BackgroundInfliximab is an effective salvage therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis; however, the optimal dosing strategy is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the impact of infliximab dosage and intensification on colectomy-free survival in acute severe ulcerative colitis.MethodsStudies reporting outcomes of hospitalized steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab salvage were identified. Infliximab use was categorized by dose, dose number, and schedule. The primary outcome was colectomy-free survival at 3 months. Pooled proportions and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were reported.ResultsForty-one cohorts (n = 2158 cases) were included. Overall colectomy-free survival with infliximab salvage was 79.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.48% to 83.6%) at 3 months and 69.8% (95% CI, 65.7% to 73.7%) at 12 months. Colectomy-free survival at 3 months was superior with 5-mg/kg multiple (≥2) doses compared with single-dose induction (odds ratio [OR], 4.24; 95% CI, 2.44 to 7.36; P < 0.001). However, dose intensification with either high-dose or accelerated strategies was not significantly different to 5-mg/kg standard induction at 3 months (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.27; P = 0.24) despite being utilized in patients with a significantly higher mean C-reactive protein and lower albumin levels.ConclusionsIn acute severe ulcerative colitis, multiple 5-mg/kg infliximab doses are superior to single-dose salvage. Dose-intensified induction outcomes were not significantly different compared to standard induction and were more often used in patients with increased disease severity, which may have confounded the results. This meta-analysis highlights the marked variability in the management of infliximab salvage therapy and the need for further studies to determine the optimal dose strategy.
Background The optimal technique for performing caesarean section with respect to minimising postoperative adhesions has not been determined.Objectives To evaluate adhesion formation for three common caesarean section techniques in women undergoing repeat caesarean section surgeries.Search strategy A database was constructed from Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, National Science Digital Library, China Biological Medicine Database and through contact with experts in this field from January 1990 to May 2010.Selection criteria Studies were included if they examined adhesion formation in repeat caesarean sections as a primary objective, delineated a clear study design, specified an adhesion scoring system, and had sufficient patient exclusion criteria.Data collection and analysis We abstracted data regarding adhesion formation. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was employed for all analyses using odds ratio or inverse variance, along with 95% CI.Main results Thirty-three qualified studies including 4423 women were analysed. There were 406 adhesions among 571 women and 238 adhesions among 596 women in the Stark's caesarean section (also known as Misgav-Ladach method) group and modified Stark's caesarean section group, respectively, with pooled OR 4.69 (95% CI 3.32-6.62; P < 0.01, 12 studies); 1173 adhesions among 1555 women and 1179 adhesions among 1625 women in Stark's caesarean section group and classic lowersegment caesarean section group, respectively, with pooled odds ratio 1.28 (95% CI 0.97-1.68; P = 0.08, 21 studies); and 29 adhesions from 102 women and 115 adhesions from 193 women in modified Stark's caesarean section group and classic lowersegment caesarean section group, respectively, with pooled odds ratio 0.28 (95% CI 0.10-0.82; P = 0.02, two studies).Authors' conclusions Closure of the peritoneum in modified Stark's caesarean section resulted in less adhesion formation and should be recommended.Keywords Adhesion, caesarean section, postoperative.
Background and Aims Inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] affects women during their childbearing years. Gastrointestinal ultrasonography [GIUS] accurately identifies disease activity in non-pregnant patients with IBD. The utility of GIUS in pregnancy has not been established. We aimed to determine the feasibility and accuracy of GIUS in the assessment of IBD during pregnancy progression. Methods A multicentre observational study of women with IBD undergoing GIUS during pregnancy. Clinicians assessed the adequacy of bowel views and disease activity in four colonic segments and the terminal ileum. Location[s] in which views were impeded by the uterus were documented. GIUS disease activity [bowel wall thickness >3 mm] was compared with biochemical disease activity [faecal calprotectin >100 μg/g]. Results Ninety patients and 127 GIUS examinations were included [median gestation 19 weeks, range 4–33]. Adequate colonic views were obtained in 116/127 [91%] scans. Adequate ileal views were obtained in 62/67 [93%] scans <20 weeks and 30/51 [59%] scans at 20–26 weeks. There was a positive correlation between bowel wall thickness and calprotectin [r = 0.26, p = 0.03]. GIUS delivered a specificity of 83%, sensitivity of 74%, and negative predictive value of 90% compared with calprotectin. Conclusions GIUS is a feasible and accurate modality for monitoring IBD in pregnancy. Adequate GIUS views of the colon and terminal ileum can be obtained in the majority of patients up to 20 weeks of gestation. Beyond 20 weeks, GIUS provides good views of the colon but the terminal ileum becomes difficult to assess.
The baseline Mayo Endoscopic Score and the CRP/albumin ratio following infliximab salvage are significant predictors of treatment response for ASUC and identify patients at high risk of colectomy. Whether this risk can be mitigated using infliximab dose intensification requires prospective evaluation before the CRP/albumin ratio can be integrated into ASUC management algorithms.
Background and Aim Objective monitoring of disease activity is integral to therapeutic decision‐making in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Data are sparse on patients' perspectives of tools used to monitor disease activity in IBD. To evaluate patients' perspectives of gastrointestinal ultrasound (GIUS) performed during routine IBD clinical care, along with its impact on IBD‐specific knowledge. Methods Patients with a formal diagnosis of IBD who underwent GIUS at two tertiary IBD services between March 2017 and January 2019 participated in this prospective study. Participants completed a questionnaire measuring the acceptability, tolerability, and usefulness of GIUS using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 (disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). Comparative acceptability of IBD monitoring tools and the impact of GIUS on IBD‐specific knowledge was measured. Results A total of 121 participants completed the questionnaire, with a mean age of 42 years (range 17–78), 54 (45%) males, and 79 (65%) Crohn's disease patients. In the overall population, GIUS was scored as highly acceptable for monitoring IBD (mean 9.20 ± 1.37) compared to colonoscopy (7.94 ± 2.30), stool sampling (8.17 ± 1.96), blood sampling (8.87 ± 1.62), and imaging (8.67 ± 1.60); P < 0.01 for each comparison. GIUS caused little patient discomfort (1.88 ± 1.83), and 98 (81%) participants ranked GIUS as their preferred IBD monitoring tool. GIUS also improved patients' overall IBD‐specific knowledge (VAS IBD‐specific knowledge 7.96 ± 1.92), including their understanding of the need for medical therapy and disease extent. Conclusion GIUS is a highly acceptable and well‐tolerated tool for monitoring disease activity in IBD patients. GIUS is preferred by patients and enhances IBD‐specific knowledge.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.