Prospective, study comparing the accuracy of two different stool antigen tests (Premier Platinum HpSA and novel ImmunoCard STAT! rapid test) for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection.

BACKGROUND: At present only monoclonal EIA (enzyme-immunoassay) stool antigen-tests have obtained optimal accuracy in the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori. Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of two stool antigen-tests, the validated Premier Platinum HpSA PLUS (EIA test) and the newly available ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA HD (rapid test) for the initial diagnosis and the confirmation of eradication of H. pylori infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with indication of H. pylori diagnosis, or confirmation after treatment were included. Data were coded to protect personal data and ensure blindness between tests. Accuracy was considered as coincident diagnosis with the gold standard (13C-urea breath test, UBT). The EIA was used as a bench standard. All stool tests were performed in duplicate. RESULTS: 264 patients completed the protocol (100 naïve, 164 post-eradication). Average age was 52 years, 61% women, 11% ulcer. Positive diagnoses by UBT were 41% for naïve and 17% for post-eradication. Overall ImmunoCard and EIA accuracies were respectively 91% (95%C.I.=88-94%) and 89% (86-93%), sensitivities 72% (67-78%) and 72% (67-78%), and specificities 98% (96-100%), and 95% (92-97%). Concordance between ImmunoCard and EIA was 95% (93-98%). DISCUSSION: Our results indicate that the newly available ImmunoCard rapid stool antigen-test achieves 90% accuracy, with high specificity but suboptimal sensitivity. The ImmunoCard attained equivalent accuracies as the EIA bench standard, with 95% concordance.

Small and Large Intestine (I): Malabsorption of Nutrients.

Numerous disorders can alter the physiological mechanisms that guarantee proper digestion and absorption of nutrients (macro- and micronutrients), leading to a wide variety of symptoms and nutritional consequences. Malabsorption can be caused by many diseases of the small intestine, as well as by diseases of the pancreas, liver, biliary tract, and stomach. This article provides an overview of pathophysiologic mechanisms that lead to symptoms or complications of maldigestion (defined as the defective intraluminal hydrolysis of nutrients) or malabsorption (defined as defective mucosal absorption), as well as its clinical consequences, including both gastrointestinal symptoms and extraintestinal manifestations and/or laboratory abnormalities. The normal uptake of nutrients, vitamins, and minerals by the gastrointestinal tract (GI) requires several steps, each of which can be compromised in disease. This article will first describe the mechanisms that lead to poor assimilation of nutrients, and secondly discuss the symptoms and nutritional consequences of each specific disorder. The clinician must be aware that many malabsorptive disorders are manifested by subtle disorders, even without gastrointestinal symptoms (for example, anemia, osteoporosis, or infertility in celiac disease), so the index of suspicion must be high to recognize the underlying diseases in time.

Budesonide as induction therapy for incomplete microscopic colitis: A randomised, placebo-controlled multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Incomplete microscopic colitis (MCi) is a subtype of microscopic colitis (MC). Budesonide is recommended as a first-line treatment for MC. However, randomised trials on efficacy of treatment in MCi are missing. We therefore performed a randomised, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate budesonide as induction therapy for MCi. METHODS: Patients with active MCi were randomly assigned to either budesonide 9 mg once daily or placebo for 8 weeks in a double-blind, double-dummy design. The primary endpoint was clinical remission, defined as a mean of <3 stools/day and a mean of <1 watery stool/day in the 7 days before week 8. RESULTS: Due to insufficient patient recruitment, the trial was discontinued prematurely. The intention-to-treat analysis included 44 patients (21 budesonide and 23 placebo). The primary endpoint of clinical remission at week 8 was obtained by 71.4% on budesonide and 43.5% on placebo (p = 0.0582). All clinical secondary endpoints were in favour of budesonide. Budesonide decreased the number of soft or watery stools (16.3 vs. 7.7, p = 0.0186) and improved health-related quality of life for all four dimensions of the short health scale. Adverse events with a suspected relation to study drug were reported in one patient in the budesonide group and two patients in the placebo group. Neither serious nor severe adverse events occurred during the double-blind phase. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide decreased the frequency of soft or watery stools and improved the patients' quality of life significantly in MCi, but the primary endpoint was not met due to the low sample size (type 2 error). Budesonide was safe and well tolerated during the 8-weeks treatment course.

Effectiveness of adalimumab for the treatment of ulcerative colitis in clinical practice: comparison between anti-tumour necrosis factor-naïve and non-naïve patients.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis (UC) treatment is focused to achieve mucosal healing, avoiding disease progression. The study aimed to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of adalimumab (ADA) in UC and to identify predictors of remission to ADA. METHODS: This cohort study used data from the ENEIDA registry. Clinical response, clinical remission, endoscopic remission, adverse events (AE), colectomy, and hospitalisations were evaluated; baseline characteristics and biological parameters were compared to determine predictors of response. RESULTS: We included 263 patients (87 naïve and 176 previously exposed to anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha, TNF). After 12 weeks, clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic remission rates were 51, 26, and 14 %, respectively. The naïve group demonstrated better response to treatment than the anti-TNF-exposed group at short-term. Clinical and endoscopic remission within 1 year of treatment was better in the naïve group (65 vs. 49 and 50 vs. 35 %, respectively). The rates of AE, dose-escalation, hospitalisations, and colectomy during the first year were higher in anti-TNF-exposed patients (40, 43, and 27 % vs. 26, 21, and 11 %, respectively). Patients with primary failure and intolerance to the first anti-TNF and severe disease were associated with worse clinical response. Primary non-response to prior anti-TNF treatment and severe disease were predictive of poorer clinical remission. Low levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and faecal calprotectin (FC) at baseline were predictors of clinical remission. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, ADA was effective in UC, especially in anti-TNF naïve patients. FC and CRP could be predictors of treatment effectiveness.