The role of centralized reading of endoscopy in a randomized controlled trial of mesalamine for ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Interobserver differences in endoscopic assessments contribute to variations in rates of response to placebo in ulcerative colitis (UC) trials. We investigated whether centralized review of images could reduce these variations. METHODS: We performed a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 281 patients with mildly to moderately active UC, defined by an Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) sigmoidoscopy score ≥2, that evaluated the efficacy of delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol 800-mg tablet) 4.8 g/day. Endoscopic images were reviewed by a single expert central reader. The primary outcome was clinical remission (UCDAI, stool frequency and bleeding scores of 0, and no fecal urgency) at week 6. RESULTS: The primary outcome was achieved by 30.0% of patients treated with mesalamine and 20.6% of those given placebo, a difference of 9.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7% to 19.4%; P = .069). Significant differences in results from secondary analyses indicated the efficacy of mesalamine. Thirty-one percent of participants, all of whom had a UCDAI sigmoidoscopy score ≥2 as read by the site investigator, were considered ineligible by the central reader. After exclusion of these patients, the remission rates were 29.0% and 13.8% in the mesalamine and placebo groups, respectively (difference of 15%; 95% CI, 3.5%-26.0%; P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: Although mesalamine 4.8 g/day was not statistically different from placebo for induction of remission in patients with mildly to moderately active UC, based on an intent-to-treat analysis, the totality of the data supports a benefit of treatment. Central review of endoscopic images is critical to the conduct of induction studies in UC; ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT01059344.

Strategies for the care of adults hospitalized for active ulcerative colitis.

Ulcerative colitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon; as many as 25% of patients with this disease require hospitalization. The goals of hospitalization are to assess disease severity, exclude infection, administer rapidly acting and highly effective medication regimens, and determine response. During hospitalization, patients should be given venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and monitored for the development of toxic megacolon. Patients who do not respond to intravenous corticosteroids should be considered for rescue therapy with infliximab or cyclosporine. Patients who are refractory to medical therapies or who develop toxic megacolon should be evaluated promptly for colectomy. Patients who do respond to medical therapies should be discharged on an appropriate maintenance regimen when they meet discharge criteria. We review practical evidence-based management principles and propose a day-by-day algorithm for managing patients hospitalized for ulcerative colitis.

Screening pre-bariatric surgery patients for esophageal disease with esophageal capsule endoscopy.

AIM: To determine if esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) is an adequate diagnostic alternative to esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in pre-bariatric surgery patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective pilot study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ECE (PillCam ESO2, Given Imaging) vs conventional EGD in pre-bariatric surgery patients. Patients who were scheduled for bariatric surgery and referred for pre-operative EGD were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent ECE followed by standard EGD. Two experienced gastroenterologists blinded to the patient's history and the findings of the EGD reviewed the ECE and documented their findings. The gold standard was the findings on EGD. RESULTS: Ten patients with an average body mass index of 50 kg/m(2) were enrolled and completed the study. ECE identified 11 of 14 (79%) positive esophageal/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) findings and 14 of 17 (82%) combined esophageal and gastric findings identified on EGD. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the findings and no significant difference was found between ECE and EGD (P = 0.64 for esophageal/GEJ and P = 0.66 for combined esophageal and gastric findings respectively). Of the positive esophageal/GEJ findings, ECE failed to identify the following: hiatal hernia in two patients, mild esophagitis in two patients, and mild Schatzki ring in two patients. ECE was able to identify the entire esophagus in 100%, gastric cardia in 0%, gastric body in 100%, gastric antrum in 70%, pylorus in 60%, and duodenum in 0%. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the likelihood of identifying a positive finding using ECE compared with EGD in preoperative evaluation of bariatric patients.