Year : 2019 | Volume
: 7 | Issue : 2 | Page : 66--73
A review of extraintestinal manifestations and complications of inflammatory bowel disease
Department of Gastroenterology, Valiant Clinic, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Dr. Vito Annese
Department of Gastroenterology, Valiant Clinic, Dubai
United Arab Emirates
Extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) are common in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), in both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Almost any organ system can be affected, including the musculoskeletal, dermatologic, renal, hepatopancreatobiliary, pulmonary and ocular systems. However, the musculoskeletal and dermatologic systems are the most commonly involved sites of manifestations. While some manifestations such as peripheral arthritis and erythema nodosum have an association with IBD activity, others such as axial arthropathy, pyoderma gangrenosum and primary sclerosing cholangitis have an independent disease course. This review provides a summary of the most common EIMs in IBD and their prevalence and management.
|How to cite this article:|
Annese V. A review of extraintestinal manifestations and complications of inflammatory bowel disease.Saudi J Med Med Sci 2019;7:66-73
|How to cite this URL:|
Annese V. A review of extraintestinal manifestations and complications of inflammatory bowel disease. Saudi J Med Med Sci [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 May 28 ];7:66-73
Available from: http://www.sjmms.net/text.asp?2019/7/2/66/256040
Extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) are common in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), affecting about 5%–50% of the patients. In addition, about 29% of EIM cumulative incidence occurs after 15 years of disease duration; in some cases, they may even occur before the diagnosis of IBD. However, there is currently lack of prospective studies assessing EIM rates of IBD using adequate diagnostic criteria. Family history of IBD is a predisposing factor as well as the occurrence of one EIM predisposes to others. In terms of the clinical course, EIMs such as peripheral arthritis, oral aphthous ulcers, erythema nodosum (EN) and episcleritis have a temporary association with IBD activity, while others such as axial arthropathy, pyoderma gangrenosum (PG), primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and uveitis have an independent disease course.
This review would summarize the most common EIMs, their prevalence and the suggested management.
Arthropathy is common among IBD patients, and these disorders are known as spondyloarthritis (SpA). SpA is further classified as axial and peripheral based on the primary symptoms. A diagnosis of axial SpA is made based on radiographic findings of sacroiliitis associated with symptoms of inflammatory low back pain. Notably, radiologic findings of sacroiliitis are observed in about 15%–27% of IBD patients,,, whereas progressive ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with syndesmophytes occurs in only about 3%–10% of the patients. In addition, in Crohn's disease (CD) and AS patients, HLA-B27 is found in about 25%–75% of cases, whereas in those with isolated sacroiliitis, HLA-B27 is found in only 7%–15% of cases. HLA-B27 positivity in patients with IBD indicates that these patients are at a higher risk of developing AS; however, because HLA-B27 positivity is considerably lower in idiopathic AS patients, it cannot be considered as a diagnostic marker.,
Peripheral SpA in IBD patients is an inflammatory arthropathy that usually does not cause bone erosion or deformity, unlike psoriatic arthritis and other inflammatory arthropathies. Orchard et al. classified IBD-related peripheral arthropathies into two categories based on articular distribution and natural history. Type 1 is defined as pain in five joints or lesser along with swelling or effusion, mainly in the large weight-bearing joints of the lower extremities. The symptoms persist for <10 weeks and are correlated with IBD flares. The symptoms are typically acute and self-limiting but do not cause permanent joint damage. In contrast, in Type 2, more than five joints are affected, with a symmetric distribution, and mainly affect joints in the upper limbs. In this type, the symptoms can persist for months or years, independent of the IBD activity, without causing erosion or deformity. The differential diagnosis of arthropathy is arthralgia, corticosteroid-induced osteonecrosis and infliximab-induced lupus-like syndrome. Arthralgia, which is joint pain in the absence of inflammation, is also common in IBD. It may be due to an initial adverse reaction associated with thiopurine therapy or due to the withdrawal of corticosteroids.
