A Novel Automated System Yields Reproducible Temporal Feeding Patterns in Laboratory Rodents

Background The impact of temporal feeding patterns remains a major unanswered question in nutritional science. Progress has been hampered by the absence of a reliable method to impose temporal feeding in laboratory rodents, without the confounding influence of food-hoarding behavior. Objective The aim of this study was to develop and validate a reliable method for supplying crushed diets to laboratory rodents in consistent, relevant feeding patterns for prolonged periods. Methods We programmed our experimental feeding station to deliver a standard diet [StD; Atwater Fuel Energy (AFE) 13.9% fat] or high-fat diet (HFD; AFE 45% fat) during nocturnal grazing [providing 1/24th of the total daily food intake (tdF/I) of ad libitum–fed controls every 30 min] and meal-fed (3 × 1-h periods of ad libitum feeding) patterns in male rats (Sprague-Dawley: 4 wk old, 72–119 g) and mice [C57/Bl6J wild-type (WT): 6 mo old, 29–37 g], and ghrelin-null littermates (Ghr−/−; 27–34 g). Results Grazing yielded accurate, consistent feeding events in rats, with an approximately linear rise in nocturnal cumulative food intake [tdF/I (StD): 97.4 ± 1.5% accurate compared with manual measurement; R2 = 0.86; tdF/I (HFD): 99.0 ± 1.4% accurate; R2 = 0.86]. Meal-feeding produced 3 nocturnal meals of equal size and duration in StD-fed rats (tdF/I: 97.4 ± 0.9% accurate; R2 = 0.90), whereas the second meal size increased progressively in HFD-fed rats (44% higher on day 35 than on day 14; P < 0.01). Importantly, cumulative food intake in grazing and meal-fed rats was identical. Similar results were obtained in WT mice except that less restricted grazing induced hyperphagia (compared with meal-fed WT mice; P < 0.05 from day 1). This difference was abolished in Ghr−/− mice, with meal initiation delayed and meal duration enhanced. Neither pattern elevated corticosterone secretion in rats, but meal-feeding aligned ultradian pulses. Conclusions We have established a consistent, measurable, researcher-defined, stress-free method for imposing temporal feeding patterns in rats and mice. This approach will facilitate progress in understanding the physiologic impact of feeding patterns

Impact of antitumour necrosis factor therapy on surgery in inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based study

Objective: It is unclear whether widespread use of biologics is reducing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) surgical resection rates. We designed a population-based study evaluating the impact of early antitumour necrosis factor (TNF) on surgical resection rates up to 5 years from diagnosis. Design: We evaluated all patients with IBD diagnosed in Cardiff, Wales 2005–2016. The primary measure was the impact of early (within 1 year of diagnosis) sustained (at least 3 months) anti-TNF compared with no therapy on surgical resection rates. Baseline factors were used to balance groups by propensity scores, with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology and removing immortal time bias. Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) with IBD unclassified (IBD-U) (excluding those with proctitis) were analysed. Results: 1250 patients were studied. For CD, early sustained anti-TNF therapy was associated with a reduced likelihood of resection compared with no treatment (IPTW HR 0.29 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.65), p=0.003). In UC including IBD-U (excluding proctitis), there was an increase in the risk of colectomy for the early sustained anti-TNF group compared with no treatment (IPTW HR 4.6 (95% CI 1.9 to 10), p=0.001). Conclusions: Early sustained use of anti-TNF therapy is associated with reduced surgical resection rates in CD, but not in UC where there was a paradoxical increased surgery rate. This was because baseline clinical factors were less predictive of colectomy than anti-TNF usage. These data support the use of early introduction of anti-TNF therapy in CD whereas benefit in UC cannot be assessed by this methodology

Assessment, endoscopy, and treatment in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (PROTECT-ASUC): a multicentre, observational, case-control study

BackgroundThere is a paucity of evidence to support safe and effective management of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify alterations to established conventional evidence-based management of acute severe ulcerative colitis during the early COVID-19 pandemic, the effect on outcomes, and any associations with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. MethodsThe PROTECT-ASUC study was a multicentre, observational, case-control study in 60 acute secondary care hospitals throughout the UK. We included adults (≥18 years) with either ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease unclassified, who presented with acute severe ulcerative colitis and fulfilled the Truelove and Witts criteria. Cases and controls were identified as either admitted or managed in emergency ambulatory care settings between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic period cohort), or between Jan 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019 (historical control cohort), respectively. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or colectomy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04411784. FindingsWe included 782 patients (398 in the pandemic period cohort and 384 in the historical control cohort) who met the Truelove and Witts criteria for acute severe ulcerative colitis. The proportion of patients receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or surgery was higher during the pandemic period than in the historical period (217 [55%] of 393 patients vs 159 [42%] of 380 patients; p=0·00024) and the time to rescue therapy was shorter in the pandemic cohort than in the historical cohort (p=0·0026). This difference was driven by a greater use of rescue and primary induction therapies with biologicals, ciclosporin, or tofacitinib in the COVID-19 pandemic period cohort than in the historical control period cohort (177 [46%] of 387 patients in the COVID-19 cohort vs 134 [36%] of 373 patients in the historical cohort; p=0·0064). During the pandemic, more patients received ambulatory (outpatient) intravenous steroids (51 [13%] of 385 patients vs 19 [5%] of 360 patients; p=0·00023). Fewer patients received thiopurines (29 [7%] of 398 patients vs 46 [12%] of 384; p=0·029) and 5-aminosalicylic acids (67 [17%] of 398 patients vs 98 [26%] of 384; p=0·0037) during the pandemic than in the historical control period. Colectomy rates were similar between the pandemic and historical control groups (64 [16%] of 389 vs 50 [13%] of 375; p=0·26); however, laparoscopic surgery was less frequently performed during the pandemic period (34 [53%] of 64] vs 38 [76%] of 50; p=0·018). Five (2%) of 253 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during hospital treatment. Two (2%) of 103 patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the 3-month follow-up were positive 5 days and 12 days, respectively, after discharge from index admission. Both recovered without serious outcomes. InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic altered practice patterns of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis but was associated with similar outcomes to a historical cohort. Despite continued use of high-dose corticosteroids and biologicals, the incidence of COVID-19 within 3 months was low and not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes