A multicenter survey on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during the COVID-19 pandemic in northern and central Italy.

Background and study aims COVID-19 has dramatically impacted endoscopy practice because upper endoscopy procedures can be aerosol-generating. Most elective procedures have been rescheduled. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is frequently performed in emergency or urgent settings in which rescheduling is not possible. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ERCP in Italy during the SARS-CoV-2 lockdown, in areas with high incidence of COVID-19. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective survey of centers performing ERCP in high COVID-19 prevalence areas in Italy to collect information regarding clinical data from patients undergoing ERCP, staff, case-volume and organization of endoscopy units from March 8, 2020 to April 30, 2020. Results We collected data from 31 centers and 804 patients. All centers adopted a triage and/or screening protocol for SARS-CoV-2 and performed follow-up of patients 2 weeks after the procedure. ERCP case-volume was reduced by 44.1 % compared to the respective 2019 timeframe. Of the 804 patients undergoing ERCP, 22 (2.7 %) were positive for COVID-19. Adverse events occurred at a similar rate to previously published data. Of the patients, endoscopists, and nurses, 1.6 %, 11.7 %, and 4.9 %, respectively, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at follow up. Only 38.7 % of centers had access to a negative-pressure room for ERCP. Conclusion The case-volume reduction for ERCP during lockdown was lower than for other gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. No definitive conclusions can be drawn about the percentage of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and healthcare workers observed after ERCP. Appropriate triage and screening of patients and adherence to society recommendations are paramount.

Randomised controlled trial of mesalazine in IBS.

OBJECTIVE: Low-grade intestinal inflammation plays a role in the pathophysiology of IBS. In this trial, we aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of mesalazine in patients with IBS. DESIGN: We conducted a phase 3, multicentre, tertiary setting, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with Rome III confirmed IBS. Patients were randomly assigned to either mesalazine, 800 mg, or placebo, three times daily for 12 weeks, and were followed for additional 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was satisfactory relief of abdominal pain/discomfort for at least half of the weeks of the treatment period. The key secondary endpoint was satisfactory relief of overall IBS symptoms. Supportive analyses were also performed classifying as responders patients with a percentage of affirmative answers of at least 75% or >75% of time. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients with IBS were enrolled from 21 centres. For the primary endpoint, the responder patients were 68.6% in the mesalazine group versus 67.4% in the placebo group (p=0.870; 95% CI -12.8 to 15.1). In explorative analyses, with the 75% rule or >75% rule, the percentage of responders was greater in the mesalazine group with a difference over placebo of 11.6% (p=0.115; 95% CI -2.7% to 26.0%) and 5.9% (p=0.404; 95% CI -7.8% to 19.4%), respectively, although these differences were not significant. For the key secondary endpoint, overall symptoms improved in the mesalazine group and reached a significant difference of 15.1% versus placebo (p=0.032; 95% CI 1.5% to 28.7%) with the >75% rule. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalazine treatment was not superior than placebo on the study primary endpoint. However, a subgroup of patients with IBS showed a sustained therapy response and benefits from a mesalazine therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT00626288.