Recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection occurs universally in the allograft in the absence of effective antiviral therapy before liver transplantation (LT). Antiviral therapy with sofosbuvir and simeprevir has proven to be highly effective and well tolerated in the nontransplant setting for treatment of HCV genotype 1 infection; therefore, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this regimen in LT recipients with recurrent HCV infection. This was a retrospective analysis of a single-center treatment protocol of patients with HCV genotype 1 infection who received a 12-week combination regimen of sofosbuvir and simeprevir. Sixty-one patients (35 with genotype 1a and 26 with genotype 1b) completed treatment with simeprevir and sofosbuvir. Three patients received additional ribavirin. Laboratory data and clinical assessments performed at the baseline, on treatment, at the end of treatment, and 12 weeks after the completion of antiviral therapy [sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12)] were analyzed. The median time after LT was 5.4 years [interquartile range (IQR), 1.9-8.4 years], and tacrolimus was the most commonly used immunosuppressive agent (80.3%). Overall, SVR12 was achieved in 93.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 84%-97%] of LT recipients treated with 12 weeks of sofosbuvir and simeprevir. When they were analyzed according to the HCV subtype, LT recipients with genotype 1b had a 100% SVR12 rate (95% CI, 87%-100%), whereas SVR12 was 89% (95% CI, 74%-95%) for those with genotype 1a. Advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F3-F4) was associated with diminished antiviral efficacy in LT recipients with genotype 1a [SVR12, 67% (95% CI, 39%-86%); P = 0.01]. Overall, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) was low, and no severe AEs occurred during treatment. In conclusion, treatment with a 12-week regimen of sofosbuvir and simeprevir was well tolerated and resulted in a high SVR12 rate for LT recipients with recurrent HCV genotype 1 infection. Genotype 1a patients with advanced fibrosis of the allograft were more likely to relapse.

In a retrospective study and meta-analysis, we found no association between accelerated infliximab induction therapy and lower rates of colectomy in patients with ASUC, compared to standard induction therapy. However, confounding by disease severity cannot be excluded. Randomized trials are warranted to compare these treatment strategies.

Diabetic gastroparesis (DMGP) is a condition of delayed gastric emptying after gastric outlet obstruction has been excluded. Symptoms of nausea, vomiting, early satiety, bloating, and abdominal pain are associated with DMGP. Uncontrolled symptoms can lead to overall poor quality of life and financial burdens on the healthcare system. A combination of antiemetics and prokinetics is used in symptom control; metoclopramide is the main prokinetic available for clinical use and is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved agent in the United States. However, a black box warning in 2009 reporting its association with tardive dyskinesia and recommending caution in chronically using this agent beyond 3 months has decreased its role in clinical practice. There is an unmet need for new prokinetics with good efficacy and safety profiles. Currently, there are several new drugs with different mechanisms of action in the pipeline that are under investigation and show promising preliminary results. Surgically combining gastric electrical stimulation with pyloroplasty is considered “gold” standard. Advances in therapeutic endoscopic intervention with gastric per-oral endoscopic pyloromyotomy have also been shown to improve gastric emptying and gastroparesis (GP) symptoms. In this review, we will comment on the challenges encountered when managing patients with DMGP and provide an update on advances in drug development and endoscopic and surgical interventions.

IntroductionThe incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) among US Hispanics is rising. Adoption of an American diet and/or US acculturation may help explain this rise.AimsTo measure changes in diet occurring with immigration to the USA in IBD patients and controls, and to compare US acculturation between Hispanics with versus without IBD. Last, we examine the current diet of Hispanics with IBD compared to the diet of Hispanic controls.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study of Hispanic immigrants with and without IBD. Participants were recruited from a university-based GI clinic. All participants completed an abbreviated version of the Stephenson Multi-Group Acculturation Scale and a 24-h diet recall (the ASA-24). Diet quality was calculated using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI-2010).ResultsWe included 58 participants: 29 controls and 29 IBD patients. Most participants were Cuban or Colombian. Most participants, particularly those with IBD, reported changing their diet after immigration (72% of IBD and 57% of controls). IBD participants and controls scored similarly on US and Hispanic acculturation measures. IBD patients and controls scored equally poorly on the HEI-2010, although they differed on specific measures of poor intake. IBD patients reported a higher intake of refined grains and lower consumption of fruits, whereas controls reported higher intake of empty calories (derived from fat and alcohol).ConclusionThe majority of Hispanics change their diet upon immigration to the USA and eat poorly irrespective of the presence of IBD. Future studies should examine gene–diet interactions to better understand underlying causes of IBD in Hispanics.

An LRD/RD provided no difference in bowel preparation quality as compared with a CLD. As such, it may be reasonable for patients without risk factors for poor preparation to undergo an LRD until lunch the day before their colonoscopy given that bowel preparation tolerability and willingness to repeat were greater among groups with a liberalized diet.

No clinically significant differences were noted among recipients of same day or split dose regimens. Adenoma detection rate, willingness to repeat and tolerability were similar, but bloating and interference with sleep favored the same-day preparations. Given lack of clinical differences, patient preference should dictate timing of colonoscopy preparation.

SummaryBackgroundDespite a rising incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Hispanics in the United States, there are no studies examining the relationship between immigrant generation and IBD onset among Hispanics.AimsTo determine whether age of IBD diagnosis, time from immigration to IBD diagnosis and IBD phenotype, differed across immigration periods in South Florida Cuban immigrants.MethodsThis was a cohort of consecutively identified Cuban‐born adults who developed IBD in the United States and were followed in gastroenterology (GI) clinic. We divided time cohorts of immigration by historical relevance: before 1980, 1980‐1994 and 1995‐to‐present. We examined differences across time cohorts in diagnosis age, time from immigration to IBD diagnosis, and IBD phenotype (ie, IBD type, disease location).ResultsA total of 130 Cuban patients with IBD were included. Age of IBD diagnosis was older in Cubans arriving before 1980 than in those arriving between 1980‐1994 or after 1995 (44.7 vs 33.79 and 33.71, respectively, P<.0001). Time between immigration and diagnosis was shorter in patients arriving to the US after 1980 (31.77 years, Standard deviation (SD) 12.83 (<1980) vs 17.13 years, SD 8.55 (1980‐1994) and 8.30 years, SD 4.72 (1995‐to‐present). IBD phenotype, including type of IBD, disease location and surgeries, did not differ significantly across time cohorts.ConclusionsOur study describes changing patterns of IBD onset following immigration in Cubans, suggesting that environmental changes either in the United States, Cuba or both are resulting in faster IBD onset in younger immigrant generations. These studies can inform the search for environmental triggers that may result in IBD.

Many women of childbearing age are living with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], yet there are limited studies on the use of IBD medications in pregnancy. In this review, we provide a comprehensive update on the safety of these medications during pregnancy, particularly thiopurines and biologicals. Antibiotics, steroids, and aminosalicylates are relatively low risk for use in pregnancy, and growing evidence supports the safety of immunomodulators and anti-tumour necrosis factor agents as well. Available studies on infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol show no increase in adverse events during pregnancy or perinatally. Similarly, studies on lactation demonstrate that concentrations of subcutaneous anti-tumour necrosis factor biologicals are undetectable, and levels of thiopurines and infliximab are negligible in breast milk. Less is known about anti-integrins in pregnancy [eg natalizumab and vedolizumab] but currently available data suggest they may be safe as well. Although more studies are needed to examine the long-term effects of these medications on offspring, the available data provide reassuring information for providers caring for women of childbearing age.