Review Article

Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)

Fazeel Hussain¹, Vianka Vanessa Yánez M², Melanie Dayana Yánez M³, Rishita Dave⁴, Ruth Milena M⁵, Jubran Al Hooti⁶, Sahithya Ekasi⁷, Robert Edgardo Vargas V⁸, Chinyere Pamugo⁹, Jarvin Moisés RV¹⁰, Yessika Erenia AH¹⁰ and Maria Isabel GC¹¹

¹University of Dhaka, Bangladesh

²Universidad de Guayaquil, Ecuador

³Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Universidad de Guayaquil, Ecuador

⁴University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Saint Kitts

⁵Universidad Nacional Experimental Francisco de Miranda, Venezuela

⁶University College Dublin, Ireland

⁷Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Foundation, India

⁸Universidad Nacional Experimental Rómulo Gallegos. Guarico, Venezuela

⁹University of Houston, Health Science Center, US

¹⁰Universidad de El Salvador, San Salvador, El Salvador

¹¹Universidad del Valle, México

Submission: June 25, 2024; Published: July 05, 2024

*Corresponding author: Maria Isabel GC, Universidad del Valle, México

How to cite this article: Fazeel Hussain, Vianka Vanessa Yánez M, Melanie Dayana Yánez M, Rishita Dave, Ruth Milena M, et al. Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). Adv Res Gastroentero Hepatol, 2024; 20(4): 556045. DOI: 10.19080/ARGH.2024.20.556045.

Abstract

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), comprising Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), poses substantial challenges in diagnosis and management due to its complex etiology and heterogeneous clinical manifestations. This review provides an updated synthesis of recent advancements in the field, focusing on diagnostic tools, biomarkers, imaging techniques, and novel therapeutic modalities. Diagnostic innovations include the utilization of biomarkers such as calprotectin and lactoferrin, which aid in distinguishing IBD from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and serological markers like ANCA and ASCA, which contribute to diagnostic accuracy. Emerging biomarkers under investigation hold promise for further improving diagnostic specificity and monitoring disease activity. Imaging techniques, such as magnetic resonance enterography (MRE), ultrasound elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound, offer non-invasive options for evaluating disease extent and severity. Therapeutically, biologics have revolutionized IBD management with TNF inhibitors (e.g., infliximab, adalimumab), integrin inhibitors (e.g., vedolizumab), and IL-12/23 inhibitors (e.g., ustekinumab), each targeting specific pathways to achieve gut-selective immunosuppression. Small molecule inhibitors like JAK inhibitors (e.g., tofacitinib) and S1P receptor modulators (e.g., ozanimod) represent emerging therapeutic avenues with potential efficacy in refractory cases. Integrating personalized medicine approaches, including genetic profiling and microbiome analysis, holds promise for tailoring therapies to individual patient profiles, optimizing treatment outcomes and minimizing adverse effects. This comprehensive overview underscores the transformative impact of recent advancements in IBD diagnosis and management, paving the way for enhanced clinical decision-making and improved patient care in the evolving landscape of inflammatory bowel diseases.

Keywords: Inflammatory Bowel Disease; Crohn’s Disease; Ulcerative Colitis; Biomarkers; Imaging Techniques; Biologics

Abbreviations: IBD: Inflammatory Bowel Disease; IL: Interleukin; JAK: Janus Kinase; TYK 2: Tyrosine kinase 2; UC: Ulcerative colitis; S1P: Sphingosine-1-Phosphate; S1PR: Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor; ANCA: Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies; ASCA: Anti-Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Antibodies; MRI: Magnetic Resonance Imaging; MRE: Magnetic Resonance Enterography; CT: Computed Tomography; CEUS: Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound; CRP: C-reactive protein; CDAI: Crohn’s Disease Activity Index; CLE: Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy; DCE: Dye-based Chromoendoscopy; VCE: Virtual Electronic Chromoendoscopy; IBD5: Inflammatory Bowel Disease 5; NOD2/CARD15: Nucleotide-Binding Oligomerization Domain-containing Protein 2/Caspase Recruitment Domain-containing Protein 15; CTLA4: Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte-associated Protein 4; ATG16L1: Autophagy-related 16-Like 1; TNF: Tumor Necrosis Factor; TNFα: Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha; IL-12: Interleukin-12; IL-23: Interleukin-23; IgG1κ: Immunoglobulin G1 Kappa Chain; Moab: Monoclonal Antibody; CD: Crohn’s Disease

Introduction

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), encompassing Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), represents a group of chronic, relapsing conditions of the gastrointestinal tract characterized by inflammation, mucosal damage, and a myriad of systemic manifestations. Affecting millions worldwide, IBD poses significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges due to its heterogeneous presentation and variable disease course. The traditional diagnostic approach, relying heavily on clinical evaluation, endoscopy, and histopathology, is being supplemented by various innovative tools and techniques to enhance diagnostic accuracy and patient stratification. Concurrently, the therapeutic landscape of IBD has evolved remarkably, with the advent of biologics and small molecule inhibitors offering targeted and effective treatment options beyond conventional therapies [1-4]. This review aims to provide an updated overview of the latest advancements in diagnostic tools, biomarkers, and imaging techniques and highlight new treatment modalities shaping the future of IBD management.

