Search

ObjectiveColon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has shown promise for colorectal neoplasia detection compared with optical colonoscopy (OC), but has not been compared with other screening tests in average risk screening patients.DesignPatients 50 to 75 years of age (African Americans, 45–75 years) were randomised to CCE or CT colonography (CTC) and subsequent blinded OC. The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield of polyps ≥6 mm with CCE or CTC. Secondary endpoints included accuracy for size and histology, examination completeness, number/proportion of subjects with polyps and adenomas ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, subject satisfaction and safety.ResultsFrom 320 enrolled subjects, data from 286 (89.4%) were evaluable. The proportion of subjects with any polyp ≥6 mm confirmed by OC was 31.6% for CCE versus 8.6% for CTC (pPr non-inferiority and superiority=0.999). The diagnostic yield of polyps ≥10 mm was 13.5% with CCE versus 6.3% with CTC (pPr non-inferiority=0.9954). The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥6 mm was 79.2% and 96.3% while that of CTC was 26.8% and 98.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥10 mm was 85.7% and 98.2% compared with 50% and 99.1% for CTC. Both tests were well tolerated/safe.ConclusionCCE was superior to CTC for detection of polyps ≥6 mm and non-inferior for identification of polyps ≥10 mm. CCE should be considered comparable or superior to CTC as a colorectal neoplasia screening test, although neither test is as effective as OC.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02754661.

AIM To assess the cleansing efficacy and safety of a new Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) bowel preparation regimen. METHODS This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing two CCE regimens. Subjects were asymptomatic and average risk for colorectal cancer. The second generation CCE system (PillCam® COLON 2; Medtronic, Yoqneam, Israel) was utilized. Preparation regimens differed in the 1st and 2nd boosts with the Study regimen using oral sulfate solution (89 mL) with diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution ("diatrizoate solution") (boost 1 = 60 mL, boost 2 = 30 mL) and the Control regimen oral sulfate solution (89 mL) alone. The primary outcome was overall and segmental colon cleansing. Secondary outcomes included safety, polyp detection, colonic transit, CCE completion and capsule excretion ≤ 12 h. RESULTS Both regimens had similar cleansing efficacy for the whole colon (Adequate: Study = 75.9%, Control = 77.3%; P = 0.88) and individual segments. In the Study group, CCE completion was superior (Study = 90.9%, Control = 76.9%; P = 0.048) and colonic transit was more often < 40 min (Study = 21.8%, Control = 4%; P = 0.0073). More Study regimen subjects experienced adverse events (Study = 19.4%, Control = 3.4%; P = 0.0061), and this difference did not appear related to diatrizoate solution. Adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature and no serious adverse events related either to the bowel preparation regimen or the capsule were observed. There was a trend toward higher polyp detection with the Study regimen, but this did not achieve statistical significance for any size category. Mean transit time through the entire gastrointestinal tract, from ingestion to excretion, was shorter with the Study regimen while mean colonic transit times were similar for both study groups. CONCLUSION A CCE bowel preparation regimen using oral sulfate solution and diatrizoate solution as a boost agent is effective, safe, and achieved superior CCE completion.

IntroductionCrohn’s disease diagnosis and monitoring remains a great clinical challenge and often requires multiple testing modalities. Assessing Crohn’s disease activity in the entire gastrointestinal (GI) tract using a panenteric capsule endoscopy (CE) system could be used as an alternative to colonoscopy and cross-sectional imaging. This study assessed the accuracy and safety of panenteric CE in Crohn’s disease as compared with ileocolonoscopy (IC) and/or magnetic resonance enterography (MRE).MethodsA prospective, multicentre study was performed in subjects with established Crohn’s disease. Individuals with proven small bowel patency underwent a standardised bowel preparation, followed by CE ingestion and IC either the same or following day. MRE, IC, and CE interpretations were performed by blinded central readers using validated scoring systems. The primary endpoint was the overall sensitivity of CE vs MRE and/or IC in Crohn’s disease subjects.ResultsStudy enrolment included 158 subjects from 21 sites in the USA, Austria, and Israel. Of those, 99 were included in the analysis. Imaging modality scores indicated none to mild inflammation in the proximal small bowel and colon, but discrepant levels of inflammation in the terminal ileum. Overall sensitivity for active enteric inflammation (CE vs MRE and/or IC) was 94% vs 100% (p=0.125) and specificity was 74% vs 22% (p=0.001). Sensitivity of CE was superior to MRE for enteric inflammation in the proximal small bowel (97% vs 71%, p=0.021), and similar to MRE and/or IC in the terminal ileum and colon (p=0.500–0.625). There were seven serious adverse advents of which three were related to the CE device.ConclusionPanenteric CE is a reliable tool for assessing Crohn’s disease mucosal activity and extent compared with more invasive methods. This study demonstrates high performance of the panenteric CE as compared to MRE and/or IC without the need for multiple tests in non-stricturing Crohn’s disease.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov NCT03241368

