting response in acute severe UC (ASUC). Methods Consecutive patients with ASUC diagnosed on basis of Truelove and Witts criteria were enrolled. Serum procalcitonin levels for consecutive patients were measured at admission and day 3. We assessed role of procalcitonin values at presentation and at day 3 in assessing response on day 3 (Oxford’s criteria) and need for second line therapy (day 28). Results Of fifty patients (23 males, mean age: 35.98±13.8 years), 16 did not respond (day 3). Ten (20%) patients required second-line therapy. Baseline procalcitonin was significantly associated with response on day 3 (P=0.016). There was no association between day 1 or day 3 procalcitonin and need for second-line rescue therapy. Conclusion Serial procalcitonin is not an effective biomarker for predicting outcomes or need for second line therapy in ASUC.

The detection of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in setting of inflammatory bowel disease often creates confusion whether CMV is a ‘bystander’ or ‘disease’.: This review discusses the clinical conundrum of C...

Introduction Guidelines recommend hepatitis A virus (HAV) vaccination in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We performed a systematic review to inform the clinical practice regarding this guidance. Methods After a PubMed and Embase search, duplicates were removed and the remaining titles screened for studies reporting relevant outcomes. Pooled seroprevalence rates for HAV, pooled vaccination rates, and pooled seroconversion rates were calculated. We also calculated pooled relative risk of seroprevalence for HAV among IBD and control population. Heterogeneity was investigated using subgroup analysis. Results The pooled seroprevalence of HAV antibodies in patients with IBD (14 studies, 2,370 patients) was 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22–0.53, I ² = 95%). On comparing the seroprevalence of HAV in IBD with controls (4 studies), the pooled relative risk was not different between the two (0.94, 95% CI: 0.66–1.34, I ² = 76%). The pooled seroconversion rate after two doses of HAV vaccination (5 studies, 221 patients) was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88–0.96, I ²= 0%). Three studies (104 patients) reported on the seroconversion after a single dose of HAV vaccination and the pooled seroconversion rate was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.35–0.59, I ²= 20%). The pooled vaccination rate for hepatitis A among patients with IBD (18 studies, 9,521 patients) was 0.21 (95% CI: 0.14–0.30, I ²= 99%). Conclusion Hepatitis A vaccine has good immunogenicity in patients with IBD. The decision to routinely vaccinate IBD patients may be made in light of underlying seroprevalence of HAV. Not applicable as there was no direct research on human or animals as the study is a systematic review of previously published literature. A.J.: Search, screening, RoB, draft, initial draft and approval. A.K.S.: RoB, approval. P.B.N., R.M., S.M.: Screening, approval. V.Suri, A.P., P.K.M.: Important intellectual content and approval. V.Sharma.: Conception, search, analysis, draft and revision. There is no data associated with this work and the data used are available in public domain. Received: 08 February 2022 Accepted: 25 May 2022 Article published online: 22 September 2023 © 2022. Gastroinstestinal Infection Society of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

Objectives: To ascertain the role of antibiotics in induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis (UC) Methods: We searched electronic databases for keywords ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease and antibiotics or antimicrobials. We did a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing antibiotics with control/placebo for clinical response, need for second line therapy, colectomy, and adverse effects. Subgroup analysis to clarify the mode of administration, number of antibiotics or the setting of use (acute severe UC or active non-severe UC) were also performed. Results: Thirteen trials with 785 patients were included. The pooled odds ratio of achieving clinical response with antibiotic use was 1.74 (95% CI, 1.17-2.58). No differences were noted in the relapse rates, need for second line therapy, colectomy or, adverse effects with the use of antibiotics. Subgroup analysis showed no differences with use of single or combination of antibiotics. Analysis of trials only in the setting of acute severe colitis did not demonstrate any benefit. Conclusion: The use of oral antibiotics in the setting of non-severe active UC could have some benefit in clinical response. The use of antibiotics is not of benefit in acute severe colitis, but oral antibiotics need to be evaluated in adult patients.