IBD-associated dactylitis and enthesopathies have been investigated less extensively. Enthesitis is frequent, characterized by the inflammation of the tendon insertion and may lead to bone erosion and proliferation. Its symptoms are characterized by severe pain, swelling and tenderness. Dactylitis, also called sausage-like fingers or toes, is a characteristic and highly specific feature of SpA, occurring in 2%–4% of IBD patients.,
The presence of peripheral arthritis is more common in CD, particularly in the presence of colonic disease, and is mostly asymmetrical and oligoarticular. Further, it often coincides with, or presents after, the appearance of IBD, with a prevalence of 5%–20% (5%–14% in ulcerative colitis [UC] and 10%–20% in CD patients), but occasionally may also precede the symptoms of IBD.,
In general, peripheral arthritis has good prognosis, whereas that of axial involvement is less favorable and not related to the clinical activity of IBD. Rather, it is linked with the prognosis of AS, which is usually a progressive condition that has direct impact on the patients' quality of life. Therefore, it is important to identify axial SpA early before its progresses to the radiographic stage. This progression occurs in about 10%–20% of the cases in the initial 2 years of follow-up, mostly in those with an elevated C-reactive protein level or active inflammation on magnetic resonance imaging.
In terms of treatment, there are no prospective controlled trials in patients with IBD-associated arthropathy, and most recommendations are based on the findings in SpA alone, mainly AS. According to these recommendations, patients with axial SpA should be jointly managed by gastroenterologist and rheumatologists because of the possible debilitating disease course, and intensive physiotherapy and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the preferred treatment options. Although long-term use of NSAIDs should be avoided in IBD, short-term use has been found to be well-tolerated. In patients with intolerance, unresponsiveness or poor response to NSAIDs, anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy is the preferred treatment, as methotrexate and thiopurines have limited efficacy. Long-term effects of anti-TNF agents on radiographic progression of lesions are yet to be ascertained; nonetheless, recent data suggest potential efficacy of this therapy on the progression of early SpA, such as less pronounced bone formations.,,,
In general, peripheral arthritis is treated by effective treatment of the underlying IBD. For symptomatic relief, short-term treatment with systemic corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and local steroid injections can be adopted. Methotrexate and azathioprine are considered minimally effective in the treatment of peripheral arthropathy. In terms of sulfasalazine, a Cochrane review by Chen and Liu found that it has modest efficacy in treating patients with peripheral arthropathy, especially in those with shorter disease duration and increased erythrocyte sedimentation rate. In contrast, a systematic review by van den Berg et al. concluded that the effect of sulfasalazine on disease activity was not superior to placebo. Nonetheless, in cases of persistent arthritis, sulfasalazine has been shown to have a beneficial effect in large joint arthropathies., Anti-TNF therapy is recommended in resistant cases, while oral corticosteroids may be effective for short-term relief. For arthralgia, symptomatic therapy with simple analgesia is usually effective.
Metabolic Bone Disease
In IBD patients, low bone mass and osteoporosis are common, affecting about 20%–50% of the male and female patients. Factors that contribute to this are chronic inflammation, treatment with corticosteroids, extensive small bowel disease or resection, smoking, age, lack of physical activity and nutritional deficiencies. In adults, a diagnosis of osteoporosis is made when the bone mineral density (BMD) T-score is ≤2.5 on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Several longitudinal studies have found a T-score of <2.5 in 5%–37% of IBD patients.
Screening recommendations for IBD patients are similar to that for the general population and are based on risk factors such as postmenopausal state, age, ongoing corticosteroid treatment, cumulative treatment with corticosteroid for more than 3 months and history of low trauma fractures., In osteoporotic patients, the risk of vertebral fractures increases dramatically; however, studies have also documented vertebral fractures in patients with a normal bone density. Therefore, osteoporosis may not be the primary risk factor for vertebral fractures in IBD patients. In the majority of IBD patients, who are primarily young adults aged 20–40 years, the lumbar spine BMD has been found to be significantly reduced.,,,
Studies have demonstrated that being in a state of stable remission for 3 years helps to normalize the bone density of IBD patients. Treatment with anti-TNF agents may improve bone density due to the reduction of chronic inflammation. The immunologic role of vitamin D has been studied,,, and IBD has also been implicated as a cause for its deficiency;,, however, as vitamin D deficiency is also commonly noted in newly diagnosed IBD patients, it is likely that it directly contributes to increased IBD risk, in addition to its effect on bone metabolism.
The most common ocular manifestations of IBD are anterior uveitis and episcleritis. In contrast, scleritis and intermediate/posterior uveitis are extremely rare (≤1%), but if left undiagnosed and untreated, their progression can cause permanent visual impairment. The progress of episcleritis is parallel to IBD activity, whereas the progress of uveitis is not associated with the disease activity and also occasionally precedes its onset. Vascular occlusion likely secondary to vasculitis (including central retinal artery occlusion), orbital inflammation and anterior ischemic optic neuropathy are some of the other rare ocular manifestations of IBD with potentially severe consequences. It should be noted that ocular manifestation is found in 4%–12% of IBD cases, although a prevalence rate of up to 29% has also been reported. However, there is lack of an adequate report from population-based cohorts.
