In an average-risk screening population, technically adequate capsule colonoscopy identified individuals with 1 or more conventional adenomas 6 mm or larger with 88% sensitivity and 82% specificity. Capsule performance seems adequate for patients who cannot undergo colonoscopy or who had incomplete colonoscopies. Additional studies are needed to improve capsule detection of serrated lesions. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01372878.

Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) were first introduced in the middle of the twentieth century for the treatment of primary immunodeficiencies. In 1981, Paul Imbach noticed an improvement of immune-mediated thrombocytopenia, in patients receiving IVIg for immunodeficiencies. This opened a new era for the treatment of autoimmune conditions with IVIg. Since then, IVIg has become an important treatment option in a wide spectrum of diseases, including autoimmune and acute inflammatory conditions, most of them off-label (not included in the US Food and Drug Administration recommendation). A panel of immunologists and internists with experience in IVIg therapy reviewed the medical literature for published data concerning treatment with IVIg. The quality of evidence was assessed, and a summary of the available relevant literature in each disease was given. To our knowledge, this is the first all-inclusive comprehensive review, developed to assist the clinician when considering the use of IVIg in autoimmune diseases, immune deficiencies, and other conditions.

ObjectiveColon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has shown promise for colorectal neoplasia detection compared with optical colonoscopy (OC), but has not been compared with other screening tests in average risk screening patients.DesignPatients 50 to 75 years of age (African Americans, 45–75 years) were randomised to CCE or CT colonography (CTC) and subsequent blinded OC. The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield of polyps ≥6 mm with CCE or CTC. Secondary endpoints included accuracy for size and histology, examination completeness, number/proportion of subjects with polyps and adenomas ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, subject satisfaction and safety.ResultsFrom 320 enrolled subjects, data from 286 (89.4%) were evaluable. The proportion of subjects with any polyp ≥6 mm confirmed by OC was 31.6% for CCE versus 8.6% for CTC (pPr non-inferiority and superiority=0.999). The diagnostic yield of polyps ≥10 mm was 13.5% with CCE versus 6.3% with CTC (pPr non-inferiority=0.9954). The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥6 mm was 79.2% and 96.3% while that of CTC was 26.8% and 98.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥10 mm was 85.7% and 98.2% compared with 50% and 99.1% for CTC. Both tests were well tolerated/safe.ConclusionCCE was superior to CTC for detection of polyps ≥6 mm and non-inferior for identification of polyps ≥10 mm. CCE should be considered comparable or superior to CTC as a colorectal neoplasia screening test, although neither test is as effective as OC.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02754661.

There was high correlation between CE and ileocolonoscopy scores for the assessment of mucosal disease activity over time; however, there were no correlations between endoscopic scores and clinical parameters. The use of serial CE for the assessment of small-bowel CD is feasible and valid. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01942720.).

There were no significant differences in the patient's discomfort and satisfaction, regardless of the procedural sequence.