Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Management

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

R. Rajapakse (ed.)Inflammatory Bowel DiseaseClinical Gastroenterologyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81780-0_1

1. Advances in Our Understanding of the Pathogenesis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Catiele Antunes¹  , Karolina Dziadkowiec² and Aline Charabaty³  

(1)

Section of Digestive Disease and Nutrition, College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA

(2)

Department of Internal Medicine, JFK Regional Campus- University of Miami, Atlantis, FL, USA

(3)

Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA

Catiele Antunes

Email: [email protected]

Aline Charabaty (Corresponding author)

Email: [email protected]

Keywords

Inflammatory bowel diseaseIBDUlcerative colitisCrohn’s diseaseGeneticsEnvironmentMicrobiomeGut dysbiosis

Introduction

What causes an individual to develop an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)? The answer to this simple question has puzzled researchers and clinicians for many years. According to the evidence available so far, the answer is complex and the etiology multifactorial, with several genetic, immunologic, and environmental factors affecting each other and promoting the development of IBD in an individual (Fig. 1.1). It has been established that both Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are immunologically mediated chronic inflammatory diseases that develop in genetically susceptible individuals as a consequence of the complex and multidirectional interactions between genetics, environmental triggers, the gut immune system, and gut microbiota.

Fig. 1.1

Complex relationships in the pathogenesis of IBD. Genetics, gut microbiome, intestinal immune response and intestinal barrier, and environmental factors play a role in the pathogenesis of IBD

Historically, IBD was thought to be a disease predominantly affecting North American and European populations, Caucasians, and individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, putting a focus on genetics as the main driver of the disease. In the last half of this century, the incidence of IBD has increased in the Westernized world, including in African-American and Hispanic minorities possibly explained by improved diagnosis but also likely driven by changes in environmental factors [1, 2]. At the other end of the spectrum, areas of the world traditionally known to have a low prevalence of IBD (such as China, India, and the Middle East) have also seen an increased incidence of IBD over recent years. Finally, in first-generation immigrants from areas with low incidence of IBD to the United States, the incidence of IBD has increased to reach that of the new country [3]. Dietary changes, with increased consumption of a Western diet (low in fiber, rich in processed foods, saturated fat and added sugar), environmental influences such as pollution, stress, decreased physical activity, urban living, antibiotic exposure, and increased hygiene are all potential factors that could explain this change in IBD epidemiology. Most recently, a great deal of attention is being given to the role of the gut microbiome and the concept of dysbiosis , i.e., a microbial imbalance in diversity and functionality leading to maladaptive interactions between the gut microbiome and the intestinal immune system.

In this chapter, we will explore the knowns and unknowns of the etiology and pathophysiology of IBD, exploring the mechanisms behind known associations and the understanding of modifiable risk factors. We will describe the role of genetics, microbiome, and pharmacological agents and also explore the role of environmental and lifestyle factors that are now emerging as key drivers of inflammation.

Genetic Factors

The role of genetic predisposition in developing IBD was highlighted with studies examining the higher prevalence of IBD within ethnic and family groups. Between 2 and 14% of patients with CD and 7 to 11% of patients with UC report a family history of the same disease [4]. The risk of developing IBD is estimated to be up to tenfold higher in those with a first-degree relative with an IBD diagnosis compared to those in unaffected families [5]. The risk to an individual is highest when both parents have IBD, reaching 33% by age 30 [6]. The risk for first-degree relatives is further increased in individuals of Jewish heritage. While the relative risk of developing IBD for a non-Jewish first-degree relative is around 5% for CD and 2% for UC, the relative risk rises to 8% and 5.2%, respectively, for a family member of Jewish heritage.

Studies in twins, albeit few in number, have also been important in understanding the relative contribution of inherited and environmental factors in the etiology of IBD. In short, if a disease is entirely due to genes, then its concordance in identical (monozygotic) twins should approach 100%, and in non-identical (dizygotic) twins, it should approach 50%. On the other hand, if the disease is dependent on extrinsic and acquired factors , its concordance should be similar in both dizygotic and monozygotic twins. Interestingly, large European studies have identified a concordance rate for CD in monozygotic twins between 20 and 55%, while that number dropped to less than 10% in dizygotic twins brought up in the same environment (Table 1.1). A high concordance rate for the presence of extraintestinal manifestations and for the extent of colon involvement in CD and UC has been demonstrated in twin studies as well [7]. One of these studies, with over 38,000 identified twins in Denmark, showed a concordance rate among monozygotic pairs of 58.3% for Crohn’s disease but only 18.2% for ulcerative colitis. Among the dizygotic pairs, the numbers dropped to zero and 4.5%, respectively [8]. Collectively, all this family data suggests a stronger genetic influence for CD than for UC.

Table 1.1

Concordance rates for Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) according to international twin studies

Over the last few decades, significant advances in the understanding of genetic contributions to IBD have been made. Thanks to advances in genetic testing and genome-wide association studies (GWAS), multiple single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been identified. Up to now, more than 200 IBD susceptibility loci have been identified, but this number is likely to keep rising [14]. Approximately 30% of all IBD-related loci identified so far are shared between CD and UC, suggesting that these diseases engage some common pathways [15]. Many IBD loci are also implicated in other immune-mediated diseases such as ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis [15, 16]. Most of the genes and genetic loci identified so far are involved in intestinal homeostasis , including barrier function, epithelial turnover, microbial defense, autophagy, adaptive immunity, and metabolic pathways associated with cellular homeostasis [15].

