Search

Background: The combination of infliximab and immunosuppressant therapy is a standard management strategy for patients with Crohn's disease. Concerns regarding the implications of long-term combination therapy provided the rationale for a formal clinical trial of treatment de-escalation. Our aim was to compare the relapse rate and the time spent in remission over 2 years between patients continuing combination therapy and those stopping infliximab or immunosuppressant therapy. Methods: This multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial was performed in 64 hospitals in seven countries in Europe and Australia. Adult patients with Crohn's disease in steroid-free clinical remission for more than 6 months, on combination therapy of infliximab and immunosuppressant therapy for at least 8 months were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either continue combination therapy (combination group), discontinue infliximab (infliximab withdrawal group), or discontinue immunosuppressant therapy (immunosuppressant withdrawal group). Randomisation was stratified according to disease duration before start of first anti-TNF treatment (≤2 or >2 years), failure of immunosuppressant therapy before start of infliximab, and presence of ulcers at baseline endoscopy. The patient number and group of each stratum were assigned by a central online randomisation website. Treatment was optimised or resumed in case of relapse in all groups. Participants, those assessing outcomes, and those analysing the data were not masked to group assignment. The coprimary endpoints were the relapse rate (superiority analysis) and time in remission over 2 years (non-inferiority analysis, non-inferiority margin 35 days). Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02177071, and with EU Clinical Trials Register, EUDRACT 2014-002311-41. The trial was completed in April, 2021. Findings: Between Nov 2, 2015, and April 24, 2019, 254 patients were screened. Of these, 211 were randomised and 207 were included in the final analysis (n=67 in the combination group, n=71 in the infliximab withdrawal group, and n=69 in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). 39 patients had a relapse (eight [12%] of 67 in the combination group, 25 [35%] of 71 in the infliximab withdrawal group, six [9%] of 69 in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). 2-year relapse rates were 14% (95% CI 4–23) in the combination group, 36% (24–47) in the infliximab withdrawal group, and 10% (2–18) in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group (hazard ratio [HR] 3·45 [95% CI 1·56–7·69], p=0·003, for infliximab withdrawal vs combination, and 4·76 [1·92–11·11], p=0·0004, for infliximab withdrawal vs immunosuppressant withdrawal). Of 28 patients who had a relapse and were retreated or optimised according to protocol, remission was achieved in 25 patients (one of two in the combination group, 22 of 23 in the infliximab withdrawal group, and two of three in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). The mean time spent in remission over 2 years was 698 days (95% CI 668–727) in the combination group, 684 days (651–717) in the infliximab withdrawal group, and 706 days (682–730) in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group. The difference in restricted mean survival time in remission was –14 days (95% CI –56 to 27) between the infliximab withdrawal group and the combination group and –22 days (–62 to 16) between the infliximab withdrawal group and the immunosuppressant withdrawal group. The 95% CIs contained the non-inferiority threshold (–35 days). We recorded 31 serious adverse events, in 20 patients, with no difference in frequency between groups. The most frequent serious adverse events were infections (four in the combination group, two in the infliximab withdrawal group, and one in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group) and Crohn's disease exacerbation (three in the combination group, four in the infliximab withdrawal group, and one in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). No death nor malignancy was recorded. Interpretation: In patients with Crohn's disease in sustained steroid-free remission under combination therapy with infliximab and immunosuppressant therapy, withdrawal of infliximab should only be considered after careful assessment of risks and benefits for each patient, whereas withdrawal of immunosuppressant therapy could generally represent a preferable strategy when considering treatment de-escalation. Funding: European Union's Horizon 2020.

Infliximab (IFX) is very effective in active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) but up to nearly 50%1 of patients will lose response or experience attenuated response to IFX due to fluctuating drug levels or formation of antibodies to IFX (ATI). There is growing evidence of the efficacy of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM).2–4 Currently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) does not recommend routine TDM in the NHS. Fig ​Fig11 shows current practice in the UK. Open in a separate window Fig 1. Therapeutic drug monitoring: current practice in the UK.