Diagnostic Advances

Biomarkers

Calprotectin and Lactoferrin

Fecal Calprotectin (FCP) is a stool-based biomarker that detects gut inflammation non-invasively. It is predominantly located in neutrophil cytosol, and its expression increases during inflammation. Stool Lactoferrin (LF) is an iron-binding protein found within neutrophils. The level of lactoferrin released by neutrophils correlates with the severity of inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract. Testing for FCP and LF is highly beneficial in evaluating patients with vague GI symptoms like abdominal pain and diarrhea, especially when there are no alarming signs such as weight loss or GI bleeding. These symptoms could indicate functional issues like IBS or potentially IBD or GI infections. Low or normal levels of FCP or LF suggest inflammation or infection is unlikely, pointing towards a functional cause. Elevated levels, however, indicate a need for further investigation into IBD or infections using stool panel tests, colonoscopy, or both. Using these biomarkers to guide clinical decisions can reduce unnecessary testing and healthcare costs [5-8].

To aid in disease diagnosis, FCP was the pioneering stool biomarker capable of distinguishing between inflammatory and non-inflammatory gastrointestinal diseases. Several research studies in healthy individuals have recognized an FCP range typically falling between 10 - 50 μg/g, allowing slight variations based on the group under study and the specific assay employed [5-8]. If FCP levels exceed 50 μg/g on two separate occasions, it indicates a need for additional invasive tests such as colonoscopy or bowel imaging. Further elevated levels (>250 μg/g) may indicate an ongoing inflammatory process in the intestines. Research studying outcomes over 12 months for intermediate FCP levels (50-249 μg/g) found an 8% likelihood of developing IBD, compared to 1% for levels below 50 μg/g [9,10]. Similarly, a fecal lactoferrin level below 7.25 μg/g suggests no intestinal inflammation and points towards a functional cause like IBS in patients with GI symptoms. Elevated levels indicate inflammation with neutrophil infiltration in the intestinal mucosa, indicating IBD rather than IBS.

After diagnosing IBD initially, these biomarkers can also monitor disease activity and treatment effectiveness. In cases of IBS, where these markers typically remain normal, their absence of elevation can strengthen the diagnosis of a functional disorder. The International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease has recommended a target FCP of <150 μg/g as a favorable treatment outcome [7]. Also, a few additional studies recommend a goal of <250 μg/g for both UC and CD as a prudent approach for the long term, which would be more sensible for physicians treating IBD outside specialist centers. With the discovery of these biomarkers, it has been feasible to monitor whether the inflammatory state has improved or resolved based on strategic tracking of their levels without the added burden of repeated colonoscopies for the patient [11-13].

Additionally, these biomarkers can assist in therapeutic drug monitoring for patients managed pharmacologically, enabling clinicians to make necessary medication adjustments by correlating with LF and FCP levels. These levels can also help assess the response to these adjustments and observe any improvements in disease outcomes. However, conducting an initial endoscopic assessment and comparing LF and FCP levels with the patient’s clinical features and endoscopic score is essential. Importantly, monitoring FCP and LF levels should never replace colonoscopy for colon cancer screening in IBD patients, which is recommended 8-10 years after their diagnosis or more frequently depending on their associated underlying pathologies [11-13].

Serological Markers

Serological markers like ANCA (anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies) and ASCA (anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies) play a crucial role in diagnosing and classifying Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), distinguishing between Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) [14-17].

ANCA: Based on their immunofluorescence patterns, ANCA can be categorized into perinuclear ANCA (pANCA) and cytoplasmic ANCA (cANCA). pANCA targets antigens like elastase, lactoferrin, and lysozyme found in neutrophil granules and colon epithelial cells, typically associated with UC. Conversely, cANCA is more prevalent in autoimmune vasculitides and less linked to IBD. pANCA positivity, especially when ASCA is negative, is more common in UC than CD, aiding differentiation when clinical and endoscopic findings are inconclusive. However, pANCA positivity is not specific to UC and can also occur in conditions such as primary sclerosing cholangitis and autoimmune hepatitis [14,15].

ASCA: ASCA refers to antibodies against various epitopes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast. IgG ASCA is predominantly associated with CD, while IgA ASCA, although less studied, correlates with CD. ASCA positivity is more frequent in CD patients compared to UC or healthy individuals, showing high specificity but limited sensitivity. ASCA testing is beneficial in distinguishing CD from UC when diagnosis is uncertain based solely on clinical, endoscopic, and histological criteria [16,17].

Serological markers such as ANCA and ASCA are valuable for distinguishing between UC and CD, especially in cases with ambiguous clinical and endoscopic findings. ASCA positivity in CD is associated with specific clinical features such as structuring behavior and surgery risk, but its predictive accuracy varies. Unlike fecal biomarkers such as calprotectin, these markers are primarily used for diagnosis and are less frequently employed for monitoring disease activity or treatment response [14-17].

Emerging Biomarkers

The pursuit of novel biomarkers in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) aims to enhance diagnostic precision, predict disease course, and tailor therapeutic strategies. Several emerging biomarkers show promise in these areas [18].

