Summary Background The increased risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis is well known. The risk of sporadic colorectal cancer in Asian populations is considered low and risk estimates of colorectal cancer related to ulcerative colitis from Asia vary. This meta-analysis is an Asian perspective on the risk of colorectal cancer related to ulcerative colitis. Methods We searched PubMed and Embase for terms related to colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis from inception to July 1, 2016. The search for published articles was done by country for all countries in Asia. We included studies with information on the prevalence and cumulative risk of colorectal cancer at various timepoints. A random-effects meta-analysis was done to calculate the pooled prevalence as well as a cumulative risk at 10 years, 20 years, and 30 years of disease. Findings Our search identified 2575 articles; of which 44 were eligible for inclusion. Our analysis included a total of 31 287 patients with ulcerative colitis with a total of 293 reported colorectal cancers. Using pooled prevalence estimates from various studies, the overall prevalence was 0·85% (95% CI 0·65–1·04). The risks for colorectal cancer were 0·02% (95% CI 0·00–0·04) at 10 years, 4·81% (3·26–6·36) at 20 years, and 13·91% (7·09–20·72) at 30 years. Subgroup analysis by stratifying the studies according to region or period of the study did not reveal any significant differences. Interpretation We found the risk of colorectal cancer in Asian patients with ulcerative colitis was similar to recent estimates in Europe and North America. Adherence to screening is therefore necessary. Larger population-based, prospective studies are required for better estimates of the risk.

AIMTo evaluate the role of oral curcumin in inducing clinical remission in patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (UC).METHODSA prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial comparing the remission inducing effect of oral curcumin and mesalamine 2.4 g with placebo and mesalamine 2.4 g in patients of ulcerative colitis with mild to moderate severity was conducted from January 2003 to March 2005. The included patients received 1 capsule thrice a day of placebo or curcumin (150 mg) for 8 wk. Patients were evaluated clinically and endoscopically at 0, 4 and 8 wk. The primary outcome was clinical remission at 8 wk and secondary outcomes were clinical response, mucosal healing and treatment failure at 8 wk. The primary analysis was intention to treat worst case scenario (ITT-WCS).RESULTSOf 300 patients with UC, 62 patients (curcumin: 29, placebo: 33) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were randomized at baseline. Of these, 21 patients did not complete the trial, 41 patients (curcumin: 16, placebo: 25) finally completed 8 wk. There was no significant difference in rates of clinical remission (31.3% vs 27.3%, P = 0.75), clinical response (20.7% vs 36.4%, P = 0.18), mucosal healing (34.5% vs 30.3%, P = 0.72), and treatment failure (25% vs 18.5%, P = 0.59) between curcumin and placebo at 8 wk.CONCLUSIONLow dose oral curcumin at a dose of 450 mg/d was ineffective in inducing remission in mild to moderate cases of UC.

Summary Background Differentiation between intestinal tuberculosis and Crohn's disease is difficult and may require therapeutic trial with anti‐tubercular therapy in tuberculosis‐endemic regions. Aim To evaluate the role of therapeutic trial with anti‐tubercular therapy in patients with diagnostic confusion between intestinal tuberculosis and Crohn's disease. Methods We performed retrospective‐comparative (n = 288: 131 patients who received anti‐tubercular therapy before being diagnosed as Crohn's disease and 157 intestinal tuberculosis patients) and prospective‐validation study (n = 55 patients with diagnostic confusion of intestinal tuberculosis/Crohn's disease). Outcomes assessed were global symptomatic response and endoscopic mucosal healing. Results In the derivation cohort, among those eventually diagnosed as Crohn's disease, global symptomatic response with anti‐tubercular therapy was seen in 38% at 3 months and in 37% who completed 6 months of anti‐tubercular therapy. Ninety‐four per cent of intestinal tuberculosis patients showed global symptomatic response by 3 months. Endoscopic mucosal healing was seen in only 5% of patients with Crohn's disease compared with 100% of intestinal tuberculosis patients. In the validation cohort, all the patients with intestinal tuberculosis had symptomatic response and endoscopic mucosal healing after 6 months of anti‐tubercular therapy. Among the patients with an eventual diagnosis of Crohn's disease, symptomatic response was seen in 64% at 2 months and in 31% who completed 6 months of anti‐tubercular therapy, none had mucosal healing. Conclusions Disproportionately lower mucosal healing rate despite an overall symptom response with 6 months of anti‐tubercular therapy in patients with Crohn's disease suggests a need for repeat colonoscopy for diagnosing Crohn's disease. Patients with intestinal tuberculosis showing significant symptomatic response after 2–3 months of anti‐tubercular therapy, suggest that symptom persistence after a therapeutic trial of 3 months of anti‐tubercular therapy may indicate the diagnosis of Crohn's disease.

Background/AimsThe use of genetic probes for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) has been well described. However, the role of these assays in the diagnosis of intestinal tuberculosis is unclear. We therefore assessed the diagnostic utility of the Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis/rifampicin (MTB/RIF) assay, and estimated the prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB in the Indian population.MethodsOf 99 patients recruited, 37 had intestinal TB; two control groups comprised 43 with Crohn's disease (CD) and 19 with irritable bowel syndrome. Colonoscopy was performed before starting any therapy; mucosal biopsies were subjected to histopathology, acid-fast bacilli staining, Lowenstein-Jensen culture, and nucleic acid amplification testing using the Xpert MTB/RIF assay. Patients were followed up for 6 months to confirm the diagnosis and response to therapy. A composite reference standard was used for diagnosis of TB and assessment of the diagnostic utility of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay.ResultsOf 37 intestinal TB patients, the Xpert MTB/RIF assay was positive in three of 37 (8.1%), but none had MDR-TB. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay was 8.1%, 100%, 100%, and, 64.2%, respectively.ConclusionsThe Xpert MTB/RIF assay has low sensitivity but high specificity for intestinal TB, and may be helpful in endemic tuberculosis areas, when clinicians are faced with difficulty differentiating TB and CD. Based on the Xpert MTB/RIF assay, the prevalence of intestinal MDR-TB is low in the Indian population.

OBJECTIVES: The ideal analgesic is not known for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). Concerns have been raised about serious adverse effects of opioid analgesics increasing the severity of AP. We hypothesized that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs might be better analgesics because of their anti-inflammatory effect. Our objective was to compare pentazocine, an opioid, and diclofenac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, for adequate analgesia in patients with AP. METHODS: In a double-blind randomized controlled trial, patients with AP were randomized to either intravenous diclofenac 75 mg or pentazocine 30 mg. Fentanyl was given as a rescue analgesic through a patient-controlled analgesia pump. Primary outcome was pain relief measured objectively by the dose of fentanyl required as the rescue analgesic, pain-free period, and numbers of effective and ineffective demands of fentanyl. Secondary outcome was adverse events. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized, 24 to the pentazocine group and 26 to the diclofenac group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Pentazocine was found to be better than diclofenac in terms of significantly lower dose of the rescue analgesic (fentanyl) required (126 μg (interquartile range (IQR) 65–218 μg) vs 225.5 μg (IQR 133–427 μg); P = 0.028) and longer pain-free period (31.1 ± 8.2 vs 27.9 ± 6.6 hours, P = 0.047). The number of effective and ineffective demands was lower in the pentazocine group compared with the diclofenac group (11.5 (IQR 8–15) vs 16 (IQR 13–20), P = 0.098) although not statistically significant. Adverse events were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pentazocine, a kappa-opioid receptor agonist, was significantly better than diclofenac for pain relief in AP (Trial registration number: CTRI/2016/09/007326).