NOD2 (nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain containing 2 ), located on chromosome 16, was the first susceptibility gene identified for CD, approximately 20 years ago [17–19]. NOD2 belongs to the family of intracellular NOD-like receptors and is involved in autophagy, bacterial replication control, and antigen presentation. NOD2 mutations have been associated with several inflammatory diseases suggesting that balanced NOD2 signaling is essential for the maintenance of immune homeostasis [20]. The association of NOD2 with CD has been replicated in many studies, but the exact role of NOD2 variants has not yet been fully elucidated [21, 22]. Three main NOD2 polymorphisms have been identified and linked to susceptibility to CD: R702W (Arg702Trp) on exon 4, G908R (Gly908Arg) on exon 8, and Leu1007fsX1008 on exon 11. The first two are single amino acid changes or missense mutations; the latter is caused by a deletion causing a reading frameshift that ultimately leads to a loss of 33 amino acids [20]. In patients with CD, NOD2 is strongly associated with disease location (ileocolonic > colonic, ileal > colonic), early age at diagnosis, stricturing, and non-perianal fistulizing behavior [23, 24]. The frequency of mutant NOD2 haplotypes is 2.1-fold higher in ileum-specific disease than that restricted to the colon and 1.6-fold higher in ileocolonic disease [25]. CD patients with two NOD2 mutations have 10.1 times the odds of having ileal disease than those with one mutation or wild-type alleles [24]. Interestingly, though sequence variations within the NOD2 gene are strongly associated with CD, that is not the case for UC, reinforcing the notion that these two diseases have distinct pathogenetic pathways leading to chronic inflammation of the bowel.

GWAS have also implicated interleukin receptors and their signaling components including STAT3, JAK2, and IL10 itself [15]. The transcription factor STAT3 and kinase protein JAK2 also function in other contexts, including signaling of IL-6, IL-22, and IL-23. These genetic studies have led to a better understanding of disease pathways and, therefore, to the development of IBD therapies.

Over 130 loci have been identified via GWAS with association to risk for UC [26]. An important association identified so far is with the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes, particularly HLA class II genes DRB1*0103 and DRB1*15 [27, 28]. DRB1*0103 is found in 8–10% of UC patients but only in 2–3% of controls and has a strong association with extensive UC disease and with the need for colectomy . There are a few loci containing genes such as IL2, CARD9, and REL that are shared between UC and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) [29, 30]. This overlap may help to identify UC patients at risk for PSC and advance research for new therapies.

We have presented here a brief summary of what is known thus far in terms of IBD genetics. This field is constantly evolving and a comprehensive review of all genes and loci involved is beyond the scope of this chapter. Although there is strong evidence that genetics plays an important role in the genesis of IBD, it is estimated that the variants identified so far only explain up to 20–25% of all IBD cases [15, 22]. This indicates that genetics alone cannot explain IBD pathogenesis. In addition, some of these variants may be present in healthy individuals, further reinforcing that epigenetics and nongenetic factors, including environmental factors, play an essential role.

Gut Microbiome

There is growing evidence that the gut microbiome plays a significant role in the overall health of humans and in intestinal and non-intestinal disease process. The gut microbiome is part of an ecosystem that is involved in many aspects of host health including digestion of food, maintenance of intestinal barrier integrity, and protection against pathogens. Therefore, it seems reasonable that disruptions of the gut microbiome would have significant effects on the gut immune system and could lead to dysregulation of the gut immune response.

The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in the development of the host’s immune system. The gut microbiota induces accumulation of several different lymphocyte populations at the mucosal site and particularly modulate regulatory T cells (Tregs) and T helper (Th) cells [31, 32]. Germ-free mice (deficient in gut microbiota) have impaired immune development, with immature lymphoid tissue, decreased numbers of intestinal lymphocytes, and low levels of antimicrobial peptides. Because of a deficient mucosal immune system, germ-free mice are more susceptible to infection by intestinal pathogens compared to wild-type mice. Interestingly, once the germ-free mice microbiota is reconstituted, those immune abnormalities are reversed [33]. Additionally, gut microbiota also seems to modulate inflammatory status. A study using a mouse model of colitis showed that daily administration of probiotics containing bifidobacteria and lactobacilli modulated inflammatory status, likely by induction of Tregs cells [34]. Another study using E. coli DNA and the probiotic VSL#3 given by the intragastric or subcutaneous route was able to inhibit dextran sodium sulfate (DSS)-induced colitis in normal mice but not in mice lacking Toll-like receptor 9, a class of proteins that plays a role in the innate immune system [35]. These studies further reinforce the role of the gut microbiome on the maintenance of a balanced gut environment and immune responses.

IBD patients’ microbiome is characterized by a depletion of anti-inflammatory microbiota and an overabundance of pro-inflammatory microbiota (Fig. 1.2). IBD patients also have a marked reduction in gut microbiota diversity. These differences are more pronounced in CD patients, while UC patients’ microbiota resembles more that of a healthy individual [36]. Overall, there is a higher presence of Enterobacteriaceae (such as E. coli), Fusobacterium, and Ruminococcus gnavus and a decline in Clostridium groups, Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii [33, 37, 38]. F. prausnitzii, among others, has been reported to have anti-inflammatory properties due to the production of butyrate. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), such as butyrate, are metabolic end products of carbohydrate fermentation by the gut microbiome and have an important role in the modulation of host immune response. The decreased production of SCFAs affects the differentiation and expansion of Tregs cells and affects the growth of epithelial cells, which is important in maintaining intestinal homeostasis. Also, Desulfovibrio, a sulfate-reducing bacterium, is seen at higher levels in UC patients. It results in increased production of hydrogen sulfate that leads to intestinal epithelial damage and induces mucosal inflammation.

