RESUMEN
Background: The usefulness of thiopurines has been poorly explored in pouchitis and other pouch disorders. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of azathioprine as maintenance therapy in inflammatory pouch disorders. Design: This was a retrospective and multicentre study. Methods: We included patients diagnosed with inflammatory pouch disorders treated with azathioprine in monotherapy. Effectiveness was evaluated at 1 year and in the long term based on normalization of stool frequency, absence of pain, faecal urgency or fistula discharge (clinical remission), or any improvement in these symptoms (clinical response). Endoscopic response was evaluated using the Pouchitis Disease Activity Index (PDAI). Results: In all, 63 patients were included [54% males; median age, 49 (28-77) years]. The therapy was used to treat pouchitis (n = 37) or Crohn's disease of the pouch (n = 26). The rate of clinical response, remission and non-response at 12 months were 52%, 30% and 18%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 23 months (interquartile range 11-55), 19 patients (30%) were in clinical remission, and 45 (66%) stopped therapy. Endoscopic changes were evaluated in 19 cases. PDAI score decreased from 3 (range 2-4) to 1 (range 0-3). In all, 21 patients (33%) presented adverse events and 16 (25%) needed to stop therapy. Conclusion: Azathioprine may be effective in the long term for the treatment of inflammatory pouch disorders and could be included as a therapeutic option.
RESUMEN
Background: Infliximab seems to be the most efficacious of the three available anti-TNF agents for ulcerative colitis (UC) but little is known when it is used as the second anti-TNF. Objectives: To compare the clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC patients. Design: Retrospective observational study. Methods: Patients from the ENEIDA registry treated consecutively with infliximab and a subcutaneous anti-TNF (or vice versa), naïve to other biological agents, were identified and grouped according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF into IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially). Results: Overall, 473 UC patients were included (330 IVi and 143 SCi). Clinical response at week 14 was 42.7% and 48.3% in the IVi and SCi groups (non-statistically significant), respectively. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were 32.8% and 31.4% in the IVi and SCi groups (nonsignificant differences), respectively. A propensity-matched score analysis showed a higher clinical response rate at week 14 in the SCi group and higher treatment persistence in the IVi group. Regarding long-term outcomes, dose escalation and discontinuation due to the primary failure of the first anti-TNF and more severe disease activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were inversely associated with clinical remission. Conclusion: The use of a second anti-TNF for UC seems to be reasonable in terms of efficacy, although it is particularly reduced in the case of the primary failure of the first anti-TNF. Whether the second anti-TNF is infliximab or subcutaneous does not seem to affect efficacy.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: Patients from the ENEIDA registry treated consecutively with infliximab and a subcutaneous anti-TNF (or vice versa), naïve to other biological agents, were identified and grouped according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF into IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially). RESULTS: Overall, 473 UC patients were included (330 IVi, 143 SCi). Clinical response at week 14 was 42.7% and 48.3% in the IVi and SCi groups (non-statistically significant), respectively. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were 32.8% and 31.4%, in the IVi and SCi groups (nonsignificant differences), respectively. A propensity-matched score analysis showed a higher clinical response rate at week 14 in the SCi group and higher treatment persistence in the IVi group. Regarding long-term outcomes, dose escalation and discontinuation due to the primary failure of the first anti-TNF and more severe disease activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were inversely associated with clinical remission. CONCLUSION: The use of a second anti-TNF for UC seems to be reasonable in terms of efficacy, although it is particularly reduced in the case of the primary failure of the first anti-TNF. Whether the second anti-TNF is infliximab or subcutaneous does not seem to affect efficacy.
Clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with two consecutive anti-TNF agents. Data from the ENEIDA registry Background: Infliximab seems to be the most efficacious of the three available anti-TNF agents for ulcerative colitis (UC), but little is known when it is used as the second anti-TNF.
RESUMEN
Introducción: La pandemia producida por el virus SARS-CoV-2 ha generado un grave impacto en el funcionamiento de las unidades de endoscopia digestiva. La Asociación Española de Gastroenterología y la Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (AEG-SEED) han propuesto la utilización de la guía European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (EPAGE) para la gestión de las colonoscopias pospuestas.Objetivo: Evaluar la guía EPAGE como herramienta de gestión en comparación con el test de sangre oculta en heces inmunológico (TSOHi) y con una calculadora de riesgo (CR), que incluye la edad, el sexo y el TSOHi, para la detección de cáncer colorrectal (CCR) y lesión significativa colónica (LSC).Métodos: Estudio unicéntrico prospectivo. Se incluyeron 743 pacientes derivados para una colonoscopia diagnóstica. Se clasificó cada solicitud según EPAGE en apropiada, indeterminada e inapropiada. Se les entregó un TSOHi y se calculó el valor de la CR.ResultadosEl TSOHi (p<0,001), pero no EPAGE (p = 0,742), fue una variable independiente de riesgo de CCR. El área bajo la curva receiver operating characteristic (ROC) de EPAGE, TSOHi y CR fue: 0,61(IC 95% 0,49 a 0,75), 0,95 (0,93 a 0,97) y 0,90 (0,87 a 0,93) para CCR; y 0,55 (0,49 a 0,61), 0,75 (0,69 a 0,813) y 0,78 (0,73 a 0,83) para LSC, respectivamente. El número necesario de colonoscopias para detectar un CCR y una LSC fue de 38 y siete para EPAGE, de siete y dos para TSOHi, y de 19 y cuatro para CR ≥ cinco puntos, respectivamente.Conclusión: La EPAGE, a diferencia del TSOHi, no es adecuada para seleccionar a los pacientes candidatos a colonoscopia diagnóstica para la detección de CCR. El TSOHi, en combinación con la edad y el sexo, es la estrategia correcta para gestionar la demanda de endoscopia en un escenario de acceso restrictivo.
Introduction: The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has had a serious impact on the functioning of gastrointestinal endoscopy Units. The Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG) and the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED) have proposed the EPAGE guidelines for managing postponed colonoscopies.ObjectiveTo evaluate the EPAGE guidelines as a management tool compared to the immunologic faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and compared to risk score (RS) that combines age, sex and the iFOBT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and significant bowel disease (SBD).Methods: A prospective, single-centre study enrolling 743 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. Each order was classified according to the EPAGE guidelines as appropriate, indeterminate or inappropriate. Patients underwent an iFOBT and had their RS calculated.Results: The iFOBT (p<0.001), but not the EPAGE guidelines (p = 0.742), was an independent predictive factor of risk of CRC. The ROC AUCs for the EPAGE guidelines, the iFOBT and the RS were 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.75), 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for CRC, and 0.55 (0.49-0.61), 0.75 (0.69-0.813) and 0.78 (0.73-0.83) for SBD, respectively. The numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect a case of CRC and a case of SBD were 38 and seven for the EPAGE guidelines, seven and two for the iFOBT, and 19 and four for a RS ≥5 points, respectively.Conclusion: The EPAGE guidelines, unlike the iFOBT, is not suitable for screening candidate patients for a diagnostic colonoscopy to detect CRC. The iFOBT, in combination with age and sex, is the most suitable strategy for managing demand for endoscopy in a restricted-access situation