Multicenter, randomized study to optimize bowel preparation for colon capsule endoscopy.

AIM: To assess the cleansing efficacy and safety of a new Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) bowel preparation regimen. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing two CCE regimens. Subjects were asymptomatic and average risk for colorectal cancer. The second generation CCE system (PillCam® COLON 2; Medtronic, Yoqneam, Israel) was utilized. Preparation regimens differed in the 1st and 2nd boosts with the Study regimen using oral sulfate solution (89 mL) with diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution ("diatrizoate solution") (boost 1 = 60 mL, boost 2 = 30 mL) and the Control regimen oral sulfate solution (89 mL) alone. The primary outcome was overall and segmental colon cleansing. Secondary outcomes included safety, polyp detection, colonic transit, CCE completion and capsule excretion ≤ 12 h. RESULTS: Both regimens had similar cleansing efficacy for the whole colon (Adequate: Study = 75.9%, Control = 77.3%; P = 0.88) and individual segments. In the Study group, CCE completion was superior (Study = 90.9%, Control = 76.9%; P = 0.048) and colonic transit was more often < 40 min (Study = 21.8%, Control = 4%; P = 0.0073). More Study regimen subjects experienced adverse events (Study = 19.4%, Control = 3.4%; P = 0.0061), and this difference did not appear related to diatrizoate solution. Adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature and no serious adverse events related either to the bowel preparation regimen or the capsule were observed. There was a trend toward higher polyp detection with the Study regimen, but this did not achieve statistical significance for any size category. Mean transit time through the entire gastrointestinal tract, from ingestion to excretion, was shorter with the Study regimen while mean colonic transit times were similar for both study groups. CONCLUSION: A CCE bowel preparation regimen using oral sulfate solution and diatrizoate solution as a boost agent is effective, safe, and achieved superior CCE completion.

Evidence for the use of intravenous immunoglobulins--a review of the literature.

Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) were first introduced in the middle of the twentieth century for the treatment of primary immunodeficiencies. In 1981, Paul Imbach noticed an improvement of immune-mediated thrombocytopenia, in patients receiving IVIg for immunodeficiencies. This opened a new era for the treatment of autoimmune conditions with IVIg. Since then, IVIg has become an important treatment option in a wide spectrum of diseases, including autoimmune and acute inflammatory conditions, most of them off-label (not included in the US Food and Drug Administration recommendation). A panel of immunologists and internists with experience in IVIg therapy reviewed the medical literature for published data concerning treatment with IVIg. The quality of evidence was assessed, and a summary of the available relevant literature in each disease was given. To our knowledge, this is the first all-inclusive comprehensive review, developed to assist the clinician when considering the use of IVIg in autoimmune diseases, immune deficiencies, and other conditions.