Ulcerative proctitis: an update on the pharmacotherapy and management.

Introduction: Ulcerative colitis (UC) presents as proctitis in approximately a quarter of the patients. It may progress into left-sided or extensive colitis in up to 50% of cases upon long-term follow-up.Areas covered: Currently available data on ulcerative proctitis are summarized and critically reviewed. Extensive literature search (MEDLINE) was performed to identify relevant articles up to March 2014.Expert opinion: The short-term goal of the treatment in UC is to induce remission, whereas long-term goals are to maintain remission and prevent disease progression. Topically administered 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) and corticosteroids are effective in the treatment of proctitis, although they seem to be underused in everyday practice. Locally administered 5-ASA preparations are more effective than oral compounds. The combination of topical and oral 5-ASA and steroids should be considered for escalation of treatment. Refractory patients should be re-evaluated to exclude for compliance failures, infections or proximal disease extent. True refractory or steroid-dependent patients may require immunomodulators or biological therapy. Alternative medicine can be used complementarily, while experimental approaches are reserved for patients failing conventional medication. Proctocolectomy may be the last resort of treatment. Upon long-term, 5-ASA maintenance treatment is indicated in all UC cases to prevent relapse and disease progression

Clinical relevance of endoscopic peri-appendiceal red patch in ulcerative colitis patients.

Background Increasing evidence is suggesting appendectomy as an alternative treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC), especially in case of histological appendiceal inflammation. Therefore, preoperative identification of appendiceal inflammation could be beneficial. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of peri-appendiceal red patch (PARP) on colonoscopy. In addition, prognostic relevance of PARP for disease course and its predictive value for histological appendiceal inflammation in patients undergoing appendectomy was assessed. Methods UC patients undergoing colonoscopy in 2014/2015 were included to determine PARP-prevalence in a cross-sectional study. Findings were correlated to patient and disease characteristics, upscaling of treatment and colectomy rates after cross-sectional colonoscopy. In patients undergoing appendiceal resection, histopathological inflammation was assessed using the Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI). Results In total, 249 patients were included of which 17.7% (44/249) had a PARP. Patients with PARP were significantly younger with a shorter disease course. The majority of patients with PARP (61.4%) was in endoscopic remission. Patients with PARP required more upscaling of medical therapy (81.8% vs. 58.0%, p < 0.01), and more PARP patients underwent colectomy (13.6% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.04). Patients with PARP had a higher median RHI in resection specimens (14 vs. 7, p < 0.01). Conclusion PARP was present during colonoscopy regardless disease activity and was predominantly found in UC patients with younger age and shorter disease duration. PARP patients had a more severe course of UC, and in case of appendectomy, more severe histopathological appendiceal inflammation. Appendectomy as an experimental therapy for UC has been suggested to be predominantly effective in UC patients with appendiceal inflammation. This study demonstrates that presence of a PARP on colonoscopy predicts appendiceal inflammation. After consensus has been reached on the therapeutic effect of appendectomy, assessing PARP presence during colonoscopy could therefore contribute to identifying patients most likely to respond

The burden of Clostridium difficile infection between 2010 and 2013: trends and outcomes from an academic center in Eastern Europe

Modeling is now an essential ingredient in business process management and information systems development. The general usefulness of models in these areas is therefore generally accepted. It is also undisputed that the quality of the models has a significant impact on their usefulness. In the literature we can find any number of quality metrics, but hardly any study that investigates their relation with (perceived) usefulness and none that considers their relative impact on usefulness. We take a look at some of the most frequent quality dimensions and their relative impact on the perceived usefulness of models

Endoscopic tissue sampling - Part 2 : Lower gastrointestinal tract. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE suggests performing segmental biopsies (at least two from each segment), which should be placed in different specimen containers (ileum, cecum, ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon, and rectum) in patients with clinical and endoscopic signs of colitis.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends taking two biopsies from the right hemicolon (ascending and transverse colon) and, in a separate container, two biopsies from the left hemicolon (descending and sigmoid colon) when microscopic colitis is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends pancolonic dye-based chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies of any visible lesions during surveillance endoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE suggests that, in high risk patients with a history of colonic neoplasia, tubular-appearing colon, strictures, ongoing therapy-refractory inflammation, or primary sclerosing cholangitis, chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies can be combined with four-quadrant non-targeted biopsies every 10 cm along the colon. Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, if pouch surveillance for dysplasia is performed, visible abnormalities should be biopsied, with at least two biopsies systematically taken from each of the afferent ileal loop, the efferent blind loop, the pouch, and the anorectal cuff.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends that, in patients with known ulcerative colitis and endoscopic signs of inflammation, at least two biopsies be obtained from the worst affected areas for the assessment of activity or the presence of cytomegalovirus; for those with no evident endoscopic signs of inflammation, advanced imaging technologies may be useful in identifying areas for targeted biopsies to assess histologic remission if this would have therapeutic consequences. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 7: ESGE suggests not biopsying endoscopically visible inflammation or normal-appearing mucosa to assess disease activity in known Crohn's disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that adequately assessed colorectal polyps that are judged to be premalignant should be fully excised rather than biopsied.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends that, where endoscopically feasible, potentially malignant colorectal polyps should be excised en bloc rather than being biopsied. If the endoscopist cannot confidently perform en bloc excision at that time, careful representative images (rather than biopsies) should be taken of the potential focus of cancer, and the patient should be rescheduled or referred to an expert center.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that, in malignant lesions not amenable to endoscopic excision owing to deep invasion, six carefully targeted biopsies should be taken from the potential focus of cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence

