Search

Objectives: Information regarding Hispanics with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is scarce. In this study we aimed to describe a predominantly Hispanic population with IBD in a city located along the US-Mexico border and to identify clinical or demographic differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics., Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis of patients with IBD between 2003 and 2013 at a tertiary care center. Information collected included age, sex, ethnicity, diagnosis, diagnosis status (new vs old), endoscopic extent of disease (EOD), extraintestinal manifestations, medical treatment, and surgeries performed. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using a two-sided unpaired t test/Wilcoxon rank sum test and the Fisher exact test, respectively. Results with P ≤ 5% were considered statistically significant., Results: Hispanics accounted for 71% of the population sample. A total of 141 patients (68%) were diagnosed as having ulcerative colitis (UC) and 67 (32%) as having Crohn disease (CD). The only statistically significant differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics were older age at diagnosis and a higher proportion of new diagnoses in Hispanics with CD ( P = 0.008 and 0.009, respectively) The most common EOD in patients with UC was extensive colitis, whereas isolated colonic disease predominated in CD, regardless of ethnicity. Immunomodulators and biologics were used in 3% and 1% of cases, respectively. Treatment regimens were similar in both ethnic groups. Patients with CD were more likely than those with UC to have undergone surgery (27% vs 11%, P = 0.004). Surgery rates did not differ between Hispanics and non-Hispanics., Conclusions: In our population, UC was more common than CD, and the EOD of both conditions differed from the one previously described in other Hispanic populations in the United States. The use of immunomodulators and biologics is the lowest reported to date in the country. No clinically relevant differences were seen between Hispanics and non-Hispanics.

Background Effective and safe treatments are needed for patients who have irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with diarrhea. We conducted two phase 3 trials to assess the efficacy and safety of eluxadoline, a new oral agent with mixed opioid effects (μ- and κ-opioid receptor agonist and δ-opioid receptor antagonist), in patients with IBS with diarrhea. Methods We randomly assigned 2427 adults who had IBS with diarrhea to eluxadoline (at a dose of 75 mg or 100 mg) or placebo twice daily for 26 weeks (IBS-3002 trial) or 52 weeks (IBS-3001 trial). The primary end point was the proportion of patients who had a composite response of decrease in abdominal pain and improvement in stool consistency on the same day for at least 50% of the days from weeks 1 through 12 and from weeks 1 through 26. Results For weeks 1 through 12, more patients in the eluxadoline groups (75 mg and 100 mg) than in the placebo group reached the primary end point (IBS-3001 trial, 23.9% with the 75-mg dose and 25.1% with the 100-mg dose vs. 17.1% with placebo; P=0.01 and P=0.004, respectively; IBS-3002 trial, 28.9% and 29.6%, respectively, vs. 16.2%; P<0.001 for both comparisons). For weeks 1 through 26, the corresponding rates in IBS-3001 were 23.4% and 29.3% versus 19.0% (P=0.11 and P<0.001, respectively), and the corresponding rates in IBS-3002 were 30.4% and 32.7% versus 20.2% (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). The most common adverse events associated with 75 mg of eluxadoline and 100 mg of eluxadoline, as compared with placebo, were nausea (8.1% and 7.5% vs. 5.1%), constipation (7.4% and 8.6% vs. 2.5%), and abdominal pain (5.8% and 7.2% vs. 4.1%). Pancreatitis developed in 5 (2 in the 75-mg group and 3 in the 100-mg group) of the 1666 patients in the safety population (0.3%). Conclusions Eluxadoline is a new therapeutic agent that reduced symptoms of IBS with diarrhea in men and women, with sustained efficacy over 6 months in patients who received the 100-mg dose twice daily. (Funded by Furiex Pharmaceuticals, an affiliate of Allergan; IBS-3001 and IBS-3002 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01553591 and NCT01553747 , respectively.).

