Background Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have an increased risk of colorectal cancer. We sought to assess the comparative efficacy of virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) vs high definition white light endoscopy (HDWLE) or dye-spraying chromoendoscopy (DCE) through a meta-analysis and rating the quality of evidence. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed through February 15, 2019. Primary outcomes were number of patients in whom dysplasia was identified and number of dysplastic lesions identified in these patients. We included only randomized control trials (RCTs) and performed meta-analysis using RevMan5.3. Results Of the 3205 studies identified, 11 RCTs were included, with a total of 1328 patients. Per patient analysis, VCE was not statistically different compared with DCE (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI, 0.55–1.08) or HDWLE (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45–1.15). However, per dysplasia analysis, VCE was not statistically different compared with DCE (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.47–1.11) and inferior compared with HDWLE (RR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44–0.88). The quality of evidence was moderate in the HDWLE and low to moderate in the DCE studies. Conclusion Based on this meta-analysis, VCE was as good as HDWLE and DCE in identifying dysplasia per patient analysis. However, per dysplasia analysis, VCE was inferior compared with HDWLE and no different from DCE. Further studies need to examine the efficacy of each individual VCE technique.

Introduction Using therapeutic drug monitoring [TDM] in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to answer four clinical PICO [Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome] questions. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from inception to June 30, 2019. Remission was defined by the manuscripts’ definitions of clinical remission. Data were analysed using RevMan 5.3. Quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE methodology. Results We identified and screened 3365 abstracts and 11 articles. PICO 1 Reactive vs No TDM: six studies pooled showed 57.1% [257/450] failed to achieve remission following reactive TDM vs 44.7% [268/600] in the no TDM group (risk ratio [RR]: 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–1.47). PICO 2 Proactive vs no TDM: five studies pooled showed 19.5% [75/384] failed to maintain remission in the proactive TDM group vs 33.4% [248/742] in the no TDM group [RR: 0.60; 95% CI 0.35–1.04]. PICO 3 Proactive vs Reactive TDM: two retrospective studies pooled showed 14.2% [26/183] failure to maintain remission in the proactive TDM group and 64.7% [119/184] in the reactive TDM group [RR: 0.22; 95% CI 0.15–0.32]. PICO 4 TDM [proactive/reactive] vs No TDM: we pooled 10 studies showing 39.7% [332/837] failed to achieve remission in the TDM [proactive/reactive] cohort vs 40.3% [428/1063] in the no TDM cohort [RR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.77–1.14]. Overall, the quality of evidence in each PICO was very low when using GRADE. Conclusions This meta-analysis shows that data supporting use of TDM in adults are limited and of very low quality. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the place of TDM in clinical practice.

Background Obesity is the fifth leading risk factor for mortality in the world and it has increased among patients with ulcerative colitis in recent years. We examined the impact of obesity on the hospitalized patients admitted primarily with a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. Methods We used the National Inpatient Sample data for the year 2016 to identify patients with ulcerative colitis and compared obese and non-obese patients in terms of length of hospital stay, total charges, and mortality. We used multiple imputations to estimate missing values and survey analysis to estimate the outcomes, and we adjusted for confounders by implementing the inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity score. Results A total of 61,075 admissions with ulcerative colitis were identified. Among these, 6020 were diagnosed with obesity. Baseline hospital and patient characteristics between the 2 groups were notable for differences in age and sex. Patients with obesity were found to have a mean hospital stay longer by 0.57 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-0.93; P=0.002) and charges $6341.71 higher (95%CI 2499.72-10,183.71; P=0.001) compared to non-obese patients. There was no difference in hospital mortality, with an odds ratio of 0.28 (95%CI 0.04-2.05; P=0.212). Conclusion In a comprehensive review of inpatient admissions in 2016, primarily for ulcerative colitis, obesity was associated with a longer hospital stay and higher total charges per admission after balancing of confounders.

Background: The objective of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib in the treatment of moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central to identify articles and abstracts reporting efficacy or safety data on tofacitinib use in UC. Primary outcome assessed was remission. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, steroid free remission, and adverse events (AEs). Results: A total of 26 studies were included. The rates of remission were 29.81% [95% confidence interval (CI): 22.37%-37.25%, I 2: 90%] at week 8, 32.27% (95% CI: 27.67%-36.88%, I 2: 42%) at 6 months and 38.03% (95% CI: 33.59%-42.48%, I 2: 0%) at 1-year. Clinical response rates were 59.41% (95% CI: 55.03%-63.94%, I 2: 61%) at week 8, 48.99% (95% CI: 36.92%-61.06%, I 2: 91%) at 6 months and 50.87% (95% CI: 42.16%-59.58%, I 2: 67%) at 1-year. Odds ratio of clinical response at week 8 in biologic naive versus biologic experienced patients was 1.59 (95% CI: 0.54-4.63). Pooled incidence rate for serious infections, major adverse cardiovascular events, and nonmelanotic squamous cell malignancies across all doses was 4.41 per 100-patient years (PYs) (95% CI: 2.32-8.38 per 100-PY, I 2: 78%), 0.91 per 100-PY (95% CI: 0.43-1.93 per 100-PY, I 2: 37%) and 0.91 per 100-PY (95% CI: 0.61-1.34 per 100-PY, I 2: 0%), respectively. Higher dose was associated with an increased frequency of AEs. Conclusions: While the overall efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in moderate-severe UC is consistent with clinical trial data, the dose dependent increase in AEs highlights the significance of early dose de-escalation. Rate of clinical response after tofacitinb induction was similar in biologic naive and biologic experienced patients.