Fecal Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): These compounds are metabolic byproducts of gut microbiota and epithelial cells, detectable through non-invasive methods. Recent studies have demonstrated that specific patterns of fecal VOCs can differentiate IBD from other gastrointestinal disorders and may even distinguish between Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) [18].

MicroRNAs (miRNAs): These small, non-coding RNA molecules regulate gene expression and are found to be differentially expressed in IBD patients. Specific miRNAs, such as miR-21 and miR-155, have been identified as potential biomarkers for disease activity and response to therapy. Their stability in blood and stool makes them attractive candidates for non-invasive diagnostics [19].

Serum Proteins and Glycans: Advances in proteomics and glycomics have identified several serum proteins and glycan structures associated with IBD. For instance, glycoprotein acetylation (GlycA) levels correlate with inflammation and disease severity. Additionally, serum proteins like oncostatin M and its receptor have been linked to therapy-resistant IBD, providing insight into potential therapeutic targets [20].

Extracellular Vesicles (EVs): EVs, including exosomes, are membrane-bound particles released from cells that carry proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids. They play a role in intercellular communication and are increasingly recognized for their diagnostic potential. In IBD patients, EVs derived from intestinal epithelial cells and immune cells exhibit distinct molecular signatures that reflect disease state and activity [21].

Metabolomic Profiling: This approach involves comprehensively analyzing metabolites in biological samples. Metabolomic studies in IBD have identified alterations in pathways related to bile acids, amino acids, and short-chain fatty acids. Specific metabolites, such as tryptophan metabolites, are under investigation for their role in inflammation and as potential biomarkers for disease progression and treatment response [22].

These novel biomarkers hold great promise for transforming the diagnostic landscape of IBD, offering more precise and personalized approaches to managing this complex disease. Ongoing research and validation studies are crucial to bring these biomarkers into clinical practice.

Imaging Techniques

Magnetic Resonance Enterography (MRE)

Magnetic Resonance Enterography (MRE) is a non-invasive imaging technique that utilizes MRI technology to visualize and evaluate the small bowel. It involves the administration of oral and intravenous contrast agents to enhance the visualization of bowel wall anatomy and pathology, making it particularly suitable for assessing inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis [23,24].

One of the main benefits of MRE is the absence of ionizing radiation. Unlike computed tomography (CT), MRE does not expose patients to ionizing radiation, making it safer for repeated examinations, including in young patients and during pregnancy. Additionally, MRI provides high-resolution images with superior soft tissue contrast compared to CT, enabling detailed visualization of the bowel wall layers, mucosa, and surrounding structures. MRE allows the acquisition of images in multiple planes (axial, coronal, sagittal), providing a comprehensive evaluation of small bowel anatomy and pathology from various perspectives. It effectively assesses the extent and severity of inflammation in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, guiding clinicians in determining appropriate treatment strategies [23,24].

MRE is valuable for various applications in IBD. It complements endoscopy and histopathologic sampling in accurately diagnosing and staging Crohn’s disease, distinguishing between active inflammatory, fibro stenotic, and fistulizing phases. It helps differentiate disease phases in ulcerative colitis as well. MRE enables longitudinal assessment of disease activity and response to therapy over time, aiding in treatment planning and optimization. It is also valuable for detecting and characterizing complications such as strictures, fistulas, and abscesses, common in Crohn’s disease and may necessitate surgical intervention. Moreover, MRE provides detailed anatomical information essential for surgical planning, including mapping disease extent and identifying complications, thereby improving surgical outcomes. By integrating MRE findings with endoscopic and histopathologic data, clinicians better understand disease characteristics and tailor personalized treatment strategies accordingly [23,24]. In conclusion, Magnetic Resonance Enterography (MRE) is pivotal in managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), offering significant benefits such as superior imaging quality, absence of ionizing radiation, and detailed assessment of disease activity and complications. Its integration with other diagnostic modalities enhances accuracy in disease characterization and therapeutic decision-making, ultimately improving patient outcomes in IBD management.

Ultrasound Elastography: Non-invasive technique to assess bowel stiffness.

Ultrasound elastography is an advanced imaging technique that assesses tissue stiffness or elasticity by measuring the propagation of mechanical waves within the tissue. In the context of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), ultrasound elastography specifically evaluates bowel wall stiffness, which can help distinguish between inflammatory and fibrotic changes in the gastrointestinal tract [25]. One of the primary benefits of ultrasound elastography is its ability to differentiate between tissue changes. This technique provides additional diagnostic information beyond traditional imaging modalities like ultrasound and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE). It helps clinicians differentiate between inflammatory activity and fibrotic changes within the bowel wall, which is crucial for treatment planning and monitoring disease progression. Another significant advantage is its non-invasive nature. Unlike invasive procedures such as biopsy, elastography offers a non-invasive means to assess bowel stiffness, making it suitable for frequent monitoring of disease activity and treatment response. Moreover, elastography enables real-time assessment of tissue stiffness during the ultrasound examination, offering immediate feedback to guide clinical decisions and therapeutic strategies. This technique also complements conventional ultrasound and MRE by adding functional information about tissue characteristics, enhancing the overall diagnostic accuracy in IBD management [25-27].

