ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Ustekinumab and tofacitinib have recently been approved for the management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there is no evidence on how they should be positioned in the therapeutic algorithm. The aim of this study was to compare tofacitinib and ustekinumab as third-line therapies in UC patients in whom anti-TNF and vedolizumab had failed. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective observational study. The primary outcome was disease progression, defined as the need for steroids, therapy escalation, UC-related hospitalization and/or surgery. Secondary outcomes were clinical remission, normalization of C-reactive protein, endoscopic remission, treatment withdrawal, and adverse events. RESULTS: One-hundred seventeen UC patients were included in the study and followed for a median time of 11.6 months (q1 -q3, 5.5-18.7). Overall, 65% of patients were treated with tofacitinib and 35% with ustekinumab. In the entire study cohort, 63 patients (54%) had disease progression during the follow-up period. Treatment with ustekinumab predicted increased risk of disease progression compared to treatment with tofacitinib in Cox regression analysis (HR: 1.93 [95% CI: 1.06-3.50] p = 0.030). Twenty-eight (68%) patients in the ustekinumab group and 35 (46%) in the tofacitinib group had disease progression over the follow-up period (log-rank test, p < 0.054). No significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes. Six and 22 adverse events occurred in the ustekinumab and tofacitinib groups, respectively (15% vs. 31%, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib was more efficacious in reducing disease progression than ustekinumab in this cohort of refractory UC patients. However, prospective head-to-head clinical trials are needed as to confirm these data.
ABSTRACT
Background: Stone recurrence is a significant complication following endoscopic bile duct clearance. Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) with biliary sphincterotomy (EBS) has shown satisfactory results in preventing recurrence of "large" common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, data on outcomes after EPLBD+EBS for CBDS ≤12 mm remain scarce. The present study prospectively evaluated the mid- and long-term efficacy of EPLBD+EBS for CBDS recurrence among this group of patients. Methods: Consecutive patients with CBDS ranging from 8-12 mm, treated with EPLBD+EBS from June 2018 through June 2020, were prospectively followed-up for at least 36 months. CBDS recurrence was defined as recurrent stones confirmed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) during the follow-up period. Results: Overall, 72 patients (mean age: 67 years, 52.8% male) were included, of whom 22 (30.5%) had multiple (≥3) CBDS, 23 (31.9%) had a history of cholecystectomy, 13 (18.1%) had a periampullary diverticulum and 22 (30.5%) had a previous EBS. The mean CBD diameter was 11.6±1 mm, while a tapered duct was noted in 7 (9.7%). Post-procedural bleeding and cholangitis occurred in 1 and 2 cases respectively. No cases of perforation and post-ERCP pancreatitis were observed. During a mean follow up of 46.4±6.2 months (range 37-60), no mid-term recurrence was observed, whereas CBDS recurred in 2/72 (2.7%) in the long term. Conclusions: EPLBD+EBS in patients with CBDS ≤12 mm was associated with a very low rate of mid- and long-term CBDS recurrence. Our results need to be further investigated with randomized controlled trials.
