Impact of screening programme to prevent anal cancer in high-risk patients with HIV.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed the impact of a nationwide screening programme to reduce the risk of anal cancer in a large cohort of high-risk patients with HIV. METHODS: From a large database from one referral centre, all high-risk patients with HIV (men who have sex with men, history of anal or genital warts, or previous cervix human papillomavirus-related lesions) who were eligible to enter the French anal cancer screening programme (2011-2020) were retrospectively included. Adherence to the screening programme was defined as no interval >18 months between two visits. Standardized management included perianal visualization and standard anoscopy with biopsies of macroscopic abnormalities. RESULTS: Overall, 700 patients with HIV were included (median follow-up 8.4 years [interquartile range 4.3-9.2] and 1491.6 patient-years), and 336 had one or more proctology visit. A total of 13 patients were diagnosed with anal squamous cell carcinomas. The risk of anal cancer was higher with anal intra-epithelial neoplasia grade 3 (AIN3; hazard ratio [HR] 44.5 [95% confidence interval {CI} 11.2-176.6], p < 0.001), AIN2 (HR 11.9 [95% CI 2.1-66.9], p = 0.005), or high-grade dysplasia (HR 23.4 [95% CI 7.9-69.1], p < 0.001) than with low-grade dysplasia or no lesion. Among the patients who were strictly adherent to the screening programme (4.6% [32/700]), we did not report any AIN or anal cancer, but we also did not observe any significant reduction in the risk of anal cancer (p = 0.51), AIN3 (p = 0.28), high-grade dysplasia (p = 0.19), or any AIN lesions (p = 0.10) compared with non-adherent patients. In contrast, screened patients were more likely to be diagnosed with anal warts (HR 3.71 [95% CI 2.14-6.42], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Macroscopic high-grade dysplasia lesions are associated with a higher risk of developing anal cancer. Despite finding no cases of cancer during the screening programme, we also did not demonstrate a clear benefit from our screening programme for the prevention of anal cancer in high-risk patients with HIV.

Anal Monkeypox Disease: Description of 65 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Monkeypox is a zoonosis endemic in Africa caused by 3 orthopoxvirus clades. Knowledge of the disease is limited, but a worldwide outbreak involving a new route of transmission was declared in April 2022. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe anal symptoms and outcomes in patients infected with Monkeypox virus presenting to an emergency proctology unit in Paris. DESIGN: This was an observational study. SETTING: We reported anal symptoms of all consecutive patients with monkeypox anal infection in a single proctology center between June 16, 2022, and July 26, 2022. Association with sexually transmitted infections and outcomes were also recorded. PATIENTS: Sixty-five men with a mean age of 39.6 (19.9-64.6) years with confirmed monkeypox anal infection were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anal symptoms and their severity were clinically assessed. A favorable outcome consisted of a complete resolution of clinical manifestation. RESULTS: Sexual transmission was reported in 51 patients (78.4%), among whom 63 (97%) were men who have sex with men. Twenty-eight (43%) were living with HIV, and 24 (36.9%) were taking tenofovir/emtricitabine for HIV preexposure prophylaxis. Anal symptoms appeared first in 36 patients (55.4%) and skin rash or other general symptoms in 22 patients (33.8%). Incubation time was 6.9 (1-26) days. Symptoms included painful perianal (n = 42 patients; 64.6%), anal (n = 28, 43%), and rectal (n = 25; 38.4%) ulcerations and perianal vesicles (n = 24; 36.9%). Proctitis was observed in 49 patients (75.4%). It was mild in 20 (40.8%) and intense in 29 (59.2%), and severe proctitis mimicking high intersphincteric suppuration was found in 4 (8.2%). Fifteen patients (23.1%) had concurrent sexually transmitted infection and 3 were hospitalized. Complete symptom resolution occurred within 12 days. LIMITATIONS: We performed a single-center study during a short period of time. CONCLUSIONS: Proctological symptoms are frequent in the current outbreak of monkeypox disease, probably linked to the route of transmission. Rectal ulcerations mimicking high intersphincteric suppuration should be recognized to avoid unnecessary surgery. See