RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Biological therapies used for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have shown to be effective and safe, although these results were obtained from studies involving mostly a young population, who are generally included in clinical trials. The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy and safety of the different biological treatments in the elderly population. METHODS: Multicenter study was carried out in the GETECCU group. Patients diagnosed with IBD and aged over 65 years at the time of initiating biological therapy (infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, ustekinumab or vedolizumab) were retrospectively included. Among the patients included, clinical response was assessed after drug induction (12 weeks of treatment) and at 52 weeks. Patients' colonoscopy data in week 52 were assessment, where available. Regarding complications, development of oncological events during follow-up and infectious processes occurring during biological treatment were collected (excluding bowel infection by cytomegalovirus). RESULTS: A total of 1090 patients were included. After induction, at approximately 12-14 weeks of treatment, 419 patients (39.6%) were in clinical remission, 502 patients (47.4%) had responded without remission and 137 patients (12.9%) had no response. At 52 weeks of treatment 442 patients (57.1%) had achieved clinical remission, 249 patients had responded without remission (32.2%) and 53 patients had no response to the treatment (6.8%). Before 52 weeks, 129 patients (14.8%) had discontinued treatment due to inefficacy, this being significantly higher (p<0.0001) for Golimumab - 9 patients (37.5%) - compared to the other biological treatments analyzed. With respect to tumor development, an oncological event was observed in 74 patients (6.9%): 30 patients (8%) on infliximab, 23 (7.14%) on adalimumab, 3 (11.1%) on golimumab, 10 (6.4%) on ustekinumab, and 8 (3.8%) on vedolizumab. The incidence was significantly lower (p=0.04) for the vedolizumab group compared to other treatments. As regards infections, these occurred in 160 patients during treatment (14.9%), with no differences between the different biologicals used (p=0.61): 61 patients (19.4%) on infliximab, 39 (12.5%) on adalimumab, 5 (17.8%) on golimumab, 22 (14.1%) on ustekinumab, and 34 (16.5%) on vedolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Biological drug therapies have response rates in elderly patients similar to those described in the general population, Golimumab was the drug that was discontinued most frequently due to inefficacy. In our experience, tumor development was more frequent in patients who used anti-TNF therapies compared to other targets, although its incidence was generally low and that this is in line with younger patients based on previous literature.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of liver and spleen stiffness measurement by transient elastography for the prediction of gastroesophageal varices in patients with HCV-associated cirrhosis treated with new direct-acting antiviral agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included patients with compensated HCV-related cirrhosis and sustained virological response after direct-acting antiviral therapy. Patients underwent liver and spleen stiffness measurement, abdominal ultrasound and oesophago-gastroduodenoscopy. Clinical and laboratory data and non-invasive markers such as the liver stiffness-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score, variceal risk index and platelet count to spleen diameter ratio were analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety-seven consecutive patients were included. Liver stiffness measurement (12.2 vs 16; p=0.02), spleen stiffness measurement (39.4 vs 46.05; p=0.04), liver stiffness-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score (1.21 vs 2.02; p=0.008), platelet count to spleen diameter ratio (1102.19 vs 829.7; p=0.04) and variceal risk index (-3.4 vs -1.02; p=0.01) showed significant differences between patients without/with gastroesophageal varices. The best cut-off value to discard the presence of gastroesophageal varices was 12.3kPa for liver stiffness measurement and 27kPa for spleen stiffness measurement. However, diagnostic accuracy was moderate (AUROC: 0.671 and 0.624 respectively). Combining different non-invasive parameters did not significantly improve the overall performance. DISCUSSION: Liver and spleen stiffness measurement showed suboptimal results for non-invasive assessment of gastroesophageal varices in HCV cirrhotic patients treated with direct-acting antiviral agents. Our results suggest that non-invasive methods cannot substitute standard procedures for predicting gastroesophageal varices in this population.