Patients Undergoing Ileoanal Pouch Surgery Experience a Constellation of Symptoms and Consequences Representing a Unique Syndrome: A Report from the Patient-Reported Outcomes After Pouch Surgery (PROPS) Delphi Consensus Study

Functional outcomes after ileoanal pouch creation have been studied; however, there is great variability in how relevant outcomes are defined and reported. More importantly, the perspective of patients has not been represented in deciding which outcomes should be the focus of research.The primary aim was to create a patient-centered definition of core symptoms that should be included in future studies of pouch function.This was a Delphi consensus study.Three rounds of surveys were used to select high-priority items. Survey voting was followed by a series of online patient consultation meetings used to clarify voting trends. A final online consensus meeting with representation from all 3 expert panels was held to finalize a consensus statement.Expert stakeholders were chosen to correlate with the clinical scenario of the multidisciplinary team that cares for pouch patients, including patients, colorectal surgeons, and gastroenterologists or other clinicians.A consensus statement was the main outcome.patients, 62 colorectal surgeons, and 48 gastroenterologists or nurse specialists completed all 3 Delphi rounds. Fifty-three patients participated in online focus groups. One hundred sixty-one stakeholders participated in the final consensus meeting. On conclusion of the consensus meeting, 7 bowel symptoms and 7 consequences of undergoing ileoanal pouch surgery were included in the final consensus statement.The study was limited by online recruitment bias.This study is the first to identify key functional outcomes after pouch surgery with direct input from a large panel of ileoanal pouch patients. The inclusion of patients in all stages of the consensus process allowed for a true patient-centered approach in defining the core domains that should be focused on in future studies of pouch function. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B571.Un Informe de los Resultados Reportados por los Pacientes Posterior a la Cirugía de Reservorio (PROPS) Estudio de Consenso DelphiANTECEDENTES:Los resultados funcionales después de la creación del reservorio ileoanal han sido estudiados; sin embargo, existe una gran variabilidad en la forma en que se definen y reportan los resultados relevantes. Más importante aún, la perspectiva de los pacientes no se ha representado a la hora de decidir qué resultados deberían ser el foco de investigación.OBJETIVO:El objetivo principal era crear en el paciente una definición centrada de los síntomas principales que debería incluirse en los estudios futuros de la función del reservorio.DISEÑO:Estudio de consenso Delphi.ENTORNO CLINICO:Se emplearon tres rondas de encuestas para seleccionar elementos de alta prioridad. La votación de la encuesta fue seguida por una serie de reuniones de consulta de pacientes en línea que se utilizan para aclarar las tendencias de votación. Se realizo una reunión de consenso final en línea con representación de los tres paneles de expertos para finalizar una declaración de consenso.PACIENTES:Se eligieron partes interesadas expertas para correlacionar con el escenario clínico del equipo multidisciplinario que atiende a los pacientes con reservorio: pacientes, cirujanos colorrectales, gastroenterólogos / otros médicos.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Declaración de consenso.RESULTADOS:Ciento noventa y cinco pacientes, 62 cirujanos colorrectales y 48 gastroenterólogos / enfermeras especialistas completaron las tres rondas Delphi. 53 pacientes participaron en grupos focales en línea. 161 interesados participaron en la reunión de consenso final. Al concluir la reunión de consenso, siete síntomas intestinales y siete consecuencias de someterse a una cirugía de reservorio ileoanal se incluyeron en la declaración de consenso final.LIMITACIONES:Sesgo de reclutamiento en línea.CONCLUSIONES:Este estudio es el primero en identificar resultados funcionales claves después de la cirugía de reservorio con información directa de un gran panel de pacientes con reservorio ileoanal. La inclusión de pacientes en todas las etapas del proceso de consenso permitió un verdadero enfoque centrado en el paciente para definir los dominios principales en los que debería centrarse los estudios futuros de la función del reservorio. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B571