Background & Aims Cancer therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause colitis and colon perforation. We investigated whether infection with Epstein Barr virus (EBV) associates with development and severity of colitis in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of fixed colon tissues from 16 patients (12 men, 4 women, median age, 69.5 y) with colitis after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9 patients treated with anti-CTLA4, 3 patients treated with anti-PD1, and 4 patients received a combination). Ten tissue samples were biopsies and 6 were collected during resection (4 surgeries for colon perforation). Patients were treated between 2010 and 2018 in the United Kingdom. The tissues were analyzed by pathology, in situ hybridization (to detect EBV-encoded small RNAs [EBERs]), and immunohistochemistry. Clinical data were also collected. Results Colon tissues from 4 of the 13 patients who received anti-CTLA4 (alone or in combination, 4 with colon perforation) had EBV-positive lymphoproliferations that manifested as florid ulcers associated with polymorphous infiltrates containing EBV-positive blasts (CD30+ or CD30-negative, CD20+, CD3-negative, and EBER+), plasma cells (CD138+, CD20-negative, and EBER+ or EBER-negative), and small B cells (CD20+, CD3-negative, and EBER+ or EBER-negative), consistent with EBV-positive mucocutaneous ulcers (EBVMCUs). In analyses of biopsies collected from 2 patients with EBVMCUs over multiple time points, we found that earlier biopsies had no or only a few EBV-positive cells, whereas 1 later biopsy had EBVMCU and co-infection with cytomegalovirus. EBVMCUs were associated with steroid-refractory colitis (100% of EBV-positive patients vs 12.5% of EBV-negative patients; P = .008) and colon perforation (100% of EBV-positive patients vs no EBV-negative patients; P = .001). Conclusions We found that colon tissues from 4/13 patients with colitis after anti-CTLA4 therapy (4/6 patients who underwent resection and 4/4 patients with colon perforation) contained EBVMCUs. EBVMCUs seem to arise secondarily in areas of inflamed colon due to immunosuppressive treatment for colitis. EBVMCUs are associated with steroid-refractory colitis and colon perforation.

Venous or cavernous malformations of the colon or rectum are a rare cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeds. It has been previously described as a diffuse cavernous haemangioma which was thought to be a benign vascular tumour. It mainly affects the rectosigmoid area of the gastrointestinal tract and is most common in children and young adults. Misdiagnosis is common with patients averaging a total of 19 years delay to this final diagnosis. We report a case of a 65-year-old patient who presented with occult, painless rectal bleeding and prior to this presentation, had been managed variously as colitis and angiodysplasia. This article aims to delineate the updated classification of this disease, principal clinical clues to aid the diagnosis while discussing patient treatment options and potential challenges faced in patient management.

Objectives: To develop a tool for the accurate reporting and aggregation of findings from each of the multiple methods used in a complex evaluation in an unbiased way. Study Design and Setting: We developed a Method for Aggregating The Reporting of Interventions in Complex Studies (MATRICS) within a gastroenterology study [Evaluating New Innovations in (the delivery and organisation of) Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy services by the NHS Modernisation Agency (ENIGMA)]. We subsequently tested it on a different gastroenterology trial [Multi-Institutional Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET)]. We created three layers to define the effects, methods, and findings from ENIGMA. We assigned numbers to each effect in layer 1 and letters to each method in layer 2. We used an alphanumeric code based on layers 1 and 2 to every finding in layer 3 to link the aims, methods, and findings. We illustrated analogous findings by assigning more than one alphanumeric code to a finding. We also showed that more than one effect or method could report the same finding. We presented contradictory findings by listing them in adjacent rows of the MATRICS. Results: MATRICS was useful for the effective synthesis and presentation of findings of the multiple methods from ENIGMA. We subsequently successfully tested it by applying it to the MINuET trial. Conclusion: MATRICS is effective for synthesizing the findings of complex, multiple-method studies.

