Esophageal foreign bodies: observational cohort study and factors associated with recurrent impaction.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophageal foreign bodies, including food bolus impaction, represent a common clinical problem. The prevalence of underlying esophageal disease depends on study design and degree of suspicion of a structural or functional esophageal abnormality. Aim of this study was to analyze factors associated with recurrent impaction. METHODS: The prospectively collected database at a University Hospital and Swallowing Center was reviewed from January 2012 to June 2019 to identify all patients admitted for esophageal foreign bodies. Patients who underwent an emergency endoscopic procedure represented the final study sample. Patient characteristics, including history of previous esophageal foreign bodies, and type of endoscopic procedure were collected. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients, 41 males and 24 females with a median age of 59 years, underwent emergency endoscopy for esophageal foreign bodies during the study period. Food bolus was the most common foreign body (n = 43, 66%). Flexible endoscopy was successful in retrieving or pushing the foreign bodies in the stomach in 91% of patients. In 54% of patients, impaction was secondary to an underlying esophageal disorder, which was previously unrecognized in half of them. Recurrent impaction was more common in patients with esophageal disease (P < 0.011). Surgical therapy was required in 4 patients (6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Food bolus impaction is a common sentinel event in patients with underlying esophageal disease and is associated with recurrent impaction. Diagnostic endoscopy with biopsies should possibly be performed at the first episode of impaction. Patients with negative biopsies should undergo barium swallow study and high-resolution esophageal manometry.

Safety and Efficacy of Crura Augmentation with Phasix ST Mesh for Large Hiatal Hernia: 3-Year Single-Center Experience.

Background: Safety and effectiveness of absorbable meshes for laparoscopic hiatus hernia repair are still debated. This may be due to patient selection, technique of repair, type and shape of mesh, definition of recurrent hernia, and length of follow-up. The aim of this study was to assess safety, short-term efficacy, and quality of life after laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia reinforced with a biosynthetic absorbable mesh. Materials and Methods: A single-center observational cohort study was conducted in patients with large type III-IV hiatal hernia who underwent laparoscopic crural repair reinforced with Phasix ST®, a monofilament resorbable mesh (poly-4-hydroxybuterate) with a hydrogel barrier on one side. Patient data were extracted from hospital charts and a prospectively updated research database. Both generic Short Form-36 (SF-36) and disease-specific (Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality of Life [GERD-HRQL]) questionnaires were used to assess preoperative and postoperative quality of life. Results: From January 2017 to July 2019, 73 consecutive patients were implanted with Phasix ST mesh. The median follow-up was 17 (interquartile range 9-24) months. Recurrent hernia was found in 2 of 62 (3.2%) patients followed for more than 6 months after surgery, but none required reoperation. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 8.2%. No mesh-related complications occurred. Compared to baseline, there was a statistically significant improvement of all items of the SF-36 questionnaire (P < .001) and of the median GERD-HRQL score (P < .001). Conclusion: The use of Phasix ST mesh to reinforce crural repair for large hiatus hernias is safe, is effective in the short-term follow-up, and is associated to improved quality of life.

Early vedolizumab trough levels predict treatment persistence over the first year in inflammatory bowel disease.

Background: Data from trials of vedolizumab for inflammatory bowel disease and from real-world studies suggest an exposure-response relationship, such that vedolizumab trough levels may predict clinical and endoscopic outcomes. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate in a prospective observational study the utility of an early vedolizumab trough level assay for predicting the first-year vedolizumab therapy outcome. Methods: This prospective observational study included consecutive inflammatory bowel disease patients. We measured vedolizumab trough levels and anti-vedolizumab antibodies at weeks 6 and 14. Clinical outcome was assessed at weeks 6, 14, 22 and 54. The primary endpoint was the correlation between early vedolizumab trough levels and vedolizumab persistence over the first year of treatment, defined as the maintenance of vedolizumab therapy due to sustained clinical benefit. Results: We included 101 patients initiating vedolizumab. A cut-off vedolizumab trough level of 16.55 µg/ml at week 14 predicted vedolizumab persistence within the first year of therapy, with 73.3% sensitivity and 59.4% specificity (p = 0.0009). Week 14 vedolizumab trough level was significantly higher in patients with clinical remission at weeks 14, 22 and 54; and in patients achieving mucosal healing within 54 weeks. Conclusion: High vedolizumab trough level at week 14 was associated with a higher probability of maintaining vedolizumab therapy over the first year due to sustained clinical benefit.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring is More Cost-Effective than a Clinically Based Approach in the Management of Loss of Response to Infliximab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Observational Multicentre Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Empirical dose intensification and therapeutic drug monitoring [TDM] of infliximab [IFX] trough levels [ITLs] and antibody to infliximab [ATI] assays are recognized approaches for managing loss of response [LoR] in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. The aim of the study was to compare these two interventions in a clinical setting, in terms of effectiveness and cost savings. METHODS: Consecutive IBD patients experiencing LoR were clinically managed according to a TDM algorithm. A historical group of empirically treated patients, for whom sera for ITLs and ATI assays had been collected, served as the control group. Clinical outcomes 12 weeks after the therapeutic interventions were compared between the two groups. A cost-minimization analysis was performed to compare the economic impact of these two approaches. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were enrolled prospectively and compared with 52 controls. The two cohorts were similar in characteristics and in the distribution of TDM results. In the prospective cohort, however, we observed less IFX dose escalations compared with in the controls [45% versus 71%, p = 0.003]. Also, more patients were switched to a different anti-TNFα in the prospective cohort than in the control cohort [25% versus 4%, p = 0.001]. The percentages of patients achieving a clinical response at 12 weeks were 52% and 54% for the prospective and control groups, respectively. By cost analysis, we estimated a savings of 15% if the TDM algorithm was applied. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, applying a TDM algorithm for LoR to IFX resulted in less dose escalations, without loss of efficacy, compared with empirical adjustment. In addition, the TDM approach was cost-effective.