Response to Ursodeoxycholic Acid May Be Assessed Earlier to Allow Second-Line Therapy in Patients with Unresponsive Primary Biliary Cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: Response to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) has been traditionally assessed 1 to 2 years after treatment initiation. With the development of new drugs, some patients may benefit from an earlier introduction of second-line therapies. AIMS: This study aims to identify whether well-validated response criteria could correctly identify individuals likely to benefit from add-on second-line therapy at 6 months. METHODS: Analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort which included only patients with clear-cut PBC. RESULTS: 206 patients with PBC (96.6% women; mean age 54 ± 12 years) were included. Kappa concordance was substantial for Toronto (0.67), Rotterdam (0.65), Paris 1 (0.63) and 2 (0.63) criteria at 6 and 12 months, whereas Barcelona (0.47) and POISE trial (0.59) criteria exhibited moderate agreement. Non-response rates to UDCA was not statistically different when assessed either at 6 or 12 months using Toronto, Rotterdam or Paris 2 criteria. Those differences were even smaller or absent in those subjects with advanced PBC. Mean baseline alkaline phosphatase was 2.73 ± 1.95 times the upper limit of normal (× ULN) among responders versus 5.05 ± 3.08 × ULN in non-responders (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After 6 months of treatment with UDCA, the absence of response by different criteria could properly identify patients who could benefit from early addition of second-line therapies, especially in patients with advanced disease or high baseline liver enzymes levels.

Anti-mitochondrial Antibody-Negative Primary Biliary Cholangitis Is Part of the Same Spectrum of Classical Primary Biliary Cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease in which anti-mitochondrial antibodies (AMA) are the diagnostic hallmark. Whether AMA-negative PBC patients represent a different phenotype of disease is highly debated. AIMS: The purpose of our study was to compare AMA-positive and AMA-negative PBC patients in a large non-white admixed Brazilian cohort. METHODS: The Brazilian Cholestasis Study Group multicentre database was reviewed to assess demographics, clinical features and treatment outcomes of Brazilian PBC patients, stratifying data according to AMA status. RESULTS: A total of 464 subjects (95.4% females, mean age 56 ± 5 years) with PBC were included. Three hundred and eighty-four (83%) subjects were AMA-positive, whereas 80 (17%) had AMA-negative PBC. Subjects with AMA-negative PBC were significantly younger (52.2 ± 14 vs. 59.6 ± 11 years, p = 0.001) and had their first symptom at an earlier age (43.2 ± 13 vs. 49.5 ± 12 years, p = 0.005). Frequency of type 2 diabetes was significantly increased in subjects with AMA-negative PBC (22.5% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.03). Lower IgM (272.2 ± 183 vs. 383.2 ± 378 mg/dL, p = 0.01) and triglycerides (107.6 ± 59.8 vs.129.3 ± 75.7 mg/dL, p = 0.025) and higher bilirubin (3.8 ± 13.5 vs. 1.8 ± 3.4 mg/dL, p = 0.02) levels were also observed in this subgroup. Response to ursodeoxycholic acid varied from 40.5 to 63.3% in AMA-positive and 34 to 62.3% in AMA-negative individuals, according to different response criteria. Outcomes such as development of liver-related complications, death and requirement for liver transplantation were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: AMA-negative PBC patients are similar to their AMA-positive counterparts with subtle differences observed in clinical and laboratory features.

Impact of superimposed Clostridium difficile infection in Crohn's or ulcerative colitis flares in the outpatient setting.