Objectives To develop and validate a gastrointestinal (GI) symptom rating questionnaire for patients with luminal GI symptoms including where no diagnosis has been made. Study Design and Setting We developed and validated the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Questionnaire (GSRQ) in three stages: (1) item generation to identify the relevant items for scale inclusion; (2) development and piloting on patients with a known GI disorder; and (3) testing in a sample of trial patients. We examined the underlying dimensions of the scale, internal consistency, validity, reproducibility, and responsiveness. Results We identified four interpretable factors on the GSRQ. The GSRQ had good internal consistency (corrected item-subscale correlations between 0.4 and 0.8) and Cronbach's alpha greater than 0.7 for each subscale. Construct validity was demonstrated by modest but significant correlations with the Short Form 36 and the EQ5D index value. We demonstrated good reproducibility with intraclass correlations for test–retest scores between 0.71 and 0.77, and significant responsiveness ratios for all subscales in patients who had improved, and in two of the subscales in patients who had deteriorated. Conclusion The GSRQ could be a useful tool to monitor quality of life in various luminal GI conditions and where a formal diagnosis has not been made.

A 65-year-old woman with Crohn's disease, who had been on home parenteral nutrition for many years, presented with perioral paraesthesia and a burning sensation in the mouth. Initial blood tests including serum ferritin, vitamin B12 and folate, were normal apart from mild pancytopaenia. Serum copper was low, in spite of receiving regular copper in her parenteral feeds. The copper in her parenteral feeds was increased initially, but when it did not improve, she was started on weekly intravenous copper infusions. She was using dental adhesive, which had zinc in it, and a possibility that this was causing her copper deficiency was raised. Serum zinc levels were normal, but urinary zinc was very high. The patient was advised to use zinc-free dental adhesive and her copper level returned to normal within a few months with normalisation of her pancytopaenia, and partial resolution of her oral paraesthesia.

The causative association between Helicobacter pylori and gastric mucosal inflammation is well established. The inflammatory process leads to the acquisition of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) by the stomach. Evidence links H. pylori gastritis with the development of low-grade primary gastric lymphoma with a phenotype specific for lymphoma of MALT type. It is now accepted that primary low-grade MALT lymphomas regress with H. pylori eradication therapy. However, the response of primary, diffuse, large-cell gastric lymphoma to H. pylori eradication therapy is still not established. We report a case of a primary high-grade gastric lymphoma regressing after H. pylori eradication therapy.

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of doctors and nurses in undertaking upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Design Pragmatic trial with Zelen’s randomisation before consent to minimise distortion of existing practice. Setting 23 hospitals in the United Kingdom. In six hospitals, nurses undertook both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, yielding a total of 29 centres. Participants 67 doctors and 30 nurses. Of 4964 potentially eligible patients, we randomised 4128 (83%) and recruited 1888 (38%) from July 2002 to June 2003. Interventions Diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy, undertaken with or without sedation, with the standard preparation, techniques, and protocols of participating hospitals. After referral for either procedure, patients were randomised between doctors and nurses. Main outcome measures Gastrointestinal symptom rating questionnaire (primary outcome), gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire and state-trait anxiety inventory (all analysed by intention to treat); immediate and delayed complications; quality of examination and corresponding report; patients’ preferences for operator; and new diagnoses at one year (all analysed according to who carried out the procedure). Results There was no significant difference between groups in outcome at one day, one month, or one year after endoscopy, except that patients were more satisfied with nurses after one day. Nurses were also more thorough than doctors in examining the stomach and oesophagus. While quality of life scores were slightly better in patients the doctor group, this was not statistically significant. Conclusions Diagnostic endoscopy can be undertaken safely and effectively by nurses. Trial registration International standard RCT 82765705

