Targeted Biopsies Identify Larger Proportions of Patients With Colonic Neoplasia Undergoing High-Definition Colonoscopy, Dye Chromoendoscopy, or Electronic Virtual Chromoendoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is unclear what are the best and most appropriate endoscopic procedures for detecting colonic neoplasia in patients with long-term colonic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Dye chromoendoscopy (DCE) is the standard used in IBD surveillance colonoscopies. However, studies are needed to determine the optimal endoscopic technique for detecting dysplastic lesions. We investigated current practices used in surveillance colonoscopies by IBD gastroenterologists at a single tertiary center. We also determined the rate of neoplasia detection among different surveillance endoscopic techniques in an analysis of random or targeted biopsies. METHODS: We collected data on 454 patients with IBD (54.5% male; mean age, 50 y; mean disease duration, 14.5 y; 55.9% with ulcerative colitis, 42.7% with Crohn's disease, and 1.3% with indeterminate colitis) who underwent surveillance colonoscopy from April 2011 through March 2014 at the University of Calgary in Canada. Subjects were examined using white-light standard-definition endoscopy (WLE), high-definition (HD) colonoscopy, virtual electronic chromoendoscopy (VCE), or DCE; random or targeted biopsy specimens were collected. Endoscopic and histologic descriptions with suspected neoplasia were recorded. Rates of neoplasia detection by the different endoscopic procedures were compared using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Of the patients analyzed, 27.7% had WLE endoscopy with random collection of biopsy specimens, 27.3% had HD colonoscopy with random collection of biopsy specimens, 14.1% had VCE with random collection of biopsy specimens, 0.9% had DCE with random collection of biopsy specimens, 12.8% had HD colonoscopy with collection of targeted biopsy specimens, 11.9% had VCE with collection of targeted biopsy specimens, and 5.3% had DCE with collection of targeted biopsy specimens. Neoplastic lesions were detected in 8.2% of the procedures performed in the random biopsy group (95% confidence interval, 5.6-11.7) and 19.1% of procedures in the targeted biopsy group (95% confidence interval, 13.4-26.5) (P < .001). Neoplasias were detected in similar proportions of patients by HD colonoscopy, VCE, or DCE, with targeted biopsy collection. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of IBD patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy, targeted biopsies identified greater proportions of subjects with neoplasia than random biopsies. Targeted collection of biopsy specimens appears to be sufficient for detecting colonic neoplasia in patients undergoing HD colonoscopy, DCE, or VCE, but not WLE.

Immunogenicity of Influenza Vaccine for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Maintenance Infliximab Therapy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on infliximab, data are limited on immune response to influenza vaccine and the impact of vaccine timing. The study aims were to evaluate immune responses to the influenza vaccine in IBD patients on infliximab and the impact of vaccine timing on immune responses. METHODS: In this randomized study, 137 subjects with IBD on maintenance infliximab therapy were allocated to receive the 2012/2013 inactivated influenza vaccine at the time of infliximab infusion (n = 69) or midway between infusions (n = 68). Serum was collected before and after vaccination for hemagglutination inhibition titers. Serologic protection was defined by postvaccine titer of ≥1:40. RESULTS: Comparing subjects vaccinated at the time of infliximab with those vaccinated midway, serologic protection was achieved in 67% versus 66% to H1N1 (P = 0.8), in 43% versus 49% to H3N2 (P = 0.5), and in 69% versus 79% to influenza B (P = 0.2). Although solicited adverse events were common (60%), no subject experienced a serious adverse event requiring additional medical attention. Only 6% of subjects had a clinically significant increase in disease activity score, not impacted by vaccine timing. CONCLUSIONS: Serologic protection to influenza vaccine is achieved in only approximately 45% to 80% of IBD patients on maintenance infliximab therapy varying by antigen. Yet, importantly, vaccine timing relative to infliximab infusion does not affect the achievement of serologic protection, and the influenza vaccine is well tolerated. Therefore, influenza vaccination at any point during infliximab scheduling is recommended for patients with IBD and opportunities to broaden the availability and convenience of influenza vaccine to optimize coverage should be explored.