In the context of Crohn’s disease (CD), ultrasound elastography plays a critical role in identifying and quantifying bowel wall fibrosis. Fibrosis is a hallmark of chronic inflammation in CD, and early detection helps stratify patients for appropriate management strategies, including targeted therapy and surgical planning. By assessing changes in bowel wall stiffness over time, elastography aids in monitoring disease progression and treatment response in Crohn’s disease. It allows clinicians to evaluate the efficacy of medical therapies and make timely adjustments as needed. Additionally, elastography provides valuable preoperative information about the extent and severity of bowel wall fibrosis in cases requiring surgical intervention. This assists surgeons in planning optimal resection strategies and minimizing postoperative complications [26]. In ulcerative colitis (UC), although primarily affecting the mucosal layer, submucosal changes can occur that may alter tissue stiffness. Ultrasound elastography helps assess the extent of submucosal inflammation and its implications for disease management. Like in Crohn’s disease, elastography in ulcerative colitis facilitates the evaluation of treatment response by detecting changes in tissue stiffness associated with disease activity. It supports clinical decision-making by providing objective measures of therapeutic efficacy. Furthermore, elastography contributes to the phenotypic characterization of ulcerative colitis, aiding in differentiating disease subtypes based on severity and tissue involvement. This information guides personalized treatment approaches tailored to individual patient needs [25-27].

In conclusion, ultrasound elastography represents a promising advancement in managing inflammatory bowel disease, providing non-invasive assessment of bowel wall stiffness that complements traditional imaging modalities. Its ability to differentiate between inflammatory and fibrotic changes supports precise diagnosis, monitoring of disease activity, and treatment response evaluation in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. As technology evolves and research progresses, ultrasound elastography is poised to play an increasingly integral role in optimizing clinical outcomes and enhancing patient care in IBD.

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS)

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an imaging technique that utilizes ultrasound contrast agents to enhance visualization of blood flow within tissues and organs. In inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), CEUS is crucial in assessing disease activity, distinguishing tissue types, and guiding therapeutic interventions [28]. CEUS provides real-time assessment of bowel wall vascularity, which correlates closely with inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and clinical disease activity indices like the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI). This capability allows clinicians to monitor disease progression and respond to treatment accurately. One of the significant challenges in managing Crohn’s disease (CD) is distinguishing between fibrotic strictures and inflammatory changes within the bowel wall. CEUS helps in this differentiation by assessing the degree of vascularization, which is critical for guiding treatment decisions. Fibrotic strictures may require surgical intervention, whereas inflammatory strictures may respond to medical therapy [26,28-30].

CEUS is highly effective in characterizing suspected abscesses in IBD patients, facilitating prompt therapeutic decisions such as drainage or antibiotic therapy. It also aids in visualizing the route and extent of fistula tracts in CD patients, providing valuable information for planning surgical interventions or monitoring treatment response. During treatment with biologic agents, CEUS can monitor changes in bowel wall enhancement, supporting clinicians in assessing treatment efficacy and making timely adjustments to therapy [29,30]. CEUS has demonstrated effectiveness comparable to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in assessing bowel wall vascularity and disease activity in CD, with additional advantages including real-time capability, costeffectiveness, and absence of ionizing radiation. It is particularly useful when MRI may be contraindicated or unavailable, such as in pregnant patients or those with claustrophobia. However, CEUS has limitations related to intestinal motility, affecting image quality and its restricted ability to evaluate specific bowel segments at a time, necessitating careful patient selection and consideration of complementary imaging modalities when needed [26-30].

In conclusion, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is emerging as a valuable adjunctive tool in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly in Crohn’s disease (CD). Its ability to provide real-time assessment of bowel wall vascularity, differentiate between different tissue types, and guide therapeutic interventions makes it a promising modality in clinical practice. Further research and technological advancements are expected to expand the utility of CEUS and refine its applications in optimizing patient care and outcomes in IBD.

Endoscopic Innovations

Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (CLE)

Mucosal healing, defined as restoring normal mucosal architecture and the absence of microscopic inflammation, holds significant clinical implications in managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Studies have shown that achieving mucosal healing reduces hospitalization rates, surgery, and colorectal cancer, highlighting its pivotal role in disease modification and long-term prognosis [31]. Advanced imaging modalities and biomarkers have complemented traditional tools such as ileocolonoscopy and histology to accurately assess mucosal healing. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) has emerged as a promising technology due to its ability to provide real-time, high-resolution imaging of mucosal surfaces during endoscopy. CLE uses a low-power laser to illuminate tissues, allowing visualization at cellular and subcellular levels with up to 1000-fold magnification [31].

Indications for CLE include assessing mucosal barrier function, which plays a crucial role in evaluating intestinal mucosa integrity. It can detect subtle changes indicative of barrier dysfunction, such as epithelial cell shedding, impaired tight junctions, and apoptotic cell dropout. CLE is particularly useful for detecting subclinical inflammation and disease progression before visible changes on conventional endoscopy or symptoms occur in patients with IBD, where clinical symptoms may not fully reflect disease activity [31,32].