In phase III studies, treatment with the once-daily fixed-dose combination tablet of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) with and without ribavirin (RBV) resulted in high rates of sustained virological response (SVR) in patients chronically infected with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus, including those with compensated cirrhosis. We conducted an analysis of data from these trials to compare the safety and tolerability profile of LDV-SOF with and without RBV. We analyzed treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities in patients who were randomized to 8, 12, and 24 weeks of LDV/SOF with or without RBV. In total, data from 1,952 patients (of whom 872 received LDV/SOF with RBV and 1,080 received LDV/SOF alone) were analyzed. Overall, 308 patients (16%) were African American, 224 (11%) had compensated cirrhosis, 501 (26%) had a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, and 440 (23%) were treatment experienced. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 71% and 45% of patients treated with and without RBV, respectively, including fatigue, insomnia, irritability, and rash/pruritus. Patients receiving RBV with LDV/SOF were more likely to require dose modification, interruptions of treatment resulting from AEs, or require the use of concomitant medications than those receiving LDV/SOF alone. Rates of treatment-related serious AEs and discontinuations resulting from AEs were similarly low (

BACKGROUND Resistance to direct-acting antivirals represents a new challenge in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. METHODS SPRINT-1 was a randomized study of treatment-naive patients with genotype (G) 1 hepatitis C infection (n=595) that evaluated the safety and efficacy of boceprevir (BOC) when added to pegylated interferon-α2b plus ribavirin (PR). Plasma samples collected at protocol-specified visits were analysed by population sequencing for detection of BOC-associated resistance-associated variants (RAVs). RESULTS A total of 17/24 (71%) patients randomized to BOC with baseline RAVs achieved sustained virological response (SVR). V55A/I (n=14), Q41H (n=11) and T54S (n=9) were the most frequently detected polymorphisms at baseline. Seven non-SVR patients with baseline RAVs had V55A (relapse, n=3; breakthrough, n=1; and non-response, n=1) and/or R155K (non-response, n=2). In total, 63/144 (44%) patients with sequenced post-baseline samples (2 SVR, 61 non-SVR) had detectable RAVs after BOC treatment (G1a: R155K [39/49; 80%], V36M [37/49; 76%] and T54S [24/49; 49%]; G1b: T54S [3/11; 27%], T54A [4/11; 35%], A156S [2/11; 18%] and V170A [2/11; 18%]). RAV frequency varied according to the virological response: 90%, 67%, 27% and 37% of breakthrough, incomplete virological response, relapse and non-responder patients, respectively, had post-baseline RAVs present. Similar RAVs were identified in both the PR lead-in and no-lead-in arms and the frequency of post-baseline RAVs was highest in the low-dose ribavirin arm. CONCLUSIONS SVR rates were not compromised among patients with RAVs at baseline; however, a lower starting mg/kg dose of ribavirin was associated with a higher frequency of post-baseline RAVs.

Background & Aims Studies are needed to determine the optimal regimen for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2, 3, 4, or 6 infections whose prior course of antiviral therapy has failed, and the feasibility of shortening treatment duration. We performed a phase 2 study to determine the efficacy and safety of the combination of the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir, the NS5A inhibitor velpatasvir, and the NS3/4A protease inhibitor GS-9857 in these patients. Methods We performed a multicenter, open-label trial at 32 sites in the United States and 2 sites in New Zealand from March 3, 2015 to April 27, 2015. Our study included 128 treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients (1 with HCV genotype 1b; 33 with HCV genotype 2; 74 with HCV genotype 3; 17 with genotype HCV 4; and 3 with HCV genotype 6), with or without compensated cirrhosis. All patients received sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (400 mg/100 mg fixed-dose combination tablet) and GS-9857 (100 mg) once daily for 6–12 weeks. The primary end point was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12). Results After 6 weeks of treatment, SVR12s were achieved by 88% of treatment-naive patients without cirrhosis (29 of 33; 95% confidence interval, 72%–97%). After 8 weeks of treatment, SVR12s were achieved by 93% of treatment-naive patients with cirrhosis (28 of 30; 95% CI, 78%–99%). After 12 weeks of treatment, SVR12s were achieved by all treatment-experienced patients without cirrhosis (36 of 36; 95% CI, 90%–100%) and 97% of treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis (28 of 29; 95% CI, 82%–100%). The most common adverse events were headache, diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea. Three patients (1%) discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Conclusions In a phase 2 open-label trial, we found sofosbuvir-velpatasvir plus GS-9857 (8 weeks in treatment-naive patients or 12 weeks in treatment-experienced patients) to be safe and effective for patients with HCV genotype 2, 3, 4, or 6 infections, with or without compensated cirrhosis. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02378961.

