(1) Introduction: Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients may benefit from cannabinoid administration supplementary therapy; currently no consensus on its effect has been reached. (2) Methods: a systematic review of RCTs on cannabinoid supplementation therapy in IBD has been conducted; data sources were MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov. (3) Results: out of 974 papers found with electronic search, six studies have been included into the systematic review, and five of them, for a grand total of 208 patients, were included into the meta-analysis. (4) Conclusions: cannabinoid supplementation as adjuvant therapy may increase the chances of success for standard therapy of Crohn’s Disease during the induction period; no statement on its potential usage during maintenance period can be derived from retrieved evidence. Its usage in Ulcerative Colitis is not to be recommended. If ever, low-dose treatment may be more effective than higher dosage. Mean CDAI reduction was found stronger in patients treated with cannabinoids (mean CDAI reduction = 36.63, CI 95% 12.27–61.19) than placebo. In future studies, it is advisable to include disease activity levels, as well as patient-level information such as genetic and behavioral patterns.

Celiac disease (CD) is a chronic enteropathy caused by the ingestion of gluten in a genetically susceptible individual. Currently, a gluten-free diet (GFD) is the only recommended treatment. However, unintentional gluten ingestion or a persistent villous atrophy with malabsorption (regardless of a strict GFD) as in the case of Refractory Celiac Disease (RCD) represents a major issue. In this review, we have analysed and discussed data from both randomized controlled trials and observational studies concerning adjunctive therapies as well as novel therapies for the treatment of CD and RCD. The literature search was carried out through Medline and Scopus. In total, 2268 articles have been identified and 49 were included in this review (36 studies resulting from the search strategy and 13 from other sources). Today, GFD remains the only effective treatment, although steroids, mesalamine, and more recently biological therapies have found space in the complex management of RCD. Currently, studies evaluating the effectiveness of novel therapies are still limited and preliminary results have been controversial.

About 50% of Crohn’s Disease (CD) patients undergo an intestinal resection during their lifetime. Although the patients experience a fairly long period of well-being after the intestinal resection, they presented a postoperative recurrence (POR) in 40% of cases within 5 years. In this case series, we aimed to evaluate the incidence of POR in CD patients with high risk for early POR, prophylactically treated with Vedolizumab. All consecutive CD patients (followed from 2017 to 2020) who underwent ileocolonic resection after the loss of response at anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor α (anti-TNFα) and with one or more risk factors for early POR were included. POR was defined as a Rutgeerts score (Ri) > 1 at the colonoscopic evaluation. All the included patients underwent a Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) at least one year after the surgical resection. Six patients (4 Female; 2 Males) were included. At the first endoscopic evaluation, all patients were in endoscopic remission (5 patients Ri 0; 1 patient Ri 1). No stenosis nor other intestinal wall changes or complications were observed at MRE. Five patients underwent colonoscopy over two years of follow-up (median: 32 months; range 25–33). The Ri score was 0 in four patients, while the fifth patient showed severe endoscopic relapse. The same patient presented a clinical relapse (Harvey-Bradshaw index = 10) with a flare of disease in the colonic mucosa. These data suggest that early post-operative treatment with Vedolizumab could be a valuable strategy to be submitted to a prospective controlled trial for preventing POR.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of biological drugs has led to great expectations and growing optimism in the possibility that this new therapeutic strategy could favourably change the natural history of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) and in particular that it could lead to a significant reduction in surgery in the short and long term. The evaluation of the incidence of intestinal resection after the introduction of biological therapy is very complex and subject to several potential bias, the most prominent being the shift in IBD management over the last few decades. This study aims to assess the impact of biological versus conventional therapy on surgery-free survival time (from the diagnosis to the first bowel resection) and on the overall risk of surgery in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) who were never with the surgical option. METHODS: This is a retrospective, double-arm study including CD patients treated with either biological or conventional therapy (mesalamine, immunomodulators, antibiotics, or steroids). All CD patients admitted at the GI Unit of the S. Salvatore Hospital (L’Aquila. Italy) and treated with biological therapy since 1998 were included in the biological arm. Data concerning the CD patients receiving a conventional therapy were retrospectively collected from our database. These patients were divided into a pre-1998 and post-1998 group. Our primary outcome was the evaluation of the surgery-free survival since CD diagnosis to the first bowel resection. Surgery-free time and event incidence rates were calculated and compared among all groups, both in the original population and in the propensity-matched population. RESULTS: 203 CD patients (49 biological, 93 conventional post-1998, 61 conventional pre-1998) were included in the study. Kaplan-Mayer survivorship estimate shows that patients in the biological arm had a longer surgery-free survival compared to those in the conventional arm (p=0.03). However, after propensity matching analysis, no significant difference was found in surgery-free survival (p=0.3). A sub-group analysis showed shorter surgery-free survival in patients on conventional therapy in the pre-biologic era only (p=0.02) while no significative difference was found between the biologic and conventional post-biologic groups (p=0.15). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the introduction of biological therapy had only a slight impact on the occurrence of surgery in CD patients over a long observation period. Nevertheless, biological therapy appears to delay the first intestinal resection.