Search

Background & Aims: Video capsule endoscopy (CE) provides a noninvasive option to assess the small intestine, but its use with respect to endoscopic procedures and cross-sectional imaging varies widely. The aim of this consensus was to provide guidance on the appropriate use of CE in clinical practice., Methods: A systematic literature search identified studies on the use of CE in patients with Crohn's disease, celiac disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, and anemia. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Results: The consensus includes 21 statements focused on the use of small-bowel CE and colon capsule endoscopy. CE was recommended for patients with suspected, known, or relapsed Crohn's disease when ileocolonoscopy and imaging studies were negative if it was imperative to know whether active Crohn's disease was present in the small bowel. It was not recommended in patients with chronic abdominal pain or diarrhea, in whom there was no evidence of abnormal biomarkers typically associated with Crohn's disease. CE was recommended to assess patients with celiac disease who have unexplained symptoms despite appropriate treatment, but not to make the diagnosis. In patients with overt gastrointestinal bleeding, and negative findings on esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, CE should be performed as soon as possible. CE was recommended only in selected patients with unexplained, mild, chronic iron-deficiency anemia. CE was suggested for surveillance in patients with polyposis syndromes or other small-bowel cancers, who required small-bowel studies. Colon capsule endoscopy should not be substituted routinely for colonoscopy. Patients should be made aware of the potential risks of CE including a failed procedure, capsule retention, or a missed lesion. Finally, standardized criteria for training and reporting in CE should be defined., Conclusions: CE generally should be considered a complementary test in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, Crohn's disease, or celiac disease, who have had negative or inconclusive endoscopic or imaging studies., (Copyright © 2017 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Methotrexate and infliximab are effective therapies for Crohn's disease (CD). In the combination of maintenance methotrexate-infliximab trial, we evaluated the potential superiority of combination therapy over infliximab alone., Methods: In a 50-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we compared methotrexate and infliximab with infliximab alone in 126 patients with CD who had initiated prednisone induction therapy (15-40 mg/day) within the preceding 6 weeks. Patients were assigned randomly to groups given methotrexate at an initial weekly dose of 10 mg, escalating to 25 mg/week (n = 63), or placebo (n = 63). Both groups received infliximab (5 mg/kg of body weight) at weeks 1, 3, 7, and 14, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Prednisone was tapered, beginning at week 1, and discontinued no later than week 14. The primary outcome was time to treatment failure, defined as a lack of prednisone-free remission (CD Activity Index, <150) at week 14 or failure to maintain remission through week 50., Results: Patients' baseline characteristics were similar between groups. By week 50, the actuarial rate of treatment failure was 30.6% in the combination therapy group compared with 29.8% in the infliximab monotherapy group (P = .63; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.17). Prespecified subgroup analyses failed to show a benefit in patients with short disease duration or an increased level of C-reactive protein. No clinically meaningful differences were observed in secondary outcomes. Combination therapy was well tolerated., Conclusions: The combination of infliximab and methotrexate, although safe, was no more effective than infliximab alone in patients with CD receiving treatment with prednisone. ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT00132899., (Copyright © 2014 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)