Fig. 1.2

Microbiota changes associated with IBD . The microbial composition in patients with IBD is altered compared with that in healthy control subjects. Specific changes have been identified in the abundance of various bacteria, fungi, and viruses. Above, green and blue arrows show some of the gut organisms that have been established to be increased or decreased in IBD patients. Many butyrate-producing bacteria are markedly decreased in IBD, including Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, a known beneficial bacterium with anti-inflammatory properties

The imbalance in the gut microbiome in IBD patients also extends to fungi and viruses. Fungal microbiome corresponds to only 0.02% to 0.003% of the fecal microbiome but is also altered in IBD patients, with a lower presence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and a higher presence of Candida albicans, Candida tropicalis, Clavispora lusitaniae, and Kluyveromyces marxianus [39]. The richness and diversity of the mucosal fungal community is positively associated with expression of TNF-α and IFN-γ and negatively associated with IL-10 levels . Interestingly, fungal diversity is also higher in areas of active inflammation [40]. The idea that fungi could be involved in the pathogenesis of IBD is plausible as many of the genes involved in antifungal responses are also IBD susceptibility genes (such as CARD9 and RElA).

As described here, dysbiosis has been documented in IBD patients. However, strong evidence for the existence of specific pathobionts, i.e., commensal microorganisms that, under specific environmental and genetic influences, cause IBD, is lacking [41]. Some agents have been investigated: adherent-invasive E. coli (AIEC) as the cause of ileal mucosal disease, Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis for its ability to cause granulomatous enteritis in sheep and cattle, and Fusobacterium nucleatum, after highly invasive strains were isolated from UC patients [36, 41]. All of these studies have described associations, but none of them were able to prove causation. In IBD models of intestinal inflammation, the role of the microbiota ranges from protective to causative. Caution, however, is needed when interpreting these data as animal studies have several limitations. The question of whether dysbiosis precedes inflammation or reflects an altered immune and metabolic environment is still waiting to be answered.

Lifestyle

Diet

Most of the epidemiological studies of diet in IBD have focused on macronutrients. Despite some heterogeneity, fiber has been the most consistent negative association. Pediatric patients newly diagnosed with Crohn’s disease had a markedly lower intake of fruits and vegetable on dietary logs from the year prior to diagnosis when compared to healthy controls [42]. Another important study highlighting the potential impact of diet in IBD comes from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), a prospective study that began in 1976 and enrolled 122,701 female nurses who were asked to complete dietary questionnaires every 4 years [43]. This study showed an association between high consumption of fiber, particularly vegetables and fruits, and a low risk of developing CD [38]. On the other hand, high intake of red meat was associated with an increased risk of UC [38]. A large prospective cohort study from France (67,581 participants and 705,445 person-years) investigated the correlation of protein intake and development of CD and found that a high animal protein consumption was associated with a high risk of developing CD (HR, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.45–6.34) [44]. The effect of animal protein on disease activity has also been demonstrated in animal studies, where red meat intake exacerbated colitis in DSS mice. Mice on a red meat diet had consistently high histopathological scores, higher disease activity, and mortality [45]. The evidence so far suggests that dietary hemoglobin from red meat consumption can form reactive oxygen species ultimately leading to damage to the colonic epithelium. Most recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine studies tried to assess the role of the Western diet – characterized by high consumption of processed grains , red meat, animal protein and, low consumption of vegetables and fruits – in the development of IBD. The results showed that a western dietary pattern was associated with a relative risk (RR) for IBD of 1.92 (95% CI, 1.37–2.68). The effects were higher for UC with an RR of 2.65 (95% CI, 1.61–4.36) [46]. In animal models, mice on a Western diet were more susceptible to DSS-induced colitis and had increased inflammation compared to mice on a control diet [47].

Interestingly, some beverages can also affect the risk of IBD. In a meta-analysis including studies done in Asian populations, consumption of tea seems to be protective against UC (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58–0.83) [48]. Even though a complete biological explanation for this effect is still under investigation, studies in mice have shown that polyphenols present in green tea have anti-inflammatory properties [49]. On the other hand, the consumption of soft drinks was associated with an increased risk of UC (RR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.24–2.30) [48, 50]. More studies still have to be done to clarify these associations.

It is likely that the effect of diet on the pathogenesis of IBD is due, at least partially, to changes on gut microbiome. Even acute changes in diet, for example, from a primarily animal-based to a plant-based diet, can alter the gut microbiome within 24 h [51, 52]. Studies have reported that subjects on an animal-based diet had increased levels of bile-tolerant microorganisms such as Bacteroides and decreased levels of Firmicutes that metabolize plant polysaccharides. Wu et al. demonstrated that when healthy volunteers were challenged with a high-fat, low-fiber diet, a noticeable change in the bacterial environment occurred within 24 h and persisted over the 10 days of the study [52]. Clearly, diet can strongly and quickly affect the gut microbiome composition (Fig. 1.3).

Fig. 1.3

Diet effects in the microbiome. Different diets seem to have different effects in specific components of the microbiome. Green arrows demonstrate a positive relationship (increased levels), while red arrows demonstrate a negative relationship (decreased levels). Much is still unknown about the significance of these effects

Over the past few years, several dietary interventions have been evaluated as therapeutic options for patients with IBD. Enteral nutrition with an elemental diet (ED) and semi-elemental or polymeric diets have been used as a first-line therapy to induce steroid-free remission in CD, mainly in children, and have been associated with clinical and mucosal healing [41]. The leading hypothesis behind the effects of these diets is that by altering the number of luminal antigens, the gut microbiome and its metabolome are also altered [53, 54]. Diets not only affect the gut microbiome composition but also serve as a substrate for microbial synthesis of metabolites and consequently have a significant impact on mucosal integrity and immune function.

