EAES and SAGES 2018 consensus conference on acute diverticulitis management:evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice

Background Acute diverticulitis (AD) presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for general surgeons. This collaborative project between EAES and SAGES aimed to summarize recent evidence and draw statements of recommendation to guide our members on comprehensive AD management. Methods Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted across six AD topics by an international steering group including experts from both societies. Topics encompassed the epidemiology, diagnosis, management of non-complicated and complicated AD as well as emergency and elective operative AD management. Consensus statements and recommendations were generated, and the quality of the evidence and recommendation strength rated with the GRADE system. Modified Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus among experts prior to surveying the EAES and SAGES membership on the recommendations and likelihood to impact their practice. Results were presented at both EAES and SAGES annual meetings with live re-voting carried out for recommendations with < 70% agreement. Results A total of 51 consensus statements and 41 recommendations across all six topics were agreed upon by the experts and submitted for members’ online voting. Based on 1004 complete surveys and over 300 live votes at the SAGES and EAES Diverticulitis Consensus Conference (DCC), consensus was achieved for 97.6% (40/41) of recommendations with 92% (38/41) agreement on the likelihood that these recommendations would change practice if not already applied. Areas of persistent disagreement included the selective use of imaging to guide AD diagnosis, recommendations against antibiotics in non-complicated AD, and routine colonic evaluation after resolution of non-complicated diverticulitis. Conclusion This joint EAES and SAGES consensus conference updates clinicians on the current evidence and provides a set of recommendations that can guide clinical AD management practice

Efficacy and safety of colesevelam in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycemic control receiving insulin-based therapy

Poor glycemic control is a risk factor for microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Achieving glycemic control safely with insulin therapy can be challenging. A prospective, 16-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study conducted at 50 sites in the United States and 1 site in Mexico between August 12, 2004, and December 28, 2005. Subjects had type 2 diabetes mellitus that was not adequately controlled (glycated hemoglobin level, 7.5%-9.5%, inclusive) receiving insulin therapy alone or in combination with oral antidiabetes agents. In total 287 subjects (52% men; mean age, 57 years; with a mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level of 8.3%) were randomized: 147 to receive colesevelam hydrochloride, 3.75 g/d, and 140 to receive placebo. Using the least squares method, the mean (SE) change in glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 16 was -0.41% (0.07%) for the colesevelam-treated group and 0.09% (0.07%) for the placebo group (treatment difference, -0.50% [0.09%]; 95% confidence interval, -0.68% to -0.32%; P < .001). Consistent reductions in fasting plasma glucose and fructosamine levels, glycemic-control response rate, and lipid control measures were observed with colesevelam. As expected, the colesevelam-treated group had a 12.8% reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration relative to placebo (P < .001). Of recipients of colesevelam and placebo, respectively, 30 and 26 discontinued the study prematurely; 7 and 9 withdrew because of protocol-specified hyperglycemia, and 10 and 4 withdrew because of adverse events. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Colesevelam treatment seems to be safe and effective for improving glycemic control and lipid management in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving insulin-based therapy, and it may provide a novel treatment for improving dual cardiovascular risk factors

A 26-week, placebo- and pioglitazone-controlled, dose-ranging study of rivoglitazone, a novel thiazolidinedione for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Abstract Objective: To examine the efficacy and general safety of rivoglitazone, a novel thiazolidinedione, as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in a dose-ranging study over a period of up to 6 months. Research design and methods: A 26-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active comparator (pioglitazone 45 mg)-controlled study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily rivoglitazone 1, 2, or 3 mg in subjects with type 2 diabetes. The study was conducted in adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.0% and <10.5%) who were either naïve to prior antidiabetes drug treatment or discontinued pre-study antidiabetes medications and were switched to study medication. A total of 441 subjects were randomized, using an equal allocation schedule to one of five treatment arms, including placebo. The primary efficacy measurement was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 in the intent-to-treat population (last observation carried forward), for drug treatments minus placebo (placebo-subtracted). Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00143520 Results: The incidence of early discontinuations was >50%, with most cases being related to a lack of efficacy (highest on placebo) or adverse experiences (highest on rivoglitazone 3 mg). Rivoglitazone 1, 2, and 3 mg and pioglitazone 45 mg were more effective than placebo in reducing HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (placebo-subtracted change from baseline: −0.55% [p = 0.0034], −0.99% [p < 0.0001], −1.10% [p < 0.0001], and −0.59% [p = 0.0016], respectively). In general, all treatments were safe. The most common drug-related adverse events reported with rivoglitazone were peripheral edema and weight gain; incidences increased with dose and were higher with rivoglitazone 2 and 3 mg than with pioglitazone or rivoglitazone 1 mg. Conclusions: Rivoglitazone is a potent thiazolidinedione agent with demonstrated glycemic benefits over a 6-month period in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Once-daily doses of 1, 2, and 3 mg rivoglitazone demonstrated HbA1c reduction similar or superior to those observed for pioglitazone 45 mg. Limitations in generalizing from this study include a modest sample size and a high rate of discontinuation prior to the last scheduled visit

Randomised clinical trial: a placebo-controlled study of subcutaneous or intradermal NEXVAX2, an investigational immunomodulatory peptide therapy for coeliac disease

Background Nexvax2 contains three gluten-derived peptides, intended to tolerize coeliac disease patients to gluten. Sequences cover six epitopes that trigger immune activation in human leucocyte antigen-DQ2.5-positive patients, most notably after an initial dose. Patients experience gastrointestinal symptoms with increases in serum interleukin-2. Consistent with Nexvax2's induction of non-responsiveness, reactivity disappears after repeated doses, or is avoided with gradual dose escalation. Early clinical trials used intradermal dosing, but pharmacokinetics and rapid onset of effect suggest that subcutaneous delivery may also be effective. Aims To document the relative bioavailability of Nevax2 peptides after subcutaneous and intradermal dosing, and the tolerability and ability of subcutaneous dosing to induce non-responsiveness to Nexvax2 peptides. Methods A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to assess plasma pharmacokinetics after subcutaneous and intradermal Nexvax2 dosing in HLA DQ2.5-positive patients, who had symptoms after an oral gluten challenge. Randomisation was to semi-weekly Nexvax2 (n = 12) or placebo (n = 2) injections, over a 5-week subcutaneous dose escalation and 2-week maintenance period, the latter with four doses of 900 mu g, two subcutaneous and two intradermal. Post-dose circulating peptide and interleukin-2 levels were assessed. Investigators recorded adverse events experienced by patients. Results Subcutaneous dosing resulted in slightly greater exposure. Interleukin-2 responses were seen with the gluten challenge but not after subcutaneous or intradermal dosing of 900 mu g. Adverse events were generally mild and self-limited. Conclusions Subcutaneous and intradermal dosing of Nexvax2 yield similar bioavailability of constituent peptides; subcutaneous dose escalation avoids an immune response to dominant gluten epitopes