Episcleritis is usually painless and is characterized by hyperemic sclera and conjunctiva, with occasional occurrence of itching and burning. Uveitis is comparatively less common but has more severe symptoms such as blurred vision, eye pain, photophobia and headache. If not managed, uveitis can lead to permanent loss of vision, and thus the attending gastroenterologist should promptly refer these patients to an experienced ophthalmologist.
Episcleritis can often be differentiated from scleritis based on having mild pain (caused by hyperemia of the conjunctiva and episcleral) and no visual changes. However, the occurrence of photophobia, visual disturbance and moderate-to-severe pain should prompt ophthalmic referral.
With regards to the management, dry eyes can be treated with topical lubricants. For treating episcleritis, the underlying IBD symptoms should be managed, and additional topical NSAIDs and glucocorticoids may be used., For treating anterior uveitis, topical corticosteroids and cycloplegics should be used. However, there is limited evidence available regarding the treatment of refractory uveitis and other rare manifestations. Studies have shown treatment to have higher efficacy in uveitis patients without IBD. Nonetheless, in some case series, topical and systemic corticosteroids, immunomodulator therapy or biologics have been shown to have favorable responses. Based on the experience in patients without IBD, in posterior uveitis and scleritis, expert opinion favors the use of immunomodulators and biologics,, such as azathioprine, methotrexate, infliximab and adalimumab.
EN is characterized by the occurrence of raised, tender, red or violet subcutaneous nodules (1–5 cm in diameter), making it easily diagnosed. The extensor surface of the extremities, particularly the anterior tibial areas, are the most commonly affected areas, and occasionally, the trunk or upper extremities are also involved. EN is often associated with other systemic symptoms including arthralgia and fatigue. It can be diagnosed clinically by excluding metastatic CD, and biopsy is usually not performed. EN is the most common dermatologic manifestation in IBD patients and is more common in females and patients with CD (4%–15% CD vs. 3%–10% UC cases).,,, In general, EN is associated with IBD activity and flares, but not with its severity. Owing to its association with disease activity, treating the underlying IBD is the mainstay of treatment. However, in severe cases, treatment with systemic corticosteroids may be required, while in resistant cases or those of frequent relapses, management with infliximab, azathioprine or adalimumab may be required.,
PG is characterized by the appearance of a skin pustule that rapidly becomes a burrowing ulcer with violaceous edges, about 2–20 cm in diameter. PG most commonly occurs on the shins and adjacent to stomas, although it can occur anywhere on the body, including genitalia. It initially appears as a single or multiple erythematous papule(s)/pustule(s), but subsequent necrosis of the dermis leads to the development of deep excavating chronic ulcerations. In PG, the histopathological findings are nonspecific, and thus its diagnosis is made after excluding other likely skin diseases based on the characteristic findings of the lesions. In some cases, a biopsy from the periphery of the lesion may be required to exclude specific skin diseases. Therefore, a high index of suspicion is required to avoid misdiagnosis of PG.
In general, PG develops more frequently in UC than CD patients,,,, and it is often preceded by trauma (pathergy). PG course can be associated with IBD activity or be independent, which is especially the case in UC patients. PG reoccurs in about one-fourth of all cases after treatment, generally in the same site as the initial lesion.
In terms of treating PG, owing to its debilitating nature, immunosuppressive drugs are mainly used for a rapid recovery. Conventionally, especially in the dermatologic experience, systemic corticosteroids and cyclosporine are the most commonly used drugs.,, However, since the availability of infliximab, PG management in UC patients has changed. In a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial for the treatment of PG with infliximab, the response rate was found to be >90% in patients with PG for <12 weeks, and 50% in those with PG for >12 weeks. A few case series have shown adalimumab to be effective in treating PG.,,
Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis
Altered biochemical liver tests may be present in up to 30% of the patients with IBD, and PSC is one of the most common causes for these findings. In fact, PSC is the most common IBD-associated liver disease and can affect up to 4%–5% of IBD patients., Findings of bile duct strictures have also been reported in IBD patients with normal liver function tests. In Caucasian populations, about 70%–80% of PSC patients have concurrent IBD, more frequently in UC than CD patients.
