Search

Abstract Background Stenosis is one of the most common complications in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD). Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) is the treatment of choice for a short stenosis adjacent to the anastomosis from previous surgery. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) may be a suitable treatment option for longer stenoses. To date, however, there is no scientific evidence as to whether endoscopic (EBD/SEMS) or surgical treatment is the best approach for de novo or primary stenoses that are less than 10 cm in length. Methods/design Exploratory study as “proof-of-concept”, multicentre, open-label, randomized trial of the treatment of de novo stenosis in the CD; endoscopic treatment (EBD/SEMS) vs surgical resection (SR). The type of endoscopic treatment will initially be with EDB; if a therapeutic failure occurs, then a SEMS will be placed. We estimate 2 years of recruitment and 1 year of follow-up for the assessment of quality of life, costs, complications, and clinical recurrence. After the end of the study, patients will be followed up for 3 years to re-evaluate the variables over the long term. Forty patients with de novo stenosis in CD will be recruited from 15 hospitals in Spain and will be randomly assigned to the endoscopic or surgical treatment groups. The primary aim will be the evaluation of the patient quality of life at 1 year follow-up (% of patients with an increase of 30 points in the 32-item Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ-32). The secondary aim will be evaluation of the clinical recurrence rate, complications, and costs of both treatments at 1-year follow-up. Discussion The ENDOCIR trial has been designed to determine whether an endoscopic or surgical approach is therapeutically superior in the treatment of de novo stenosis in CD. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 04330846. Registered on 1 April 1 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home

Background: Infliximab seems to be the most efficacious of the three available anti-TNF agents for ulcerative colitis (UC) but little is known when it is used as the second anti-TNF. Objectives: To compare the clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC patients. Design: Retrospective observational study. Methods: Patients from the ENEIDA registry treated consecutively with infliximab and a subcutaneous anti-TNF (or vice versa), naïve to other biological agents, were identified and grouped according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF into IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially). Results: Overall, 473 UC patients were included (330 IVi and 143 SCi). Clinical response at week 14 was 42.7% and 48.3% in the IVi and SCi groups (non-statistically significant), respectively. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were 32.8% and 31.4% in the IVi and SCi groups (nonsignificant differences), respectively. A propensity-matched score analysis showed a higher clinical response rate at week 14 in the SCi group and higher treatment persistence in the IVi group. Regarding long-term outcomes, dose escalation and discontinuation due to the primary failure of the first anti-TNF and more severe disease activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were inversely associated with clinical remission. Conclusion: The use of a second anti-TNF for UC seems to be reasonable in terms of efficacy, although it is particularly reduced in the case of the primary failure of the first anti-TNF. Whether the second anti-TNF is infliximab or subcutaneous does not seem to affect efficacy.

Markers that allow for the selection of tailored treatments for individual patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are yet to be identified. Our aim was to describe trends in real-life treatment usage. For this purpose, patients from the ENEIDA registry who received their first targeted IBD treatment (biologics or tofacitinib) between 2015 and 2021 were included. A subsequent analysis with Machine Learning models was performed. The study included 10,009 patients [71% with Crohn’s disease (CD) and 29% with ulcerative colitis (UC)]. In CD, anti-TNF (predominantly adalimumab) were the main agents in the 1st line of treatment (LoT), although their use declined over time. In UC, anti-TNF (mainly infliximab) use was predominant in 1st LoT, remaining stable over time. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab were the most prescribed drugs in 2nd and 3rd LoT in CD and UC, respectively. Overall, the use of biosimilars increased over time. Machine Learning failed to identify a model capable of predicting treatment patterns. In conclusion, drug positioning is different in CD and UC. Anti-TNF were the most used drugs in IBD 1st LoT, being adalimumab predominant in CD and infliximab in UC. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab have gained importance in CD and UC, respectively. The approval of biosimilars had a significant impact on treatment.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to be efficacious to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, the target patients, the type of NSAID, the route of administration and the time of drug delivery remain unclear, as well as the potential efficacy in reducing the severity of pancreatitis, length of hospital stay and mortality. The objective of the study was to evaluate these questions by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.Multiple searches were performed in the main databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NSAIDs vs. placebo in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis were included. Primary endpoint of the study was the efficacy for pancreatitis prevention. Sub-analyses were performed to determine the risk reduction in high and low risk patients, and to define optimal time, route of administration, and type of NSAID. Secondary endpoints were safety, moderate to severe pancreatitis prevention and reduction of hospital stay and mortality.Nine RCTs enrolling 2133 patients were included. The risk of pancreatitis was lower in the NSAID group than in the placebo group (RR 0.51; 95%CI 0.39-0.66). The number needed to treat was 14. The risk of moderate to severe pancreatitis was also lower in the NSAID group. (RR 0.46; 95%CI 0.28-0.76). No adverse events related to NSAID use were reported. NSAIDs were effective in both high-risk and unselected patients (RR 0.53; 95%CI 0.30-0.93 and RR 0.57; 95%CI 0.37-0.88). In the subanalyses, only rectal administration of either indomethacin (RR 0.54; 95%CI 0.38-0.75) or diclofenac (RR 0.42; 95%CI 0.21-0.84) was shown to be effective. There were not enough data to perform a meta-analysis in hospital stay reduction. No deaths occurred.A single rectal dose of indomethacin or diclofenac before or immediately after ERCP is safe and prevents procedure-related pancreatitis both in high risk and in unselected patients.