Immunomodulatory Therapy Does Not Increase the Risk of Cancer in Persons With Inflammatory Bowel Disease and a History of Extracolonic Cancers.

OBJECTIVES: Immunosuppressant therapies (IMTs; thiopurines, anti-tumor necrosis factor agents) may influence the immunologic control of cancer and might facilitate the spread and recurrence of cancer. This study assesses the impact of the use of IMTs on the development of incident cancers (recurrent or new) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and a history of malignancy. METHODS: Patients with IBD included in the ENEIDA registry with a history of cancer without being exposed to IMTs were identified and retrospectively reviewed and compared regarding further treatment with IMTs or not by means of a log-rank test. RESULTS: Overall, 520 patients with previous extracolonic cancer naive to IMTs before the diagnosis of cancer were identified. Of these, 146 were subsequently treated with IMTs (exposed), whereas 374 were not (nonexposed). The proportion of patients with incident cancers was similar in both exposed (16%) and nonexposed (18%) patients (P = 0.53); however, there was more than a 10-year difference in the age at index cancer between these 2 groups. Cancer-free survival was 99%, 98%, and 97% at 1, 2, and 5 years in exposed patients, and 97%, 96%, and 92% at 1, 2, and 5 years in non-exposed patients, respectively (P = 0.03). No differences in incident cancer rates were observed between exposed and nonexposed patients when including only those who were exposed within the first 5 years after cancer diagnosis. DISCUSSION: In patients with IBD and a history of cancer not related to immunosuppression, the use of IMTs is not associated with an increased risk of new or recurrent cancers even when IMTs are started early after cancer diagnosis.

Helicobacter pylori second-line rescue therapy with levofloxacin- and bismuth-containing quadruple therapy, after failure of standard triple or non-bismuth quadruple treatments.

BACKGROUND: The most commonly used second-line Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens are bismuth-containing quadruple therapy and levofloxacin-containing triple therapy, both offering suboptimal results. Combining bismuth and levofloxacin may enhance the efficacy of rescue eradication regimens. AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a second-line quadruple regimen containing levofloxacin and bismuth in patients whose previous H. pylori eradication treatment failed. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter study including patients in whom a standard triple therapy (PPI-clarithromycin-amoxicillin) or a non-bismuth quadruple therapy (PPI-clarithromycin-amoxicillin-metronidazole, either sequential or concomitant) had failed. Esomeprazole (40 mg b.d.), amoxicillin (1 g b.d.), levofloxacin (500 mg o.d.) and bismuth (240 mg b.d.) was prescribed for 14 days. Eradication was confirmed by (13) C-urea breath test. Compliance was determined through questioning and recovery of empty medication envelopes. Incidence of adverse effects was evaluated by questionnaires. RESULTS: 200 patients were included consecutively (mean age 47 years, 67% women, 13% ulcer). Previous failed therapy included: standard clarithromycin triple therapy (131 patients), sequential (32) and concomitant (37). A total of 96% took all medications correctly. Per-protocol and intention-to-treat eradication rates were 91.1% (95%CI = 87-95%) and 90% (95%CI = 86-94%). Cure rates were similar regardless of previous (failed) treatment or country of origin. Adverse effects were reported in 46% of patients, most commonly nausea (17%) and diarrhoea (16%); 3% were intense but none was serious. CONCLUSIONS: Fourteen-day bismuth- and levofloxacin-containing quadruple therapy is an effective (≥90% cure rate), simple and safe second-line strategy in patients whose previous standard triple or non-bismuth quadruple (sequential or concomitant) therapies have failed.

Influence of Ala54Thr polymorphism of fatty acid-binding protein 2 on histological alterations and insulin resistance of non alcoholic fatty liver disease.

