Quality of Care Standards in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: a European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] Position Paper.

The management of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is complex, and requires tight control of disease activity, close monitoring to avoid treatment side effects, health care professionals with expertise in IBD, and an interdisciplinary, holistic approach. Despite various efforts to standardise structures, processes, and outcomes,1-8 and due to the high variability at the local, national, and international levels, there are still no clear definitions or outcome measures available to establish quality of care standards for IBD patients which are applicable in all contexts and all countries. For this reason, the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] supported the construction of a list of criteria summarising current standards of care in IBD. The list comprises 111 quality standard points grouped into three main domains [structure n = 31, process n = 42, outcomes n = 38] and is based on scientific evidence, interdisciplinary expert consensus, and patient-oriented perspectives. The list of proposed criteria is intended to represent the position of ECCO regarding the optimum quality of care that should be available to patients. Since health care systems and regulations vary considerably between countries, this list may require adaptation at local and national levels. It is recognised that not all these criteria that have been identified as optimal will be available in every unit. However, ECCO will continue its efforts to develop and coordinate projects and initiatives that will help to guarantee optimal quality of care for all IBD patients.

Antibody Response Following Pre-Exposure Immunization Against Rabies in High-Risk Professionals.

Vaccination against rabies and routine antibody testing of subjects participating in programs for the surveillance and control of rabies in animals is strongly recommended. The scope of this study is to describe the antibody level as measured by a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) after primary and booster intramuscular vaccination with a purified vero-cell rabies vaccine (PVRV) in high-risk professionals and to determine the influence of an array of factors on antibody level, that is, time elapsed since primary immunization series and booster dose, sex, age, pathologic conditions, high-risk occupation, and peak antibody level after initial scheme and booster dose. A primary series of three doses of PVRV was administered and a commercial ELISA was recommended 14 days postimmunization with continuous repetition at 6 months and yearly intervals for the laboratory personnel and the rest of the professionals, respectively. The protective antibody titer was defined as a minimum of 0.5 equivalent units/mL (EU/mL) (seroconvertion) and a booster dose was applied if the titer was determined nonprotective. The seroconversion rate (SCR) after primary vaccination was 100%, with a geometric mean titer (GMT) of 2.90 EU/mL (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.85-3.45). After booster vaccination due to nonprotective titer, the SCR was 100% and the GMT increased by 678% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 514-887) reaching 4.25 EU/mL (IQR: 4.00-4.60), 2.5 times higher than the GMT elicited by the primary vaccine scheme in the respective recipients. The titer dropped by 1.20% per month (95% CI: 0.52-1.89) regardless of booster administration or any other factor. Women had 51% higher titer compared with men (95% CI: 6-116). High-risk professionals should be verified for adequate antibody titers, but routine administration of a single booster dose of PVRV 1 year after the primary series could be considered; more evidence is needed to support the benefit in terms of immunity and logistics.

Calcium supplementation for the prevention of colorectal adenomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To determine the efficacy of calcium supplementation in reducing the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. We searched PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website, through December 2015. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials assessing supplemental calcium intake for the prevention of recurrence of adenomas were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently selected studies based on predefined criteria, extracted data and outcomes (recurrence of colorectal adenomas, and advanced or "high-risk" adenomas), and rated each trial's risk-of-bias. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed, and pooled risk ratio (RR) estimates with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models. To express the treatment effect in clinical terms, we calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one adenoma recurrence. We also assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Four randomized, placebo-controlled trials met the eligibility criteria and were included. Daily doses of elemental calcium ranged from 1200 to 2000 mg, while the duration of treatment and follow-up of participants ranged from 36 to 60 mo. Synthesis of intention-to-treat data, for participants who had undergone follow-up colonoscopies, indicated a modest protective effect of calcium in prevention of adenomas (fixed-effects, RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.82-0.96; random-effects, RR = 0.87, 95%CI: 0.77-0.98; high quality of evidence). The NNT was 20 (95%CI: 12-61) to prevent one colorectal adenoma recurrence within a period of 3 to 5 years. On the other hand, the association between calcium treatment and advanced adenomas did not reach statistical significance (fixed-effects, RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.75-1.13; random-effects, RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.71-1.18; moderate quality of evidence). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest a modest chemopreventive effect of calcium supplements against recurrent colorectal adenomas over a period of 36 to 60 mo. Further research is warranted.

Biologic Therapies and Risk of Infection and Malignancy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Safety issues are a major concern for patients considering treatments for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether biologic agents affect the risk of infection or malignancy in adults with IBD. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov through March 2016 for randomized placebo-controlled or head-to-head trials of biologic agents approved for treatment of adults with IBD (ie, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, natalizumab, or vedolizumab). Two reviewers independently extracted study data and outcomes (serious infections, opportunistic infections, tuberculosis, any infection, and malignancies) and rated each trial's risk of bias. We used conventional meta-analysis to synthesize direct evidence and a network meta-analysis for adjusted indirect treatment comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 49 randomized placebo-controlled studies comprising 14,590 participants. Synthesis of the evidence indicated that patients treated with biologics had a moderate increase in risk of any infection (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.29) and a significant increase in risk of opportunistic infections (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.21-3.01). Risk of serious infections was not increased in patients treated with biologics (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.12). On the contrary, biologics appeared to significantly reduce risk of serious infections in studies with low risk of bias (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.90). We did not find an increased risk of malignancy with use of biologic agents (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.50), but data were insufficient in terms of exposure and follow-up times. None of the indirect comparisons, either among the individual agents or between the anti-tumor necrosis factor and anti-integrin classes, reached significance for any of the outcomes analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a systematic review and meta-analysis, biologic agents increase the risk of opportunistic infections in patients with IBD, but not the risk of serious infections. It is necessary to continue to monitor the comparative and long-term safety profiles of these drugs.

Intravenous Versus Oral Iron for the Treatment of Anemia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Anemia is the most prevalent extraintestinal complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our aim was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and harm of intravenous (IV) versus oral iron supplementation for correcting anemia in adult IBD patients.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to integrate evidence from randomized controlled trials having enrolled adults with IBD, and comparing IV versus oral iron (head-to-head) for correcting iron-deficiency anemia. Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Web of Science database were searched through July 2015. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference proceedings were also investigated. Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and outcomes, and rated each trial's risk-of-bias. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates with their 95% CIs were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models.Five eligible studies, including 694 IBD patients, were identified. In meta-analysis, IV iron demonstrated a higher efficacy in achieving a hemoglobin rise of ≥2.0 g/dL as compared to oral iron (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.18). Treatment discontinuation rates, due to adverse events or intolerance, were lower in the IV iron groups (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.59). Similarly, the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events was consistently lower in the IV iron groups. On the contrary, serious adverse events (SAEs) were more frequently reported among patients receiving IV iron preparations (OR: 4.57, 95% CI: 1.11, 18.8); however, the majority of the reported SAEs were judged as unrelated or unlikely to be related to the study medication. We found no evidence of publication bias, or between-study heterogeneity, across all analyses. Risk of bias was high across primary studies, because patients and personnel were not blinded to the intervention.IV iron appears to be more effective and better tolerated than oral iron for the treatment of IBD-associated anemia.