Smoking

Multiple studies have investigated the role of environmental factors and the risk of IBD [50, 55]. Cigarette smoking has been consistently linked to an increased risk of CD, with first reports dating back to the 1980s [50]. A recent meta-analysis established the risk of IBD in current smokers compared to never smokers: there are an elevated risk for CD (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.4–2.22) and a decreased risk for UC (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45–0.75) [50]. The effect seems to be dose dependent and also strongly modified by genetic factors and ethnicity, with most of the associations being observed in non-Jewish White individuals . The underlying mechanisms seem to be related to the effects of smoking on the innate and adaptive immune responses, including cell apoptosis, chemokine expression, and T-cell recruitment [55]. Smoking also decreases microbiome bacterial diversity, with a predominance of Bacteroides-Prevotella (38.8% vs. 28.3% in non-smokers) and a reduced presence of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii.

Smoking has been linked to histological changes in the intestines of patients with established disease. CD patients who smoke have an increased number of lymphocytes and increased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α, IFN-γ, and TGF-β [55]. Among patients with CD, those who smoke have more clinical relapses, higher surgery rates, and poorer response to treatment compared to those who do not smoke [56].

Physical and Emotional Stress and Mental Health

There is increasing evidence that stress , lack of sleep, and physical inactivity adversely affect the gut microbiome and the gut-brain axis by altering intestinal mucosal permeability and cytokine secretion [57, 58]. Stress, anxiety, and depression can induce low-grade chronic inflammation in the gut. The vagus nerve is thought to have anti-inflammatory effects. Stress decreases vagus nerve efferent outflow and increases sympathetic tone, ultimately inhibiting immune cell function and leading to intestinal inflammation. In rats, stress has been shown to increase intestinal permeability, allowing bacteria to cross the epithelial barrier and activate mucosal immune responses. In humans, depression correlates with elevated levels of TNF-α and CRP [58]. Patients with IBD have a two- to threefold higher rate of depression and anxiety than the general population, and these conditions frequently precede the diagnosis of IBD [58]. In 79% of IBD patients with mood disorders, the first episode of depression occurred more than 2 years before the onset of IBD [59]. In a Danish nationwide cohort study, use of anti-depressants after a diagnosis of IBD was associated with a lower incidence of disease activity [60].

Environmental Factors

Pollution

Air pollution-mediated inflammation has been implicated as the cause of a number of disease processes. It is believed that the pro-inflammatory cascade related to pollution may be associated with the development of IBD and other similar diseases [61]. The incidence of IBD in westernized or industrialized countries has increased over the last century, mainly in urban areas, and now we are witnessing rapid disease emergence in newly industrialized countries and in developing countries, where IBD was previously uncommon [1, 62].

The mechanisms by which air pollution may influence the development of IBD are mostly hypothetical. The leading hypotheses suggest that the adverse health effects associated with exposure to air pollution, either through inhalation or ingestion, may incite an inflammatory process that is believed to be in part related to the pathogenesis of IBD [61]. A recent study has demonstrated that young adults and children are at an increased risk of developing IBD if they lived in regions with higher concentrations of pollutants (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.25–4.28); when all age groups were combined , air pollution did not increase the risk of IBD [63]. Thus, further studies are needed to explore this association and examine gene-pollutant interactions.

Low Vitamin D

Some studies show an increased incidence of IBD with increasing latitude, suggesting that decreased sun exposure and subsequently decreased vitamin D production are a risk factor for IBD. Vitamin D plays an integral role not only in electrolyte homeostasis and bone health but also in immune function and reduction of inflammation. As a result, the deficiency of this essential vitamin has been associated with inflammatory diseases, including IBD, through an impairment of mucosal immunity and integrity in the gut [64]. In 2010, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) defined vitamin D deficiency as a serum concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D less than 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) [65]. The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the general population is reported to be between 30% and 47% [66–68]. Patients with IBD appear to be especially at risk of developing vitamin D deficiency as a result of impaired nutrient absorption in the gastrointestinal tract, restricted dietary intake, and, in some instances, medical advice to avoid sunlight exposure when taking certain immunosuppressive therapies [69].

In addition, recent studies have suggested a strong correlation between vitamin D deficiency and more pronounced disease activity [70–73]. Vitamin D deficiency has also been implicated in the development of colorectal cancer in those suffering from IBD [74]. In a large study by Ananthakrishan et al. that included 2809 IBD patients, deficiency of vitamin D was associated with an increased risk of cancer (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.25–2.65), and increased levels were associated with reduction in colon cancer [74]. Further research on the effects of vitamin D deficiency and its role in IBD and colorectal cancer is warranted.

Hygiene Hypothesis

The hygiene hypothesis and its relationship with allergic and autoimmune disease were first introduced in 1989 [75]. This hypothesis was developed as a potential cause for the development of IBD after observations were made of an increased incidence of IBD coinciding with improvements in physical hygiene in the last century [76]. The improvements in hygiene are not limited to access to clean water, advanced filtering sewage systems, and improvements in waste disposal but also include less crowded housing [77]. The basis of the hygiene hypothesis lies in the postulation that a person may be overprotected from exposure to common antigens in the environment owing to improved hygiene and, when exposed later in life, an inappropriate and exaggerated immunologic response may occur leading to inflammation. Exposures to common antigens are thought to be necessary for keeping the immune system of the gut in check and establishing an immunological balance between pro-inflammatory cells and their response to microbes and other antigenic stimuli [78]. A recent meta-analysis found varying levels of evidence to support factors associated with increased risk of IBD, including urban living among others [49]. Although evidence supporting the hygiene hypothesis appears possible, the quality and strength of the evidence vary; carefully designed prospective studies are needed to evaluate the plausibility of these findings.