A transition G to A at codon 54 of fatty acid binding protein type 2 (FABP2) produces an amino acid substitution (Ala 54 to Thr 54). This amino acid substitution was associated with modifications of insulin resistance, adipokines and insulin concentrations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of Ala54Thr polymorphism in the FABP2 gene on the histological alterations of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and insulin resistance. Thirty subjects with the presence of biopsy-proven NAFLD were enrolled for this study. Glucose, Insulin, Insulin resistance (HOMA), total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, resistin, leptin, adiponectin, interleukin-6 and TNF-alfa serum levels were measured at basal time. A tetrapolar bioimpedance, BMI, waist circumference, waist to hip ratio, blood pressure and a prospective serial assessment of nutritional intake with 3 days written food records were examined. Genotype of Ala54Thr FABP2 gene polymorphism was studied. The mean age was 41.6 +/- 11 years and the mean BMI 29.2 +/- 6.6 with 24 males (80%) and 6 females (20%). Fifteen patients (50%) had the genotype Ala54/Ala54 (wild type group) and 15 (50%) patients Ala54/Thr54 (13 patients) or Thr54/Thr54 (2 patients) (mutant type group). Both genotype groups have the similar anthropometric parameters. Serum aspartate aminotransferase and alcaline phosfatase were higher in wild type group than mutant type group, with an unclear explanation. Dietary intake was similar in both groups. A non-statistical significant low levels of adiponectin in mutant group was observed. No differences were detected among other adipokines. There were no differences between genotypes in histological results of inflammation (portal or lobular inflammation) or grade of steatosis or fibrosis. In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that the polymorphism Ala54Thr of FABP in patients with NAFLD doesn't predict liver histological changes, nor both insulin resistance and serum adipokines variations.

Upper gastrointestinal findings detected by capsule endoscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: We analyzed our experience with the use of capsule endoscopy in areas that can be explored with gastroscopy to justify obscure bleeding, as well as the outcome after a new recommended gastroscopy in order to determine if a second gastroscopy before the capsule study can provide any benefit in the management of this disease. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 82 patients who were explored with capsule endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding who had undergone previously only one gastroscopy. Findings in the zones which were accessible by gastroscopy were normal, mild/known and severe/unknown. In the latter cases we recommended a second gastroscopy, and their treatment and outcome were subjected to further study. RESULTS: Capsule endoscopy did not find any unknown esophageal findings. In 63% of cases, no gastric or duodenal lesions were shown; in 20%, lesions were mild or had been previously diagnosed, and in 17%, a new gastroscopy was recommended due to the discovery of an unknown condition which could be the cause of the obscure bleeding. This new information brought about a change in treatment for 78% of patients in this group, all of whom improved from their illness. Capsule endoscopy found significant intercurrent alterations in the small intestine in only 14% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of a second gastroscopy, previous to capsule endoscopy, in the study of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding can offer benefits in diagnostic terms and may introduce therapeutic changes. A detailed analysis of the upper tract frames in intestinal capsule endoscopy studies is mandatory since it may provide relevant information with clinical impact on the management of these patients.

Public opinion survey after capsule endoscopy: patient s point of view on its utility.

AIM: When programming a medical test such as capsule endoscopy (CE), finding the closest point between the patient's experience and his/her expectation is essential to improve any further explorations. For this purpose we designed a form which tries to collect the information required. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From December 2003 to January 2005 we examined the small intestine of 98 patients with the help of CE. Later they were sent an anonymous questionnaire in July 2005, which included 10 questions upon the origin and previous knowledge of the patient about this technique, their tolerance to it, and the value they attached to it with regard to finding a new diagnosis and assigning different treatments, and also the incidence in the positive or negative evolution of their disease in particular and of medicine in general. RESULTS: Answer rate reached 58% and was slightly higher among women and people over 70 years; 80% of repliers had been informed about CE by a physician, while nearly all the rest had received previous information from the media; 37% had had symptoms for more than 12 months, while only 17% had suffered them for one month before the exploration. A bit over 30% did not know what the specific diagnostic field of the test was (most of them women and young people), although most of them were not surprised by the procedure. Over 75% showed "acceptable" or "excellent" tolerance, while 5.5% (most of them young people) found it hard to bear. The opinion about its utility in the diagnosis was 37%, and although 70% thought that CE had revealed nothing new about their pathology, over 60% declared feeling better after the test; 84% pointed out that it had achieved a breakthrough for their quality of life (most of them men and very old people), and only 13% thought it was worthless. However, nearly all the answers agreed in that CE was an "important" or "very important" diagnostic device. CONCLUSIONS: After the test using CE, the diagnostic benefit detected by the patient is not the same as that shown by technical studies. Nevertheless, the test can be highly satisfactory for the patient in particular, and also in an overall view. CE is a well-tolerated test, applied in our setting to chronic diseases and that, contrary to what we supposed, is explained to patients mainly by a physician. Most of them are not familiar with its specific indications.