This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Patients with Crohn’s disease often develop perianal disease, successfully managed in most cases. However, its most aggressive form, complex perianal disease, is associated with high morbidity and a significant impairment in patients’ quality of life. The aim of this review is to provide an updated approach to this condition, reviewing aspects of its epidemiology, diagnosis and therapeutic alternatives. Emerging treatment options are also discussed. A multidisciplinary assessment of these patients with a coordinated medical and surgical approach is crucial.

Background and Objectives:EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a feasible procedure when ERCP fails, as is percutaneous transhepatic BD (PTBD). However, little is known about patient perception and preference of EUS-BD and PTBD.Patients and Methods:An international multicenter survey was conducted in seven tertiary referral centers. In total, 327 patients, scheduled to undergo ERCP for suspected malignant biliary obstruction, were enrolled in the study. Patients received decision aids with visual representation regarding the techniques, benefits, and adverse events (AEs) of EUS-BD and PTBD. Patients were then asked the choice between the two simulated scenarios (EUS-BD or PTBD) after failed ERCP, the reasons for their preference, and whether altering AE rates would influence their prior choice.Results:In total, 313 patients (95.7%) responded to the questionnaire and 251 patients (80.2%) preferred EUS-BD. The preference of EUS-BD was 85.7% (186/217) with EUS-BD expertise, compared to 67.7% (65/96) without EUS-BD expertise (P < 0.001). The main reason for choosing EUS-BD was the possibility of internal drainage (78.1%). In multivariate analysis, the availability of EUS-BD expertise was the single independent factor that influenced patient preference (odds ratio: 3.168; 95% of confidence interval, 1.714–5.856; P < 0.001). The preference of EUS-BD increased as AE rates decreased (P < 0.001).Conclusions:In this simulated scenario, approximately 80% of patients preferred EUS-BD over PTBD after failed ERCP. However, preference of EUS-BD declined as its AE rates increased. Further technical innovations and improved proficiency in EUS-BD for reducing AEs may encourage the use of this procedure as a routine clinical practice when ERCP fails.

In an area of high antibiotic resistance to H. pylori, 10-day Pylera plus double-dose PPI emerged as an alternative as third-line therapy, although not achieving optimal eradication rates. TRAEs were common but were neither severe nor did they condition compliance.

PPIs are safe drugs whose benefits outweigh their potential side effects both short-term and long-term, provided their indication, dosage, and duration are appropriate.

Background and aims Protein‐losing enteropathy (PLE) after Fontan surgery carries significant morbimortality. Its pathophysiology and association with other Fontan complications are poorly understood. Our aims were to examine whether Fontan‐PLE is associated with greater liver damage and to assess the presence of systemic and intestinal inflammation. Methods Fontan patients with PLE and Fontan controls without PLE matched for age and Fontan surgery procedure were included. Data were prospectively compiled on blood and stool tests, liver imaging, elastography, cardiac‐MRI and cardiac catheterization. Results Twenty‐nine Fontan patients were enrolled (14 with PLE and 15 controls without PLE). Patients with PLE had more advanced liver disease estimated by non‐invasive methods: blunt liver margins on ultrasonography (71.4% vs 26.7%, P = .027), greater median liver stiffness (25.4 vs 14.5 kPa, P = .003) and higher FIB‐4 (P = .016). Portal hypertension‐related signs were more common in patients with PLE including ascites (P = .035), larger spleen size (P = .005), oesophageal varices/splanchnic collateral shunts (P = .03), higher liver stiffness‐spleen size‐to‐platelet ratio risk score (P < .001) and lower platelet count (P = .01). Systemic proinflammatory cytokines (TNF‐α, interleukin‐6), biomarkers of intestinal permeability (intestinal fatty‐acid binding protein) and faecal calprotectin concentrations were also significantly increased in Fontan‐PLE (P < .05). Faecal calprotectin directly correlated with alpha‐1 antitrypsin clearance and inversely with cardiac index, total serum proteins and body mass index. Conclusion Fontan‐PLE is associated with advanced liver disease and increased markers of systemic inflammation and intestinal permeability. Faecal calprotectin is elevated and correlates with Fontan‐PLE severity. Liver assessment is mandatory in all Fontan patients, and especially in those with PLE.