Pharmacological Agents

NSAIDs

Many patients with IBD suffer from extraintestinal manifestations such as arthritis and seek pain relief using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Although effective for pain control, NSAIDs are not without risk. With prolonged use, there is serious concern for the development of gastrointestinal injury, including mucosal damage in the form of erosions, ulcers, bleeding, mucosal scarring with stricture formation, and rarely perforation [78]. The mechanisms responsible for NSAID-induced gastrointestinal toxicity include increased mucosal permeability, increased enterohepatic drug circulation, and depletion of intracellular adenosine triphosphate (ATP) [79].

Several studies have suggested an association between NSAID use and the onset or exacerbation of IBD [80–83]. A recent study evaluated clinical signs and objective measurements of fecal calprotectin in patients with IBD and demonstrated that NSAIDs were associated with a 17–28% relapse rate within approximately 9 days of administration [84]. Several other studies have shown that NSAIDs are associated with an increased risk of new onset of IBD and were associated with an overall increase disease activity [85–87]. NSAID use in patients with IBD warrants significant consideration and careful monitoring due to the potentially increased risk of gastrointestinal toxicity and risk of IBD exacerbation in certain patient populations. However, it remains unclear as to whether NSAIDs are indeed directly implicated in causing flares or new onset IBD.

Antibiotics

The relationship between IBD and antibiotics is complex and paradoxical. Antibiotics can modulate gut inflammation by altering the gut microflora via several mechanisms: decreasing bacterial concentrations and allowing more favorable bacteria to flourish, decreasing bacterial translocation and reducing bacterial enzyme activity [88–91]. A meta-analysis published in 2011 found antibiotics to be superior to placebo in the induction of remission of active Crohn’s disease (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73–0.99) [92]. A meta-analysis from 2012 included patients with CD that were treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics and noted clinical improvement in 56.1% of patients in the antibiotic group vs. 37.9% of patients in the placebo group (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16–1.58) [93].

Current American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guidelines for the treatment of UC and CD do not include antibiotics as a part of a routine treatment protocol, unless there is concern for infection or abscess [94, 95]. In patients with CD, there is some evidence for antibiotics (metronidazole and ornidazole) reducing incidence of endoscopic recurrence after surgery when compared to placebo-treated patients [95].

Conversely, antibiotic use has been implicated as a risk factor for developing CD. Several observational studies have found an association with the use of antibiotics in childhood or adulthood and a subsequent increased risk of developing CD. A meta-analysis of 11 observational studies demonstrated a pooled odds ratio of 1.74 (95% CI, 1.35–2.23) for the development of CD in patients exposed to antibiotics [96]. In addition, the risk of developing IBD following antibiotic exposure seems to be cumulative, increasing with the number of antibiotics used [97]. An association between antibiotic use and risk of developing UC was not noted.

Whether it is the antibiotics themselves that trigger the development of CD (likely by affecting the gut microbiome) or the infections for which the antibiotics were prescribed that lead to an immune dysfunction, or even the presence of an underlying immune system dysfunction that promotes a shared susceptibility to infection and IBD, the exact association is still unknown and remains to be elucidated.

Oral Contraceptives

In 1984, a study showed that the prevalence of oral contraceptive use was significantly higher among patients with colonic CD compared to those with ileal CD and UC [98]. A meta-analysis published in 2008 showed that current use of oral contraceptives was associated with a nearly 50% increase in the risk of CD compared to no use (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.26–1.70), but although there appeared to be an increased risk, this was no longer statistically significant after adjusting for smoking [99]. Finally, a large study including 232,452 women without IBD enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study I (NHS I) and II (NHS II) evaluated current use of oral contraceptives and demonstrated an increased risk of CD (HR = 2.82, 95% CI, 1.65–4.82) but not UC (HR = 1.22, 95% CI, 0.74–2.07) [100]. Therefore, the association, despite not being consistent across all studies, seems to be stronger for the development of CD.

The precise mechanism by which oral contraceptives may increase the risk of IBD is unknown. Some experimental data suggests that estrogen may modulate the immune system and affect intestinal barrier functions [101, 102].

Vaccines

Several studies have evaluated a potential link between vaccines and IBD. In the mid-1990s, few studies suggested a possible link between MMR vaccination and an increased risk of IBD, especially CD [103–105]. However, those findings were later refuted as subsequent studies did not confirm those findings [106–108]. A potential association between poliomyelitis vaccine and IBD was also reported in small studies; however, the heterogeneities between these studies, their small size, and the unaccounted confounders dramatically limit the interpretation of their results [108]. It is important to remember that timeline association does not equal causation, and vaccines prevent infectious diseases that can otherwise lead to irreversible life-altering and life-threatening complications. Finally, there is no evidence that vaccines lead to a change in disease course or trigger an IBD flare. Subsequently , gastroenterological society guidelines recommend age-appropriate vaccination in all IBD patients, with the exception of live virus vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs.

Surgeries

Appendectomy

Multiple studies have investigated the relationship between prior appendectomy and the development of IBD. Many studies have shown an inverse relationship between prior appendectomy and the development of UC [109, 110]. Conversely, a review of meta-analysis showed increased risk for CD following appendectomy [50]. Researchers have investigated whether appendectomy affects the natural course of patients with IBD, but the evidence so far suggests that it does not [111, 112]. Currently, there is no evidence to support prophylactic appendectomy to prevent IBD or alter the course of the disease.

Tonsillectomy

Tonsillectomy remains a poorly established risk factor for the development of IBD. A recent meta-analysis involving nearly 20,000 patients suggests that there may be a correlation between tonsillectomy and an increased risk for developing CD (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.16–1.62) [113]. This study did not find an increased risk for the development of UC after adjusting for confounding factors. Further prospective studies are required to confirm the validity of these findings.

