No abstract

Introduction Microscopic colitis is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease characterised by normal or almost normal endoscopic appearance of the colon, chronic watery, non-bloody diarrhoea and distinct histological abnormalities, which identify three histological subtypes, the collagenous colitis, the lymphocytic colitis and the incomplete microscopic colitis. With ongoing uncertainties and new developments in the clinical management of microscopic colitis, there is a need for evidence-based guidelines to improve the medical care of patients suffering from this disorder. Methods Guidelines were developed by members from the European Microscopic Colitis Group and United European Gastroenterology in accordance with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Following a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Statements and recommendations were developed by working groups consisting of gastroenterologists, pathologists and basic scientists, and voted upon using the Delphi method. Results These guidelines provide information on epidemiology and risk factors of microscopic colitis, as well as evidence-based statements and recommendations on diagnostic criteria and treatment options, including oral budesonide, bile acid binders, immunomodulators and biologics. Recommendations on the clinical management of microscopic colitis are provided based on evidence, expert opinion and best clinical practice. Conclusion These guidelines may support clinicians worldwide to improve the clinical management of patients with microscopic colitis.

Background: Symptoms of dyspepsia significantly disrupt patients' lives and reliable methods of assessing symptom status are important for patient management. The aim of the current study was to document the psychometric characteristics of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire (QOLRAD) in Afrikaans, German, Hungarian, Italian, Polish and Spanish patients with dyspepsia.

ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of two different budesonide formulations (effervescent tablet for orodispersible use (BET) and viscous suspension (BVS)) with different daily dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE).DesignAdults with active EoE (n=76) randomly received 14 days’ treatment with either BET 2×1 mg/day (BET1, n=19) or BET 2×2 mg/day (BET2, n=19), or BVS 2×5 mL (0.4 mg/mL)/day (BVS, n=19) or placebo (n=19) in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion, with a 2-week follow-up. Primary end point was histological remission (mean of <16 eosinophils/mm2 hpf). Secondary end points included endoscopy score, dysphagia score, drug safety and patient's preference for drug formulation.ResultsHistological remission occurred in 100%, 94.7% and 94.7% of budesonide (BET1, BET2, BVS, respectively) and in 0% of placebo recipients (p<0.0001). The improvement in total endoscopic intensity score was significantly higher in the three budesonide groups compared with placebo. Dysphagia improved in all groups at the end of treatment; however, improvement of dysphagia persisted only in those treated with BET1 (p=0.0196 vs placebo). There were no serious adverse events. Local fungal infection (stained fungi) occurred in two patients of each budesonide group (10.5%). The effervescent tablet was preferred by 80% of patients.ConclusionsBET or BVS was highly effective and safe for short-term treatment of EoE. The 1 mg (twice daily) dosage was equally effective as the 2 mg twice daily dosage. The majority of patients preferred the effervescent tablet formulation.ClinicalTrials.gov numberNCT02280616; EudraCT number, 2009-016692-29.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Asthma medications not optimized for esophageal delivery are sometimes effective, although given offlabel. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT), which allows the drug to be delivered to the esophagus in adults with active EoE. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, parallel study of 88 adults with active EoE in Europe. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received BOT (1 mg twice daily; n ¼ 59) or placebo (n ¼ 29) for 6 weeks. The primary end point was complete remission, based on clinical and histologic factors, including dysphagia and odynophagia severity 2 on a scale of 0-10 on each of the 7 days before the end of the double-blind phase and a peak eosinophil count <5 eosinophils/high power field. Patients who did not achieve complete remission at the end of the 6-week double-blind phase were offered 6 weeks of open-label Gastroenterology 2019;157:74-86 CLINICAL AT treatment with BOT (1 mg twice daily). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, 58% of patients given BOT were in complete remission compared with no patients given placebo (P < .0001). The secondary end point of histologic remission was achieved by 93% of patients given BOT vs no patients given placebo (P < .0001). After 12 weeks, 85% of patients had achieved remission. Six-week and 12-week BOT administration were safe and well tolerated; 5% of patients who received BOT developed symptomatic, mild candida, which was easily treated with an oral antifungal agent. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of adults with active EoE, we found that budesonide oral tablets were significantly more effective than placebo in inducing clinical and histologic remission. Eudra-CT number 2014-001485-99; ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02434029.

Summary Background : Herbal medications have been used in many countries for the treatment of patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Controlled data supporting the efficacy of these treatments in patients with irritable bowel syndrome are lacking. Aim : To assess the efficacy and safety of a commercially available herbal preparation (STW 5) (nine plant extracts), the research herbal preparation STW 5‐II (six plant extracts) and the bitter candytuft mono‐extract in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Methods : Two hundred and eight patients with irritable bowel syndrome were recruited after standardized diagnostic work‐up into a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, multi‐centre trial and were randomly assigned to receive one of four treatments: commercially available herbal preparation STW 5 (n = 51), research herbal preparation STW 5‐II (n = 52), bitter candytuft mono‐extract (n = 53) or placebo (n = 52). The main outcome variables were the changes in total abdominal pain and irritable bowel syndrome symptom scores. Results : Two hundred and three patients completed the trial. STW 5 and STW 5‐II were significantly better than placebo in reducing the total abdominal pain score (intention‐to‐treat: STW 5, P = 0.0009; STW 5‐II, P = 0.0005) and the irritable bowel syndrome symptom score (intention‐to‐treat: STW 5, P = 0.001; STW 5‐II, P = 0.0003) at 4 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences between the bitter candytuft mono‐extract group and the placebo group (P = 0.1473, P = 0.1207). Conclusions : The commercially available herbal preparation STW 5 and its research preparation STW 5‐II are both effective in alleviating irritable bowel syndrome symptoms.

SUMMARY BackgroundThe clinical management of Helicobacter pylori infected patients who failed standard eradication therapies remains a challenge.

No abstract