CLE also facilitates monitoring of response to therapy by enabling real-time assessment of treatment efficacy. It visualizes changes in mucosal healing and reduction of barrier defects, providing objective measures of disease activity that complement clinical symptoms and guide treatment decisions. Additionally, CLE is valuable in surveillance of high-risk patients, such as those with long-standing IBD or primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), for early detection of dysplasia and colorectal cancer [31,32]. Furthermore, CLE supports research into disease mechanisms and therapeutic interventions by offering detailed insights into mucosal structure and function. Its ability to enhance visualization and objectively assess mucosal integrity makes CLE a valuable adjunctive tool in gastroenterology, particularly in managing IBD. By facilitating early detection of mucosal changes and monitoring treatment response, CLE supports personalized medicine approaches to achieve and maintain mucosal healing, ultimately improving patient outcomes [31,32].

Chromoendoscopy

Colonoscopy has been the standard test for diagnosing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and a helpful diagnostic tool to guide treatment prognosis for mucosal healing. Recent advanced imaging techniques have become essential for endoscopists treating patients with IBD. Among these, dye-based and virtual chromoendoscopy, probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy, and endocytoscopy stand out as innovative tools in clinical practice [33]. These technologies enable a more detailed and precise assessment of the bowel’s mucosal and vascular surfaces, approaching the histological examination level. Their role in diagnosing, predicting outcomes, and managing treatment for IBD and colitis-related cancer is becoming increasingly crucial for personalized medicine [34].

Chromoendoscopy is an advanced technique that improves the evaluation of intestinal mucosa and vascular patterns. There are two types of chromoendoscopy tests: dye-based chromoendoscopy (DCE) and virtual electronic chromoendoscopy (VCE). DCE uses staining agents such as methylene blue and indigo carmine to provide detailed mucosal characterization of the colon [34]. In contrast, VCE is a dye-free technique that utilizes light filters or post-processing algorithms to enhance the visualization of surface and vessel architecture [34]. Patients with IBD have an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer, with dysplasia often presenting as flat mucosal abnormalities. Therefore, precision endoscopy is essential for detecting these early lesions in the dysplasia-carcinoma pathway. DCE enhances the visibility of mucosal irregularities and lesion borders [34]. A recent metaanalysis revealed that DCE is more effective than white light endoscopy in detecting dysplasia [35].

New Treatment Modalities

Biologics

TNF Inhibitors

The pro-inflammatory cytokine TNFα has been identified as playing a vital role in the inflammatory cascade that causes chronic intestinal inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease. Synthetic anti-TNFα antibodies like infliximab and adalimumab Have been shown to mitigate this inflammatory process (Figure1). In addition, TNF initiatives have been shown to induce apoptosis of TNFα -producing immune cells, causing a reduced production of downstream pro-inflammatory cytokines from these and other cells [36]. Randomized control trials involving patients with ulcerative colitis have shown infliximab, Moab, and golli to be effective in inducing and maintaining clinical remission in patients with moderate to severe disease activity in whom conventional therapy has failed. Because TNF initiators interfere with the normal inflammatory response, they are contraindicated in patients with uncontrolled infections. Before initiating therapy, the patient should be screened for hepatitis B and evaluated for tuberculosis exposure [36].

Integrin Inhibitors

Vedolizumab (also known as MLN0002, LDP02, and MLN02) is a highly selective monoclonal antibody targeting the α4β7 integrin molecule. The α4β7integrin is a cell surface glycoprotein variably expressed on lymphocytes and is thought to be partly responsible for T-cell homing into lymphoid tissues in the gastrointestinal tract through its binding to the mucosal address in cell adhesion molecule (MAdCAM-1). These bound lymphocytes then migrate from the endothelium of the intestinal vasculature into the lamina propria and tissues, propagating inflammation (Figure 2). Higher levels of α4β7integrin and MAdCAM-1 are present in the colons of those with IBD than in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. It is also thought that there are lower numbers of T-lymphocytes with the α4β7 integrin circulating in the peripheral blood in patients with colonic inflammation. As these agents are considered “gut selective,” the α4β7 integrin molecules provide an opportunity to attenuate the pathological gut inflammation seen in patients with IBD [37,38].

IL-12/23 Inhibitors

Ustekinumab (UST) is a fully human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody that inhibits the p40 subunit shared by the proinflammatory cytokines, the interleukin (IL)-12 and -23. This blockade dampens the inflammatory cascade and differentiation of inflammatory T cells. It is currently approved for several immune-mediated diseases, such as moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and Crohn’s disease, and has shown promising results in UC [39].

Small Molecule Inhibitors

JAK Inhibitors

As novel therapeutic drugs, JAK inhibitors can block multiple signaling pathways. The JAK family kinases JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK 2) target a variety of cytokine pathways through cytokine receptors. Tofacitinib is an oral small-molecule JAK inhibitor that can inhibit all JAKs, preferentially JAK1 and JAK3. The efficacy of tofacitinib for treating moderate to severe active UC has been approved [40,41].

