Doubling the infliximab dose versus halving the infusion intervals in Crohn's disease patients with loss of response.

BACKGROUND: Intensifying infliximab therapy is often practiced in Crohn's disease (CD) patients losing response to the drug but there are no data if halving the interval is superior to doubling the dose. We aimed to assess the efficacy of infliximab dose intensification by interval-halving compared with dose-doubling. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study of CD patients losing response to infliximab was undertaken. The clinical outcome of patients whose infusion intervals were halved (5 mg/kg/4 weeks) was compared with patients treated by dose-doubling (10 mg/kg/8 weeks). RESULTS: In all, 168 patients were included from 18 centers in Europe, USA, and Israel. Of these, 112 were intensified by dose-doubling and 56 received interval-halving strategy. Early response to dose-escalation was experienced by 86/112 (77%) patients in the dose-doubling group compared with 37/56 patients (66%) in the interval-halving group (odds ratio [OR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-3.4, P = 0.14). Sustained clinical response at 12 months postescalation was maintained in 50% of patients in the dose-doubling group compared with 39% in the interval-halving group (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.8-2.9, P = 0.2). On multivariate analysis, predictors of long-term response to escalation were a nonsmoking status, CD diagnosis between 16-40 years of age, and normal C-reactive protein (CRP). CONCLUSIONS: Dose intensification leads to a sustained regained response in 47% of CD patients who lost response to standard infliximab dose, but halving the infusion intervals is probably not superior to dose-doubling. Given the costs and patient inconvenience incurred by an additional infusion visit, the dose-doubling strategy may be preferable to the interval-halving strategy.

Findings at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography after endoscopic treatment of postcholecystectomy bile leaks.

BACKGROUND: Although the endoscopic management of bile leaks after cholecystectomy (CCY) is well established, the yield of a routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiogram (ERC) with a bile duct sweep at the time of stent removal is unclear. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of abnormal findings at follow-up ERC to determine whether upper endoscopy with stent removal and without cholangiography would suffice. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients referred for initial and follow-up ERC with post-CCY bile leak was performed. The rate of abnormal findings was measured including choledocholithiasis, biliary strictures, and persistent bile leaks at follow-up ERC. Secondarily, the study sought to define the clinical characteristics of patients who demonstrated stones or sludge at follow-up assessment. RESULTS: Between January, 2003 and April, 2008, 105 patients underwent initial and follow-up ERC. After a mean interval of 6.9 +/- 2.7 weeks between endoscopies, 29 (27.6%) of the 105 patients demonstrated one or more abnormalities including persistent bile leak (n = 8), common bile duct (CBD) stones (n = 12), and CBD sludge alone (n = 9). In the subgroup analysis of the patients who underwent a balloon sweep at initial and follow-up ERC, the prevalence of CBD stones or sludge at the follow-up ERC was 17.6%. Besides stones during the initial ERC, no significant clinical predictors of CBD stones were found at follow-up ERC including surgical approach, interval between endoscopies, and location of bile leak. CONCLUSION: After endoscopic treatment of a bile leak, the prevalence of abnormalities at follow-up ERC is significant. A repeat cholangiogram with a balloon sweep is preferred at the time of stent removal.