OBJECTIVES:VSL#3 is a high-potency probiotic mixture that has been used successfully in the treatment of pouchitis. The primary end point of the study was to assess the effects of supplementation with VSL#3 in patients affected by relapsing ulcerative colitis (UC) who are already under treatment with 5-aminosalicylic acid (ASA) and/or immunosuppressants at stable doses.METHODS:A total of 144 consecutive patients were randomly treated for 8 weeks with VSL#3 at a dose of 3,600 billion CFU/day (71 patients) or with placebo (73 patients).RESULTS:In all, 65 patients in the VSL#3 group and 66 patients in the placebo group completed the study. The decrease in ulcerative colitis disease activity index (UCDAI) scores of 50% or more was higher in the VSL#3 group than in the placebo group (63.1 vs. 40.8; per protocol (PP) P=0.010, confidence interval (CI)95% 0.51–0.74; intention to treat (ITT) P=0.031, CI95% 0.47–0.69). Significant results with VSL#3 were recorded in an improvement of three points or more in the UCDAI score (60.5% vs. 41.4% PP P=0.017, CI95% 0.51–0.74; ITT P=0.046, CI95% 0.47–0.69) and in rectal bleeding (PP P=0.014, CI95% 0.46–0.70; ITT P=0.036, CI95% 0.41–0.65), whereas stool frequency (PP P=0.202, CI95% 0.39–0.63; ITT P=0.229, CI95% 0.35–0.57), physician's rate of disease activity (PP P=0.088, CI95% 0.34–0.58; ITT P=0.168, CI95% 0.31–0.53), and endoscopic scores (PP P=0.086, CI95% 0.74–0.92; ITT P=0.366, CI95% 0.66–0.86) did not show statistical differences. Remission was higher in the VSL#3 group than in the placebo group (47.7% vs. 32.4% PP P=0.069, CI95% 0.36–0.60; ITT P=0.132, CI95% 0.33–0.56). Eight patients on VSL#3 (11.2%) and nine patients on placebo (12.3%) reported mild side effects.CONCLUSIONS:VSL#3 supplementation is safe and able to reduce UCDAI scores in patients affected by relapsing mild-to-moderate UC who are under treatment with 5-ASA and/or immunosuppressants. Moreover, VSL#3 improves rectal bleeding and seems to reinduce remission in relapsing UC patients after 8 weeks of treatment, although these parameters do not reach statistical significance.

SUMMARY BackgroundPlacebo-controlled studies in maintaining remission of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD) of the colon are lacking.

No abstract

Background:The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had a huge impact on healthcare systems, resulting in many routine diagnostic procedures either being halted or postponed. Aims: To evaluate whether the diagnoses of colorectal, gastric and pancreatic cancers have been impacted by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Italy. Methods: A survey designed to collect the number of histologically-proven diagnoses of the three cancers in gastroenterology services across Italy from January 1 to October 31 in 2017-2020. Non-parametric ANOVA for repeated measurements was applied to compare distributions by years and macro-areas. Results: Compared to 2019, in 2020 gastric cancer diagnoses decreased by 15.9%, CRC by 11.9% and pancreatic by 9.9%. CRC distributions showed significant differences between all years, stomach cancer be-

Background Infliximab and adalimumab are widely used for the treatment of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Aim To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of infliximab and adalimumab in a large cohort of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis patients reflecting real-life clinical practice. Methods Seven hundred twelve patients were retrospectively reviewed, 410 with Crohn’s disease (268 treated with adalimumab and 142 with infliximab; median follow-up 60 months, range, 36–72) and 302 with ulcerative colitis (118 treated with adalimumab and 184 with infliximab; median follow-up 48 months, range, 36–84). Results In Crohn’s disease, clinical remission was maintained in 75.0% of adalimumab vs. in 72.5% of infliximab patients (P = 0.699); mucosal healing and steroid-free remission were maintained in 49.5% of adalimumab vs. 63.9% of infliximab patients (P = 0.077) and in 77.7% of adalimumab vs. 77.3% in infliximab group (P = 0.957), respectively. In ulcerative colitis, clinical remission was maintained in 50.0% of adalimumab vs. 65.8% of infliximab patients (P < 0.000); mucosal healing and steroid-free remission were maintained in 80.6% of adalimumab vs. 77.0% of infliximab patients (P = 0.494) and in 90.2% of adalimumab vs. 87.5% of infliximab patients (P = 0.662), respectively. At the multivariate analysis, ileocolonic location and simple endoscopic score for Crohn’s disease >10 were predictors of failure in Crohn’s disease; treatment with adalimumab, BMI ≥30 and Mayo score >10 were predictors of failure in ulcerative colitis. infliximab was more likely to cause adverse events than adalimumab (16.6 vs. 6.2%, P < 0.000). Conclusion Both adalimumab and infliximab are effective in long-term outpatients management of inflammatory bowel diseases. Adalimumab had a lower rate of adverse events.