The primary symptoms of PSC are pruritus, malaise, fever, chills, night sweats and pain in the right upper abdominal quadrant; however, they are mostly intermittent. PSC often presents asymptomatically, and thus a high degree of suspicion is required. In patients with cholestasis, a diagnosis of PSC can be made with magnetic resonance cholangiography after other secondary causes of sclerosing cholangitis have been excluded.,,,,
In about 5%–10% of patients, magnetic resonance cholangiography findings are normal despite the histopathological changes being consistent with that found in PSC; this variant is now defined as “small-duct PSC,” and is usually associated with a better prognosis. The histopathological changes of PSC are typically patchy, and thus liver histology in the early phase may be completely normal.
The diagnosis of PSC in IBD dramatically impacts the prognosis because of possible complications such as cholestasis, steatorrhea, cholangitis, cholecystolithiasis, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, osteoporosis and vitamin deficiency. PSC is also frequently associated with other autoimmune diseases such as Hashimoto's thyroiditis, celiac disease and type 1 diabetes. More importantly, in patients with IBD and concurrent PSC, the rate of colorectal carcinoma is significantly higher than that in IBD patients without PSC or normal controls, and thus requires more frequent monitoring.,
Currently, no treatment options have shown strong and consistent evidence of altering the disease course. Medium dose of ursodeoxycholic acid (15–20 mg/day) is no longer used by most clinicians due to its limited ability to only improve liver function parameters and not the disease course. In addition, high-dose ursodeoxycholic acid (28–30 mg/day) are contraindicated because it increases the risk of colorectal cancer. Liver transplantation is the only available therapy, and its 5-year survival rates are about 85%., In patients with PSC, it is crucial to investigate and recognize complications such as strictures and cholangiocarcinoma.
There are several other rare and heterogeneous manifestations and complications of IBD that should be taken into account and carefully investigated, such as portal vein thrombosis (occurring in about 1% of the cases) and hepatic amyloidosis (0.9% in CD and 0.07% in UC patients). In addition, two specific types of acute pancreatitis associated to IBD have been described. In the first type, the pathogenic pathways are presumed to be similar to that of IBD. This type comprises idiopathic, autoimmune and granulomatous pancreatitis as well as pancreatitis associated with PSC. The second type is mostly caused by adverse events in the management of IBD, mainly through use of thiopurines. This type comprises drug-induced and biliary pancreatitis as well as pancreatitis secondary to duodenal CD.
In terms of neurological manifestations in IBD, the prevalence varies widely from 3% to 39%. However, the data available do not provide strong evidence of prevalence rates owing to lack of population-based studies and the reported studies having the small sample size and referral bias. A wide range of neuropathies have been described, such as demyelinating, small- and large-fiber sensory, and sensorimotor neuropathies. In peripheral neuropathy, only about one-thirds of the patients have a disease course related to IBD activity. Neuropathies affecting the central nervous system comprise cranial neuropathies, optic neuritis, ophthalmoplegia and hearing loss. In terms of treatment, there is a lack of recommendations available. However, in patients with a history of demyelination, anti-TNF use is contraindicated, as it is associated with episodes of demyelination.
In Western populations, a modest increase in IBD-associated risk of arterial thromboembolism has been reported,, specifically ischemic heart disease, stroke and mesenteric ischemia. The cause of this is likely because of chronic systemic inflammation in IBD patients, which predisposes to atherosclerosis. In terms of bronchopulmonary involvement in IBD, the exact prevalence remains unknown. However, pulmonary function tests are frequently abnormal in IBD patients, with discovery of latent interstitial pulmonary involvement in 20%–55% of cases. The abnormalities include ventilatory defects, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, sputum or bronchoalveolar lavage lymphocytosis as well as histologic and radiologic abnormalities.,
In addition, IBD-associated interstitial pneumonia has also been described, and it includes nonspecific and usual interstitial pneumonia as well as hypersensitivity interstitial, lymphocytic interstitial, eosinophilic interstitial and organizing pneumonias. Finally, IBD patients, particularly those with CD, have a high frequency of kidney stones due to uric acid or calcium oxalate. In addition, rare cases of tubulointerstitial and granulomatous interstitial nephritis as well as IgA nephropathy have been reported.
