Background and Aims:Azathioprine [AZA] is recommended for maintenance of steroid-free remission in inflammatory bowel disease IBD. The aim of this study has been to establish the incidence and severity of AZA-induced pancreatitis, an idiosyncratic and major side effect, and to identify specific risk factors.Methods:We studied 510 IBD patients [338 Crohn’s disease, 157 ulcerative colitis, 15 indeterminate colitis] with initiation of AZA treatment in a prospective multicentre registry study. Acute pancreatitis was diagnosed in accordance with international guidelines.Results:AZA was continued by 324 [63.5%] and stopped by 186 [36.5%] patients. The most common cause of discontinuation was nausea [12.2%]. AZA-induced pancreatitis occurred in 37 patients [7.3%]. Of these: 43% were hospitalised with a median inpatient time period of 5 days; 10% had peripancreatic fluid collections; 24% had vomiting; and 14% had fever. No patient had to undergo nonsurgical or surgical interventions. Smoking was the strongest risk factor for AZA-induced acute pancreatitis [p < 0.0002] in univariate and multivariate analyses.Conclusions:AZA-induced acute pancreatitis is a common adverse event in IBD patients, but in this study had a mild course in all patients. Smoking is the most important risk factor.
The registry constitutes a large complemental database for the patient population in Germany. About one third of the IBD patients were not in clinical remission (CDAI ≥150/CAI >4) (CD: 45%; UC: 27%), although high rates of immunosuppressive drugs (CD: 47%; UC 26%) were administered. This study shows a large burden of active disease associated with an unexpectedly high (co)morbidity and high psychosocial impairments, indicating a reduced health state in IBD patients.
Approximately a third of CD patients experience a mild disease course and require only basic therapy. A possible scoring system to predict mild CD which may avoid overtreatment and unnecessary risks for the patient and costs is suggested.
Purpose Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection has been found to be associated with a reactivation of ulcerative colitis (UC) and with an impaired response to medical therapy. In the past, only limited data were available on the long-term outcome for UC patients with positive tissue CMV-PCR in the colonic mucosa. Methods Between January 2010 and April 2015, we performed a qualitative PCR screening for CMV DNA in one biopsy from most actively inflamed rectal mucosa (tCMV-PCR). All tCMV-PCR-positive patients received 900 mg of valganciclovir b.i.d. for at least 15 days. We analyzed the association of the tCMV-PCR status with the time to steroid-free remission (SFR) and with the risk of proctocolectomy during the further course. Results One hundred eight consecutive patients (50 women, 58 men, median age 41 years, median UC duration 6 years) with active UC not responding to anti-inflammatory medication were analyzed. Eight of the 24 tCMV-PCR-positive patients (33.3%) compared to ten of the 84 tCMV-PCR-negative patients (11.9%) underwent proctocolectomy during a median follow-up of 52 months (p < 0.005). The median time from CMV diagnosis to colectomy was 501 days (median, interquartile range (IQR): 170, 902 days) in tCMV-PCR-positive and 958 days (IQR: 287, 1328 days) in tCMV-PCR-negative patients (p < 0.01). The median time to SFR was 126 days in tCMV-PCR-positive patients vs. 63 days in tCMV-PCR-negative patients (p < 0.01). Conclusions The detection of the CMV DNA in the colonic mucosa of patients with active UC is associated with a longer time to steroid-free UC remission and with an increased rate and earlier need of proctocolectomy.
In this random sample, the vaccination rate fell far behind the recommendations. In particular, there was a marked discrepancy between patients' willingness to be vaccinated and the actual provision of vaccination. These findings imply that physicians need to be more aware of the possibly inadequate vaccination state of their immunosuppressed patients.
Background and study aims The success of any colonoscopy procedure depends upon the quality of bowel preparation. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a new tailored dosing (TD) regimen compared with the approved PICOPREP day-before dosing regimen (DBD) in the European Union.
Patient and methods Patients (≥ 18 years) undergoing colonoscopy were randomised (2:1) to TD (Dose 1, 10 – 18 hours; Dose 2, 4 – 6 hours before colonoscopy) or DBD (Dose 1 before 8:00AM on the day before colonoscopy; Dose 2, 6 – 8 hours after Dose 1). The primary endpoint of overall colon cleansing efficacy was based on total Ottawa Scale (OS) scores (0 – 14, excellent-worst). The key secondary endpoint was a binary endpoint based on the ascending colon OS (success 0 or 1, failure [≥ 2]). Convenience and satisfaction were evaluated similar to the primary and key secondary endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated.
Results Use of the PICOPREP TD regimen resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the mean total Ottawa Scale score compared to the PICOPREP DBD regimen (–3.93, 95 % confidence intervals [CI]: – 4.99, – 2.97; P < 0.0001) in the intent-to-treat analysis set. The PICOPREP TD regimen also resulted in a statistically significant increase in the odds of achieving an ascending colon OS score ≤ 1, compared to the PICOPREP DBD regimen (estimated odds ratio 9.18, 95 % CI: 4.36, 19.32; P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (12 % (TD) and 5.7 % (DBD), respectively, P = 0.2988). The convenience and satisfaction were comparable in the two groups.
Conclusion The TD regimen was superior to the DBD regimen for overall and ascending colon cleansing efficacy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02239692
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.