Background & Aims Most studies of trends in diverticular disease have focused on diverticulitis or on a composite outcome of diverticulitis and bleeding. We aimed to quantify and compare the prevalence of hospitalization for diverticular bleeding and diverticulitis overall and by sex and race. Methods We analyzed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2000 through 2010. We identified adult patients with a discharge diagnosis of diverticular bleeding or diverticulitis. Using yearly US Intercensal data, we calculated age-, sex-, and race- specific rates, as well as age-adjusted prevalence rates. Results The prevalence of hospitalization per 100,000 persons for diverticular bleeding decreased over the 10 year (y) period from 32.5 to 27.1 (−5.4; 95% confidence interval (CI), −5.1 to −5.7). The prevalence of hospitalization for diverticulitis peaked in 2008 (74.1/100,000 in 2000, 96.0/100,000 in 2008 and 91.9/100,000 in 2010). The prevalence of diverticulitis was higher in women than men, whereas women and men had similar rates of diverticular bleeding. The prevalence of diverticular bleeding was highest in Blacks (34.4/100,000 in 2010); whereas the prevalence of diverticulitis was highest in Whites (75.5/100,000 in 2010). Conclusions Over the past 10 y, the prevalence of hospitalization for diverticulitis increased and then plateaued while that of diverticular bleeding decreased. The prevalence according to sex and race differed for diverticulitis and diverticular bleeding. These findings indicate different mechanisms of pathogenesis for these disorders.

Objectives We have shown that, in a randomized trial comparing adherence to different colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, participants assigned to either fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or given a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy had significantly higher adherence than those assigned to colonoscopy during the first year. However, how adherence to screening changes over time is unknown. Methods In this trial, 997 participants were cluster randomized to one of the three screening strategies: (i) FOBT, (ii) colonoscopy, or (iii) a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy. Research assistants helped participants to complete testing only in the first year. Adherence to screening was defined as completion of three FOBT cards in each of 3 years after enrollment or completion of colonoscopy within the first year of enrollment. The primary outcome was adherence to assigned strategy over 3 years. Additional outcomes included identification of sociodemographic factors associated with adherence. Results Participants assigned to annual FOBT completed screening at a significantly lower rate over 3 years (14%) than those assigned to colonoscopy (38%, P<0.001) or choice (42%, P<0.001); however, completion of any screening test fell precipitously, indicating the strong effect of patient navigation. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, being randomized to the choice or colonoscopy group, Chinese language, homosexuality, being married/partnered, and having a non-nurse practitioner primary care provider were independently associated with greater adherence to screening (P<0.01). Conclusions In a 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing competing CRC screening strategies, participants offered a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy continued to have relatively high adherence, whereas adherence in the FOBT group fell significantly below that of the choice and colonoscopy groups. Patient navigation is crucial to achieving adherence to CRC screening, and FOBT is especially vulnerable because of the need for annual testing.

27 cases of anti-TNF associated psoriasiform lesions are reported. Discontinuation of anti-TNF treatment is unnecessary in the majority. Dermatologic improvement was achieved in the majority with a subsequent anti-TNF, suggesting anti-TNF induced psoriasiform rash is not necessarily a class effect.

BackgroundThe magnitude of risk of serious infections due to available medical therapies of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the existing IBD literature to estimate the risk of serious infection in adult IBD patients associated with available medical therapies.MethodsStudies were identified by a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Randomized controlled trials comparing IBD medical therapies with no restrictions on language, country of origin, or publication date were included. A network meta-analysis was used to pool direct between treatment comparisons with indirect trial evidence while preserving randomization.ResultsThirty-nine articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria; one study was excluded from the analysis due to disconnectedness. We found no evidence of increased odds of serious infection in comparisons of the different treatment strategies against each other, including combination therapy with a biologic and immunomodulator compared to biologic monotherapy. Similar results were seen in the comparisons between the newer biologics (e.g. vedolizumab) and the anti-tumor necrosis factor agents.ConclusionsNo treatment strategy was found to confer a higher risk of serious infection than another, although wide confidence intervals indicate that a clinically significant difference cannot be excluded. These findings provide a better understanding of the risk of serious infection from IBD pharmacotherapy in the adult population.Prospero registrationThe protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42014013497).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-017-0602-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.