EIMs are relatively common throughout the IBD course, and in some cases, can occur even before the diagnosis of IBD. Therefore, clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion, as early diagnosis and management of EIMs can help reduce the overall morbidity. A multidisciplinary approach may be required for managing IBD and the involved organs, especially in case of the more uncommon EIMs. In several cases, managing the underlying IBD activity can also help in controlling the EIM; however, an unmet need remains due to lack of controlled trials.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
|1||Ott C, Schölmerich J. Extraintestinal manifestations and complications in IBD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;10:585-95.|
|2||Jose FA, Garnett EA, Vittinghoff E, Ferry GD, Winter HS, Baldassano RN, et al. Development of extraintestinal manifestations in pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009;15:63-8.|
|3||Vavricka SR, Brun L, Ballabeni P, Pittet V, Prinz Vavricka BM, Zeitz J, et al. Frequency and risk factors for extraintestinal manifestations in the Swiss inflammatory bowel disease cohort. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:110-9.|
|4||Rudwaleit M, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, Listing J, Akkoc N, Brandt J, et al. The development of assessment of spondyloArthritis international society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): Validation and final selection. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:777-83.|
|5||Peeters H, Vander Cruyssen B, Mielants H, de Vlam K, Vermeire S, Louis E, et al. Clinical and genetic factors associated with sacroiliitis in Crohn's disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;23:132-7.|
|6||Leclerc-Jacob S, Lux G, Rat AC, Laurent V, Blum A, Chary-Valckenaere I, et al. The prevalence of inflammatory sacroiliitis assessed on magnetic resonance imaging of inflammatory bowel disease: A retrospective study performed on 186 patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014;39:957-62.|
|7||Chan J, Sari I, Salonen D, Silverberg MS, Haroon N, Inman RD. Prevalence of sacroiliitis in inflammatory bowel disease using a standardized computed tomography scoring system. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2018;70:807-10.|
|8||Rodríguez-Reyna TS, Martínez-Reyes C, Yamamoto-Furusho JK. Rheumatic manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:5517-24.|
|9||Harbord M, Annese V, Vavricka SR, Allez M, Barreiro-de Acosta M, Boberg KM. The first European evidence-based consensus on extra-intestinal manifestations in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2016;10:239-54.|
|10||Orchard TR, Holt H, Bradbury L, Hammersma J, McNally E, Jewell DP, et al. The prevalence, clinical features and association of HLA-B27 in sacroiliitis associated with established Crohn's disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009;29:193-7.|
|11||Orchard TR, Wordsworth BP, Jewell DP. Peripheral arthropathies in inflammatory bowel disease: Their articular distribution and natural history. Gut 1998;42:387-91.|
|12||Fornaciari G, Salvarani C, Beltrami M, Macchioni P, Stockbrügger RW, Russel MG. Muscoloskeletal manifestations in inflammatory bowel disease. Can J Gastroenterol 2001;15:399-403.|
|13||Salvarani C, Vlachonikolis IG, van der Heijde DM, Fornaciari G, Macchioni P, Beltrami M, et al. Musculoskeletal manifestations in a population-based cohort of inflammatory bowel disease patients. Scand J Gastroenterol 2001;36:1307-13.|
|14||Yüksel I, Ataseven H, Başar O, Köklü S, Ertuǧrul I, Ulker A, et al. Peripheral arthritis in the course of inflammatory bowel diseases. Dig Dis Sci 2011;56:183-7.|
|15||Poddubnyy D, Rudwaleit M, Haibel H, Listing J, Märker-Hermann E, Zeidler H, et al. Rates and predictors of radiographic sacroiliitis progression over 2 years in patients with axial spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1369-74.|
|16||Poddubnyy D, Rudwaleit M, Haibel H, Listing J, Märker-Hermann E, Zeidler H, et al. Effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on radiographic spinal progression in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: Results from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1616-22.|
|17||Baraliakos X, Braun J. Biologic therapies for spondyloarthritis: What is new? Curr Rheumatol Rep 2012;14:422-7.|
|18||Baraliakos X, Haibel H, Listing J, Sieper J, Braun J. Continuous long-term anti-TNF therapy does not lead to an increase in the rate of new bone formation over 8 years in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:710-5.|
|19||Haroon N, Inman RD, Learch TJ, Weisman MH, Lee M, Rahbar MH, et al. The impact of tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors on radiographic progression in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:2645-54.|