Unlike biological monoclonal antibodies, JAK inhibitors are characterized by a rapid onset of action and a very short half-life (5-6 h), making them potentially more straightforward to manage, especially in the event of infections [40,41]. .

S1P Receptor Modulators

S1P is a lipid mediator that is derived from membrane sheath lipid metabolism. Ozanimod is an oral and selective S1PR modulator that acts on S1PR-1 and S1PR-5. It induces peripheral blood lymphocytes to isolate in the lymph nodes, thereby reducing the number of activated lymphocytes circulating to the inflammatory sites [40,41].

Personalized Medicine in IBD

Genetic profiling

Genetic profiling in personalized medicine for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) enhances the utilization of genomic data to foster treatment strategies. Kim et al. discussed that the analysis of variations in gene polymorphism like NOD2/CARD15, IBD5, CTLA4, IL23R, and ATG16L1 enables clinicians in the prediction of disease susceptibility, severity and response to therapies [44]. For instance, genetic markers guide the use of biologics such as anti-TNF agents in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis [42-44]. Recent studies highlight the role of personalized medicine in improving patient outcomes and reducing adverse effects through targeted therapies [43-45]. This approach underscores the shift towards precision medicine, optimizing treatment efficacy and patient quality of life.

Microbiome analysis

Microbiome analysis is crucial in personalized Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) medicine. It assesses the composition of gut microbiota to predict treatment responses. Variations in microbial organisms and specific taxa, such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, can influence disease progression and therapeutic outcomes, known as healthy bacteria [46]. The microbiome helps guide antibiotics, probiotics, and fecal microbiota systemic modulation. Recent studies highlight the impact of the microbiome on IBD pathogenesis and treatment efficacy. This approach emphasizes the integration of microbiome data into clinical practice, enhancing treatment precisions and patient management processes and demonstrating treatment efficacy. Hence, microbiome analysis elucidates the intricacy of integrating microbiome data into clinical practice to improve treatment precision and patient management strategies [47,48].

Future Directions and Research

Novel Therapies: Potential Future Biologics and Small Molecules

The landscape of IBD treatment continues to evolve with ongoing research into novel biologics and small molecules targeting specific pathways in disease pathogenesis. Potential biologics under investigation include therapies that aim to modulate novel inflammatory cytokines or pathways, such as IL- 23, IL-6, or JAK inhibitors. For instance, agents targeting the IL-23/ IL-17 axis have shown promise in clinical trials for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, demonstrating efficacy in patients refractory to conventional therapies. Small molecules such as sphingosine- 1-phosphate receptor modulators and RORγt inhibitors are also being explored for their potential to provide oral alternatives with targeted mechanisms of action. These advancements hold promise for expanding treatment options and improving outcomes for patients with refractory or aggressive forms of IBD.

Combination Therapies: Benefits and Risks of Combining Different Therapeutic Approaches

Combination therapy in IBD involves utilizing multiple agents with complementary mechanisms of action to achieve synergistic therapeutic effects. This approach aims to enhance efficacy, induce and maintain remission, and reduce the risk of developing drug resistance or side effects associated with monotherapy. Biologic therapies, such as anti-TNF agents, are often combined with immunomodulators like thiopurines or methotrexate to optimize response rates and durability of remission. However, using combination therapies requires careful consideration of potential risks, including increased susceptibility to infections and malignancies, cost implications, and patient adherence. Future research must refine treatment algorithms, identify biomarkers to predict response to combination therapies and optimize safety profiles to maximize benefits while minimizing risks.

Precision Medicine: Future of Personalized Treatment Strategies in IBD

The concept of precision medicine aims to tailor therapeutic interventions based on individual patient characteristics, including genetic, environmental, and microbiological factors. Advances in genomic profiling have identified genetic variants associated with IBD susceptibility, disease phenotype, and response to therapy, paving the way for personalized treatment strategies. Biomarkerdriven approaches, such as measuring serum cytokine profiles or gut microbiota composition, hold promise in predicting disease course and therapeutic response. Integrating these insights into clinical practice could enable clinicians to stratify patients into subgroups with distinct pathogenic mechanisms and tailor therapies accordingly. Precision medicine approaches include advanced imaging techniques, such as molecular imaging or functional MRI, to monitor disease activity and guide real-time treatment decisions. While challenges remain in translating these discoveries into clinical practice, ongoing research initiatives, and collaborative efforts are crucial in realizing the full potential of precision medicine in optimizing outcomes for patients with IBD [49,50].

Conclusion

The field of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has seen remarkable progress in diagnosis and management. Advances in diagnostic tools, such as biomarkers like calprotectin and lactoferrin, serological markers like ANCA and ASCA, and innovative imaging techniques, including magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasound elastography, are enhancing our ability to diagnose and monitor IBD with greater precision and less invasiveness. Moreover, the advent of biologics such as TNF, integrin, and IL-12/23 inhibitors, alongside promising small molecule inhibitors like JAK inhibitors and S1P receptor modulators, represents a significant shift towards personalized and targeted therapies. Looking ahead, personalized medicine in IBD, driven by genetic profiling and microbiome analysis, promises to optimize treatment outcomes and minimize adverse effects. The future landscape of IBD management appears poised to integrate novel therapies and explore combination strategies, further advancing our ability to tailor treatments to individual patient needs. These advancements not only underscore the ongoing evolution in clinical practice but also offer hope for improved outcomes and quality of life for individuals living with IBD. As research expands and new therapies emerge, collaboration across disciplines will be essential in realizing the full potential of these innovations in the fight against IBD.