PURPOSE: The prospective assessment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) impact in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flare in outpatient setting has been poorly investigated. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and the associated factors with CDI in IBD outpatients presenting colitis flares as well as the outcomes following treatment. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, conducted from October, 2014, to July, 2016, 120 IBD patients (55% presenting colitis flare) and 40 non-IBD controls were assessed for CDI. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of CDI. Outcome analysis was estimated for recurrent CDI, hospitalization, colectomy, and CDI-associated mortality. RESULTS: The number of patients with CDI was significantly higher in IBD patients experiencing flares than in both inactive IBD and non-IBD groups (28.8 vs. 5.6 vs. 0%, respectively; p = 0.001). Females (OR = 1.39, 95% CI, 1.13-17.18), younger age (OR = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.65-0.92), steroid treatment (OR = 7.42, 95% CI, 5.17-40.20), and infliximab therapy (OR = 2.97, 95% CI, 1.99-24.63) were found to be independently associated with CDI. There was a dose-related increase in the risks of CDI on patients which had taken prednisone. Those treated with vancomycin had a satisfactory response to therapy, but 21% presented recurrent CDI and 16% were hospitalized. Neither necessity of colectomy nor mortality was noticed in any patient during the investigation. CONCLUSIONS: In IBD outpatients presenting colitis flares, CDI is highly prevalent. Females, younger age, infliximab, and notably steroid therapy were independently associated with CDI. Most patients with CDI experienced mild-to-moderate disease, and prompt treatment with vancomycin was highly effective, which seems to reduce the serious complication risks.

Azathioprine is more effective than mesalazine at preventing recurrent bowel obstruction in patients with ileocecal Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with subocclusive Crohn's disease (CD) who received azathioprine (AZA) therapy had lower re-hospitalization rates due to all causes and for surgical management of CD compared to those treated with mesalazine during a 3-year period. We investigated whether AZA also was effective for prevention of recurrent bowel obstruction. MATERIAL/METHODS: Rates of recurrent bowel occlusion were compared between patients treated with AZA and those treated with mesalazine. We assessed the time interval-off intestinal obstruction as well as the occlusion-free survival for both groups. RESULTS: There was a significantly lower cumulative rate of patients with recurrent subocclusion in the AZA group (56%) compared with the mesalazine group (79%; OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.67-8.6; P=0.003), with the number needed to treat in order to prevent 1 subocclusion episode of 3.7 favoring AZA. The occlusion-free time interval was longer in the AZA group compared with the mesalazine group (28.8 vs. 18.3 months; P=0.000). The occlusion-free survival at 12, 24, and 36 months was significantly higher in the AZA group (91%, 81%, and 72%, respectively) than in the mesalazine group (64.7%, 35.3%, and 23.5%, respectively; P<0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: In an exploratory analysis of patients with subocclusive ileocecal CD, maintenance therapy with AZA is more effective than mesalazine for eliminating or postponing recurrent intestinal obstruction during 3 years of therapy.

Effect of azathioprine or mesalazine therapy on incidence of re-hospitalization in sub-occlusive ileocecal Crohn's disease patients.

BACKGROUND: Although the cost of Crohn's disease (CD) treatment differs considerably, hospitalization and surgery costs account for most of the total treatment cost. Decreasing hospitalization and surgery rates are pivotal issues in reducing health-care costs. MATERIAL/METHODS We evaluated the effect of azathioprine (AZA) compared with mesalazine on incidence of re-hospitalizations due to all causes and for CD-related surgeries. In this controlled, randomized study, 72 subjects with sub-occlusive ileocecal CD were randomized for AZA (2-3 mg/kg per day) or mesalazine (3.2 g per day) therapy during a 3-year period. The primary end point was the re-hospitalization proportion due to all causes, as well as for surgical procedures during this period evaluated between the groups. RESULTS: On an intention-to-treat basis, the proportion of patients re-hospitalized within 36 months due to all causes was lower in patients treated with AZA compared to those on mesalazine (0.39 vs. 0.83, respectively; p=0.035). The AZA group had also significantly lower proportions of re-hospitalization for surgical intervention (0.25 vs. 0.56, respectively; p=0.011). The number of admissions (0.70 vs. 1.41, p=0.001) and the length of re-hospitalization (3.8 vs. 7.7 days; p=0.002) were both lower in AZA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with sub-occlusive ileocecal CD treated with AZA had lower re-hospitalization rates due to all causes and for surgical management of CD compared to those treated with mesalazine during a 3-year period. The long-term use of AZA in ileocecal CD patients recovering from a sub-occlusion episode can save healthcare costs.