Caustic ingestion: development and validation of a prognostic score.

BACKGROUND: Caustic ingestion is a potentially severe condition and early identification of poor outcome is essential to improve management; however, prediction based on endoscopy alone can overestimate severity. This study aimed to develop and validate a prognostic score. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was designed to include all consecutive patients aged > 15 years who presented with caustic ingestion between 1995 and 2017. Adverse outcome was defined by intensive care unit admission, urgent surgery, or death. The predictive value of clinical, analytical, and endoscopic variables was assessed in the first cohort (derivation cohort) and a prognostic score based on the resulting risk factors was developed by logistic regression. Internal validation (bootstrapping) was performed and then external validation was checked in an independent sample of patients (validation cohort). RESULTS: 469 cases of caustic ingestion were included, 265 in the derivation cohort and 204 in the validation cohort. Ingestion of acidic substances (odds ratio [OR] 3.13, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.33 - 4.21), neutrophil count (OR 1.05, 95 %CI 1.04 - 1.06), metabolic acidosis (bicarbonate value, OR 0.82, 95 %CI 0.78 - 0.85), and endoscopic injury (OR 3.81, 95 %CI 3.35 - 4.34) were independent risk factors for poor outcome. The prognostic score based on these variables provided better accuracy than endoscopy alone (P = 0.04), with high sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (93.3 %, 92.7 %, 72.7 %, 98.5 %, respectively), and area under the curve (0.976, 95 %CI 0.973 - 0.979; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This score allowed a reliable prognosis of caustic ingestion and was more accurate than endoscopy-based evaluation.

Withdrawal of Azathioprine in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients Who Sustain Remission: New Risk Factors for Relapse.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of immunosuppressants for sustaining remission and preventing flares of IBD are well known. However, optimal timing for withdrawal has not been determined. AIMS: The objective of this study was to calculate the risk of relapse and predictors after withdrawal of azathioprine (AZA) monotherapy in patients who sustain deep remission. METHODS: This was a multicenter observational study of patients with IBD in remission whose immunosuppressant had been withdrawn. We recorded demographic variables, disease data, laboratory values, and the results of imaging tests performed at withdrawal and, in patients who relapsed, time to relapse and the efficacy of reintroducing the drug. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were included (35 UC and 60 CD). The mean duration of AZA treatment was 87 and 77 months for UC and CD, respectively. Endoscopic remission was evaluated in 23 patients with UC and 35 with CD. After AZA withdrawal, 91% patients with UC and 67% with CD received high doses of salicylates. A total of 26 patients relapsed. The cumulative relapse rate at 5 years was 46% for CD and UC. AZA was reintroduced in 19 patients, of whom 14 responded. Predictors of relapse were corticosteroid dependence, early introduction of AZA (CD), and late introduction of AZA (UC). CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the patients in whom AZA was withdrawn were in remission at 5 years. The candidates for withdrawal could be better identified based on corticosteroid dependence, previous surgery, timing of initiation, and indication for AZA.