|20||Maksymowych WP, Morency N, Conner-Spady B, Lambert RG. Suppression of inflammation and effects on new bone formation in ankylosing spondylitis: Evidence for a window of opportunity in disease modification. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:23-8.|
|21||Sieper J, van der Heijde D, Dougados M, Mease PJ, Maksymowych WP, Brown MA, et al. Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: Results of a randomised placebo-controlled trial (ABILITY-1). Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:815-22.|
|22||Chen J, Liu C. Sulfasalazine for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;:CD004800.|
|23||van den Berg R, Baraliakos X, Braun J, van der Heijde D. First update of the current evidence for the management of ankylosing spondylitis with non-pharmacological treatment and non-biologic drugs: A systematic literature review for the ASAS/EULAR management recommendations in ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012;51:1388-96.|
|24||Clegg DO, Reda DJ, Weisman MH, Blackburn WD, Cush JJ, Cannon GW, et al. Comparison of sulfasalazine and placebo in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. A Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:2004-12.|
|25||Dougados M, vam der Linden S, Leirisalo-Repo M, Huitfeldt B, Juhlin R, Veys E, et al. Sulfasalazine in the treatment of spondylarthropathy. A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:618-27.|
|26||Reinshagen M. Osteoporosis in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2008;2:202-7.|
|27||Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, Francis R, Kanis JA, Marsh D, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK. Maturitas 2009;62:105-8.|
|28||Nelson HD, Haney EM, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Chou R. Screening for osteoporosis: An update for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 2010;153:99-111.|
|29||Siffledeen JS, Siminoski K, Jen H, Fedorak RN. Vertebral fractures and role of low bone mineral density in Crohn's disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:721-8.|
|30||Klaus J, Armbrecht G, Steinkamp M, Brückel J, Rieber A, Adler G, et al. High prevalence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in patients with Crohn's disease. Gut 2002;51:654-8.|
|31||Stockbrügger RW, Schoon EJ, Bollani S, Mills PR, Israeli E, Landgraf L, et al. Discordance between the degree of osteopenia and the prevalence of spontaneous vertebral fractures in Crohn's disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2002;16:1519-27.|
|32||Reffitt DM, Meenan J, Sanderson JD, Jugdaohsingh R, Powell JJ, Thompson RP. Bone density improves with disease remission in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;15:1267-73.|
|33||Bernstein M, Irwin S, Greenberg GR. Maintenance infliximab treatment is associated with improved bone mineral density in Crohn's disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:2031-5.|
|34||Cantorna MT, Mahon BD. Mounting evidence for vitamin D as an environmental factor affecting autoimmune disease prevalence. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 2004;229:1136-42.|
|35||Cantorna MT, Zhu Y, Froicu M, Wittke A. Vitamin D status, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3, and the immune system. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80:1717S-20S.|
|36||Garg M, Lubel JS, Sparrow MP, Holt SG, Gibson PR. Review article: Vitamin D and inflammatory bowel disease – Established concepts and future directions. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012;36:324-44.|
|37||Farraye FA, Nimitphong H, Stucchi A, Dendrinos K, Boulanger AB, Vijjeswarapu A, et al. Use of a novel Vitamin D bioavailability test demonstrates that Vitamin D absorption is decreased in patients with quiescent Crohn's disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2011;17:2116-21.|
|38||Leslie WD, Miller N, Rogala L, Bernstein CN. Vitamin D status and bone density in recently diagnosed inflammatory bowel disease: The Manitoba IBD Cohort Study. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:1451-9.|
|39||Lyons JL, Rosenbaum JT. Uveitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease compared with uveitis associated with spondyloarthropathy. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115:61-4.|
|40||Larsen S, Bendtzen K, Nielsen OH. Extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease: Epidemiology, diagnosis, and management. Ann Med 2010;42:97-114.|
|41||Mintz R, Feller ER, Bahr RL, Shah SA. Ocular manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2004;10:135-9.|
|42||Calvo P, Pablo L. Managing IBD outside the gut: Ocular manifestations. Dig Dis 2013;31:229-32.|
|43||Sharma SM, Nestel AR, Lee RW, Dick AD. Clinical review: Anti-TNF alpha therapies in uveitis: Perspective on 5 years of clinical experience. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2009;17:403-14.|
|44||Imrie FR, Dick AD. Biologics in the treatment of uveitis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2007;18:481-6.|
