Early management of acute severe UC in the biologics era: development and international validation of a prognostic clinical index to predict steroid response.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether changes in acute severe colitis (ASC) management have translated to improved outcomes and to develop a simple model predicting steroid non-response on admission. DESIGN: Outcomes of 131 adult ASC admissions (117 patients) in Oxford, UK between 2015 and 2019 were compared with data from 1992 to 1993. All patients received standard treatment with intravenous corticosteroids and endoscopic disease activity scoring (Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS)). Steroid non-response was defined as receiving medical rescue therapy or surgery. A predictive model developed in the Oxford cohort was validated in Australia and India (Gold Coast University Hospital 2015-2020, n=110; All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 2018-2020, n=62). RESULTS: In the 2015-2019 Oxford cohort, 15% required colectomy during admission vs 29% in 1992-1993 (p=0.033), while 71 (54%) patients received medical rescue therapy (27% ciclosporin, 27% anti-tumour necrosis factor, compared with 27% ciclosporin in 1992-1993 (p=0.0015). Admission C reactive protein (CRP) (false discovery rate, p=0.00066), albumin (0.0066) and UCEIS scores (0.015) predicted steroid non-response. A four-point model was developed involving CRP of ≥100 mg/L (one point), albumin of ≤25 g/L (one point), and UCEIS score of ≥4 (1 point) or ≥7 (2 points). Patients scoring 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the validation cohorts had steroid response rates of 100, 75.0%, 54.9%, 18.2% and 0%, respectively. Scoring of ≥3 was 84% (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98) predictive of steroid failure (OR 11.9, 95% CI 10.8 to 13.0). Colectomy rates in the validation cohorts were were 8%-11%. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency colectomy rates for ASC have halved in 25 years to 8%-15% worldwide. Patients who will not respond to corticosteroids are readily identified on admission and may be prioritised for early intensification of therapy.

Prospective single-blinded single-center randomized controlled trial of Prep Kit-C and Moviprep: Does underlying inflammatory bowel disease impact tolerability and efficacy?

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for detection of colonic disease. An optimal evaluation depends on adequate bowel cleansing. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), require frequent endoscopic assessment for both activity and dysplasia assessment. Two commonly used bowel preparations in Australia are Prep Kit-C (Pc) and Moviprep (Mp). Little is known about tolerability, efficacy and safety of split protocols of Mp and Pc in both IBD and non-IBD patients. AIM: To primary aim was to compare the tolerability, efficacy and safety of split protocols of Mp and Pc in patients having a colonoscopy. The secondary aim was to compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of either preparation in patients with or without IBD. METHODS: Patients were randomized to Pc or Mp bowel preparation. Patients completed a questionnaire to assess tolerability. Efficacy was assessed using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Score. Serum electrolytes and renal function were collected one week prior to colonoscopy and on the day of colonoscopy. RESULTS: Of 338 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of 168 patients randomized to Mp and 170 to Pc. The efficacy of bowel preparation (mean Ottawa Bowel Preparation Score) was similar between Mp (5.4 ± 2.4) and Pc (5.1 ± 2.1) (P = 0.3). Mean tolerability scores were similar in Mp (11.84 ± 5.4) and Pc (10.99 ± 5.2; P = 0.17). 125 patients had IBD (73 had Crohn's Disease and 52 had Ulcerative colitis). Sixty-four IBD patients were allocated to Mp and 61 to Pc. In non-IBD patients, 104 were allocated to Mp and 109 to Pc. The mean tolerability score in the IBD group was lower than the non-IBD group (mean tolerability scores: IBD: 10.3 ± 5.1 and non-IBD: 12.0 ± 5.3; P = 0.01). IBD patients described more abdominal pain with Mp when compared with Pc; (Mp: 5.7 ± 4.4 vs Pc: 3.6 ± 2.6, P = 0.046). Serum magnesium level increased with Pc compared with Mp in all patients (mean increase in mmol/L: Mp: 0.03 ± 0.117 and Pc: 0.11 ± 0.106; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In this study, the efficacy, tolerability and safety of Mp and Pc were similar in all patients. However, patients with IBD reported lower tolerability with both preparations. Specifically, IBD patients had more abdominal pain with Mp. These results should be considered when recommending bowel preparation especially to IBD patients.