Background: The use of gastrointestinal endoscopy in geriatric patients is rising as an increasing proportion of the population is reaching an advanced age. Most studies of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the elderly have been done in tertiary care or referral centers., Methods: We analyzed the clinical and endoscopic data on all ERCPs in patients aged 65 years and older in a retrospective review of medical records of patients at the county hospitals in El Paso and Lubbock, Texas between 2004 and 2008. ERCP data in patients aged 75 years and older were compared with those who were 65-74 years., Results: There were 125 ERCPs performed in 89 patients (74 procedures in 54 patients older than 75 years, 51 procedures in 35 patients younger than 75 years). The average age was 76.0 (range: 65-94), 62.4% were female and 79.2% were Hispanic. Indications were similar between groups: jaundice (66.9%), abnormal liver tests (87.2%), abdominal pain (79.2%), cholangitis (24.0%), pancreatitis (32.8%) and stent change (12.9%). Concomitant illnesses were also similar. Lower doses of midazolam and meperidine were used for moderate sedation in the older group (P < 0.01). ERCP findings were similar in both groups: stones (40.8%), stricture (18.4%) and stent placement (30.4%). Complications occurred in 6.4%., Conclusions: This study of ERCP in elderly predominantly Hispanic patients found similar indications, efficacy and safety in patients 75 years and older compared with those 65-74 years old. Advanced age is not a contraindication to ERCP, but issues related to sedation and the use of antithrombotic therapy need to be addressed in the elderly., (Copyright © 2016 Southern Society for Clinical Investigation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The frequency of bacteremia during ERCP with cholangioscopy has not been well studied. There are no formal guidelines regarding antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP with cholangioscopy. The aim was to estimate the frequency of bacteremia and subsequent infectious adverse events after ERCP with cholangioscopy., Methods: This prospective nonrandomized study performed in a single tertiary referral center included adult patients who were undergoing ERCP with cholangioscopic examination of the common bile duct. Blood cultures were drawn from patients before the procedure and 5 and 30 minutes after the procedure. Antibiotics were not given before or after the procedure. Patients were followed up after 24 hours and 1 week after the procedure for infectious adverse events. The primary outcome was bacteremia rate, and secondary outcomes were cholangitis rate and adverse events., Results: Fifty-seven patients were enrolled in the study with 60 procedures performed. The first procedure from each patient was considered in the analysis, and thus we included 57 patients with 57 procedures in this study analysis. Postprocedure bacteremia was seen in 5 of 57 procedures (8.8%; 95% confidence interval, 2.9%-19.3%). Four patients were readmitted with cholangitis (7.0%). Bacteremia was more common in patients who had cholangioscopy with biopsy sampling compared with patients who had cholangioscopy without biopsy sampling (P = .011). Cholangitis was significantly more common in patients with bacteremia than in those patients with a negative blood culture (P = .035)., Conclusion: ERCP with cholangioscopy is associated with a bacteremia rate of 8.8% and a cholangitis rate of 7.0%. Preprocedural antibiotics may be considered before cholangioscopy, especially if tissue acquisition with biopsy sampling is expected. (, Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT01673269.)., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Portopulmonary hypertension is an uncommon but treatable pulmonary vascular consequence of portal hypertension, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Portopulmonary hypertension results from excessive pulmonary vasoconstriction and vascular remodeling that eventually leads to right-heart failure and death if left untreated. Although pulmonary vascular disease in these patients may be asymptomatic or associated with subtle and nonspecific symptoms (dyspnea, fatigue and lower extremity swelling), it should be looked for especially if patients are potential candidates for liver transplantation. Patients with clinical suspicion of portopulmonary hypertension should undergo screening testing, specifically echocardiography. Right heart catheterization remains the gold standard for the diagnosis. The existence of moderate to severe disease poses higher risks and challenges for liver transplantation. The disease has a substantial impact on survival and requires focused pharmacological therapy. New and evolving medical therapies, such as prostanoids (intravenous, inhaled or oral), endothelin receptors antagonists, phosphodiesterases inhibitors, combination therapy and other experimental drugs might change the natural course of the disease. Case reports and cases series have been published regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapy, but randomized, controlled multicenter trials are urgently needed. Liver transplantation is not the treatment of choice for portopulmonary hypertension, but after optimal hemodynamic and clinical improvement with medical therapy as a bridge, liver transplant can be considered an option in selected patients.

Prevalence estimates for irritable bowel syndrome from surveys in Western countries are 4.4% to 22%, generally higher in women than men, and only a minority seek health care. There are few studies of bowel patterns in Asian countries. We conducted a survey of a nonpatient population in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, to determine bowel patterns and the prevalence of bowel dysfunction. A forced-choice, self-report questionnaire was distributed to 738 predominantly health care workers, as well as patient relatives, at Cho Ray Hospital in Ho Chi Minh City and returned by 411 (response rate of 55.7%). Results were analyzed for men and women using Student's t-test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables. Subjects were 53.6% female, with a mean age of 27.7+/-6.9 years. Overall perception of health was excellent/very good in 13.6%, good in 54.2%, and fair/poor in 32.1% (males, 17.1%, 51.3%, and 31.5%, vs. females, 10.6%, 56.7%, and 32.7%; P=NS). The mean number of stools reported per week was 6.5 (males, 6.6, vs. females, 6.4; P=NS) and ranged between 3 and 21 stools per week in 95.5%. The frequency of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms (using Rome I criteria) was 7.2% (95% CI=4.8-10.1), with males at 4.8% (95% CI=2.2-8.9) vs. females at 9.2% (95% CI=5.7-13.9) (P=0.08). Of the subjects with irritable bowel syndrome symptoms, 6 of 29 (20.7%) had seen a physician for bowel symptoms. There were no gender differences in reported infrequent stool (12.0%), frequent stool (11.3%), hard stool (17.5%), loose stool (6.5%), straining (14.5%), incomplete emptying (16.2%), bloating (15.0%), urgency (10.0%), or mucus (2.7%). In conclusion, this survey of a nonpatient population in Vietnam showed that irritable bowel syndrome symptoms as defined by Rome criteria were common and that there were no significant differences between sexes in either stool frequency or prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome, unlike previous studies from the United States. The prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in Vietnam in this study was in the lower range of reported data from Western countries, possibly in part related to the use of the Rome criteria. Only a minority of subjects with irritable bowel syndrome symptoms reported seeking health care for these symptoms.

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of experts. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement and revision needed to clarify aspects of this statement and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to the recommendations.