The Periscreen strip is a rapid and highly efficient tool for excluding SBP in the outpatient setting.

Background Standard high-volume polyethylene glycol [PEG] bowel preparations [PEG-4L] are recommended for patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] undergoing colonoscopy. However, low-volume preparations [≤2 L of active volume] are often used in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the various bowel preparations for patients with IBD, including low-volume preparations. Methods We conducted a French prospective multicentre observational study over a period of 1 month. Patients aged 18–75 years with IBD with an indication of colonoscopy independent of the study were enrolled. The choice of the preparation was left to the investigators, as per their usual protocol. The patients’ characteristics, disease, and colonoscopy characteristics were recorded, and they were given self-reported questionnaires. Results Twenty-five public and private hospitals enrolled 278 patients. Among them, 46 had a disease flare and 41 had bowel stenoses. Bowel preparations for colonoscopy were as follows: 42% received PEG-2L, 29% received sodium picosulfate [Pico], 15% received PEG-4L, and 14% had other preparations. The preparation did not reach the Boston’s score efficacy outcome in the PEG-4L group in 51.2% of the patients [p = 0.0011]. The preparation intake was complete for 59.5% in the PEG-4L group, compared with 82.9% in the PEG-2L group and 93.8% in the Pico group [p < 0.0001]. Tolerability, as assessed by the patients’ VAS, was significantly better for both Pico and PEG-2L compared with PEG-4L, and better for Pico compared with PEG-2L [p = 0.008; p = 0.0003]. In multivariate analyses, low-volume preparations were independent factors of efficacy and tolerability. Adverse events occurred in 4.3% of the patients. Conclusions Preparations with PEG-2L and Pico were equally safe, with better efficacy and tolerability outcomes compared with PEG-4L preparations. The best efficacy/tolerance/safety profile was achieved with the Pico preparation.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Vedolizumab (VDZ) has proven its efficacy in ulcerative colitis (UC). The delay to obtain endoscopic remission with anti-α4β7 integrin is unclear. We aimed to assess the potential of VDZ to induce endoscopic remission and its characteristics in real-life settings. Methods We conducted a pooled analysis with prospective and retrospective data of patients who started VDZ for an active UC in two French hospitals. Patients underwent proctosigmoidoscopies at baseline and at weeks 14, 30 and 54 in the prospective cohort. A central blinded review of all endoscopy recordings was performed by two experts, pooled with some recordings from anti-TNFɑ treated patients. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in endoscopic remission (endoscopic Mayo score (eMs) ≤ 1) within 54 weeks. Secondary endpoints included the description of the pattern of mucosal healing and the evolution of UC activity. Characteristics of endoscopic remitters and non-remitters were compared and predictive factors of endoscopic remission were reported in univariate logistic regression. Results Forty-two patients were enrolled, 22 in the prospective cohort and 20 in the retrospective cohort. At baseline, 38 (90.5%) patients had previously experienced anti-TNFɑ, 14 (33.3%) were treated with corticosteroids and 15 (35.7%) with immunosuppressors. Twenty-six (61.9%) patients achieved endoscopic remission after a median time of 14 weeks. Endoscopic response and histologic remission occurred in 27 (64.3%) and 21 (50%) patients within 54 weeks, respectively. No specific pattern of mucosal healing was found with VDZ as compared with anti-TNFɑ treated patients. UC activity steady improved over time. Endoscopic remitters had a lower disease activity at baseline (total Mayo score (tMs) 8.1 vs. 9.5, p = 0.007; UCEIS 4.3 vs. 5.6, p = 0.0005; Nancy’s score 2.8 vs. 3.6, p = 0.004) and at week 14 (tMs 3 vs. 6, p = 0.001; eMs 1.3 vs. 2.5, p = 0.005; UCEIS 2.7 vs. 5.4, p = 0.0007; Nancy’s score 2.2 vs. 3.6, p = 0.001) and needed less treatment optimisation (11.5 vs. 81.3%, p < 0.0001) than non-remitters. In univariate logistic regression, predictors of no endoscopic remission were a high endoscopic activity at baseline (eMs > 2, OR 0.2 IC 95% 0.05–0.86, p = 0,021; UCEIS > 5 OR 0.22 IC 95% 0.06–0.84, p = 0.022) and treatment optimisation (OR 0.03; IC 95% 0.01–0.17, p < 0.001). Conclusion In our series, about two-thirds of UC refractory patients achieved endoscopic remission during the first year. Endoscopic healing was early reported, in half of patients at the end of the first trimester, actually suggesting a rather fast mechanism of action of VDZ on mucosal healing. Baseline UC activity impacted endoscopic remission.