No abstract

Highlights Dexamethasone, or alternative steroids, are recommended in severe COVID-19. The use of tocilizumab in COVID-19, with or without steroids, is still controversial. Risk for mortality was assessed in 186 COVID-19 patients receiving tocilizumab. Mortality was associated with older age, chronic heart failure and liver disease. In tocilizumab-treated patients, the additional use of steroids was beneficial.

Background The effectiveness of the switch to another anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agent is not known. The aim of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of treatment with a second and third anti-TNF drug after intolerance to or failure of a previous anti-TNF agent in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Methods We included patients diagnosed with IBD from the ENEIDA registry who received another anti-TNF after intolerance to or failure of a prior anti-TNF agent. Results A total of 1122 patients were included. In the short term, remission was achieved in 55% of the patients with the second anti-TNF. The incidence of loss of response was 19% per patient-year with the second anti-TNF. Combination therapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8–3; P < 0.0001) and ulcerative colitis vs Crohn’s disease (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1–2.1; P = 0.005) were associated with a higher probability of loss of response. Fifteen percent of the patients had adverse events, and 10% had to discontinue the second anti-TNF. Of the 71 patients who received a third anti-TNF, 55% achieved remission. The incidence of loss of response was 22% per patient-year with a third anti-TNF. Adverse events occurred in 7 patients (11%), but only 1 stopped the drug. Conclusions Approximately half of the patients who received a second anti-TNF achieved remission; nevertheless, a significant proportion of them subsequently lost response. Combination therapy and type of IBD were associated with loss of response. Remission was achieved in almost 50% of patients who received a third anti-TNF; nevertheless, a significant proportion of them subsequently lost response.

Background and Aims Primary sclerosing cholangitis [PSC] is usually associated with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. An increased risk of malignancies, mainly colorectal cancer [CRC] and cholangiocarcinoma [CCA], has been reported in PSC-IBD patients. Our aim was to determine the clinical characteristics and management of PSC in IBD patients, and the factors associated with malignancies. Methods PSC-IBD patients were identified from the Spanish ENEIDA registry of GETECCU. Additional data were collected using the AEG-REDCap electronic data capture tool. Results In total, 277 PSC-IBD patients were included, with an incidence rate of 61 PSC cases per 100 000 IBD patient-years, 69.7% men, 67.5% ulcerative colitis and mean age at PSC diagnosis of 40 ± 16 years. Most patients [85.2%] were treated with ursodeoxycholic acid. Liver transplantation was required in 35 patients [12.6%] after 79 months (interquartile range [IQR] 50–139). It was more common in intra- and extrahepatic PSC compared with small-duct PSC (16.3% vs 3.3%; odds ratio [OR] 5.7: 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7–19.3). The incidence rate of CRC since PSC diagnosis was 3.3 cases per 1000 patient-years [95% CI = 1.9–5.6]. Having symptoms of PSC at PSC diagnosis was the only factor related to an increased risk of CRC after IBD diagnosis [hazard ratio= 3.3: 95% CI = 1.1–9.9]. CCA was detected in seven patients [2.5%] with intra- and extrahepatic PSC, with median age of 42 years [IQR 39–53], and presented a lower life expectancy compared with patients without CCA and patients with or without CRC. Conclusions PSC-IBD patients with symptoms of PSC at PSC diagnosis have an increased risk of CRC. CCA was only diagnosed in patients with intra- and extrahepatic PSC and was associated with poor survival.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer is the second commonest cause of cancer mortality.Some countries are implementing colorectal cancer screening to detect lesions at an early stage using non-invasive tools like the faecal immunochemical test. Despite affordability, this test shows a low sensitivity for precancerous lesions and a low positive predictive value for colorectal cancer, resulting in a high false-positive rate.Aim: To develop a new, non-invasive colorectal cancer screening tool based on bacterial faecal biomarkers, which in combination with the faecal immunochemical test, could allow a reduction in the false-positive rate. This tool is called risk assessment of intestinal disease for colorectal cancer (RAID-CRC). Methods:We performed both the faecal immunochemical test and the bacterial markers analysis (RAID-CRC test) in stool samples from individuals with normal colonoscopy (167), non-advanced adenomas (88), advanced adenomas (30) and colorectal cancer (48). All the participants showed colorectal cancer-associated symptoms.Results: Performance of the faecal immunochemical test for advanced neoplasia (ie advanced adenoma and colorectal cancer) was determined by using the cut-off value established in Catalonia (20 µg haemoglobin/g of faeces) for a population-based screening approach. Sensitivity and specificity values of 83% and 80%, respectively, and positive and negative predictive values of 56% and 94%, respectively, were obtained. When both the immunological and the biological analysis were combined, the corresponding values were 80% and 90% for sensitivity and specificity, respectively, and 70% and 94% for positive and negative predictive values, respectively, resulting in a 50% reduction of the false-positive rate.Conclusions: RAID-CRC test allows a substantial reduction in the faecal immunochemical test false-positive results (50%) in a symptomatic population. Further validation is indicated in a colorectal cancer-screening scenario. | 1411MALAGÓN et AL.