An open-label randomised-controlled trial of azathioprine vs. mycophenolate mofetil for the induction of remission in treatment-naive autoimmune hepatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) almost invariably require lifelong immunosuppressive treatment. There is genuine concern about the efficacy and tolerability of the current standard combination therapy of prednisolone and azathioprine. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has emerged as an alternative option. The aim of this study was to compare MMF to azathioprine as induction therapy for AIH. METHODS: In this 24-week, prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre superiority trial, 70 patients with treatment-naive AIH received either MMF or azathioprine, both in combination with prednisolone. The primary endpoint was biochemical remission defined as normalisation of serum levels of alanine aminotransferase and IgG after 24 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Seventy patients (mean 57.9 years [SD 14.0]; 72.9% female) were randomly assigned to the MMF plus prednisolone (n = 39) or azathioprine plus prednisolone (n = 31) group. The primary endpoint was met in 56.4% and 29.0% of patients assigned to the MMF group and the azathioprine group, respectively (difference, 27.4 percentage points; 95% CI 4.0 to 46.7; p = 0.022). The MMF group exhibited higher complete biochemical response rates at 6 months (72.2% vs. 32.3%; p = 0.004). No serious adverse events occurred in patients who received MMF (0%) but serious adverse events were reported in four patients who received azathioprine (12.9%) (p = 0.034). Two patients in the MMF group (5.1%) and eight patients in the azathioprine group (25.8%) discontinued treatment owing to adverse events or serious adverse events (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with treatment-naive AIH, MMF with prednisolone led to a significantly higher rate of biochemical remission at 24 weeks compared to azathioprine combined with prednisolone. Azathioprine use was associated with more (serious) adverse events leading to cessation of treatment, suggesting superior tolerability of MMF. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: This randomised-controlled trial directly compares azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, both in combination with prednisolone, for the induction of biochemical remission in treatment-naive patients with autoimmune hepatitis. Achieving complete remission is desirable to prevent disease progression. Patients assigned to the mycophenolate mofetil group reached biochemical remission more often and experienced fewer adverse events. The findings in this trial may contribute to the re-evaluation of international guidelines for the standard of care in treatment-naive patients with autoimmune hepatitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: #NCT02900443.

Prospective multicentre study of indications for surgery in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis following endoscopic ultrasonography (PICUS).

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is controversial. A randomized trial found cholecystectomy to reduce the recurrence rate of IAP but did not include preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). As EUS is effective in detecting gallstone disease, cholecystectomy may be indicated only in patients with gallstone disease. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of EUS in patients with IAP, and the rate of recurrent pancreatitis in patients in whom EUS could not determine the aetiology (EUS-negative IAP). METHODS: This prospective multicentre cohort study included patients with a first episode of IAP who underwent outpatient EUS. The primary outcome was detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcomes included adverse events after EUS, recurrence of pancreatitis, and quality of life during 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: After screening 957 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis from 24 centres, 105 patients with IAP were included and underwent EUS. In 34 patients (32 per cent), EUS detected an aetiology: (micro)lithiasis and biliary sludge (23.8 per cent), chronic pancreatitis (6.7 per cent), and neoplasms (2.9 per cent); 2 of the latter patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy. During 1-year follow-up, the pancreatitis recurrence rate was 17 per cent (12 of 71) among patients with EUS-negative IAP versus 6 per cent (2 of 34) among those with positive EUS. Recurrent pancreatitis was associated with poorer quality of life. CONCLUSION: EUS detected an aetiology in a one-third of patients with a first episode of IAP, requiring mostly cholecystectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy. The role of cholecystectomy in patients with EUS-negative IAP remains uncertain and warrants further study.

Some patients develop acute inflammation of the pancreas without a clear cause. These patients have a high risk of developing more episodes of acute inflammation of the pancreas. Potentially, such inflammation could be caused by tiny gallstones that physicians are not able to detect. If this is true, these patients may also benefit from surgical removal of the gallbladder. However, this is still controversial. Endoscopic ultrasonography is a diagnostic procedure during which a physician looks at the gallbladder and bile ducts in detail via a small ultrasound probe inserted through the mouth. This endoscopic ultrasonography may be able to detect gallstones better than physicians were able to previously. This study tested the value of endoscopic ultrasonography, and the number of patients who developed more episodes of acute inflammation after endoscopic ultrasonography was recorded. Some 106 patients with acute inflammation of the pancreas for the first time without a clear cause participated and were offered endoscopic ultrasonography. The number of times endoscopic ultrasonography found a cause for the acute inflammation was recorded, as well as safety parameters, number of patients who developed more episodes of acute inflammation, and quality of life. After screening 957 patients, 105 ultimately underwent endoscopic ultrasonography. A cause was found in one-third of patients. This was mostly (tiny) gallstones, but chronic inflammation and even tumours were found. These patients were mostly treated surgically for their gallstones and tumours. In the first year after the first acute episode of inflammation, the inflammation came back at least once in almost one in six patients in whom endoscopic ultrasonography did not find a cause. This occurred less in patients in whom a cause was found; the inflammation came back in 1 in 16 of these patients. It was also found that having inflammation coming back negatively affected quality of life. In this study, endoscopic ultrasonography was able to detect a cause in one-third of patients with first-time acute inflammation of the pancreas. In one in four patients, this cause could be treated by a surgical procedure. Whether surgical removal of the gallbladder can be helpful in patients in whom endoscopic ultrasonography is not able to detect an aetiology should be investigated in further studies.

