The impact of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma detection in an organized screening program.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with biennial fecal occult blood test has been shown to reduce CRC mortality. For the effectiveness of the CRC screening program is crucial that a high-quality colonoscopy with a high adenoma detection rate (ADR) be performed. To improve ADR, various endoscopic devices have been developed. Endocuff, an endoscopic cap with finger-like projections, has been shown to improve ADR. The aim of this study was to compare in an organized CRC screening program ADR, advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR) and mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP) using standard colonoscopy (SC) and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared performance of SC (in 2014) and EAC (in 2015) in consecutive participants in an organized CRC screening program. RESULTS: SC and EAC were performed in 546 (284 males) and 519 (293 males) subjects, respectively (mean age 60 years). Cecal intubation rate was 97.4 % for SC and 97.1 % for EAC and not significantly different ( P  = 0.7). ADR was 47 % for SC and 52 % for EAC, P  = 0.1. MAP in SC and EAC were 0.87 (range: 0 - 7) and 1.11 (range: 0 - 13) respectively, P  = 0.02. AADR rate was 25 % and 23 % for SC and EAC, respectively, P  = 0.5. CONCLUSION: Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy does not improve the number of patients with at least one adenoma but it may increase the number of detected adenomas per procedure.

Time trends and outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding in the Veneto region: a retrospective population based study from 2001 to 2010.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal bleeding is the most frequent emergency for gastroenterologists. Despite advances in management, an improvement in mortality is still not evident. AIM: Determining time trends of gastrointestinal bleeding hospitalization and outcomes from 2001 to 2010 in the Veneto Region (Italy). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of patients admitted with gastrointestinal bleeding from Veneto regional discharge records were retrospectively evaluated. Chi-squared and multivariate logistic regression model were used. RESULTS: Overall, 44,343 patients (mean age 64.2 ± 8.6 years) with gastrointestinal bleeding were analysed: 23,450 (52.9%) had upper, 13,800 (31.1%) lower, and 7093 (16%) undefined gastrointestinal bleeding. Admission rate decreased from 108.0 per 100,000 in 2001 to 80.7 in 2010, mainly owing to a decrease in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (64.4 to 35.9 per 100,000, p<0.05). Reductions in hospital fatality rate (from 5.3% to 3%, p<0.05), length of hospital stay (from 9.3 to 8.7 days, p<0.05), and need for surgery (from 5.6% to 5%, p<0.05) were observed. Surgery (OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.59-3.41) and undefined gastrointestinal bleeding (OR: 2.89, 95% CI: 2.62-3.19) were found to be risk factors for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patient admissions for gastrointestinal bleeding decreased significantly over the years, owing to a decrease in upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Improved outcomes could be related to regional dedicated clinical gastroenterological management.

Quality of life in uncomplicated symptomatic diverticular disease: is it another good reason for treatment?

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is becoming a major issue in the evaluation of any therapeutic intervention. AIMS: To assess the QoL in patients with uncomplicated symptomatic diverticular disease (DD) and to elucidate the influence of two different treatments either on symptoms or QoL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 58 outpatients affected by uncomplicated symptomatic DD, admitted in our Gastroenterological Unit from October 2003 to March 2004, were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to two different treatments consisting of rifaximin or mesalazine for 10 days every month for a period of 6 months. QoL was evaluated by means of an SF-36 questionnaire and clinical evaluation was registered by means of a global symptomatic score (GSS) at baseline and after 6 months. RESULTS: At baseline, lower values in all SF-36 domains were confirmed in patients with DD. Both rifaximin and mesalazine groups showed a significant reduction of their mean GSS (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively) and improvement of SF-36 mean scores after therapy, even though treatment with mesalazine showed better results. CONCLUSIONS: DD has a negative impact on QoL. Cyclic treatment with poorly absorbable antibiotics or anti-inflammatory drugs relieves symptoms and improves QoL.

A curcumin-based 1-week triple therapy for eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection: something to learn from failure?

BACKGROUND: Curcumin is the principal element of turmeric powder extracted from the root of Curcuma longa. Studies on curcumin have demonstrated some anti-Helicobacter pylori activity as well as immunomodulating properties. N-acetylcysteine and lactoferrin with their respective mucolytic and antibacterial activities might also be effective in H. pylori eradication therapy. AIM: To determine if a 7-day non-antibiotic therapy comprised of curcumin, lactoferrin, N-acetylcysteine, and pantoprazole was effective for eradication of H. pylori infection and reduction of gastric inflammation, assessed by serum pepsinogens and relief of symptoms. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive H. pylori-positive patients (12 males, mean age 50 +/- 12 years, range 31-76) with functional dyspepsia were enrolled. Patients were administered for 7 days curcumin 30 mg b.i.d., bovine lactoferrin 100 mg b.i.d., N-acetylcysteine 600 mg b.i.d., and pantoprazole 20 mg b.i.d. H. pylori status and upper gastrointestinal symptoms were assessed by (13)C-urea breath test and a scale of upper gastrointestinal symptoms intensity (absent, mild, moderate, and severe), as well as a blood test for serum pepsinogens (sPGI, sPGII), gastrin-17 (G-17), and anti-H. pylori IgG (IgG-Hp) at baseline (T0) and after 2 months (T1). RESULTS: Three of 25 patients (12%) were cured of H. pylori infection. A significant decrease in the overall severity of symptoms (T0: 6, interquartile range [IQR]: 4.5-8; T1: 2, IQR: 2-3; p < or = .001), and sPGII (T0: 16 microg/L, IQR: 13-22; T1: 10 microg/L, IQR: 8-16; p < or = .001) and sPGI (T0: 82 microg/L, IQR: 67-97; T1: 74 microg/L, IQR: 62-94; p = .02) levels were observed after 2 months of the treatment. IgG and G-17 values did not significantly decrease after 2 months. CONCLUSIONS: This novel therapy was not effective for H. pylori eradication. However, despite the bacterium persistence, significant improvement of dyspeptic symptoms and reduction of serologic signs of gastric inflammation were observed after 2 months at the end of the 7-day treatment schedule.

