Non-invasive evaluation of mucosal healing by intestinal ultrasound or fecal calprotectin is efficient in Crohn's disease: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopy is still the gold, standard for assessing disease activity in Crohn's disease (CD). Its invasiveness, poor acceptability, and cost limit its use in the era of tight control and treat-to-target management. Fecal calprotectin (FC) and intestinal ultrasound (IUS) are non-invasive alternatives to colonoscopy to assess disease activity. We aimed to evaluate the performance of IUS and FC to assess mucosal healing in CD. METHODS: All consecutive CD patients who underwent colonoscopy for mucosal healing assessment and IUS and/or FC within four weeks between September 2019 and April 2022 were included in a prospective cohort. The bowel-wall thickness (BWT) and color Doppler signal (CDS) were assessed for each segment. Endoscopic remission was defined by a CDEIS score < 3. RESULTS: In total, 153 patients were included, of whom 122 showed endoscopic mucosal healing. Eighty-two (53.6 %) were female, the median was age 36 years (IQR, 28-46), and the median disease duration was 10 years (IQR, 4-19). The sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of a BWT < 3 mm to predict endoscopic mucosal healing were 56 %, 88 %, 95 %, and 36 %, respectively (patients misclassified as mucosal healing, 2.5 %). The best FC threshold (< 92.9 µg/g) provided similar results: 77 %, 89 %, 96 %, and 67 %, respectively (patients misclassified, 2.2 %). The association of an FC < 250 µg/g with a BWT < 3 mm and the absence of CDS increased the Sp and PPV: Se 58 %, Sp 95 %, PPV 97 %, VPN 43 %; patients misclassified, 1.3 %. CONCLUSION: Noninvasive evaluation of mucosal healing by IUS or calprotectin efficiently identifies patients with CD who have achieved endoscopic mucosal healing.

Real-life pilot study on the impact of the telemedicine platform EasyMICI-MaMICI® on quality of life and quality of care in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has shown promising results in the follow up of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. This study compared quality of life and disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease monitored using a telemedicine platform versus standard care. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter study, patients with active inflammatory bowel disease were randomized to EasyMICI-MaMICI® telemedicine platform or standard care. The main objective was to assess the efficacy of the software platform, as measured by quality of life and quality of care. Secondary outcomes were changes in the use of healthcare resources, and patient satisfaction in the MaMICI group. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled (November 2017-June 2018); 59.3% had Crohn's disease and 40.7% ulcerative colitis. Forty-two patients received biologics at inclusion. After 12 months, a significant improvement in quality of life was observed with MaMICI versus standard care, with mean (standard deviation) changes from baseline of 14.8 (11.8) vs 6.3 (9.7) in the SIBDQ scores and 18.5 (18.7) vs 2.4 (8.3) in the EuroQol 5 D-3L questionnaire scores (both p ≤ .02). Disease activity was similar in both treatment groups. Use of MaMICI slightly reduced healthcare utilization versus controls (mean gastroenterologist consultations 2.2 vs 4.1; p = .1308). Overall satisfaction with MaMICI was high (mean score 7/10), and 46.2% of remaining patients in the MaMICI group continued to use the platform until 12 months. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in quality of life and overall satisfaction with this telemedicine platform, indicates that further evaluation of EasyMICI-MaMICI in larger numbers of patients with inflammatory bowel disease is warranted.

[Application of the recommendations of the conference of consensus in front of symptoms ENT, respiratory or thoracic pains considered as due to a gastroesophageal reflux disease]. / Application des recommandations de la conférence de consensus devant des symptômes ORL, respiratoires ou des douleurs thoraciques considérés comme dus à un reflux gastro-œsophagien.

AIMS: The primary objectives of this observatory were: (1) to assess the prevalence of extradigestive symptoms (EDS) (asthma, pharyngeal pain, chronic hoarseness, nocturnal breathlessness, chronic or nocturnal cough, non-cardiac chest pain) which are suspected of being associated with gastro-oesophageal reflux (GERD) in a population consulting in general practice; (2) to compare the diagnostic and therapeutic approach adopted initially and at follow-up to the recommendations of the French-Belgian Consensus Conference on adult GERD (1999). METHODS: The survey was conducted among 578 general practitioners (GPs). All EDS were investigated in patients (≥ 18 y.o.) consulting over 3 days. Only patients considered a priori as having GERD related EDS were included in study. At each visit (initial and at 1 and 4 months), the diagnostic and therapeutic approach was analyzed, scored, and the GP's certainty regarding the accountability of GER in the EDS rated using the visual analogue scale (VAS). The criteria used by GPs to evaluate GER accountability as certain or doubtful were examined. RESULTS: Out of 33,487 consulting patients, 14% presented EDS (cough: 6.7%; ENT symptoms: 7.7%; chest pain: 2.3%). Among patients presenting EDS, 22% (1063) were included in the study based on suspicion of GERD, whereas 45% (481) had neither history nor digestive symptoms typically associated with GERD. The diagnostic approach did not vary whether the patient presented typical EDS associated symptoms (A+) or not (A-): 83.7% of patients (A+) versus 86.5% (A-) immediately received acid reflux treatment; 4.6% (A+) versus 7.9% (A-) underwent additional testing and 5.2% (A+) versus 4.4% (A-) were referred to a specialist. In 87% of cases, acid reflux treatment included a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (half-dose: 47.2%, standard dose 50.3%, double dose 2.5%); in 8.1% of patients initial acid reflux treatment included an H2 antagonist while in 3.2% of patients treatment included prokinetic drugs. At 4 months of follow-up, GERD accountability was considered certain in 74.7% of the patients included in the assessment (794/1063). The GPs opinion was based on response to acid reflux treatment in 92% of cases, on endoscopy in 6.7% of cases, on pH monitoring in 0.3% of cases and on a specialist's opinion in 6% of cases. CONCLUSION: There is a considerable difference between the recommendations of the French-Belgian Consensus Conference on adult GERD and the practices observed in general medicine. The diagnostic and therapeutic approaches were empirical with recourse to additional exams in less than 10% of cases. The degree of certainty as to GERD accountability was based primarily on response to PPI treatment.

Rabeprazole test for the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: results of a study in a primary care setting.

AIM: To determine the diagnostic value of the rabeprazole test in patients seen by general practitioners. METHODS: Eighty-three patients with symptoms suggestive of GERD were enrolled by general practitioners in this multi-centre, randomized and double-blind study. All patients received either rabeprazole (20 mg bid) or a placebo for one week. The diagnosis of GERD was established on the presence of mucosal breaks at endoscopy and/or an abnormal esophageal 24-h pH test. The test was considered to be positive if patients reported at least a "clear improvement" of symptoms on a 7-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The sensitivities of the test for rabeprazole and the placebo were 83% and 40%, respectively. The corresponding specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 45% and 67%, 71% and 71%, and 62% and 35%, respectively. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis confirmed that the best discriminatory cut-off corresponded to description of "clear improvement". CONCLUSION: The poor specificity of the proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) test does not support such an approach to establish a diagnosis of GERD in a primary care setting.