Magnetic resonance enterography compared with ultrasonography in newly diagnosed and relapsing Crohn's disease patients: the METRIC diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance enterography and enteric ultrasonography are used to image Crohn's disease patients. Their diagnostic accuracy for presence, extent and activity of enteric Crohn's disease was compared. OBJECTIVE: To compare diagnostic accuracy, observer variability, acceptability, diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography in newly diagnosed or relapsing Crohn's disease. DESIGN: Prospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING: Eight NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive participants aged ≥ 16 years, newly diagnosed with Crohn's disease or with established Crohn's disease and suspected relapse. INTERVENTIONS: Magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was per-participant sensitivity difference between magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography for small bowel Crohn's disease extent. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity and specificity for small bowel Crohn's disease and colonic Crohn's disease extent, and sensitivity and specificity for small bowel Crohn's disease and colonic Crohn's disease presence; identification of active disease; interobserver variation; participant acceptability; diagnostic impact; and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Out of the 518 participants assessed, 335 entered the trial, with 51 excluded, giving a final cohort of 284 (133 and 151 in new diagnosis and suspected relapse cohorts, respectively). Across the whole cohort, for small bowel Crohn's disease extent, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity [80%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 72% to 86%] was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (70%, 95% CI 62% to 78%), with a 10% difference (95% CI 1% to 18%; p = 0.027). For small bowel Crohn's disease extent, magnetic resonance enterography specificity (95%, 95% CI 85% to 98%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography specificity (81%, 95% CI 64% to 91%), with a 14% difference (95% CI 1% to 27%). For small bowel Crohn's disease presence, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (97%, 95% CI 91% to 99%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 84% to 96%), with a 5% difference (95% CI 1% to 9%). For small bowel Crohn's disease presence, magnetic resonance enterography specificity was 96% (95% CI 86% to 99%) and ultrasonography specificity was 84% (95% CI 65% to 94%), with a 12% difference (95% CI 0% to 25%). Test sensitivities for small bowel Crohn's disease presence and extent were similar in the two cohorts. For colonic Crohn's disease presence in newly diagnosed participants, ultrasonography sensitivity (67%, 95% CI 49% to 81%) was significantly greater than magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (47%, 95% CI 31% to 64%), with a 20% difference (95% CI 1% to 39%). For active small bowel Crohn's disease, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (96%, 95% CI 92% to 99%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (90%, 95% CI 82% to 95%), with a 6% difference (95% CI 2% to 11%). There was some disagreement between readers for both tests. A total of 88% of participants rated magnetic resonance enterography as very or fairly acceptable, which is significantly lower than the percentage (99%) of participants who did so for ultrasonography. Therapeutic decisions based on magnetic resonance enterography alone and ultrasonography alone agreed with the final decision in 122 out of 158 (77%) cases and 124 out of 158 (78%) cases, respectively. There were no differences in costs or quality-adjusted life-years between tests. LIMITATIONS: Magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography scans were interpreted by practitioners blinded to clinical data (but not participant cohort), which does not reflect use in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance enterography has higher accuracy for detecting the presence, extent and activity of small bowel Crohn's disease than ultrasonography does. Both tests have variable interobserver agreement and are broadly acceptable to participants, although ultrasonography produces less participant burden. Diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness are similar. Recommendations for future work include investigation of the comparative utility of magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography for treatment response assessment and investigation of non-specific abdominal symptoms to confirm or refute Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03982913. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Crohn's disease is a waxing and waning lifelong inflammatory condition that affects the colon (large bowel) and small bowel. Treatment relies on accurately determining disease extent and underlying inflammation. Colonoscopy is very good for examining the colon, but it is invasive and, at best, can only visualise a few centimetres of the small bowel, so radiological imaging is very important. Magnetic resonance enterography (a type of magnetic resonance imaging scan) and ultrasonography are both radiological tests commonly performed in the NHS, and it is unclear which method is better. We performed a study to compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography for determining the extent of Crohn's disease in the bowel of participants newly diagnosed and in those participants with established Crohn's disease but with suspected deterioration. We also investigated how often radiologists agree with each other during test interpretation, the participant experience of undergoing the tests and their cost-effectiveness. We compared the tests in 284 participants (133 newly diagnosed and 151 with suspected deterioration). We found that both tests were accurate for detecting the presence (97% for magnetic resonance enterography and 92% for ultrasonography) and location (80% for magnetic resonance enterography and 70% for ultrasonography) of disease in the small bowel, but magnetic resonance enterography was better than ultrasonography for both (correctly classifying disease extent in 107 more participants for every 1000 participants with Crohn's disease). Magnetic resonance enterography was similarly better than ultrasonography at determining if the bowel was inflamed. The results were similar in newly diagnosed participants and those participants with suspected deterioration. Agreement between radiologists interpreting the same images was, at best, moderate for both tests. A total of 88% of participants tolerated magnetic resonance enterography well or fairly well, which was less than the percentage (99%) of participants who tolerated ultrasonography well or fairly well. Both tests had a similar effect on the treatment decisions made by doctors. Both tests were also similar in their value for money for the NHS.

A real-world, long-term experience on effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease: The Cross Pennine study.

BACKGROUND: Real-life data on vedolizumab effectiveness in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are still emerging. Data on the comparative safety of the gut selective profile are of particular interest. AIMS: To assess clinical outcome and safety in IBD patients treated with vedolizumab. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of patients treated with vedolizumab at eight UK hospitals (August 2014-January 2018). Clinical response and remission at 14 and 52 weeks evaluated through Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and adverse events were recorded. Possible predictors of clinical response were examined. RESULTS: Two hundred and three IBD patients (mean treatment 16 ±â€¯8 months) were included. Of these, 135 patients (mean age 40.6 ±â€¯16.0 years; F:M 1.9:1) had CD and 68 (mean age 44.5 ±â€¯18.1 years; F:M 1:1.2) had UC. According to PGA, 106/135 (78.5%) CD and 62/68 (91.2%) UC patients (p = 0.02) had a clinical response/remission at 14 weeks, whereas 76/119 (63.9%) CD and 52/63 (82.5%) UC patients (p < 0.01) showed a sustained response or remission at 52 weeks, with a high adherence rate (97%). No predictors of clinical response were found. The cumulative incidence of infectious diseases was 11.9 per 100 person-years. CONCLUSION: Vedolizumab is an effective therapy for inducing and maintaining remission of IBD, with better results for UC, and with a good safety profile.

Visceral Leishmaniasis presenting with intestinal failure: a case report and literature review.

We describe an unusual case of visceral Leishmaniasis affecting the gastrointestinal tract in a young immunocompetent patient whose only recent foreign travel was a trip to Mexico 9 months previously. She presented insidiously with diarrhoea, weight loss and developed subacute intestinal failure. Interestingly, she lacked most of the typical features of acute infection, including visceromegaly, fevers and hypergammaglobulinaemia. Atypical visceral involvement involving the gastrointestinal tract is well recognized in HIV coinfection, but very rare in immunocompetent patients. Repeated microscopy and culture of endoscopic biopsies failed to identify Leishmania parasites. Serological tests - direct agglutination test and anti-K39 antibody tests - were negative. This case highlights a very rare presentation of the condition with the absence of other visceral involvement and diagnosis being eventually made solely on polymerase chain reaction of rectal tissue, with a subsequent excellent response to therapy with intravenous liposomal amphotericin.