The Periscreen Strip Is Highly Efficient for the Exclusion of Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis in Cirrhotic Outpatients.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the performance of a new strip (Periscreen) for the rapid diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). METHODS: Ascitic fluid (AF) of cirrhotic patients hospitalized between March 2014 and August 2015 was independently tested by two readers using the new strip, which has four colorimetric graduations (negative, trace, small, and large). SBP was diagnosed on neutrophils in ascites>250/mm3. Ascites not related to portal hypertension were excluded. RESULTS: Overall, 649 patients from 21 French centers were included and 1,402 AF (803 AF samples from 315 outpatients and 599 samples from 334 inpatients) were assessed. Eighty-four AF samples (17 AF in 9 outpatients and 67 AF in 31 inpatients) were diagnosed as SBP. The prevalence of SBP was 6% (2.1% in outpatients vs. 11.2% in inpatients; P<0.001) and 7.2% in patients with symptoms suggestive of SBP (3% in outpatients vs. 11.3% in inpatients; P<0.001). The κ value for inter-reader agreement was 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.84) when using the "trace" threshold. Considering discordant results (n=131) as positive to interpret the diagnostic performance of the strip at the "trace" threshold, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 91.7, 57.1, 12.0, and 99.1%, respectively. At this "trace" threshold, sensitivity and NPV were both 100% in outpatients, and 89.5 and 97.9% in inpatients, respectively. At the "small" threshold, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 81.0, 85.9, 25.9 and 98.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Periscreen strip is a rapid and highly efficient tool for excluding SBP in the outpatient setting.

Prevention of 5-fluorouracil-induced early severe toxicity by pre-therapeutic dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency screening: Assessment of a multiparametric approach.

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based treatments can lead to early-onset severe (4%-5%) even fatal (0.3%) toxicities in patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency. This multicenter prospective cohort study aimed to assess the clinical benefit of pretherapeutic screening for DPD deficiency using a multiparametric approach. Two parallel cohorts of patients treated with 5-FU-based chemotherapy for colorectal carcinoma were compared in a prospective nonrandomized study. In arm A, patients had DPD deficiency screening before treatment, whereas in arm B no pretherapy screening was performed. Dosing was based on 5-FU administration guidelines of each institution. DPD deficiency screening was performed using a combined multiparametric approach (5-FUODPM Tox). The frequency of early grade 4-5 toxic events potentially induced by 5-FU was compared in the two groups. At total of 1,142 patients (n = 1,116 evaluable) were enrolled. In arm A, out of 718 evaluable patients, nine grade 4 early toxicities potentially related to 5-FU were reported in nine patients (1.2%) with no toxic death despite one complete DPD deficiency and 24 partial deficiencies. The 24 patients with partial deficiency had safe pharmacokinetics (PK)-monitored 5-FU. In arm B, among 398 evaluable patients, 17 grade 4-5 toxic early events potentially related to 5-FU were reported in 12 patients (4.2%). The incidence of early severe toxicity was significantly higher in arm B (P = .0019), confirming the positive impact of pretherapeutic DPD assessment. The percent of patients with a toxicity grade 3 or higher observed in arm A was 10.8% (n = 78) compared to 17.55% (n = 69)  in arm B (P = .0497). The percentage of death was reduced from 2.5/1,000 in arm B to 0 in arm A. The time to occurrence of all grade ≥3 toxicities was determined in both arms and the difference between the two arms was significant (P = .047). Overall, one patient with complete DPD deficiency confirmed retrospectively died within 13 days from grade 5 multivisceral toxicity. Enrollment was prematurely closed after external experts' decision. In conclusion, multiparametric pretherapeutic DPD deficiency screening significantly lowered the risk of early severe toxicity and avoided an early toxic death. This approach should be used for safe administration of 5-FU-based treatments.

Plastic or metal stents for malignant stricture of the common bile duct? Results of a randomized prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The systematic use of metal stents to treat biliary obstruction is restricted by high cost compared with plastic stents. The aims of this study were to compare cost and efficacy of plastic stents and metal stents in the treatment of patients with malignant common bile duct strictures and to define factors that predict survival of these patients. METHODS: One hundred eighteen patients (mean age 75 years) with malignant strictures of the common bile duct were randomized to placement of a plastic stent or metal stent. Comparisons were made with the Mann-Whitney or chi-square test as indicated; survival rates were compared with a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups. Time to first obstruction was longer for patients in the metal stent group (metal stent, median not reached vs. plastic stent, 5 months; p = 0.007). The number of additional days of hospitalization, days of antibiotic therapy, and the numbers of ERCPs and transabdominal US procedures was significantly higher in the plastic stent group. After multivariate analysis, only the presence of liver metastases was independently related to survival (p < 0.0005; OR = 2.25). This variable defined a group with a shorter survival. Median survival of patients with hepatic metastasis at diagnosis was 2.7 months compared with 5.3 months for patients without liver metastasis; in the latter group, the overall cost associated with metal stents was lower than for plastic stents. CONCLUSIONS: Metal stent placement is the most effective treatment of inoperable malignant common bile duct stricture. Placement of a metal stent is cost effective in patients without hepatic metastases, whereas a plastic stent should be placed in patients with spread of the tumor to the liver.