Early Life Events

Cesarean Delivery

Cesarean delivery may be a risk factor for the development of IBD, potentially by disturbing the normal bacterial colonization of a newborn’s intestine that occurs with vaginal delivery. In 2012, a study using the Danish National Patient Registry found that rates of childhood-onset IBD were increased in those delivered by cesarean delivery compared to those delivered vaginally , but the effect was very small [114]. A meta-analysis published in 2014 supports the hypothesis that cesarean delivery is associated with an increased risk of CD but not UC [115].

Breastfeeding

Breastfeeding has been described as having protective effects against CD. In a recent meta-analysis, being ever breastfed was associated with a lower risk of CD (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59–0.85) and UC (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67–0.91) [50]. The longer the duration of breastfeeding, the higher the benefit. The ORs for CD associated with breastfeeding for 3, 6, and 12 months was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.39–0.97), 0.56 (95% CI, 0.31–0.69), and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.08–0.50), respectively [116].

The effect seems to be greater in Asians compared to Caucasian populations, suggesting that an interplay with genetic factors and ethnicity may occur [50, 116]. Lack of breastfeeding has been associated with colonization with Clostridium difficile and immune-mediated diseases, suggesting that the protective effect of lactation may be related to improved mucosal immunity through microbiome interaction [50] (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2

Risk factors and protective factors for CD and UC

In the above table, factors reported in the literature that are associated with an increased or decreased risk of IBD are summarized. Of note, the strength of the epidemiological evidence for each factor listed above is not being assessed for the purpose of this chapter. Please review individual references for further information.

Summary

It is our current understanding that IBD pathogenesis involves complex and multidirectional interactions of several immunological, microbiota, and environmental factors, leading to a chronic inflammatory disease of the gut in a genetically susceptible individual. In this chapter, we reviewed the factors that are potentially involved in the pathogenesis of IBD as described in the literature. The interplay between the gut microbiome and the environment in modulating the gut immune response is the center of current research. It can shed light on how to prevent IBD in susceptible individuals or on how to change the natural history of IBD by implementing interventions on modifiable risk factors.

References

1.

Molodecky NA, Soon IS, Rabi DM, Ghali WA, Ferris M, Chernoff G, et al. Increasing incidence and prevalence of the inflammatory bowel diseases with time, based on systematic review. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(1):46–54.e42; quiz e30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1053/​j.​gastro.​2011.​10.​001.CrossrefPubMed

2.

Loftus EV Jr, Silverstein MD, Sandborn WJ, Tremaine WJ, Harmsen WS, Zinsmeister AR. Crohn's disease in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1940–1993: incidence, prevalence, and survival. Gastroenterology. 1998;114(6):1161–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s0016-5085(98)70421-4.CrossrefPubMed

3.

Misra R, Faiz O, Munkholm P, Burisch J, Arebi N. Epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in racial and ethnic migrant groups. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(3):424–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3748/​wjg.​v24.​i3.​424.CrossrefPubMed

4.

Halme L, Paavola-Sakki P, Turunen U, Lappalainen M, Farkkila M, Kontula K. Family and twin studies in inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(23):3668–72. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3748/​wjg.​v12.​i23.​3668.CrossrefPubMed

5.

Orholm M, Munkholm P, Langholz E, Nielsen OH, Sørensen TIA, Binder V. Familial Occurrence of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(2):84–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1056/​nejm199101103240​203.CrossrefPubMed

6.

Laharie D, Debeugny S, Peeters M, Van Gossum A, Gower-Rousseau C, Bélaïche J, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease in spouses and their offspring. Gastroenterology. 2001;120(4):816–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1053/​gast.​2001.​22574.CrossrefPubMed

7.

Satsangi J, Grootscholten C, Holt H, Jewell DP. Clinical patterns of familial inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. 1996;38(5):738–41. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​gut.​38.​5.​738.CrossrefPubMed

8.

Orholm M, Binder V, Sørensen TI, Rasmussen LP, Kyvik KO. Concordance of inflammatory bowel disease among Danish twins. Results of a nationwide study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2000;35(10):1075–81. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​003655200451207.CrossrefPubMed

9.

Thompson NP, Driscoll R, Pounder RE, Wakefield AJ. Genetics versus environment in inflammatory bowel disease: results of a British twin study. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):95–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bmj.​312.​7023.​95.CrossrefPubMed

10.

Halfvarson J, Bodin L, Tysk C, Lindberg E, Järnerot G. Inflammatory bowel disease in a Swedish twin cohort: a long-term follow-up of concordance and clinical characteristics. Gastroenterology. 2003;124(7):1767–73. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0016-5085(03)00385-8.CrossrefPubMed

11.

Jess T, Riis L, Jespersgaard C, Hougs L, Andersen PS, Orholm MK, et al. Disease concordance, zygosity, and NOD2/CARD15 status: follow-up of a population-based cohort of Danish twins with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(11):2486–92. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​j.​1572-0241.​2005.​00224.​x.CrossrefPubMed

12.

Spehlmann ME, Begun AZ, Burghardt J, Lepage P, Raedler A, Schreiber S. Epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in a German twin cohort: results of a nationwide study. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2008;14(7):968–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ibd.​20380.CrossrefPubMed

13.

Halfvarson J. Genetics in twins with Crohn's disease: less pronounced than previously believed? Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011;17(1):6–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ibd.​21295.CrossrefPubMed

14.

Frenkel S, Bernstein CN, Sargent M, Kuang Q, Jiang W, Wei J, et al. Genome-wide analysis identifies rare copy number variations associated with inflammatory bowel disease. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0217846. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journal.​pone.​0217846.CrossrefPubMed

15.

