Rifaximin suppresses background intestinal 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT scans.

BACKGROUND: Identification of cancer or inflammatory bowel disease in the intestinal tract by PET/computed tomography (CT) imaging can be hampered by physiological uptake of F-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) in the normal colon. Previous work has localized this F-FDG uptake to the intestinal lumen, predominantly occupied by bacteria. We sought to determine whether pretreatment with an antibiotic could reduce F-FDG uptake in the healthy colon. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing restaging PET/CT for nongastrointestinal lymphoma were randomly selected to receive rifaximin 550 mg twice daily for 2 days before their scan (post-rifaximin). Their PET/CT images were compared with those from their prior study (pre-rifaximin). Cecal maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) and overall colonic F-FDG uptake were compared between scans. All PET/CT images were blindly scored by a radiologist. The same comparison of sequential scans was also undertaken in 30 patients who did not receive antibiotics. RESULTS: Thirty post-rifaximin scans were compared with 30 pre-rifaximin scans in the same patients. SUVmax in the cecum was significantly lower in the patient's post-rifaximin scans than in their pre-rifaximin scans (P=0.002). The percentage of scans with greater than grade 1 colonic F-FDG uptake was significantly lower in the post-rifaximin scans than in the pre-rifaximin scans (P<0.05). In contrast, there was no significant difference in the paired sequential scans from control patients, nor a reduction in the percentage of scans with greater than grade 1 colonic F-FDG uptake. CONCLUSION: This pilot study shows that treatment with rifaximin for 2 days before PET/CT scanning can significantly reduce physiological F-FDG uptake in the normal colonic lumen.

Systematic analysis underlying the quality of the scientific evidence and conflicts of interest in interventional medicine subspecialty guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of guidelines published by interventional medical societies. METHODS: We reviewed the interventional medicine subspecialty society websites of the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (AABIP), American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology (ASDIN), American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) as of November 15, 2012, for published interventional guidelines. The study was performed between November 15, 2012, and January 1, 2013. The AABIP did not publish guidelines, so American Thoracic Society and American College of Chest Physicians guidelines were reviewed. All the guidelines were reviewed for graded levels of evidence, methods used to grade the evidence, and disclosures of conflicts of interest (COIs). RESULTS: Of 153 interventional guidelines evaluated, 4 were duplicates. Forty-six percent of guidelines (69 of 149) graded the quality of evidence using 7 different methods. The ASGE graded 71% of guidelines (46 of 65) compared with 29% (23 of 78) by the SCAI and 0 by the ASDIN (n=4) and the pulmonary societies (n=2). Of the 3425 recommendations reviewed, 11% (n=364) were supported by level A, 42% (n=1432) by level B, and 48% (n=1629) by level C. The mean age of the guidelines was 5.2 years. Additionally, 62% of the guidelines (92 of 149) failed to comment on COIs; when disclosed, 91% of guidelines (52 of 57) reported COIs. In total, 1827 COIs were reported by 45% of the authors (317 of 697), averaging 5.8 COIs per author. CONCLUSION: Most of the interventional guidelines failed to grade the evidence. When present, most guidelines used lower-quality evidence. Furthermore, most guidelines failed to disclose COIs. When commented on, numerous COIs were present. Future guidelines should clearly state the quality of evidence, use a standard grading system, be transparent regarding potential biases, and provide frequent updates.

