Search

Background and study aims  Refractory variceal bleeding is associated with high mortality in patients with chronic liver disease. A fully-covered self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) has been reported to have excellent rates of technical success and initial bleeding control; however, studies to date are small and limited to Europe and Asia. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this SEMS for control of refractory variceal bleeding (VB). Patients and methods  A retrospective analysis was undertaken of all patients who received the SX-ELLA Danis SEMS for management of VB at 9 tertiary centers across Australia and New Zealand. A total of 32 SEMS had been deployed in 30 patients (median age 53.3). Results  Technical success of SEMS placement was achieved in 100 % of cases, resulting in immediate control of bleeding across 31 of 32 cases (96.9 %). Re-bleeding with SEMS in situ occurred in three of 32 cases (9.4 %). Mean SEMS in-dwelling time was 6.4 days. Delayed SEMS migration occurred in 6.3 % of cases. Interventional radiological therapy for management of varices within 6 weeks was performed in 12 of 30 patients (40 %). Death with SEMS in situ occurred in seven of 30 patients (23.3 %). Seven-day bleeding-related mortality was 16.7 %, 14-day mortality 23.3 %, and 6-week mortality 33.3 %. Three of 30 patients (10 %) received orthotopic liver transplantation following SEMS insertion, including two patients within 6 weeks. Conclusions  SX-Danis Ella SEMS is highly effective for immediate control of refractory VB and bridging to definitive therapy because it has excellent technical success rates, appears to be relatively easy to use, and has low rates of serious adverse events., Competing Interests: Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: Multiple studies have described the effectiveness of ustekinumab (UST) and vedolizumab (VDZ) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) failing anti- Tumor necrosis factors (TNFs); however, the effectiveness of VDZ or UST as a third-class biologic has not yet been described., Aims and Methods: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of VDZ and UST as a third-class biologic in patients with CD., Results: Two-hundred and four patients were included; 156/204 (76%) patients received VDZ as a second- and UST as a third-class therapy (group A); the remaining 48/204 (24%) patients received UST as a second- and VDZ as a third-class therapy (group B). At week 16-22, 87/156 (55.5%) patients and 27/48 (56.2%) in groups A and B, respectively, responded to treatment ( p = 0.9); 41/156 (26.2%) and 15/48 (31.2%) were in clinical remission ( p = 0.5). At week 52; 89/103 (86%) patients and 25/29 (86.2%) of the patients with available data had responded to third-class treatment in groups A and B, respectively ( p = 0.9); 31/103 (30%) and 47/29 (24.1%) were in clinical remission ( p = 0.5)., Conclusion: Third-class biological therapy was effective in more than half of the patients with CD. No differences in effectiveness were detected between the use of VDZ and UST as a third-class agent.

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) may be regarded a family of auto-inflammatory conditions with inflammation focused on the joints. These form part of a wider family of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, which include inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). These conditions share common elements of pathophysiology and it is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that individuals with SpA frequently manifest gastrointestinal inflammation, to which the physician managing the patient with SpA must be alert. In this article, we review the shared epidemiology and pathophysiology of these conditions, before discussing approaches to diagnosis and management of inflammatory gastrointestinal pathology in patients seen in rheumatology clinics. In particular, we discuss the difference between non-specific gastrointestinal inflammation commonly described in this patient group and the more specific diagnosis of Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. We describe the appropriate diagnostic workup for patients suspected of having IBD. In addition, we discuss how a diagnosis of IBD can inform treatment selection, highlighting important differences in treatment choice, drug dosing, monitoring and drug safety for this particular comorbid patient population., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: TR has received research/educational grants and/or speaker/consultation fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Ferring, Gilead, GSK, LabGenius, Janssen, Mylan, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda and UCB. CDJ: none relevant., (© The Author(s), 2020.)