Video Abstract . ENFERMEDAD ANAL DE LA VIRUELA DEL MONO DESCRIPCIN DE CASOS: ANTECEDENTES:La viruela del simio mono es una zoonosis endémica en África causada por tres clados de orthopoxvirus. El conocimiento de la enfermedad es limitado, pero en abril de 2022 se declaró un brote mundial que implica una nueva vía de transmisión.OBJETIVO:Describir los síntomas anales y los resultados en pacientes que sufren de infección por Monkeypox que asistieron a una unidad de proctología de emergencia en París.DISEÑO:Un estudio observacional.ESCENARIO:Informamos los síntomas anales de todos los pacientes consecutivos con infección anal por viruela del mono en un solo centro de proctología entre el 16/6/2022 y el 26/7/2022. También se registró la asociación con infecciones de transmisión sexual (ITS) y el resultado.PACIENTES:Sesenta y cinco hombres de 39,6 [19,9-64,6] años con infección anal confirmada.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los síntomas anales y su gravedad se evaluaron clínicamente. Un resultado favorable consistió en una resolución completa de la manifestación clínica.RESULTADOS:La transmisión sexual se informó en 51 (78,4%) pacientes, de los cuales 63 (97%) eran hombres que tuvieron sexo con hombres. Veintiocho (43%) vivían con el VIH y 24 (36,9%) tomaban Emtricitabina/Tenofovir para profilaxis previa por exposición al VIH. Los síntomas anales aparecieron primero en 36 (55,4%) pacientes y la erupción cutánea u otros síntomas generales en 22 (33,8%). El tiempo de incubación fue de 6,9 [1-26] días. Los síntomas incluyeron ulceraciones perianales dolorosas (n = 42 pacientes, 64,6%), anales (n = 28, 43%), rectales (n = 25, 38,4%) y vesículas perianales (n = 24, 36,9%). Se observó proctitis en 49 (75,4%) pacientes. Fue leve en 20 (40,8%) e intensa en 29 (59,2%) y proctitis severa simulando supuración interesfinteriana alta en 4 (8,2%). Quince (23,1%) pacientes presentaban ITS concurrentes y 3 fueron hospitalizados. La resolución completa de los síntomas ocurrió dentro de los 12 días.LIMITACIONES:Estudio de un solo centro y durante corto período de tiempo.CONCLUSIÓN:Los síntomas proctológicos son frecuentes en el brote actual de la enfermedad de la viruela del mono, probablemente relacionados con la vía de transmisión. Las ulceraciones rectales que simulan una supuración interesfinteriana alta deben reconocerse para evitar una cirugía innecesaria. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Real-world comparison of effectiveness between tofacitinib and vedolizumab in patients with ulcerative colitis exposed to at least one anti-TNF agent.

BACKGROUND: Data comparing tofacitinib and vedolizumab in ulcerative colitis (UC) are lacking. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness of tofacitinib and vedolizumab in patients with UC who had prior exposure to anti-TNF therapy METHODS: In this multicentre study, we included consecutive patients with UC ≥18 years old with partial Mayo score >2 and prior anti-TNF exposure, who started tofacitinib or vedolizumab between January 2019 and June 2021. Comparisons were performed using propensity score analyses (inverse probability of treatment weighting). RESULTS: Overall, 126 and 178 patients received tofacitinib and vedolizumab, respectively. Intensified induction (vedolizumab infusion at week 10 or tofacitinib 10 mg b.d until week 16) was performed in 28.5% and 41.5% of patients, respectively. After propensity-score analysis, corticosteroid-free clinical remission (partial Mayo score ≤2) was achieved at week 16 in 45.1% and 40.2% of patients receiving tofacitinib and vedolizumab, respectively (aOR = 0.82 [0.35-1.91], p = 0.64). Endoscopic improvement (corticosteroid-free clinical remission and endoscopic Mayo score ≤1) (aOR = 0.23[0.08-0.65], p = 0.0032) and histological healing (endoscopic improvement + Nancy histological index ≤1) (13.4% vs 3.2%, aOR = 0.21[0.05-0.91], p = 0.023) were higher at week 16 in patients treated with tofacitinib. No factor was predictive of tofacitinib effectiveness. At least one primary failure to a biologic (OR = 0.46[0.22-0.99], p = 0.049), partial Mayo score >6 (OR = 0.39[0.17-0.90], p = 0.029) and CRP level > 30 mg/L at baseline (OR = 0.08[0.01-0.85], p = 0.036) were associated with vedolizumab failure. CONCLUSION: Tofacitinib and vedolizumab are effective in UC after failure of anti-TNF agents. However, tofacitinib seems more effective, especially in severe disease and primary failure to biologics.