|45||Levy-Clarke G, Jabs DA, Read RW, Rosenbaum JT, Vitale A, Van Gelder RN. Expert panel recommendations for the use of anti-tumor necrosis factor biologic agents in patients with ocular inflammatory disorders. Ophthalmology 2014;121:785-96.e3.|
|46||Freeman HJ. Erythema nodosum and pyoderma gangrenosum in 50 patients with Crohn's disease. Can J Gastroenterol 2005;19:603-6.|
|47||Nguyen GC, Torres EA, Regueiro M, Bromfield G, Bitton A, Stempak J, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease characteristics among African Americans, hispanics, and non-hispanic whites: Characterization of a large North American cohort. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:1012-23.|
|48||Farhi D, Cosnes J, Zizi N, Chosidow O, Seksik P, Beaugerie L, et al. Significance of erythema nodosum and pyoderma gangrenosum in inflammatory bowel diseases: A cohort study of 2402 patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 2008;87:281-93.|
|49||Chowaniec M, Starba A, Wiland P. Erythema nodosum – Review of the literature. Reumatologia 2016;54:79-82.|
|50||Trost LB, McDonnell JK. Important cutaneous manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease. Postgrad Med J 2005;81:580-5.|
|51||Clayton TH, Walker BP, Stables GI. Treatment of chronic erythema nodosum with infliximab. Clin Exp Dermatol 2006;31:823-4.|
|52||Ortego-Centeno N, Callejas-Rubio JL, Sanchez-Cano D, Caballero-Morales T. Refractory chronic erythema nodosum successfully treated with adalimumab. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2007;21:408-10.|
|53||Menachem Y, Gotsman I. Clinical manifestations of pyoderma gangrenosum associated with inflammatory bowel disease. Isr Med Assoc J 2004;6:88-90.|
|54||Polcz M, Gu J, Florin T. Pyoderma gangrenosum in inflammatory bowel disease: The experience at mater health services' adult hospital 1998-2009. J Crohns Colitis 2011;5:148-51.|
|55||Brooklyn T, Dunnill G, Probert C. Diagnosis and treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum. BMJ 2006;333:181-4.|
|56||Juillerat P, Mottet C, Pittet V, Froehlich F, Felley C, Gonvers JJ, et al. Extraintestinal manifestations of Crohn's disease. Digestion 2007;76:141-8.|
|57||Matis WL, Ellis CN, Griffiths CE, Lazarus GS. Treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with cyclosporine. Arch Dermatol 1992;128:1060-4.|
|58||Matsuoka K, Saito E, Fujii T, Takenaka K, Kimura M, Nagahori M. Tacrolimus for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Intest Res 2015;13:219-26.|
|59||Brooklyn TN, Dunnill MG, Shetty A, Bowden JJ, Williams JD, Griffiths CE, et al. Infliximab for the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum: A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Gut 2006;55:505-9.|
|60||Alkhouri N, Hupertz V, Mahajan L. Adalimumab treatment for peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum associated with Crohn's disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009;15:803-6.|
|61||Cariñanos I, Acosta MB, Domènech E. Adalimumab for pyoderma gangrenosum associated with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2011;17:E153-4.|
|62||Zold E, Nagy A, Devenyi K, Zeher M, Barta Z. Successful use of adalimumab for treating fistulizing Crohn's disease with pyoderma gangrenosum: Two birds with one stone. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:2293-5.|
|63||Mendes FD, Levy C, Enders FB, Loftus EV Jr., Angulo P, Lindor KD. Abnormal hepatic biochemistries in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:344-50.|
|64||Schrumpf E, Fausa O, Elgjo K, Kolmannskog F. Hepatobiliary complications of inflammatory bowel disease. Semin Liver Dis 1988;8:201-9.|
|65||Karlsen TH, Schrumpf E, Boberg KM. Update on primary sclerosing cholangitis. Dig Liver Dis 2010;42:390-400.|
|66||Fausa O, Schrumpf E, Elgjo K. Relationship of inflammatory bowel disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Semin Liver Dis 1991;11:31-9.|
|67||Schrumpf E, Boberg KM. Epidemiology of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2001;15:553-62.|
|68||Aadland E, Schrumpf E, Fausa O, Elgjo K, Heilo A, Aakhus T, et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis: A long-term follow-up study. Scand J Gastroenterol 1987;22:655-64.|
|69||Boonstra K, Beuers U, Ponsioen CY. Epidemiology of primary sclerosing cholangitis and primary biliary cirrhosis: A systematic review. J Hepatol 2012;56:1181-8.|
|70||Vitellas KM, Enns RA, Keogan MT, Freed KS, Spritzer CE, Baillie J, et al. Comparison of MR cholangiopancreatographic techniques with contrast-enhanced cholangiography in the evaluation of sclerosing cholangitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:327-34.|
|71||Talwalkar JA, Angulo P, Johnson CD, Petersen BT, Lindor KD. Cost-minimization analysis of MRC versus ERCP for the diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology 2004;40:39-45.|