Patients with non-viral liver disease have a greater tumor burden and less curative treatment options when diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIM: To assess the impact of underlying liver disease etiology on the presenting features and outcomes in a large cohort of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: A prospective database of all patients with HCC was established from 1998 to March 2012. One thousand and seventy-eight patients were categorized into three groups, based on the etiology of their liver disease: hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and non-viral liver disease (NVLD). Overall survival was determined by Kaplan Meier analysis to time of death or last follow-up. RESULTS: HCC patients with HCV (85%) were more likely to be diagnosed as part of a surveillance program, compared to HBV or NVLD (both 71%) (P < 0.001). Patients with NVLD were more likely to receive best supportive care (29%) compared to those with HBV (21%) or HCV (20%) (P < 0.02). Twelve percent of NVLD and 13% of HBV patients underwent liver transplantation compared to 21% of HCV patients (P = 0.001). Median survival from presentation was lowest in NVLD (1.7 years) when compared to HBV (2.8 years) and HCV (2.6 years) (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of survival included Child Turcotte Pugh score, size of dominant lesion, absence of vascular invasion, and management with surgical resection or liver transplantation. Patient age and the etiology of the underlying liver disease were not independent predictors of survival. CONCLUSION: Patients with NVLD and HCC were less likely to be enrolled in a HCC surveillance program and are less likely to have curative therapies such as liver resection and transplantation after diagnosis with HCC, when compared to patients with Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C.

Hepatitis A to E: what's new?

Viral hepatitis contributes to significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. While acute infection may be self-limiting, unrecognised chronic infection and under-utilisation of guideline-based approaches to therapy contribute to increasing rates of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and death. Our aim was to review the current evidence for screening, diagnosis and treatment in hepatitis A to E. Evidence for this review was sourced from international and Australian guidelines and high-quality clinical trials. MEDLINE was searched using structured key word strategy and retrieved articles were reviewed methodically to inform a brief and up-to-date synopsis of hepatitis A to E. We share some of the recent developments in viral hepatitis, specifically the new therapies for hepatitis C. Direct-acting antiviral therapies are safe, well-tolerated and effective. Subsidies allow access for all Australians with most strains of hepatitis C. We outline evidence underpinning efficacy and safety of treatment for hepatitis B, while clarifying some of the nuances in the setting of pregnancy and immunosuppression. We provide a simplified concept to facilitate understanding of the five phases of hepatitis B; practical for real-world setting. Hepatitis A to E is a broad topic, not all aspects of these viruses can be covered in this short review. We provided suggestions for evidence based guidelines, which are a suitable supplement to this article.

Sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a multi-centre real-world study.

OBJECTIVE: Sorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that improves survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In the absence of alternative therapies, sorafenib is often continued despite advancing liver disease or tumour progression. Real world studies are important to better characterise outcomes in these populations. Our aim was to review patterns of sorafenib use across eight Australian tertiary hospitals, defining variables associated with clinical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of medical records of 320 patients treated with sorafenib for HCC. Baseline clinical parameters, dosage, adverse effects, and survival from initiation of treatment were collected. Time to radiological progression and 3-month alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels were available for a subset of patients. RESULTS: Adverse effects occurred in 79% of patients, requiring dose reduction in 31% of patients. Multivariate analysis identified an increased rate of mortality with Child-Pugh C (HR 5.52, p = 0.012), ECOG performance status 2-3 (HR 2.84, p = 0.001), and extrahepatic metastases (HR 1.54, p = 0.04), and decreased rate of mortality with an AFP reduction of at least 20% at 3 months (HR 0.38, p = 0.001). An increased rate of radiological progression was associated with ECOG performance status 2-3 (HR 2.34, p = 0.041), whilst a decreased rate of radiological progression was associated with development of on-treatment diarrhoea (HR 0.55, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Survival in patients with Child-Pugh C liver function or advanced functional impairment treated with sorafenib is poor and thus routine use of this agent in these patients does not appear justified, particularly given the high rate of adverse effects. AFP concentration on therapy may help identify favourable response to treatment.