A propensity score weighted comparison of Vedolizumab, Adalimumab, and Golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: No real-life study on the comparative effectiveness of Vedolizumab (VDZ), Adalimumab (ADA), and Golimumab (GOL) in ulcerative colitis (UC) is currently available. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness of the three biologics in consecutive patients with UC. METHODS: A three-arms propensity score-adjusted analysis was performed using the Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting method. RESULTS: 463 treatments (VDZ: n = 187; ADA: n = 168; GOL: n = 108) were included (median follow-up: 47.6 weeks). At 12 weeks (n = 463), a steroid-free remission was reported in 24.1% patients in the VDZ group, in 33.3% patients in the ADA group, and in 30.6% patients in the GOL group (p = n.s. for all comparisons). At 52 weeks (n = 377), a steroid-free remission was reported in 51.5% patients in the VDZ group, in 31.2% patients in the ADA group, and in 29.4% patients in the GOL group (p = 0.002 for VDZ vs. ADA, p = 0.001 for VDZ vs. GOL, p = n.s. for ADA vs. GOL). Cox survival analysis demonstrated that patients treated with VDZ had reduced probability of treatment discontinuation compared to those treated with ADA (HR: 0.42, 95% CI 0.28-0.64, p < 0.001) and GOL (HR: 0.30, 95% CI 0.19-0.46, p < 0.001), while patients treated with ADA had reduced risk of treatment discontinuation compared to those treated with GOL (HR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.50-1.00, p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: VDZ was superior to ADA and GOL at 52 weeks and as treatment persistence, while ADA showed a superior treatment persistence compared to GOL.

The Current Practice of Lynch Syndrome Diagnosis and Management in Italy: A Qualitative Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most frequent form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC; up to 3-5% of the total CRC burden) and predisposes to the development of other cancers. Multidisciplinary diagnostic strategies are relevant both to the index cases and to their at-risk relatives, but their implementation is still limited. Our study aimed to explore LS testing practices in Italy. METHODS: In order to ascertain the current practice of LS diagnosis and management, we conducted a qualitative assessment by sending a questionnaire to health care professionals at 4 Italian hospitals selected as "models" representing different hospital settings. Based on the surveys, we reconstructed the management pathways for CRC patients in terms of diagnostic strategies and health professionals involved. RESULTS: Seven of the 8 invited professionals filled in the questionnaire. Noncompliance with the latest guidelines was reported, as no tumor "screening" was performed on CRC cases. The lack of a structured multidisciplinary team who manages CRC patients from risk assessment to diagnosis and follow-up was reported. The availability of professionals and laboratory technologies differ widely between hospitals. As for cascade testing of at-risk relatives, a systematic and active approach was absent in all the considered hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that no structured and standardized pathways for the diagnosis and management of LS patients are currently in place in Italy. We envisage that by extending our research to further experiences and countries, an increasing awareness of the topic can be translated into a health gain for hereditary CRC patients and their at-risk relatives.