References

1. Feuerstein JD, Cheifetz AS (2017) Crohn disease: Epidemiology, diagnosis, and management. Mayo Clinic Proc 92(7): 1088-1103.
2. Ungaro R, Mehandru S, Allen PB, Peyrin-BL, Colombel JF (2017) Ulcerative colitis. Lancet 389(10080): 1756-1770.
3. Torres J, Mehandru S, Colombel JF, Peyrin-BL (2017) Crohn's disease. Lancet 389(10080): 1741-1755.
4. Dulai PS, Peyrin-BL, Danese S, Sandborn WJ, Vermeire S (2019) Approaches to integrating biomarkers into clinical trials and care pathways as targets for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol 157(4): 1032-1043.
5. Fiorino G, Bonifacio C, Allocca M, Repici A (2018) Non-invasive techniques for assessing inflammatory bowel disease: advances and future trends. Digestive and Liver Dis 50(9): 872-879.
6. Scribano ML (2018) Vedolizumab for inflammatory bowel disease: From randomized controlled trials to real-life evidence. World J Gastroenterol 24(23): 2457-2467.
7. Jha AK, Chaudhary M, Dayal VM, Kumar A, Jha SK, et al. (2018) Optimal cut-off value of fecal calprotectin for the evaluation of ulcerative colitis: An unsolved issue? JGH Open 2(5): 207-213.
8. Srinivas M, Eyre R, Ellis R, Viney S, Basumani P, et al. (2012) PTU-243 Faecal calprotectin (FC) assays: comparison of four assays with clinical correlation. Gut 61(Suppl 2): A284-285.
9. Menees SB, Powell C, Kurlander J, Goel A, Chey WD (2015) A meta-analysis of the utility of C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin to exclude inflammatory bowel disease in adults with IBS. Am J Gastroenterol 110(3): 444-454.
10. Røseth AG, Fagerhol MK, Aadland E, Schjønsby H (1992) Assessment of the neutrophil dominating protein calprotectin in feces. A methodologic study. Scand J Gastroenterol 27(9): 793-798.
11. Dhaliwal A, Zeino Z, Tomkins C, Cheung M, Nwokolo C, et al. (2015) Utility of faecal calprotectin in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD): what cut-offs should we apply? Frontline Gastroenterol 6(1): 14-19.
12. McFarlane M, Chambers S, Malik A, Lee B, Sung E, et al. (2016) Clinical outcomes at 12 months and risk of inflammatory bowel disease in patients with an intermediate raised fecal calprotectin: a 'real-world' view. BMJ Open 6(6): e011041.
13. Turner D, Ricciuto A, Lewis A, D'Amico F, Dhaliwal J, et al. (2021) Determining Therapeutic Goals for Treat-to-Target strategies in IBD. Gastroenterol 160(5): 1570-1583.
14. Lin JF, Chen JM, Zuo JH, Yu A, Xiao ZJ, et al. (2014) Meta-analysis: fecal calprotectin for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease activity. Inflamm Bowel Dis 20(8): 1407-1415.
15. Swaminathan A, Borichevsky GM, Frampton CM, Day AS, Hampton MB, et al. (2024) Comparison of Fecal Calprotectin and Myeloperoxidase in Predicting Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 28: izae032.
16. Vasiliauskas EA, Plevy SE, Landers CJ, Binder SW, Ferguson DM, et al. (1996) Perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in patients with Crohn's disease define a clinical subgroup. Gastroenterol 110(6): 1810-1819.
17. Israeli E, Grotto I, Gilburd B, Balicer RD, Goldin E, et al. (2005) Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies as predictors of inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 54(9): 1232-1236.
18. Bosch S, Berkhout DJC, van Gool S, de Meij TGJ, Budding AE, et al. (2018) Fecal volatile organic compounds for early detection of colorectal cancer: a proof-of-principle study. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(8): 1231-1238.
19. O'Connell RM, Rao DS, Chaudhuri AA, Baltimore D (2010) Physiological and pathological roles for microRNAs in the immune system. Nature Rev Immunol 10(2): 111-122.
20. GlycA and the associations with inflammatory bowel disease: A proteomics and metabolomics perspective. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 14(9): 1234-1240.
21. West NR, Hegazy AN, Owens BMJ, Bullers SJ, Linggi B, et al. (2017) Oncostatin M drives intestinal inflammation and predicts response to tumor necrosis factor-neutralizing therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Nature Med 23(5): 579-589.
22. Becker C, Fantini MC (2016) Extracellular vesicles in inflammatory bowel disease: the role of exosomes in pathogenesis and therapy. Front Immunol 7: 305.
23. Kaushal P, Somwaru AS, Charabaty A, Levy AD (2016) MR enterography of inflammatory bowel disease with endoscopic correlation. Radio Graphics 37(1): 61-89.
24. Gatti M, Allois L, Carisio A, Dianzani C, Garcia MM, et al. (2019) Magnetic resonance enterography. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol 65(4): 319-334.
25. Dolinger MT, Calabrese E, Pizzolante F, Abreu MT (2023) Current and Novel Uses of Intestinal Ultrasound in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 19(8): 447-457.