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most active ingredients prescribed in Spain. In recent decades there has been an overuse of these drugs in both outpatient clinics and hospitals that has lead to a significant increase in healthcare spending and to an increase in the risk of possible side effects. It is important for health professionals to know the accepted indications and the correct doses for the use of these drugs. On the market there are different types of PPI: omeprazole, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole and esomeprazole. Omeprazole is the oldest and most used PPI, being also the cheapest. Although there are no important differences between PPIs in curing diseases, esomeprazole, a newgeneration PPI, has proved to be more effective in eradicating H. pylori and in healing severe esophagitis compared to other PPIs. In recent years the use of generic drugs has spread; these drugs have the same bioavailability than the original drugs. In the case of PPIs, the few comparative studies available in the literature between original and generic drugs have shown no significant differences in clinical efficacy.Key words: Proton-pump inhibitor. PPI. Omeprazole. Pantoprazole. Lansoprazole. Rabeprazole. Esomeprazole. INTRODUCTIONProton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) represent a family of drugs widely used in our country. The advent in the nineties of PPIs was a great revolution in the treatment of ulcer disease and gastroesophageal reflux. The main problems of PPIs at present time are its overuse and the errors in the therapeutic indication. This fact leads to a considerable health economic cost and the risk of long-term side effects. In this review the main problems of PPIs prescription, their indications, the differences between PPIs and tips on their use are discussed. Brief historical memory: since alkaline diets until PPIsThe treatment of ulcer disease and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the early twentieth century was the prescription of alkaline foods like milk, eggs and puree (1). Later, there were products as sodium bicarbonate that improved symptoms but did not prevent complications. Surgical treatment consisted of different types of gastric surgeries for peptic ulcer disease and Nissen fundoplication for GERD (2).In the mid twentieth century the use of muscarinic antagonists was introduced, atropine being its main active ingredient. Acids secretion was partially inhibited by blocking the muscarinic receptor of the parietal cell. However, these drugs had little effectiveness and numerous adverse effects due to the amount of muscarinic receptors distributed throughout the body. E-type prostaglandin was discovered later, but, again, the limitations of these substances were their short half life and side effects. An important progress in gastric antisecretory therapy was the appearance of H 2 receptors antagonists (H 2 blockers) (3). The most used were ranitidine and famotidine. These drugs established a substantial change by blocking the action of histamine receptor in gastric parietal ...

Liver injury has been widely described in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to study the effect of liver biochemistry alterations, previous liver disease, and the value of liver elastography on hard clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. We conducted a single-center prospective observational study in 370 consecutive patients admitted for polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia. Clinical and laboratory data were collected at baseline and liver parameters and clinical events recorded during follow-up. Transient elastography [with Controlled Attenuation Parameter (CAP) measurements] was performed at admission in 98 patients. All patients were followed up until day 28 or death. The two main outcomes of the study were 28-day mortality and the occurrence of the composite endpoint intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels were elevated at admission in 130 patients (35%) and 167 (45%) patients, respectively. Overall, 14.6% of patients presented the composite endpoint ICU and/or death. Neither ALT elevations, prior liver disease, liver stiffness nor liver steatosis (assessed with CAP) had any effect on outcomes. However, patients with abnormal baseline AST had a higher occurrence of the composite ICU/death (21% versus 9.5%, p = 0.002). Patients ⩾65 years and with an AST level > 50 U/ml at admission had a significantly higher risk of ICU and/or death than those with AST ⩽ 50 U/ml (50% versus 13.3%, p < 0.001). In conclusion, mild liver damage is prevalent in COVID-19 patients, but neither ALT elevation nor liver steatosis influenced hard clinical outcomes. Elevated baseline AST is a strong predictor of hard outcomes, especially in patients ⩾65 years.