|72||European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: Management of cholestatic liver diseases. J Hepatol 2009;51:237-67.|
|73||Lüth S, Kanzler S, Frenzel C, Kasper HU, Dienes HP, Schramm C, et al. Characteristics and long-term prognosis of the autoimmune hepatitis/primary sclerosing cholangitis overlap syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009;43:75-80.|
|74||Karlsen TH, Boberg KM. Update on primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol 2013;59:571-82.|
|75||Björnsson E, Olsson R, Bergquist A, Lindgren S, Braden B, Chapman RW, et al. The natural history of small-duct primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastroenterology 2008;134:975-80.|
|76||Naess S, Björnsson E, Anmarkrud JA, Al Mamari S, Juran BD, Lazaridis KN, et al. Small duct primary sclerosing cholangitis without inflammatory bowel disease is genetically different from large duct disease. Liver Int 2014;34:1488-95.|
|77||Burak KW, Angulo P, Lindor KD. Is there a role for liver biopsy in primary sclerosing cholangitis? Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1155-8.|
|78||Soetikno RM, Lin OS, Heidenreich PA, Young HS, Blackstone MO. Increased risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and ulcerative colitis: A meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:48-54.|
|79||Fevery J, Henckaerts L, Van Oirbeek R, Vermeire S, Rutgeerts P, Nevens F, et al. Malignancies and mortality in 200 patients with primary sclerosering cholangitis: A long-term single-centre study. Liver Int 2012;32:214-22.|
|80||Chandok N, Hirschfield GM. Management of primary sclerosing cholangitis: Conventions and controversies. Can J Gastroenterol 2012;26:261-8.|
|81||Trauner M, Halilbasic E, Baghdasaryan A, Moustafa T, Krones E, Fickert P, et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis: New approaches to diagnosis, surveillance and treatment. Dig Dis 2012;30 Suppl 1:39-47.|
|82||Lindor KD, Kowdley KV, Luketic VA, Harrison ME, McCashland T, Befeler AS, et al. High-dose ursodeoxycholic acid for the treatment of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology 2009;50:808-14.|
|83||Bjøro K, Brandsaeter B, Foss A, Schrumpf E. Liver transplantation in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Semin Liver Dis 2006;26:69-79.|
|84||Sinakos E, Lindor K. Treatment options for primary sclerosing cholangitis. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;4:473-88.|
|85||Hatoum OA, Spinelli KS, Abu-Hajir M, Attila T, Franco J, Otterson MF, et al. Mesenteric venous thrombosis in inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005;39:27-31.|
|86||Greenstein AJ, Sachar DB, Panday AK, Dikman SH, Meyers S, Heimann T, et al. Amyloidosis and inflammatory bowel disease. A 50-year experience with 25 patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 1992;71:261-70.|
|87||Weber P, Seibold F, Jenss H. Acute pancreatitis in Crohn's disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 1993;17:286-91.|
|88||Lossos A, River Y, Eliakim A, Steiner I. Neurologic aspects of inflammatory bowel disease. Neurology 1995;45:416-21.|
|89||Solomon AJ, Spain RI, Kruer MC, Bourdette D. Inflammatory neurological disease in patients treated with tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors. Mult Scler 2011;17:1472-87.|
|90||Singh S, Singh H, Loftus EV Jr., Pardi DS. Risk of cerebrovascular accidents and ischemic heart disease in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12:382-93.e1.|
|91||Fumery M, Xiaocang C, Dauchet L, Gower-Rousseau C, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Colombel JF. Thromboembolic events and cardiovascular mortality in inflammatory bowel diseases: A meta-analysis of observational studies. J Crohns Colitis 2014;8:469-79.|
|92||Kristensen SL, Ahlehoff O, Lindhardsen J, Erichsen R, Jensen GV, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. Disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease is associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death – A Danish nationwide cohort study. PLoS One 2013;8:e56944.|
|93||Storch I, Sachar D, Katz S. Pulmonary manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2003;9:104-15.|
|94||Bonniere P, Wallaert B, Cortot A, Marchandise X, Riou Y, Tonnel AB, et al. Latent pulmonary involvement in Crohn's disease: Biological, functional, bronchoalveolar lavage and scintigraphic studies. Gut 1986;27:919-25.|
|95||Louis E, Louis R, Shute J, Lau L, Franchimont D, Lamproye A, et al. Bronchial eosinophilic infiltration in Crohn's disease in the absence of pulmonary disease. Clin Exp Allergy 1999;29:660-6.|
|96||Basseri B, Enayati P, Marchevsky A, Papadakis KA. Pulmonary manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease: Case presentations and review. J Crohns Colitis 2010;4:390-7.|
|97||Oikonomou K, Kapsoritakis A, Eleftheriadis T, Stefanidis I, Potamianos S. Renal manifestations and complications of inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2011;17:1034-45.|