Systematic analysis underlying the quality of the scientific evidence and conflicts of interest in gastroenterology practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The practice guidelines published by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) are used to establish standards of care and improve patient outcomes. We examined the guidelines for quality of evidence, methods of grading evidence, and conflicts of interest (COIs). METHODS: All 81 (AGA and ACG) guidelines available online on 26 July 2012 were reviewed for the presence of grading of evidence and COIs. In total, 570 recommendations were evaluated for level of evidence and methods used to grade the evidence. The data were evaluated in aggregate and by society. RESULTS: Only 31% (n=25) of the guidelines graded the levels of evidence. A total of 12 systems were used to grade the quality of evidence in these 25 guidelines. Of the 570 recommendations reviewed, only 29% (n=165) were supported by the highest quality of evidence, level A; 37% (n=210) level B, 29% (n=165) level C, and 5% (n=30) level D. Since 2007, 87% (n=13/15) of the ACG guidelines graded the evidence compared with only 33% of the AGA guidelines (n=4/12). Furthermore, 70% (n=57/81) of the guidelines failed to disclose any information regarding COIs. Of the 24 articles commenting on COIs, 67% reported COIs. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of the gastroenterology guidelines fail to grade the quality of evidence, more recent ACG guidelines grade majority of their recommendations. When the evidence is graded, most of the supporting evidence is based on lower-quality evidence. In addition, most of the guidelines fail to comment on COIs, and when disclosed, numerous COIs were present. This study highlights the critical need to revise the guideline development process. Future guidelines should clearly state the quality of evidence for their recommendations, utilize a standard grading system, and be transparent regarding all COIs.

A random urine test can identify patients at risk of mesalamine non-adherence: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Mesalamine non-adherence is common among patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), and can be difficult to identify in practice. We sought to determine whether a random urine test for salicylates could be used as a marker of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) ingestion and identify patients at risk of non-adherence. Our aim is to determine whether measurement of salicylates in a random urine sample correlates with 5-ASA levels, and predicts an individual's risk of mesalamine non-adherence. METHODS: Prospective observational study. Urinary salicylates (by colorimetry) and 5-ASA (by liquid chromatography and tandem-mass spectrometry) were measured in a random urine sample at baseline in patients and controls. Mesalamine adherence was quantified by patient self-reports at enrollment and pharmacy refills of mesalamine over 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients with UC taking mesalamine maintenance therapy were prospectively enrolled from the clinic. Random urine salicylate levels (by colorimetry) were highly correlated with urine 5-ASA metabolite levels (by mass spectrometry; R2=0.9). A random urine salicylate level above 15 mg/dl distinguished patients who had recently taken mesalamine from controls (area under the curve value 0.9, sensitivity 95%, specificity 77%). A significant proportion of patients (27%) who self-identified as "high adherers" by an adherence questionnaire (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8) had random levels of urine salicylate below this threshold. These patients were at higher risk of objectively measured non-adherence to mesalamine over the subsequent 6 months (RR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.1-7.0). CONCLUSIONS: A random urine salicylate level measured in the clinic can identify patients who have not recently taken mesalamine, and who are at higher risk of longitudinal non-adherence. This test could be used to screen patients who may warrant interventions to improve adherence and prevent disease relapse.

Assessment of benefits of a universal screen for maternal alcohol use during pregnancy.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this report is to estimate the benefits of universal meconium screening for maternal drinking during pregnancy. Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), including its most severe manifestation fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), is preventable and remains a public health tragedy. The incidences of FAS and FASD have been conservatively estimated to be 0.97 and 10 per 1000 births, respectively. Meconium testing has been demonstrated to be a promising at-birth method for detection of drinking during pregnancy. METHODS: The current costs of FAS and FASD, alcohol treatment programs, and meconium screening were estimated by literature review. Monetary values were converted roughly to equal dollars in 2006. RESULTS: Costs of adding meconium analysis to the current newborn screening program and of treatment for the identified mothers were estimated and compared to potential averted costs that may result from identification and intervention for mothers and affected infants. Three potential maternal treatment strategies are analyzed. Depending on the treatment type, the savings may range from $6 to $97 for every $1 spent on screening and treatment. DISCUSSION: It needs to be emphasized, however, that such screening is premature and that to be effective this screening can be implemented only if there is a societal willingness to institute prevention and intervention programs to improve both women's and children's health. Future research should be directed at improving detection and developing in-depth prevention and remedial intervention programs. A thorough consideration of the ethical issues involved in such a screening program is also needed.