26. Kim DH, Chang KJ, Fowler KJ, Brooks DC, Evelyn MG, et al. (2020) ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Crohn Disease. J Am Coll Radiol 17(5): S81-S99.
27. Kucharzik T, Kannengiesser K, Petersen F (2017) The use of ultrasound in inflammatory bowel disease. Ann Gastroenterol 30(2): 135-144.
28. Ripolles T, Martinez MJ, Paredes JM, Blanc E, Flors L, et al. (2009) Crohn disease: correlation of findings at contrast-enhanced US with severity at endoscopy. Radiology 253(1): 241-248.
29. Nylund K, Hausken T, Ødegaard S, et al. (2009) Sonography of the small intestine. World J Gastroenterol 15(11): 1319-1330.
30. Quaia E, Gennari AG, Cova MA (2005) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the small bowel in Crohn's disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185(2): 406-412.
31. Chapman CG, Konda VJA (2016) Confocal laser endomicroscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: achieving new depths in mucosal healing. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 83(4): 792-794.
32. Chapman CG, Konda VJA (2016) Confocal laser endomicroscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: achieving new depths in mucosal healing. Gastrointest Endosc 83(4): 792-794.
33. Modha K, Navaneethan U (2014) Advanced therapeutic endoscopist and inflammatory bowel disease: dawn of a new role. World J Gastroenterol 20(13): 3485-3494.
34. Santacroce G, Zammarchi I, Chin Kimg Tan (2023) Present and future of endoscopy precision for inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Endoscopy 36(3): 292-304.
35. Feuerstein JD, Rakowsky S, Sattler L, et al. (2019) Meta-analysis of dye-based chromoendoscopy compared with standard- and high-definition white-light endoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease at increased risk of colon cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 90(2): 186-195.e1.
36. Ford AC, Sandborn WJ, Khan KJ, Hanauer SB, Talley NJ, et al. (2011) Efficacy of biological therapies in inflammatory bowel disease. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 106(4): 644-659.
37. Soler D, Chapman T, Yang LL, Wyant T, Egan R, (2009) The binding specificity and selective antagonism of vedolizumab, an anti-alpha4beta7 integrin therapeutic antibody in development for inflammatory bowel diseases. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 330(3): 864-875.
38. Winau F, Westphal O, Winau R (2004) Paul Ehrlich-in search of a magic bullet. Microbes Infect 6(8): 786-789.
39. Jauregui-Amezaga A, Somers M, De Schepper H, et al. (2017) Next generation of biologics for the treatment of Crohn’s disease: an evidence-based review on ustekinumab. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 10: 293-301.
40. El Hadad J, Schreiner P, Vavricka SR, Greuter T (2024) The Genetics of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Mol Diagn Ther 28(1): 27-35.
41. Cai Z, Wang S, Li J (2021) Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Review. Front Med (Lausanne) 8: 765474.
42. Ali N, Abdulkareem R (2023) Pharmacogenetic Effect of Thiopurine Methyl Transferase (TPMT) Gene Expression and Serum TNF on the Imuran Response in Ulcerative Colitis (UC) Iraqi Patients. Rep Biochem Mol Biol 12(3): 438-447.
43. Cho JH, Brant SR (2011) Recent insights into the genetics of inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol 140(6): 1704-1712.
44. Kim ME, Lee JS (2024) Molecular Foundations of Inflammatory Diseases: Insights into Inflammation and Inflammasomes. Curr Issues Molecular Biol 46(1): 469-484.
45. Sosna B, Aebisher D, Myśliwiec A, Dynarowicz K, Bartusik-AD, et al. (2023) Selected Cytokines and Metalloproteinases in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Int J Mol Sci 25(1): 202.
46. Lloyd-Price J, Arze C, Ananthakrishnan AN, Schirmer M, Avila-Pacheco J, et al. (2019) Multi-omics of the gut microbial ecosystem in inflammatory bowel diseases. Nature 569(7758): 655-662.
47. Lopez-Siles M, Duncan SH, Garcia-Gil LJ, Martinez-Medina M (2017) Faecalibacterium prausnitzii: from microbiology to diagnostics and prognostics. ISME J 11(4): 841-852.
48. Paramsothy S, Nielsen S, Kamm MA, Deshpande NP, Faith JJ, et al. (2019) Specific Bacteria and Metabolites Associated With Response to Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis. Gastroenterol 156(5): 1440-1454.e2.
49. Taylor PC (2010) Pharmacology of TNF blockade in rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic inflammatory diseases. Curr Opin Pharmacol 10(3): 308-315.
50. Renson JM, Sachs CW, Treacy G, Zhou H, Pendley CE, et al. (2011) Therapeutic targeting of the IL-12/23 pathways: generation and characterization of ustekinumab. Nature Biotech 29(7): 615-624.