Infliximab was more effective than azathioprine in reducing histological, but not endoscopic and clinical recurrence after curative ileocolonic resection in "high risk" CD patients.

No abstract

Background and Aims Our first objective was to evaluate the immune response to the adjuvanted 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic (pH1N1) vaccine in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients treated with anti-TNF-α alone or combined with immunosuppressants (IS). Second and third aims were the safety of pH1N1 vaccine and the effects on IBD clinical activity. Methods 36 patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and 26 with ulcerative colitis (UC) and thirty-one healthy control subjects (HC) were enrolled. 47 patients were on anti TNF-α maintenance monotherapy and 15 on anti TNF-α combined with IS. Sera were collected at baseline (T0) and 4 weeks after the vaccination (T1) for antibody determination by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI Disease activity was monitored at T0 and T1. Results Seroprotective titers (≥ 1: 40) in patients were comparable to HC. Seroconvertion rate (≥ 4 fold increase in HAI titer) was lower than HC in IBD patients (p=0,009), either on anti TNF-α monotherapy (p=0,034) or combined with IS (p=0,011). Geometric mean titer (GMT) of antibodies at T1 was significantly lower in patients on combined therapy versus those on monotherapy (p=0,0017) and versus HC (p=0,011). The factor increase of GMT at T1 versus T0 was significantly lower in IBD patients versus HC (p=0,042), and in those on combined immunosuppression, both versus monotherapy (p=0,0048) and HC (p=0,0015). None of the patients experienced a disease flare. Conclusion Our study has shown a suboptimal response to pH1N1 vaccine in IBD patients on therapy with anti TNF-α and IS compared to those on anti-TNF-α monotherapy and HC.

HBV and HCV infection rates were similar to infection rates among the general population. Less than one quarter of the patients had been vaccinated against HBV. Anti-TNF-α agents appear to be safe for patients with HBV infection; more data are needed for patients with HCV infection.

Background and aim: Optical diagnosis (OD) of colonic polyps is poorly reproducible outside high-volume referral centres. Present study aimed to assess whether real-time AI-assisted OD is accurate enough to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive (5mm) rectosigmoid (DRSPs) polyps. Methods: Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients with 5mm) rectosigmoid (DRSPs) polyps. Methods: Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients with >1 DRSP were included. DRSPs were categorized as adenomas or non-adenomas by the endoscopist, with different expertise in OD, with the assistance of real-time AI system (CADEYE, Fujifilm Co., Tokyo-Japan). Primary study endpoint was >90% negative predictive value (NPV) for adenomatous histology in high-confidence AI-assisted OD of DRSPs (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable endoscopic Innovations (PIVI-1) threshold), with histopathology as reference standard. The agreement between optical- and histology-based post-polypectomy surveillance intervals (>90%, PIVI-2 threshold) was also calculated according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines. Results: Overall 596 DRSPs were retrieved for histology in 389 patients; AI-assisted high-confidence OD was made in 92.3%. The NPV of AI-assisted OD for DRSPs (PIVI-1) was 91.0% (95%CI [87.1-93.9]%). PIVI-2 threshold was met in 97.4% (95%CI [95.7-98.9]%) and 92.6% (95%CI [90.0-95.2]%) of patients according to ESGE and USMSTF, respectively. The AI-assisted OD accuracy was significantly lower for non-experts (82.3%; 95% CI [76.4-87.3]%) than for experts (91.9%; 95%CI [88.5-94.5]%), however non-experts in OD quickly approached experts’ performances over time. Conclusion: AI-assisted OD matches the required PIVI thresholds. However, this does not offset the need for a high-level confidence and expertise by the endoscopist. The AI system seems to be useful especially for non-experts.