Multimodal treatment of perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease: seton versus anti-TNF versus advancement plasty (PISA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently there is no guideline for the treatment of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. Most patients receive anti-TNF medication, but no long-term results of this expensive medication have been described, nor has its efficiency been compared to surgical strategies. With this study, we hope to provide treatment consensus for daily clinical practice with reduction in costs. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Patients with Crohn's disease who are over 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed or recurrent active high perianal fistulas, with one internal opening and no anti-TNF usage in the past three months will be considered. Patients with proctitis, recto-vaginal fistulas or anal stenosis will be excluded. Prior to randomisation, an MRI and ileocolonoscopy are required. All treatment will start with seton placement and a course of antibiotics. Patients will then be randomised to: (1) chronic seton drainage (with oral 6-mercaptopurine (6MP)) for one year, (2) anti-TNF medication (with 6MP) for one year (seton removal after six weeks) or (3) advancement plasty after eight weeks of seton drainage (under four months anti-TNF and 6MP for one year). The primary outcome parameter is the number of patients needing fistula-related re-intervention(s). Secondary outcomes are the number of patients with closed fistulas (based on an evaluated MRI score) after 18 months, disease activity, quality of life and costs. DISCUSSION: The PISA trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. With the comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies, we will be able to comment on the efficiency of the various treatment strategies, with respect to several long-term outcome parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register identifier: NTR4137 (registered on 23 August 2013).

Cost Efficacy of Metal Stents for Palliation of Extrahepatic Bile Duct Obstruction in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic stents are placed for palliation of extrahepatic bile duct obstruction. Although self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) remain patent longer than plastic stents, they are more expensive. We aimed to evaluate which type of stent (plastic, uncovered SEMS [uSEMS], or partially covered SEMS [pcSEMS]) is the most effective and we assessed costs. METHODS: We performed a multicenter randomized trial in 219 patients at 18 hospitals in The Netherlands from February 2008 through February 2013. Patients were assigned randomly for placement of a plastic stent (n = 73), uSEMS (n = 75), or pcSEMS (n = 71) during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Patients were followed up for up to 1 year. Researchers were not blinded to groups. The main study end points included functional stent time and costs. RESULTS: The mean functional stent times were 172 days for plastic stents, 288 days for uSEMS, and 299 days for pcSEMS (P < .005 for uSEMS and pcSEMS vs plastic). The initial placement of plastic stents (€1042 or $1106) cost significantly less than placement of SEMS (€1973 or $2094) (P = .001). However, the total cost per patient at the end of the follow-up period did not differ significantly between plastic stents (€7320 or $7770) and SEMS (€6932 or $7356) (P = .61). Furthermore, in patients with short survival times (≤3 mo) or metastatic disease, the total cost per patient did not differ between plastic stents and SEMS. No differences in costs were found between pcSEMS and uSEMS. CONCLUSIONS: Although placement of SEMS (uncovered or partially covered) for palliation of extrahepatic bile duct obstruction initially is more expensive than placement of plastic stents, SEMS have longer functional time. The total costs after 1 year do not differ significantly with stent type. Dutch Clinical Trial Registration no: NTR1361.

Open-access flexible sigmoidoscopy frequently leads to additional colonoscopy in symptomatic patients over 50 years.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: General practitioners (GPs) in the Netherlands have open access to flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms, but not to colonoscopy. This study was performed to investigate the yield of FS in GP-referred patients, to evaluate the proportion of patients in whom additional colonoscopy was performed and to investigate whether there was a subgroup of patients referred for symptoms with a low risk of detecting significant findings. METHODS: All patients undergoing FS in 2008 and 2009 who were referred by GPs were analyzed. Indications for additional colonoscopy were the presence of polyps and/or colorectal cancer (CRC), polyp screening or surveillance, incomplete FS or other reasons. RESULTS: In total, 916 patients underwent FS. A cause for the symptoms was found in 44.2% of patients. In patients aged 50 years or older, additional colonoscopy was more frequently performed than in younger patients (27.5% vs. 9.6%, OR=3.6 [95% CI 2.4-5.4]), mainly due to a higher prevalence of adenomatous polyps (29.9% vs. 10.5%, OR=3.6 [95% CI 2.4-5.4]) and CRC (7.5% vs. 1.3%, OR=6.2 [95% CI 2.2-17.5]) during FS. In 7.8% patients undergoing FS for abdominal pain as the presenting symptom, a probable cause for the symptoms was found, mainly diverticular disease. CONCLUSION: Due to the high prevalence of polyps and CRC in symptomatic patients aged 50 years or older undergoing FS, an additional colonoscopy is performed frequently. In patients referred with abdominal pain, FS is unlikely to reveal a relevant cause for the symptoms.

A comparative study of diagnostic scoring systems for autoimmune pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: Several diagnostic scoring systems for autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) have been proposed including the Asian, HISORt (Histology, Imaging, Serology, Other organ involvement and Response to therapy), and International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria (ICDC), which have been compared by a few studies. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of these criteria in patients diagnosed with AIP between May 1992 and August 2011. METHODS: Scoring systems were applied retrospectively using data obtained in the initial evaluation period, before pancreatic resection was performed. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen cases with AIP were included. Eighty-two percent met the diagnostic criteria for AIP according to either the Asian, HISORt, or ICDC criteria. Only 33% met the Asian criteria, probably mainly related to a low rate of diagnostic pancreatography. In 18%, all scoring systems failed to confirm the diagnosis, even though these patients were considered to have a firm diagnosis of AIP. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of AIP patients, the 3 major diagnostic scoring systems for AIP proved to be complementary rather than overlapping. Our data indicate that one-fifth of our AIP patients do not meet any of these scoring systems. The ICDC, Asian, and HISORt criteria should be considered as useful clinical tools but not as criterion standard for the diagnosis.