Patient selection for urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography by endoscopic ultrasound in predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis (APEC-2): a multicentre prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013-2017) applying the same study design. RESULTS: Overall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17-23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23-41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92). CONCLUSION: In patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15545919.

[Rectal lesions and liver lesions caused by syphilis]. / In de luren gelegd door lues.

BACKGROUND: Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease, caused by the spirochete Treponema Pallidum. Many different manifestations exist, which can complicate diagnosis. CASE: A 36-year-old man with a known HIV infection, presented himself with rectal blood loss and abdominal pain. Abdominal ultrasound and abdominal CT were suspicious for malign liver metastases. During subsequent colonoscopy, benign looking rectal lesions were found, possibly caused by either lymphogranuloma venereum or syphilis. Additional diagnostics confirmed an active syphilis infection. After treatment with benzylpenicillin, patient's complaints resolved, as well as the lesions in rectum and liver. CONCLUSION: We describe a rare case of a patient with secondary syphilis, presenting with rectal lesions and liver lesions suspicious for malign metastases.

Aggressive fluid hydration plus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (FLUYT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is considered as standard of care to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. It has been suggested that aggressive hydration might further reduce this risk. Guidelines already recommend aggressive hydration in patients who are unable to receive rectal NSAIDs, although it is laborious and time consuming. We aimed to evaluate the added value of aggressive hydration in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. METHODS: FLUYT, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial done across 22 Dutch hospitals, included patients aged between 18 and 85 years with moderate to high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based module with varying block sizes to a combination of aggressive hydration and rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin; aggressive hydration group) or rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin) alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified according to treatment centre. Aggressive hydration comprised 20 mL/kg intravenous Ringer's lactate solution within 60 min from the start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg per h for 8 h. The control group received normal intravenous saline with a maximum of 1·5 mL/kg per h and 3 L per 24 h. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis and was analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (including all patients who underwent randomisation and an ERCP and for whom data regarding the primary outcome were available). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13659155. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2015, and June 6, 2019, 826 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 388 in the aggressive hydration group and 425 in the control group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 30 (8%) patients in the aggressive hydration group and in 39 (9%) patients in the control group (relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·53-1·33, p=0·53). There were no differences in serious adverse events, including hydration-related complications (relative risk 0·99, 95% CI 0·59-1·64; p=1·00), ERCP-related complications (0·90, 0·62-1·31; p=0·62), intensive care unit admission (0·37, 0·07-1·80; p=0·22), and 30-day mortality (0·95, 0·50-1·83; p=1·00). INTERPRETATION: Aggressive periprocedural hydration did not reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with moderate to high risk of developing this complication who routinely received prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. Therefore, the burden of laborious and time-consuming aggressive periprocedural hydration to further reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis is not justified. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Radboud University Medical Center.

Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnostic work-up of idiopathic acute pancreatitis (PICUS): study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent additional diagnostic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are warranted after a first episode of IAP in order to uncover this aetiology. Failure to timely determine treatable aetiologies delays appropriate treatment and might subsequently cause recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of the Pancreatitis of Idiopathic origin: Clinical added value of endoscopic UltraSonography (PICUS) Study is to determine the value of routine EUS in determining the aetiology of pancreatitis in patients with a first episode of IAP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PICUS is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study of 106 patients with a first episode of IAP after complete standard diagnostic work-up, in whom a diagnostic EUS will be performed. Standard diagnostic work-up will include a complete personal and family history, laboratory tests including serum alanine aminotransferase, calcium and triglyceride levels and imaging by transabdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography after clinical recovery from the acute pancreatitis episode. The primary outcome measure is detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcome measures include pancreatitis recurrence rate, severity of recurrent pancreatitis, readmission, additional interventions, complications, length of hospital stay, quality of life, mortality and costs, during a follow-up period of 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PICUS is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Five medical ethics review committees assessed PICUS (Medical Ethics Review Committee of Academic Medical Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Radboud University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center and Maastricht University Medical Center). The results will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Registry (NL7066). Prospectively registered.

Capsule endoscopy for the detection of oesophageal mucosal disorders: a comparison of two different ingestion protocols.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of a new ingestion protocol for capsule endoscopy (CE) in evaluating patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). METHODS: Oesophago-gastroduodenoscopy (OGD) was performed 1 week prior to CE. The first 28 subjects swallowed the capsule following the original ingestion protocol (OIP) and the subsequent 30 subjects following a simplified ingestion protocol (SIP). CE videos were reviewed by two independent investigators who were blinded to the OGD findings. RESULTS: Of 48 patients included, 24 were diagnosed with reflux oesophagitis (67% male, mean age 49.5+/-13 years) and 24 with Barrett oesophagus (BO) (88% male, 55.6+/-10 years) by OGD. In addition, 10 asymptomatic healthy controls (50% male, 45.8+/-7.1 years) were included. Oesophageal transit time was faster in patients using the SIP compared to the OIP (126+/-26 s versus 214+/-33; p=0.04). Complete evaluation of the Z-line was possible in 19/28 (68%) of the OIPs compared to 28/30 (93%) of the SIPs (p=0.04). Sensitivity for detecting any oesophageal abnormality was higher in the SIP group than in the OIP group (97% versus 89%; p=0.11). Overall, CE detected oesophagitis in 22/24 patients (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 88%) and BO in 23/24 patients (sensitivity, 96%; specificity, 91%). Furthermore, 41/44 (93%) preferred CE over OGD and experienced less discomfort and pain during CE. CONCLUSION: CE is an accurate method for detecting mucosal oesophageal abnormalities. The new ingestion protocol improves the visualization of the Z-line, which is likely to increase the diagnostic yield of CE.