Summary Background : Peristomal infection can sometimes complicate percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. Antibiotic prophylaxis has, in some studies, been shown to reduce the incidence. However, the use of prophylaxis varies widely, possibly because the design and findings of the studies have differed, making their relevance to clinical practice difficult to interpret. Aim : To determine the efficacy of antibiotics, either prophylaxis or concurrent antibiotics at the time of the procedure, in reducing peristomal infection after PEG insertion in the context of a study designed to reflect current practice. Methods : One hundred and forty‐one patients undergoing PEG placement were randomised to group one to receive either a single dose of 750 mg of intravenous cefuroxime (n = 50) or placebo (n = 51) 30 min before PEG insertion. Forty patients who, for various reasons, were already receiving antibiotics were allocated to group two. The peristomal site was evaluated on day 3, 5 and 7 following insertion. Erythema and exudate were scored on a scale from 0 to 4; induration was scored on a scale of 0–3. A maximum combined score of 8 or higher or the presence of pus was criteria for infection. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of a peristomal wound infection at any time within one week of PEG insertion. Results : Peristomal wound infection was significantly reduced in patients who received antibiotics either as a single dose of cefuroxime [one of 33 (3%)], or in those on antibiotics for prior indications [one of 36 (3%)], compared with placebo [six of 33 (18%)], P = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively. Conclusion : Antibiotics, either prophylaxis or concurrent, reduce the incidence of peristomal wound infection after PEG placement.

Immunotherapy using short immunogenic peptides of disease-related autoantigens restores immune tolerance in preclinical disease models. We studied safety and mechanistic effects of injecting human leukocyte antigen-DR4()-restricted immunodominant proinsulin peptide intradermally every 2 or 4 weeks for 6 months in newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes patients. Treatment was well tolerated with no systemic or local hypersensitivity. Placebo subjects showed a significant decline in stimulated C-peptide (measuring insulin reserve) at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months versus baseline, whereas no significant change was seen in the 4-weekly peptide group at these time points or the 2-weekly group at 3, 6, and 9 months. The placebo group's daily insulin use increased by 50% over 12 months but remained unchanged in the intervention groups. C-peptide retention in treated subjects was associated with proinsulin-stimulated interleukin-10 production, increased FoxP3 expression by regulatory T cells, low baseline levels of activated β cell-specific CD8 T cells, and favorable β cell stress markers (proinsulin/C-peptide ratio). Thus, proinsulin peptide immunotherapy is safe, does not accelerate decline in β cell function, and is associated with antigen-specific and nonspecific immune modulation.

Simple dosing regimens are preferable to multiple daily dosing regimens. Electronic monitoring of adherence should be used more often in clinical studies. Self-reported adherence and tablet counts may underestimate adherence. Adherence declined over time, and adherence was generally lower and more varied for those allocated to the three times daily regimen.

No abstract

BackgroundMesalazine (Asacol) is still widely prescribed in divided doses for ulcerative colitis (UC), despite evidence that adherence is improved by once-daily (OD) prescribing. We aimed to investigate whether OD Asacol was as effective as three times (TDS) daily dosing, and to evaluate the role of treatment adherence.MethodsAn investigator-blind randomized trial was undertaken comparing OD Asacol (three 800 mg tablets) versus one 800 mg TDS in maintenance of remission of UC over 1 year. The primary endpoint was relapse rate, and noninferiority would be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportions relapsing (TDS-OD) exceeded −10%. Adherence was measured by tablet counts and self-reported adherence. A subgroup of patients used a bottle cap that recorded all bottle opening events.ResultsIn all, 213 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, relapse rates were 31% (95% CI 22%–40%) in the OD and 45% (95% CI 35%–54%) in the TDS group. Primary analysis confirmed the noninferiority of OD dosing. Two of the study populations, ITT and per-protocol (PP), showed potential superiority of OD dosing. All measures of adherence showed that it was significantly better in the OD group. Multivariate analysis, however, showed OD dosing was associated with lower relapse risk independently of adherence.ConclusionsOD dosing with Asacol 2.4 g is as safe and effective as TDS dosing, and secondary analysis confirmed significantly reduced relapse rates. The benefit, however, was clinically borderline and may relate in part to ease of adherence. (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012)