Upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy should be part of the first-line investigation in all new cases suspected of IBD. Absence of specific upper gastrointestinal symptoms do not preclude presence of upper gastrointestinal inflammation.

No abstract

Background and study aims Virtual chromoendoscopy with Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement (FICE) has never been studied in prospective trials of endoscopic surveillance for ulcerative colitis (UC). We compared FICE and white light endoscopy (WLE) in differentiation of visible lesions in UC. Patients and methods In a prospective parallel study, we compared consecutive outpatients with UC submitted to surveillance colonoscopy with FICE or WLE. At least one visible polypoid or non-polypoid lesion for each patient was required. Random biopsies from normal mucosa, targeted biopsies or removal of suspected neoplastic lesions and targeted biopsies of unsuspected lesions were performed. In the FICE arm, neoplasia was suspected according to a modified Kudo classification (FICE-KUDO/inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]). Sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) and negative predictive value (NPV) were analyzed. Results One hundred patients were submitted to FICE (n = 46) or WLE (n = 54). Twenty-two patients (11 in WLE, 11 in FICE) had a least one neoplastic lesion. No neoplasia was found in random biopsies. Among 275 lesions, 17 of 136 by FICE and 27 of 139 by WLE were suspected neoplasia, but 28 (14 in each arm) were true neoplastic lesions. The accuracy of FICE-KUDO/IBD vs WLE (per lesion) was: SE 93 % vs 64 % (P = 0.065), SP 97 % vs 86 % (P = 0.002), positive-LR 28.3 vs 4.5 (P = 0.001), negative-LR 0.07 vs 0.42 (P = 0.092), NPV 99 % vs 96 % (P = 0.083). FICE-KUDO/IBD detected more non-polypoid lesions than WLE (P = 0.016). Conclusions Targeted biopsies of polypoid and non-polypoid lesions, using the modified Kudo classification with FICE are more accurate than WLE in UC surveillance.

No abstract

Treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) is constantly evolving. In the last two decades, new therapeutic strategies have been implemented by addressing specific disease mechanisms: biological agents against tumor necrosis factor-α and integrins are now widely used, and more agents targeting different pathological pathways are being marketed. Despite these novel therapies, nonbiological drugs are still the mainstay of treatment, especially in mild-to-moderate disease, since a proven safety and tolerability profile is observed. Excellent efficacy both in induction and maintenance of remission is obtained, with a lower cost compared to biological agents. Areas covered: The purpose of this review is to summarize the current knowledge and the latest clinical evidence regarding nonbiological therapies for UC. Expert opinion: Concomitant administration of oral and rectal 5-aminosalicylates acid is more effective in the treatment of UC in remission. Corticosteroids are the treatment of choice in patients with moderately severe or severe UC. The association of azathioprine with biological treatments is more effective than monotherapy. Cyclosporine is an effective drug in severe UC, but its poor management must be considered. Probiotics are very popular; however, evidence on their actual role in UC still must be demonstrated; cytapheresis plays only a niche role at this time.