Khor B, Gardet A, Xavier RJ. Genetics and pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Nature. 2011;474(7351):307–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​nature10209.CrossrefPubMed

16.

Jostins L, Ripke S, Weersma RK, Duerr RH, McGovern DP, Hui KY, et al. Host-microbe interactions have shaped the genetic architecture of inflammatory bowel disease. Nature. 2012;491(7422):119–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​nature11582.CrossrefPubMed

17.

Ogura Y, Bonen DK, Inohara N, Nicolae DL, Chen FF, Ramos R, et al. A frameshift mutation in NOD2 associated with susceptibility to Crohn's disease. Nature. 2001;411(6837):603–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​35079114.CrossrefPubMed

18.

Hugot J-P, Laurent-Puig P, Gower-Rousseau C, Olson JM, Lee JC, Beaugerie L, et al. Mapping of a susceptibility locus for Crohn's disease on chromosome 16. Nature. 1996;379(6568):821–3. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​379821a0.CrossrefPubMed

19.

Hugot JP, Chamaillard M, Zouali H, Lesage S, Cézard JP, Belaiche J, et al. Association of NOD2 leucine-rich repeat variants with susceptibility to Crohn's disease. Nature. 2001;411(6837):599–603. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​35079107.CrossrefPubMed

20.

Negroni A, Pierdomenico M, Cucchiara S, Stronati L. NOD2 and inflammation: current insights. J Inflamm Res. 2018;11:49–60. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2147/​JIR.​S137606.CrossrefPubMed

21.

Zhang YZ, Li YY. Inflammatory bowel disease: pathogenesis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(1):91–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3748/​wjg.​v20.​i1.​91.CrossrefPubMed

22.

de Souza HSP, Fiocchi C, Iliopoulos D. The IBD interactome: an integrated view of aetiology, pathogenesis and therapy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14(12):739–49. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​nrgastro.​2017.​110.CrossrefPubMed

23.

Cleynen I, Boucher G, Jostins L, Schumm LP, Zeissig S, Ahmad T, et al. Inherited determinants of crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis phenotypes: a genetic association study. Lancet. 2016;387(10014):156–67. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s0140-6736(15)00465-1.CrossrefPubMed

24.

Brant SR, Picco MF, Achkar J-P, Bayless TM, Kane SV, Brzezinski A, et al. Defining complex contributions of NOD2/CARD15 gene mutations, age at onset, and tobacco use on crohn's disease phenotypes. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2003;9(5):281–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​00054725-200309000-00001.CrossrefPubMed

25.

Cuthbert AP, Fisher SA, Mirza MM, King K, Hampe J, Croucher PJP, et al. The contribution of NOD2 gene mutations to the risk and site of disease in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2002;122(4):867–74. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1053/​gast.​2002.​32415.CrossrefPubMed

26.

Wang M-H, Fiocchi C, Zhu X, Ripke S, Kamboh MI, Rebert N, et al. Gene–gene and gene–environment interactions in ulcerative colitis. Hum Genet. 2014;133(5):547–58. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00439-013-1395-z.CrossrefPubMed

27.

De La Concha EG, Fernandez-Arquero M, Lopez-Nava G, Martin E, Allcock RJ, Conejero L, et al. Susceptibility to severe ulcerative colitis is associated with polymorphism in the central MHC gene IKBL. Gastroenterology. 2000;119(6):1491–5. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1053/​gast.​2000.​20258.CrossrefPubMed

28.

Satsangi J, Welsh KI, Bunce M, Julier C, Farrant JM, Bell JI, et al. Contribution of genes of the major histocompatibility complex to susceptibility and disease phenotype in inflammatory bowel disease. Lancet. 1996;347(9010):1212–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s0140-6736(96)90734-5.CrossrefPubMed

29.

Janse M, Lamberts LE, Franke L, Raychaudhuri S, Ellinghaus E, Muri Boberg K, et al. Three ulcerative colitis susceptibility loci are associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis and indicate a role for IL2, REL, and CARD9. Hepatology. 2011;53(6):1977–85. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​hep.​24307.CrossrefPubMed

30.

Folseraas T, Melum E, Rausch P, Juran BD, Ellinghaus E, Shiryaev A, et al. Extended analysis of a genome-wide association study in primary sclerosing cholangitis detects multiple novel risk loci. J Hepatol. 2012;57(2):366–75. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​jhep.​2012.​03.​031.CrossrefPubMed

31.

Atarashi K, Tanoue T, Shima T, Imaoka A, Kuwahara T, Momose Y, et al. Induction of colonic regulatory T cells by indigenous clostridium species. Science. 2011;331(6015):337–41. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​science.​1198469.CrossrefPubMed

32.

Yu AI, Zhao L, Eaton KA, Ho S, Chen J, Poe S, et al. Gut microbiota modulate CD8 T cell responses to influence colitis-associated tumorigenesis. Cell Rep. 2020;31(1):107471. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​celrep.​2020.​03.​035.CrossrefPubMed

33.

Nishida A, Inoue R, Inatomi O, Bamba S, Naito Y, Andoh A. Gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin J Gastroenterol. 2018;11(1):1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12328-017-0813-5.CrossrefPubMed

34.

Di Giacinto C, Marinaro M, Sanchez M, Strober W, Boirivant M. Probiotics ameliorate recurrent Th1-mediated murine colitis by inducing IL-10 and IL-10-dependent TGF-beta-bearing regulatory cells. J Immunol. 2005;174(6):3237–46. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4049/​jimmunol.​174.​6.​3237.CrossrefPubMed

35.

Rachmilewitz D, Katakura K, Karmeli F, Hayashi T, Reinus C, Rudensky B, et al. Toll-like receptor 9 signaling mediates the anti-inflammatory effects of probiotics in murine experimental colitis. Gastroenterology. 2004;126(2):520–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1053/​j.​gastro.​2003.​11.​019.CrossrefPubMed

36.