This prospective, multicenter, community-based and academic-based, open-label, investigator-initiated, U.S. study evaluated efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) alfa-2b plus a flat or weight-based dose of ribavirin (RBV) in adults with chronic hepatitis C. Patients (n = 5027) were randomly assigned to receive PEG-IFN alfa-2b 1.5 μg/kg/week plus flat-dose (800 mg/day) or weight-based (800-1400 mg/day) RBV for 48 weeks (patients with genotype 1, 4, 5, or 6) and for 24 or 48 weeks (genotype 2/3 patients). Primary end point was sustained virologic response (undetectable [

BACKGROUND High rates of sustained virologic response were observed among patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection who received 12 weeks of treatment with the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir combined with the NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir. This study examined 8 weeks of treatment with this regimen. METHODS In this phase 3, open-label study, we randomly assigned 647 previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1 infection without cirrhosis to receive ledipasvir and sofosbuvir (ledipasvir–sofosbuvir) for 8 weeks, ledipasvir–sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 8 weeks, or ledipasvir–sofosbuvir for 12 weeks. The primary end point was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS The rate of sustained virologic response was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90 to 97) with 8 weeks of ledipasvir–sofosbuvir, 93% (95% CI, 89 to 96) with 8 weeks of ledipasvir–sofosbuvir plus ribavirin, and 95% (95% CI, 92 to 98) with 12 weeks of ledipasvir–sofosbuvir. As compared with the rate of sustained virologic response in the group that received 8 weeks of ledipasvir–sofosbuvir, the rate in the 12-week group was 1 percentage point higher (97.5% CI, −4 to 6) and the rate in the group that received 8 weeks of ledipasvir–sofosbuvir with ribavirin was 1 percentage point lower (95% CI, −6 to 4); these results indicated noninferiority of the 8-week ledipas vir–sofosbuvir regimen, on the basis of a noninferiority margin of 12 percentage points. Adverse events were more common in the group that received ribavirin than in the other two groups. No patient who received 8 weeks of only ledipasvir–sofosbuvir discontinued treatment owing to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS Ledipasvir–sofosbuvir for 8 weeks was associated with a high rate of sustained virologic response among previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1 infection without cirrhosis. No additional benefit was associated with the inclusion of ribavirin in the regimen or with extension of the duration of treatment to 12 weeks. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; ION-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01851330.)

A randomized, controlled trial was performed to compare the diagnostic yields and cost-effectiveness of two strategies for the evaluation of nonemergent lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Three hundred eighty patients aged greater than or equal to 40 yr were randomized to undergo initial flexible sigmoidoscopy plus air contrast barium enema or colonoscopy; 332 completed the initial studies. Initial colonoscopy detected more cases of polyps less than 9 mm in size, adenomas, and arteriovenous malformations but fewer cases of diverticulosis. No significant difference was found between strategies in the number of patients detected with cancers or polyps greater than or equal to 9 mm in size. In both strategies, cancers were more common in subjects aged greater than or equal to 55 yr (8% overall) than in those aged less than 55 yr (1%). Among patients aged less than 55 yr with suspected lower gastrointestinal bleeding, initial flexible sigmoidoscopy plus air contrast barium enema is a more cost-effective strategy for the detection of colonic neoplasms than initial colonoscopy. However, initial colonoscopy is more cost effective for those aged greater than or equal to 55 yr.

Chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura is an autoimmune disorder in which the destruction of autologous platelets is mediated by autoantibodies directed against platelet-surface constituents.1 Glycoproteins IIb and IIIa, which exist in the platelet membrane in a 1:1 complex (IIb-IIIa), appear to be the main target molecules for these autoantibodies.2 3 4 The destruction of autologous platelets is thought to result from the ingestion of autoantibody-coated platelets by phagocytic cells in the spleen and other organs.1 The functional state of the reticuloendothelial system may influence the rate of cell destruction in individual patients.5 We recently encountered a patient who had severe, life-threatening thrombocytopenia after . . .

Ninety-seven patients with recent or active variceal bleeding were randomly assigned to oral propranolol, endoscopic sclerotherapy plus oral propranolol, or transhepatic sclerotherapy plus oral propranolol. The effects of treatment on the number of units transfused, rebleeding of any magnitude, major rebleeding, and death were assessed in these patients, 82% of whom were alcoholic and 81% Child's Class C. After a minimum follow-up interval of 2 yr (range, 27-65 mo), major rebleeding rates were 65% for propranolol alone, 45% for endoscopic sclerotherapy plus propranolol, and 60% for transhepatic sclerotherapy plus propranolol. The corresponding death rates were 81% for propranolol alone, 55% for endoscopic sclerotherapy plus propranolol, and 66% for transhepatic sclerotherapy plus propranolol (p = 0.03). Thirty-three patients (34%) never received propranolol; 8 due to medical contraindications and 25 because they died or bled enough to meet the definition of treatment failure within 3 or 4 days of randomizations (no significant differences among treatment groups). Patients assigned to propranolol alone bled sooner, bled more units, and had a higher mortality rate than patients treated by endoscopic sclerotherapy plus propranolol. Patients treated with transhepatic sclerotherapy plus propranolol had intermediate results. Propranolol alone is inadequate treatment for esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with advanced liver disease.