Patients Undergoing Ileoanal Pouch Surgery Experience a Constellation of Symptoms and Consequences Representing a Unique Syndrome: A Report From the Patient-Reported Outcomes After Pouch Surgery (PROPS) Delphi Consensus Study

The primary aim was to create a patient-centered definition of core symptoms that should be included in future studies of pouch function.Functional outcomes after ileoanal pouch creation have been studied; however, there is great variability in how relevant outcomes are defined and reported. More importantly, the perspective of patients has not been represented in deciding which outcomes should be the focus of research.Expert stakeholders were chosen to correlate with the clinical scenario of the multidisciplinary team that cares for pouch patients: patients, colorectal surgeons, gastroenterologists/other clinicians. Three rounds of surveys were employed to select high-priority items. Survey voting was followed by a series of online patient consultation meetings used to clarify voting trends. A final online consensus meeting with representation from all 3 expert panels was held to finalize a consensus statement.One hundred ninety-five patients, 62 colorectal surgeons, and 48 gastroenterologists/nurse specialists completed all 3 Delphi rounds. Fifty-three patients participated in online focus groups. One hundred sixty-one stakeholders participated in the final consensus meeting. On conclusion of the consensus meeting, 7 bowel symptoms and 7 consequences of undergoing ileoanal pouch surgery were included in the final consensus statement.This study is the first to identify key functional outcomes after pouch surgery with direct input from a large panel of ileoanal pouch patients. The inclusion of patients in all stages of the consensus process allowed for a true patient-centered approach in defining the core domains that should be focused on in future studies of pouch function

Defining Transabdominal Intestinal Ultrasound Treatment Response and Remission in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review and Expert Consensus Statement

Background and Aims No consensus exists on defining intestinal ultrasound response, transmural healing, or transmural remission in inflammatory bowel disease, nor clear guidance for optimal timing of assessment during treatment. This systematic review and expert consensus study aimed to define such recommendations, along with key parameters included in response reporting. Methods Electronic databases were searched from inception to July 26, 2021, using pre-defined terms. Studies were eligible if at least two intestinal ultrasound [IUS] assessments at different time points during treatment were reported, along with an appropriate reference standard. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to examine study-level risk of bias. An international panel of experts [n = 18] rated an initial 196 statements [RAND/UCLA process, scale 1–9]. Two videoconferences were conducted, resulting in additional ratings of 149 and 13 statements, respectively. Results Out of 5826 records, 31 full-text articles, 16 abstracts, and one research letter were included; 83% [40/48] of included studies showed a low concern of applicability, and 96% [46/48] had a high risk of bias. A consensus was reached on 41 statements, with clear definitions of IUS treatment response, transmural healing, transmural remission, timing of assessment, and general considerations when using intestinal ultrasound in inflammatory bowel disease. Conclusions Response criteria and time points of response assessment varied between studies, complicating direct comparison of parameter changes and their relation to treatment outcomes. To ensure a unified approach in routine care and clinical trials, we provide recommendations and definitions for key parameters for intestinal ultrasound response, to incorporate into future prospective studies.publishedVersio

Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar infliximab CT-P13 treatment in inflammatory bowel diseases: a prospective, multicentre, nationwide cohort

Background and Aims: Biosimilar infliximab CT-P13 is approved for all indications of the originator product in Europe. Prospective data on its efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in inflammatory bowel diseases are lacking. Methods: A prospective, nationwide, multicentre, observational cohort was designed to examine the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of CT-P13 infliximab biosimilar in the induction treatment of Crohn’s disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC]. Demographic data were collected and a harmonised monitoring strategy was applied. Early clinical remission, response, and early biochemical response were evaluated at Week 14, steroid-free clinical remission was evaluated at Week 30. Therapeutic drug level was monitored using a conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results: In all, 210 consecutive inflammatory bowel disease [126 CD and 84 UC] patients were included in the present cohort. At Week 14, 81.4% of CD and 77.6% of UC patients showed clinical response and 53.6% of CD and 58.6% of UC patients were in clinical remission. Clinical remission rates at Week 14 were significantly higher in CD and UC patients who were infliximab naïve, compared with those with previous exposure to the originator compound [ p < 0.05]. Until Week 30, adverse events were experienced in 17.1% of all patients. Infusion reactions and infectious adverse events occurred in 6.6% and 5.7% of all patients, respectively. Conclusions: This prospective multicentre cohort shows that CT-P13 is safe and effective in the induction of clinical remission and response in both CD and UC. Patients with previous infliximab exposure exhibited decreased response rates and were more likely to develop allergic reactions

Prediction of short- and medium-term efficacy of biosimilar infliximab therapy. Do trough levels/antidrug antibody levels or clinical/biochemical markers play a more important role?

K