Pancreatitis of biliary origin, optimal timing of cholecystectomy (PONCHO trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After an initial attack of biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis and other gallstone-related complications. Guidelines advocate performing cholecystectomy within 2 to 4 weeks after discharge for mild biliary pancreatitis. During this waiting period, the patient is at risk of recurrent biliary events. In current clinical practice, surgeons usually postpone cholecystectomy for 6 weeks due to a perceived risk of a more difficult dissection in the early days following pancreatitis and for logistical reasons. We hypothesize that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis or other complications of gallstone disease in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis without increasing the difficulty of dissection and the surgical complication rate compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS/DESIGN: PONCHO is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority multicenter trial. Patients are randomly allocated to undergo early laparoscopic cholecystectomy, within 72 hours after randomization, or interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 25 to 30 days after randomization. During a 30-month period, 266 patients will be enrolled from 18 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of mortality and acute re-admissions for biliary events (that is, recurrent biliary pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, symptomatic/obstructive choledocholithiasis requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography including cholangitis (with/without endoscopic sphincterotomy), and uncomplicated biliary colics) occurring within 6 months following randomization. Secondary endpoints include the individual endpoints of the composite endpoint, surgical and other complications, technical difficulty of cholecystectomy and costs. DISCUSSION: The PONCHO trial is designed to show that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 72 hours) reduces the combined endpoint of mortality and re-admissions for biliary events as compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (between 25 and 30 days) after recovery of a first episode of mild biliary pancreatitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN72764151.

Performance of EUS-FNA for mediastinal lymphadenopathy: impact on patient management and costs in low-volume EUS centers.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of mediastinal lymphadenopathy has been shown to be a valuable diagnostic tool in high-volume EUS centers (≥ 50 mediastinal EUS-FNA/endoscopist/year). Our goal was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and its impact on clinical management and costs in low-volume EUS centers (<50 mediastinal EUS-FNA/endoscopist/year). METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to two Dutch endoscopy centers in the period 2002-2008 for EUS-FNA of mediastinal lymphadenopathy were reviewed. The gold standard for a cytological diagnosis was histological confirmation or clinical follow-up of more than 6 months with repeat imaging. The impact of EUS-FNA on clinical management was subdivided into a positive impact by providing (1) adequate cytology that influenced the decision to perform surgery or (2) a diagnosis of a benign inflammatory disorder, and a negative impact which was subdivided into (1) false-negative or inconclusive cytology or (2) an adequate cytological diagnosis that did not influence patient management. Costs of an alternative diagnostic work-up without EUS-FNA, as established by an expert panel, were compared to costs of the actual work-up. RESULTS: In total, 213 patients (71% male, median age= 61 years, range = 23-88 years) underwent EUS-FNA. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were 89%, 100%, 80%, and 100%, respectively. EUS-FNA had a positive impact on clinical management in 84% of cases by either influencing the decision to perform surgery (49%) or excluding malignant lymphadenopathy (35%), and a negative impact in 7% of cases because of inadequate (3%) or false-negative (4%) cytology. In 9% of cases, EUS-FNA was performed without an established indication. Two nonfatal perforations occurred (0.9%). Total cost reduction was €100,593, with a mean cost reduction of €472 (SD = €607) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Mediastinal EUS-FNA can be performed in low-volume EUS centers without compromising diagnostic accuracy. Moreover, EUS-FNA plays an important role in the management of patients with mediastinal lymphadenopathy and reduces total diagnostic costs.

Laparoscopic ileocolic resection versus infliximab treatment of distal ileitis in Crohn's disease: a randomized multicenter trial (LIR!C-trial).

BACKGROUND: With the availability of infliximab, nowadays recurrent Crohn's disease, defined as disease refractory to immunomodulatory agents that has been treated with steroids, is generally treated with infliximab. Infliximab is an effective but expensive treatment and once started it is unclear when therapy can be discontinued. Surgical resection has been the golden standard in recurrent Crohn's disease. Laparoscopic ileocolic resection proved to be safe and is characterized by a quick symptom reduction. The objective of this study is to compare infliximab treatment with laparoscopic ileocolic resection in patients with recurrent Crohn's disease of the distal ileum with respect to quality of life and costs. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with Crohn's disease located in the terminal ileum that require infliximab treatment following recent consensus statements on inflammatory bowel disease treatment: moderate to severe disease activity in patients that fail to respond to steroid therapy or immunomodulatory therapy. Patients will be randomized to receive either infliximab or undergo a laparoscopic ileocolic resection. Primary outcomes are quality of life and costs. Secondary outcomes are hospital stay, early and late morbidity, sick leave and surgical recurrence. In order to detect an effect size of 0.5 on the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire at a 5% two sided significance level with a power of 80%, a sample size of 65 patients per treatment group can be calculated. An economic evaluation will be performed by assessing the marginal direct medical, non-medical and time costs and the costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) will be calculated. For both treatment strategies a cost-utility ratio will be calculated. Patients will be included from December 2007. DISCUSSION: The LIR!C-trial is a randomized multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether infliximab treatment or surgery is the best treatment for recurrent distal ileitis in Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register NTR1150.