Systematic review of therapies for refractory ulcerative proctitis.

Patients with ulcerative proctitis have favorable long-term outcomes but are typically excluded from ulcerative colitis clinical trials. Refractory proctitis presents a management conundrum for gastroenterologists, and there remains a lack of clarity as to the best therapeutic strategy. This study aimed to undertake a systematic review of studies assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of therapies for refractory proctitis. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE databases were searched without restriction from inception to October 27, 2022. Both interventional and noninterventional studies examining efficacy of therapeutic modalities for the induction and/or maintenance of remission in refractory proctitis were included. Included studies were grouped by therapeutic modalities as follows: (i) immunomodulators, (ii) monoclonal antibodies, (iii) topical calcineurin inhibitors, (iv) other topical therapies, and (v) appendicectomy. The search strategy identified 3301 studies, of which 13 met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Clinical remission rates for systemic therapies ranged from 20-26% for azathioprine to 50-69% for tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapies. The use of systemic therapies for proctitis raised safety concerns, with 22-37% of patients discontinuing therapies due to adverse effects across four retrospective cohort studies. Prospective clinical trials of topically applied tacrolimus demonstrated clinical remission rates of 42-46%, with a favorable safety profile. Substantial heterogeneity in study design precluded meta-analysis. Refractory ulcerative proctitis remains a neglected entity, with a dearth of prospective clinical trials to guide therapeutic decision-making. Current evidence supports a role for topically administered tacrolimus.

Standards of liver cirrhosis care in Central Australia.

BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are highly prevalent in Australia's Northern Territory. Contributing factors include high levels of alcohol consumption, viral hepatitis and metabolic syndrome. Rural Aboriginal residents form a significant proportion of the Central Australian population and present a challenge to traditional models of liver care. HCC surveillance and variceal screening are core components of liver cirrhosis management. AIM: To assess participation in HCC and variceal surveillance programmes in a Central Australian liver cirrhosis patient cohort. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with liver cirrhosis presenting to Alice Springs Hospital, Australia between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017. Demographic data, disease severity, attendance at hepatology clinics, participation in variceal and/or HCC surveillance programmes was recorded. Regression analyses were conducted to assess factors associated with two independent outcomes: Participation in HCC and variceal surveillance. RESULTS: Of 193 patients were identified. 82 patients (42.4%) were female. 154 patients (80%) identified as Aboriginal. Median Model for End-stage Liver Disease Score at diagnosis was 11. Alcohol was the most common cause of cirrhosis. Aboriginal patients were younger than non-Aboriginal patients (48.4 years vs 59.9 years, P < 0.001). There were similar rates of excess alcohol intake (72.6% vs 66.7%, P = 0.468) and obesity (34.5% vs 38.4%, P = 0.573 across non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal cohorts. 20.1% of patients took part in HCC surveillance and 42.1% of patients completed variceal screening. Aboriginal patients were less likely to engage with either HCC surveillance (OR: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.16-0.9, P = 0.025) or undergo variceal screening (OR: 0.31, 95%CI: 0.14-0.65, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: HCC or variceal surveillance programmes had less uptake amongst Aboriginal patients. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on eliminating cultural obstacles to accessing hepatology services.