Ananthakrishnan AN. Epidemiology and risk factors for IBD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;12(4):205–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​nrgastro.​2015.​34.CrossrefPubMed

37.

Knox NC, Forbes JD, Peterson C-L, Van Domselaar G, Bernstein CN. The gut microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114(7):1051–70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​14309/​ajg.​0000000000000305​.CrossrefPubMed

38.

Khalili H, Chan SSM, Lochhead P, Ananthakrishnan AN, Hart AR, Chan AT. The role of diet in the aetiopathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;15(9):525–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41575-018-0022-9.CrossrefPubMed

39.

Serban DE. Microbiota in inflammatory bowel disease pathogenesis and therapy. Nutr Clin Pract. 2015;30(6):760–79. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0884533615606898​.CrossrefPubMed

40.

Li Q, Wang C, Tang C, He Q, Li N, Li J. Dysbiosis of gut fungal microbiota is associated with mucosal inflammation in crohn’s disease. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48(6):513–23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​MCG.​0000000000000035​.CrossrefPubMed

41.

Ni J, Wu GD, Albenberg L, Tomov VT. Gut microbiota and IBD: causation or correlation? Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14(10):573–84. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​nrgastro.​2017.​88.CrossrefPubMed

42.

Amre DK, D'Souza S, Morgan K, Seidman G, Lambrette P, Grimard G, et al. Imbalances in dietary consumption of fatty acids, vegetables, and fruits are associated with risk for crohn's disease in children. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(9):2016–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​j.​1572-0241.​2007.​01411.​x.CrossrefPubMed

43.

Colditz GA, Manson JE, Hankinson SE. The nurses’ health study: 20-year contribution to the understanding of health among women. J Womens Health. 1997;6(1):49–62. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1089/​jwh.​1997.​6.​49.CrossrefPubMed

44.

Jantchou P, Morois S, Clavel-Chapelon F, Boutron-Ruault M-C, Carbonnel F. Animal Protein intake and risk of inflammatory bowel disease: the E3N prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(10):2195–201. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​ajg.​2010.​192.CrossrefPubMed

45.

Le Leu RK, Young GP, Hu Y, Winter J, Conlon MA. Dietary red meat aggravates dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis in mice whereas resistant starch attenuates inflammation. Dig Dis Sci. 2013;58(12):3475–82. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10620-013-2844-1.CrossrefPubMed

46.

Li T, Qiu Y, Yang HS, Li MY, Zhuang XJ, Zhang SH, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: Association of a pre-illness Western dietary pattern with the risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease. J Dig Dis. 2020;21(7):362–71. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1751-2980.​12910.CrossrefPubMed

47.

Kim I-W, Myung S-J, Do MY, Ryu Y-M, Kim MJ, Do E-J, et al. Western-style diets induce macrophage infiltration and contribute to colitis-associated carcinogenesis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25(11):1785–94. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​j.​1440-1746.​2010.​06332.​x.CrossrefPubMed

48.

Nie J-Y, Zhao Q. Beverage consumption and risk of ulcerative colitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Medicine. 2017;96(49):e9070.Crossref

49.

Oz H, Chen T, de Villiers W. Green tea polyphenols and sulfasalazine have parallel Anti-inflammatory properties in colitis models. Front Immunol. 2013;4:132. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fimmu.​2013.​00132.CrossrefPubMed

50.

Piovani D, Danese S, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Nikolopoulos GK, Lytras T, Bonovas S. Environmental risk factors for inflammatory bowel diseases: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Gastroenterology. 2019;157(3):647–59.e4. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1053/​j.​gastro.​2019.​04.​016.CrossrefPubMed

51.

David LA, Maurice CF, Carmody RN, Gootenberg DB, Button JE, Wolfe BE, et al. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature. 2014;505(7484):559–63. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​nature12820.CrossrefPubMed

52.

Wu GD, Chen J, Hoffmann C, Bittinger K, Chen Y-Y, Keilbaugh SA, et al. Linking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes. Science (New York, NY). 2011;334(6052):105–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​science.​1208344.Crossref

53.

Andoh A, Inoue R, Kawada Y, Morishima S, Inatomi O, Ohno M, et al. Elemental diet induces alterations of the gut microbial community in mice. J Clin Biochem Nutr. 2019;65(2):118–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3164/​jcbn.​19-8.CrossrefPubMed

54.

McLaughlin SD, Culkin A, Cole J, Clark SK, Tekkis PP, Ciclitira PJ, et al. Exclusive elemental diet impacts on the gastrointestinal microbiota and improves symptoms in patients with chronic pouchitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2013;7(6):460–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​crohns.​2012.​07.​009.CrossrefPubMed

55.

Chen Y, Wang Y, Shen J. Role of environmental factors in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease: a critical review. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019;34(12):2023–34. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00384-019-03441-9.CrossrefPubMed

56.

To N, Gracie DJ, Ford AC. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the adverse effects of tobacco smoking on the natural history of crohn's disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;43(5):549–61. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​apt.​13511.CrossrefPubMed

57.

Oligschlaeger Y, Yadati T, Houben T, Condello Oliván CM, Shiri-Sverdlov R. Inflammatory bowel disease: a stressed gut/feeling. Cell. 2019;8(7):659. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​cells8070659.Crossref

58.

Bernstein CN. The brain-gut axis and stress in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2017;46(4):839–46. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​gtc.​2017.​08.​006.CrossrefPubMed

59.

Walker JR, Ediger JP, Graff LA, Greenfeld JM, Clara I, Lix