Enteroscopy in diagnosis and treatment of small bowel bleeding: A Delphi expert consensus.

BACKGROUND: Enteroscopy plays an important role in the management of small bowel bleeding. However, current guidelines are not specifically designed for small bowel bleeding and recommendations from different international societies do not always align. Consequently, there is heterogeneity in the definitions of clinical entities, clinical practice policies, and adherence to guidelines among clinicians. This represents an obstacle to providing the best patient care and to obtain homogeneous data for clinical research. AIMS: The aims of the study were to establish a consensus on the definitions of bleeding entities and on the role of enteroscopy in the management of small bowel bleeding using a Delphi process. METHODS: A core group of eight experts in enteroscopy identified five main topics of small bowel bleeding management and drafted statements on each topic. An expert panel of nine gastroenterologists participated in three rounds of the Delphi process, together with the core group. RESULTS: A total of 33 statements were approved after three rounds of Delphi voting. CONCLUSION: This Delphi consensus proposes clear definitions and a unifying strategy to standardize the management of small bowel bleeding. Furthermore, it provides a useful guide in daily practice for both clinical and technical issues of enteroscopy.

Adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations of endoscopists performing small bowel capsule endoscopy in Italy.

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recently issued a technical review focused on small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). AIM: To compare SBCE current practice in Italy to ESGE technical recommendations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A dedicated per-centre semi-quantitative questionnaire was prepared by a group of SBCE experts. One-hundred-fifty Centres were invited to participate in the data collection concerning SBCEs performed between June 2016 and June 2017. Data were compared with ESGE recommendations. RESULTS: 120 Centres participated in the data collection. Current practices agreed with ESGE recommendations in 56.3% (9/16) of the issues evaluated. Differences between ESGE recommendations and current practice concerned the management of patients with pacemakers or cardiac implantable defibrillators (which was in agreement with ESGE recommendations in 31.7% and 15.8% of Centres, respectively), the SBCE setting (only 51% of SBCEs were performed as outpatients procedures), the assessment of capsule excretion (timing and modality were in agreement with ESGE recommendation in 20.0% of Centres), and in the involvement of trained nurses or fellows in training as pre-readers (7/120; 5.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Although SBCE is widely used and largely available in Italy, there are still some technical, practical and organizational issues that can be modified to bridge the gap between current practice and ESGE guideline recommendations.

A Propensity Score-matched Comparison of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitor-naïve and Non-naïve Patients With Crohn's Disease: Real-Life Data From the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is an unmet need to better understand the effectiveness of different biologics in inflammatory bowel diseases. We aimed at performing a multicentre, real-life comparison of the effectiveness of infliximab [IFX] and adalimumab [ADA] in Crohn's disease [CD]. METHODS: Data of consecutive patients with CD treated with IFX and ADA from January 2013 to May 2017 were extracted from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. We used propensity score-matching accounting for the main baseline characteristics in TNF-α inhibitor-naïve and non-naïve patients. RESULTS: A total of 632 patients [735 total treatments] were included. Among naïve patients, a clinical benefit [the sum of steroid-free remission plus clinical response] was achieved in 81.8% patients treated with ADA and in 77.6% patients treated with IFX (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.23, 95% CI 0.63-2-44, p = 0.547] at 12 weeks; after 1 year, a clinical benefit was achieved in 69.2% of patients treated with ADA and in 64.5% patients treated with IFX [adjusted OR: 1.10, 95% CI 0.61-1.96, p = 0.766]. Among non-naïve patients, a clinical benefit was achieved in 61.7% of patients treated with ADA and in 68.1% of patients treated with IFX [adjusted OR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.21-2.44, p = 0.600] at 12 weeks; after 1 year, a clinical benefit was achieved in 48.9% of patients treated with ADA and in 40.4% patients treated with IFX [adjusted OR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.54-2.86, p = 0.620]. CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched comparison of ADA and IFX in CD, both drugs showed high rates of clinical benefit, without significant differences between them.

A real life comparison of the effectiveness of adalimumab and golimumab in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis, supported by propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab and golimumab are effective in the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. AIMS: We reported the comparative effectiveness of adalimumab and golimumab in ulcerative colitis. METHODS: 118 patients treated with adalimumab and 79 treated with golimumab were included and evaluated at 8 weeks and at the end of follow up. RESULTS: Overall clinical benefit was 72.6% at 8 weeks and 58.9% at the end of follow up. Patients with longer disease duration and those treated with adalimumab had a better outcome. Clinical benefit was 78.8% in adalimumab patients and 63.3% in golimumab patients (p = 0.026) after 8 weeks; it was 66.9% in adalimumab patients and 46.8% in golimumab patients (p = 0.008) at the end of follow up. These data were confirmed by propensity score analysis. A further analysis considering adalimumab optimization as treatment failure showed that the difference between adalimumab and golimumab was not significant. CONCLUSION: Adalimumab and golimumab are effective in the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Adalimumab seems to be more effective than golimumab. This difference is probably affected by the impossibility of golimumab to be optimized in Italy while adalimumab is.

New endoscopy advances to refine adenoma detection rate for colorectal cancer screening: None is the winner.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in males and second in females, and globally the fourth cause for cancer death worldwide. Oncological screening of CRC has a major role in the management of the disease and it is mostly performed by colonoscopy. Anyway, effectiveness of endoscopic screening for CRC strictly depends on adequate detection and removal of potentially precancerous lesions, and accuracy of colonoscopy in detection of adenomas is still suboptimal. For this reason, several technological advances have been implemented in order to improve the diagnostic sensitivity of colonoscopy in adenoma detection. Among these: (1) Visual technologies such as chromoendoscopy and narrow band imaging; (2) optical innovation as high definition endoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy or Third Eye Retroscope; and (3) mechanical advances as Cap assisted colonoscopy, Endocuff, Endoring and G-Eye endoscope. All these technologies advances have been tested over time by clinical studies with mixed results. Which of them is more likely to be successful in the next future?

Screening of colorectal cancer: present and future.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in males and second in females, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Currently, about 60-70% of diagnosed cases in symptomatic patients are detected at an advanced stage of disease. Earlier stage detection through the use of screening strategies would allow for better outcomes in terms of reducing the disease burden. Areas covered: The aim of this paper is to review the current published evidence from literature which assesses the performance and effectiveness of different screening tests for the early detection of CRC. Expert commentary: Adequate screening strategies can reduce CRC incidence and mortality. In the last few decades, several tests have been proposed for CRC screening. To date, there is still insufficient evidence to identify which approach is definitively superior, and no screening strategy for CRC can therefore be defined as universally ideal. The best strategy would be the one that can be economically viable and to which the patient can adhere best to over time. The latest guidelines suggest colonoscopy every 10 years or annual fecal immuno-chemical test (FIT) for people with normal risk, while for individuals with high risk or hereditary syndromes specific recommendations are provided.