Evaluation of a New Monoclonal Chemiluminescent Immunoassay Stool Antigen Test for the Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Spanish Multicentre Study

The stool antigen test (SAT) represents an attractive alternative for detection of Helicobacter pylori. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of a new SAT, the automated LIAISON(R) Meridian H. pylori SA based on monoclonal antibodies, compared to the defined gold standard C-13-urea breath test (UBT). This prospective multicentre study (nine Spanish centres) enrolled patients >= 18 years of age with clinical indication to perform UBT for the initial diagnosis and for confirmation of bacterial eradication. Two UBT methods were used: mass spectrometry (MS) including citric acid (CA) or infrared spectrophotometry (IRS) without CA. Overall, 307 patients (145 naive, 162 with confirmation of eradication) were analysed. Using recommended cut-off values (negative SAT = 1.10) the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 67%, 97%, 86%, 92% and 91%, respectively, obtaining an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of 0.85. Twenty-eight patients, including seven false positives and 21 false negatives, presented a discordant result between SAT and UBT. Among the 21 false negatives, four of six tested with MS and 11 of 15 tested with IRS presented a borderline UBT delta value. In 25 discordant samples, PCR targeting H. pylori DNA was performed to re-assess positivity and SAT accuracy was re-analysed: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy and AUC were 94%, 97%, 86%, 99%, 97% and 0.96, respectively. The new LIAISON(R) Meridian H. pylori SA SAT showed a good accuracy for diagnosis of H. pylori infection

The safety of drugs for inflammatory bowel disease during pregnancy and breastfeeding: the DUMBO registry study protocol of GETECCU

Background: Active disease during conception and pregnancy in women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) increases the risk of pregnancy complications and adverse neonatal outcomes. The use of IBD treatments during pregnancy should be weighed against their adverse effects on the neonate, but longer-term safety data and data on serious infection rates and malignancies postnatally are lacking, particularly for newer drugs, such as tofacitinib, vedolizumab and ustekinumab. Methods: This ongoing, prospective registry study being conducted at 70 centres in Spain is enrolling pregnant women who are ⩾18 years, are at any point in pregnancy up to the end of the second trimester and have a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis or unclassified IBD. Patients will receive treatment decided independently by their IBD specialist. Each incident gestation will be followed up through pregnancy and the first 4 years postnatally. Three cohorts will be compared: biologicals exposed, immunomodulatory exposed and non-exposed. The primary endpoint is the risk of severe infection in newborns postnatally up to 4 years of age; other endpoints include serious adverse events (SAEs) such as pregnancy and delivery complications, neonatal SAEs, development [Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3 (ASQ3)], and malignancy incidence, up to 4 years of age. IBD specialists will collect maternal data (baseline/end of each trimester/1 month post-delivery), neonatal birth data, and the SAE and ASQ3 data in children exposed during pregnancy, reported every 3 months by the mother. Statistical analysis will include summary statistics for quantitative variables, comparisons of qualitative variables with significance set at p < 0.025 and a binary logistic regression model to determine the risk factors for severe infections. Results: Enrolment began in September 2019 and study completion is expected in September 2028. Conclusions: This prospective, controlled study will provide evidence on the long-term safety profile in children after intrauterine and lactation exposure to biological and immunomodulatory IBD treatments, including data on postnatal severe infections, development and malignancies. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03894228The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this work was funded by a grant from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III [grant number ICI9/00083]. Co-funded by FEDER fund

Fendrix vs Engerix-B for Primo-Vaccination Against Hepatitis B Infection in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

To compare Engerix-B and Fendrix hepatitis B virus for primo vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patients with IBD were randomized 1:1 to receive Engerix-B double dose or Fendrix single dose at months 0, 1, 2, and 6. Anti-HBs titers were measured 2 months after the third and fourth doses. Response to vaccination was defined as anti-HBs ≥100 UI/L. Anti-HBs titers were measured 2 months after the third and fourth doses and again at 6 and 12 months after the fourth dose. A total of 173 patients were randomized (54% received Engerix-B and 46% Fendrix). Overall, 45% of patients responded (anti-HBs ≥100 IU/L) after 3 doses and 71% after the fourth dose. The response rate after the fourth dose was 75% with Fendrix vs 68% with Engerix-B (P = 0.3). Older age and treatment with steroids, immunomodulators, or anti-tumor necrosis factor were associated with a lower probability of response. However, the type of vaccine was not associated with the response. Anti-HBs titer negativization occurred in 13% of patients after 6 months and 20% after 12 months. Anti-HBs ≥100 IU/L after vaccination was the only factor associated with maintaining anti-HBs titers during follow-up. We could not demonstrate a higher response rate of Fendrix (single dose) over Engerix-B (double dose). A 4-dose schedule is more effective than a 3-dose regimen. Older age and treatment with immunomodulators or anti-tumor necrosis factors impaired the success. A high proportion of IBD patients with protective anti-HBs titers after vaccination loose them over time. The risk of losing protective anti-HBs titers is increased in patients achieving anti-HB