Objectives: To compare the clinical outcome and costeffectiveness of doctors and nurses undertaking upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Design: The study was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Zelen’s randomisation before consent was used to minimise distortion of existing practice in the participating sites. An economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial, assessing the relative cost-effectiveness of nurses and doctors. Setting: The study was undertaken in 23 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales. In six hospitals nurses undertook both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, yielding a total of 29 ‘centres’. The study was coordinated and managed from Swansea. Randomisation, data management and analysis were undertaken at York. Analysis was by intention-to-scope. Participants: Sixty-seven doctors and 30 nurses took part in the study. Of 4964 potentially eligible patients, 4128 (83%) were randomised. Of these, 1888 (45%) were recruited to the study from 29 July 2002 to 30 June 2003. Interventions: The procedures under study were diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy undertaken by nurses or doctors, with or without sedation, using the preparation, techniques and protocols of participating hospitals. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome measure was the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Questionnaire (GSRQ). The secondary outcome measures were EuroQol (EQ5D), Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire (GESQ), State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), cost-effectiveness, immediate and delayed complications, quality of examination by blinded assessment of endoscopic video recordings, quality of procedure reports, patients’ preferences for operator 1 year after endoscopy, and new diagnoses at 1 year. Results: The two groups were well matched at baseline for demographic and clinical characteristics. Significantly more patients changed from a planned endoscopy by a doctor to a nurse than vice versa, mainly for staffing reasons. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary or secondary outcome measures at 1 day, 1 month or 1 year after endoscopy, with the exception of patient satisfaction at 1 day, which favoured nurses. Nurses were significantly more thorough in the examination of stomach and oesophagus, but no different from doctors in the examination of duodenum and colon. There was no significant difference in costs to the NHS or patients, although doctors cost slightly more. Although quality of life measures showed improvement in some scores in the doctor group, this did not reach traditional levels of statistical significance. Even so, the economic evaluation, taking account of uncertainty in both costs and quality of life, suggests that endoscopy by doctors has an 87% chance of being more cost-effective than endoscopy by nurses. Conclusions: There is no statistically significant difference between doctors and nurses in their clinical effectiveness in diagnostic endoscopy. However, nurses are significantly more thorough in the examination of oesophagus and stomach, and patients are significantly more satisfied after endoscopy by a nurse. Endoscopy by doctors is associated with better outcome at 1 year at higher cost, but overall is likely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to evaluate the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of nurses undertaking a greater role in other settings, to monitor the costeffectiveness of nurse endoscopists as they become more experienced and to assess, the effect of increasing the number of nurse endoscopists on waiting times for patients, and the career implications and opportunities for nurses who become trained endoscopists. Evaluation of the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic endoscopy for all current indications is also needed.

ARRIVE Guidelines Checklist. (DOCX 658 kb)

Table S1. Patient Characteristics. (DOCX 16 kb)

ARRIVE Guidelines Checklist. (DOCX 658 kb)

Figure S1. TER of colonic regions from male and female untreated FoxP3DTR mice. (A) TER of male and female (A) distal, (B) mid and (C) proximal colonic regions. Mann-Whitney tests used for statistical analyses. Error bars show +/â SEM. (DOCX 82 kb)

Figure S2. Correlation between TER and lucifer yellow flux. (A) Correlation between TER and lucifer yellow in the right side of the colon and (B) the left side of the colon. Spearmanâ s correlation used for statistical analysis. (DOCX 77 kb)

Figure S2. Correlation between TER and lucifer yellow flux. (A) Correlation between TER and lucifer yellow in the right side of the colon and (B) the left side of the colon. Spearmanâ s correlation used for statistical analysis. (DOCX 77 kb)

Figure S1. TER of colonic regions from male and female untreated FoxP3DTR mice. (A) TER of male and female (A) distal, (B) mid and (C) proximal colonic regions. Mann-Whitney tests used for statistical analyses. Error bars show +/â SEM. (DOCX 82 kb)

Table S1. Patient Characteristics. (DOCX 16 kb)