Search

OBJECTIVE: The recurrence of Crohn’s Disease after ileo-colonic resection is a crucial issue. Severe endoscopic lesions increase the risk of developing early symptoms. Prevention and treatment of post-operative Endoscopic Recurrence (ER) have been studied with conflicting results. We compare efficacy of azathioprine (AZA) vs. high-dose 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in preventing clinical recurrence and treating severe post-operative ER. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a 1-year multicenter randomized double-blind double-dummy trial. Primary end-points were endoscopic improvement and therapeutic failure (clinical recurrence or drug discontinuation due to lack of efficacy or adverse events) 12 months after randomization. We also performed a post-trial analysis on symptomatic and endoscopic outcomes 10 years after the beginning of the trial, with a median follow-up of 60 months. RESULTS: Therapeutic failure occurred in 8 patients (17.4%) within 12 months from randomization, with no significant difference between patients treated with 5-ASA (20.8%, 5 patients) and those with AZA (13.6%, 3 patients). Therapeutic failure was due to clinical recurrence in the 5-ASA group and to adverse events in the AZA group. Endoscopic improvement at 12 months was observed in 8 patients, 2 (11.8%) in the 5-ASA group and 6 (30%) in the AZA group. No serious adverse event was recorded. At the post-trial analysis (median follow-up 60 months), 47.8% (22/46) of patients experienced clinical recurrence: 54.2% (13/24) in the 5-ASA group and 40.9% (9/22) in the AZA group, p=0.546. Patients treated with AZA had lower risk of drug escalation. Clinical recurrence was associated with smoking (p=0.031) and previous surgery (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Our trial indicates that there was no difference in terms of treatment failure between 5-ASA and AZA in patients with severe post-operative ER. The main limit of AZA is its less favorable safety profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The effectiveness of bowel cleansing is a key element for high-quality colonoscopy. Recently, a 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) solution has been introduced, but effectiveness and safety of this preparation have not been assessed in IBD patients. This study aims to evaluate effectiveness and safety of 1 L PEG-ASC solution in patients with IBD compared to controls., Methods: We retrospectively analysed prospectively collected data on a cohort of 411 patients performing a colonoscopy after preparation with 1 L PEG-ASC, consecutively enrolled in 5 Italian centres., Results: Overall, 185/411 (45%) were patients with IBD and 226/411 (55%) served as controls. A significantly higher cleansing success was achieved in IBD patients (92.9% vs 85.4%, p = 0.02). The multiple regression model showed that presence of IBD (OR=2.514, 95%CI=1.165-5.426; P = 0.019), lower age (OR=0.981, 95%CI=0.967-0.996; P = 0.014), split preparation (OR=2.430, 95%CI=1.076-5.492; P = 0.033), absence of diabetes (OR=2.848, 95%CI=1.228-6.605; P = 0.015), and of chronic constipation (OR=3.350, 95%CI=1.429-7.852; P = 0.005), were independently associated with cleansing success. The number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (51 vs 62%, p = 0.821), and of patients with TEAEs (22.2% vs 21.2%, p = 0.821), were similar in IBD patients and in controls, respectively., Conclusions: Results from this study support the effectiveness and safety of 1 L PEG-ASC solution in IBD patients, which may improve the definition of endoscopic outcomes both in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no proprietary, financial, professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2021 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A 1 L PEG-based preparation for colonoscopy (NER1006) has been recently developed., Aims: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the effectiveness and safety of NER1006 versus traditional preparations., Methods: PubMed/Medline and Embase were systematically searched through January 2020 for phase-3 RCTs comparing NER1006 versus standard preparations., Results: Three RCTs (1879 participants) met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed a higher cleansing success for NER1006 compared standard preparations (OR=1.28; 95% CI 1.00-1.62; p = 0.047, I 2 =0%) as well as a greater high-quality cleansing of the right colon (OR=2.13; 95% CI 1.16-3.94; p = 0.015, I 2 =76.0%) when assessed by the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). The pooled estimate of the NER1006 effect on ADR showed a higher, although not significant, ADR of the right colon (OR=1.19; 95% CI 0.73-1.92; p = 0.485, I 2 =53%). When considering the impact of NER1006 on mild to moderate treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), we observed a significant pooled estimate of TEAEs (OR=2.31; 95% CI 1.82-2.94; p<0.001, I 2 =0%)., Conclusions: When compared to traditional preparations, NER1006 showed a better overall cleansing of the colon as well as a greater high-quality cleansing of the right colon, with comparable ADR. A higher incidence of mild to moderate TEAEs was observed for NER1006, in the absence of serious adverse events., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors have no proprietary, financial, professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2020 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

NAFLD (Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease) is an increasingly significant public health issue, regarded as the most relevant liver disease of the twenty-first century. Approximately 20%-30% of NAFLD subjects develop a NASH (Non-Alcoholic Steato-Hepatitis), a condition which can potentially evolve to liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. For these reasons a proper evaluation of liver damage is a key point for diagnosis and prognosis and liver biopsy still remains the "gold standard" procedure both for discrimination between steatosis and steatohepatitis and assessment of the degree of liver fibrosis. Nonetheless, given it is an invasive, painful and costly procedure, a great research efforts have been made in order to develop non-invasive methods for the assessment of NAFLD presence and/or severity by serum markers and imaging techniques. In this review we aimed to perform a comprehensive review of the literature about strengths and weaknesses of the main tools available for the non-invasive assessment of NAFLD patients.