Journal of clinical gastroenterology最新文献

Background: There is limited data on Vedolizumab utilization in elderly patients. Our study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of Vedolizumab in this subset population.

Materials and methods: Databases including Cochrane Central, Embase, Medline (via Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched in August 2022 to identify studies that assessed Vedolizumab therapy in elderly patients. Pooled proportion and risk ratios (RR) were calculated.

Results: Total 11 studies with 3546 IBD patients (1314 elderly and 2232 young) were included in the final analysis. Pooled rate of overall and serious infections in the elderly cohort was 8.45% (95% CI=6.27-11.29; I 2 23%) and 2.59% (95% CI=0.78-8.29; I 2 76%), respectively. However, there was no difference in overall infection rates between elderly and young patients. Pooled rate of endoscopic, clinical, and steroid-free remission for elderly IBD patients was 38.45% (95% CI=20.74-59.56; I 2 93%), 37.95% (95% CI=33.08-43.06; I 2 13%), and 38.8% (95% CI=31.6-46.4; I 2 77%), respectively. Elderly patients had lower steroid-free remission rates [RR 0.85, 95% CI=0.74-0.99; I 2 0%, P =0.03]; however, there was no difference in rates of clinical (RR 0.86, 95% CI=0.72-1.03; I 2 0%, P =0.10) or endoscopic remission (RR 1.06, 95% CI=0.83-1.35; I 2 0%, P =0.63) compared with younger patients. Pooled rate of IBD-related surgery and IBD-related hospitalizations was 9.76% (95% CI=5.81-15.92; I 2 78%) and 10.54% (95% CI=8.37-13.2; I 2 0%), respectively for the elderly cohort. There was no statistical difference in IBD-related surgeries between elderly and young IBD patients, RR 1.20 (95% CI=0.79-1.84; I 2 16%), P =0.4.

Conclusions: Vedolizumab is equally safe and effective for clinical and endoscopic remission in elderly and younger populations.

Introduction: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains a global health challenge. Bezlotoxumab (BEZ) is a monoclonal antibody against C. difficile toxin B. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), MODIFY I and II, confirmed BEZ efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). However, there are safety concerns about its use in patients with a history of congestive heart failure. Observational studies have since been conducted, and it is important to explore the consistency of BEZ efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and its safety utilizing these real-world data.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and explore its efficacy and safety in preventing rCDI compared with control. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception through April 2023 for relevant RCTs or observational studies assessing BEZ in preventing rCDI. Single-arm studies describing experience with BEZ in preventing rCDI were also included for proportion meta-analysis. A proportion meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to pool the rCDI rate with its corresponding 95% CI. In a meta-analysis of efficacy, we generated the relative risk (RR) to compare BEZ versus control in preventing rCDI.

Results: Thirteen studies including 2 RCTs and 11 observational studies totaling 2337 patients, of which 1472 received BEZ, were included in the analysis. Of the constituent studies, 5 (1734 patients) compared BEZ versus standard-of-care (SOC). Pooled rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ was 15.8% (95% CI: 14%-17.8%), and was 28.9% (95% CI: 24%-34.4%) in the SOC. BEZ significantly reduced rCDI risk compared with SOC [RR=0.57 (95% CI: 0.45-0.72, I2 =16%)]. There was no difference in the overall mortality or heart failure risk. Of the 9 included cost-effectiveness analyses, 8 demonstrated BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone.

Discussion: Our meta-analysis comprising real-world data revealed lower rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and supported its efficacy and safety when added to SOC therapy. The results were consistent across various subgroups. Available cost-effectiveness analyses mostly support BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone.

Introduction: Endoscopic removal techniques for colorectal polyps include cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP). Although HSP is recommended for pedunculated polyps (PPs) larger than 10 mm, data regarding use of CSP for PPs <10 mm continues to emerge. We aimed to investigate outcomes of these techniques in small (<10 mm) pedunculated colorectal polyps.

Methods: Multiple databases were searched till June 2022 to identify studies involving the removal of small PPs with CSP and HSP. Random effects model was used to calculate outcomes and 95% CI. Primary outcome was the pooled rate of successful en-bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were immediate and delayed bleeding with CSP and HSP as well as prophylactic and post resection clip placement.

Results: Six studies including 1025 patients (1111 polyps with a mean size 4 to 8.5 mm) were analyzed. 116 and 995 polyps were removed with HSP and CSP, respectively. The overall pooled rate of successful en-bloc resection with CSP was 99.7% (CI 99.1-99.9; I2 0%). Pooled immediate and delayed bleeding after CSP was 49.8% (CI 46.8-52.91; I2 98%) and 0% (CI 0.00-0.00; I2 0%), respectively. Delayed bleeding was higher with HSP, relative risk 0.05 (CI 0.01-0.43; I2 0%), P =0.006, whereas immediate bleeding was higher with CSP, relative risk 7.89 (CI 4.36-14.29; I2 0%), P <0.00001. Pooled rates of prophylactic clip placement and post-procedure clip placement (to control immediate bleeding) were 55.3% and 47.2%, respectively. Finally, right colon polyp location significantly correlated with frequency of immediate bleeding.

Conclusion: Our analysis shows that CSP is safe and effective for resection of small PPs.

Background and aim: Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) has recently been introduced for small bowel evaluation. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MSE for evaluation of small bowel diseases.

Methods: A literature search was performed in Embase, PubMed, Medline databases for studies evaluating MSE between January -2010 and October-2022. The primary outcome of the study was diagnostic yield with MSE. Secondary outcomes included technical success, procedure duration, depth of maximum insertion (DMI), rate of pan-enteroscopy and adverse events.

Results: 10 studies with 961 patients [581 (60.5%) males] were included in the analysis. 1068 MSE procedures were performed by antegrade route in 698, retrograde route in 215 and bidirectional in 155 patients. Technical success was achieved in 94.9% (95% CI 92.9% to 96.4%) procedures. The pooled diagnostic yield of MSE was 73.7% (95% CI 70.7% to 76.4%). Pooled rate of pan-enteroscopy by antegrade route was 21.9% (95% CI 18.1% to 26.1%), retrograde route was 6.9% (95% CI 2.4% to 18.3%) and combined route was 61.2% (95% CI 52.4% to 69.3%). Pooled rate of major adverse events was 1.9% (95% CI 1.2% to 3.2%).

Conclusions: MSE is a safe and effective tool for evaluating small bowel disorders. High diagnostic yield and low rate of adverse events make it a potential alternative to balloon enteroscopy. However, comparative trials are required in the future.