Special situations in inflammatory bowel disease: First Latin American consensus of the Pan American Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (PANCCO) (Second part)

The overall quality of evidence of recommendations surrounding nutrition and diet in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Recently, there has been an increased focus on the role nutrition and diet play in maintaining health in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to assess the overall quality, strength, and transparency of conflicts among guidelines on nutrition/diet in IBD.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on multiple databases from inception until January 1, 2021, to identify guidelines pertaining to nutrition or diet in IBD. All guidelines were reviewed for disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) and funding, recommendation quality and strength, external document review, patient representation, and plans for update-as per Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards. In addition, recommendations and their quality were compared between guidelines/societies.​ RESULTS: Seventeen distinct societies and a total of 228 recommendations were included. Not all guidelines provided recommendations on key aspects of diet-such as the role of supplements or the appropriate micro/macro nutrition in IBD. Fifty-nine percent of guidelines reported on COI, 24% underwent external review, and 41% included patient representation. 18.4%, 25.9%, and 55.7% of recommendations were based on high-, moderate-, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 10.5%, 24.6%, and 64.9% of recommendations were strong, weak/conditional, and did not provide a strength, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence (p = 0.12) and strong recommendations (p = 0.83) did not significantly differ across societies.

CONCLUSIONS

Many guidelines do not provide recommendations on key aspects of diet/nutrition in IBD. As over 50% of recommendations are based on low-quality evidence, further studies on nutrition/diet in IBD are warranted to improve the overall quality of evidence.

IBD barriers across the continents: a continent-specific analysis: Latin America

Latin America (LATAM) is a large region comprising 47 countries and territories. Each one carries a different cultural and historical background, diverse political systems, and a particular approach to healthcare management. There is a lack of high-quality data on the epidemiology of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in this region, including broad and detailed information about the penetration of biological and advanced therapies as treatment strategies. From an IBD perspective, patients experience, in general, fragmentations and inequities in the healthcare systems, with different and usually delayed access to qualified health services. This review explores the barriers to accessing IBD care throughout LATAM. The authors compiled data from multiple sources, such as studies focusing on epidemiology, biological penetration, and surgical rates. In addition, overall access to IBD treatments was assessed through a questionnaire distributed to physicians in LATAM via email and direct messaging to capture local perspectives.

Extra-Colonic Malignancy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: a Paucity of Recommendations with Weak Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Little data is available surrounding societal recommendations regarding extra-colonic malignancy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). As a result, we systematically analyzed these international guidelines to assess their overall quality as well as their adherence to standards for high-quality practice guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in multiple databases to identify all guidelines pertaining to extra-colonic malignancy in IBD in April 2020. All guidelines were reviewed for conflicts of interest (COI)/funding, recommendation quality and strength, external document review, use of patient representation, and plans for update-as per Institute of Medicine standards. In addition, recommendations were compared between guidelines/societies. Statistical analysis was conducted using R.

RESULTS

A total of 11 recommendations on extra-colonic malignancy in IBD were put forth by 5 guidelines/societies. Zero percent of recommendations were found to be based on high-quality evidence, 36.4% of recommendations on moderate-quality evidence, and 63.6% of recommendations on low-quality evidence. 9.1% were strong recommendations, 0% were weak/conditional recommendations, and 90.9% of recommendations did not provide a strength. No guideline included patient representation or had plans for future update of their recommendations.

CONCLUSION

There is a consistent lack of high-quality recommendations for extra-colonic malignancy in IBD across different societal guidelines. The need for high-quality studies to improve the strength of recommendations is eminent, as this will ultimately lead to high-quality patient care.