Prevention of complications and symptomatic recurrences in diverticular disease with mesalazine: a 12-month follow-up.

In uncomplicated diverticular disease, treatment is aimed at relieving symptoms. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of mesalazine for symptomatic relief of uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon. Two hundred sixty-eight consecutive eligible outpatients (122 male, 146 female; age, 66.1 years; range, 31-81 years) were enrolled in four treatment schedules in a randomized fashion: Group R1 (66 patients), rifaximin, 200 mg bid; Group R2 (69 patients), rifaximin, 400 mg bid; Group M1 (67 patients), mesalazine, 400 mg bid; and Group M2 (66 patients), mesalazine, 800 mg bid. Treatments were administered for 10 days every month for 12 months. Clinical evaluations were performed at admission and at 3-month intervals for 12 months considering 12 clinical variables (upper and lower abdominal pain/discomfort, tenesmus, diarrhea, abdominal tenderness, fever, bloating, general illness, nausea, emesis, dysuria, bleeding) graded as 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe. The Global Symptomatic Score (GSS) was calculated using the sum of each symptom score. Two hundred forty-four patients completed the 12- month study; 24 were discontinued (14 treated with rifaximin and 10 treated with mesalazine) either as voluntary dropouts or because they developed side effects and/or complications. Group M2 demonstrated a lower frequency of many symptoms after 6 and 12 months of treatment; the mean GSS was significantly lower in Group M2 after 6 and 12 months of therapy by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. Patients treated with mesalazine (Groups M1+M2) had a lower GSS than subjects treated with rifaximin (Groups R1+R2) during the 12-month follow-up period. We conclude that cyclic administration of mesalazine is effective for symptomatic relief of uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon. Some symptoms showed greater improvement with mesalazine, 800 mg bid, than with the other treatment schedules.

Use of mesalazine in diverticular disease.

Diverticular disease includes a spectrum of conditions sharing the underlying pathology of acquired diverticula of the colon: symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease, recurrent symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease, and complicated diverticular disease. Goals of therapy in diverticular disease should be to improve symptoms and to prevent recurrent attacks in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease, and to prevent the complications of disease such as diverticulitis. Inflammation seems to play a key role in all forms of the disease. This is the rationale for the use of anti-inflammatory drugs such as mesalazine. Inflammation in such diseases seems to be generated by a heightened production of proinflammatory cytokines, reduced anti-inflammatory cytokines, and enhanced intramucosal synthesis of nitric oxide. The mechanisms of action of mesalazine are not yet well understood. It is an anti-inflammatory drug that inhibits factors of the inflammatory cascade (such as cyclooxygenase) and free radicals, and has an intrinsic antioxidant effect. Some recent studies confirm the efficacy of mesalazine in diverticular disease both in relief of symptoms in symptomatic uncomplicated forms and in prevention of recurrence of symptoms and main complications.

Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection.

In clinical practice the recommended treatment regimens achieve only an 80%Helicobacter pylori eradication rate and this rate is lower in patients who have failed first-line treatment. The increasing indications for H. pylori treatment (idiopathic thrombocytopenia and iron deficiency anemia) and an increasing trend of antibiotic resistance (especially in southern Europe) emphasize the need for more effective H. pylori eradication. Smoking and a short duration of treatment, especially in patients with functional dyspepsia, are predictors of eradication failure. In first line, the best option remains the clarithromycin-based regimens but an extended treatment duration is now indicated. Following first-line treatment failure, 14-day proton pump inhibitor triple therapy employing alternative antibiotics or quadruple therapy could be used. Levofloxacin-based 10-day triple therapy seems to be an encouraging strategy following one or more eradication failures.

'Rescue' therapies for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection.

Helicobacter pylori infection is the main cause of gastritis, gastroduodenal ulcer and gastric cancer and should be considered as a major public health issue. According to several international guidelines, first-line therapy for treating H. pylori infection consists of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or ranitidine bismuth citrate (RBC) with any two antibiotics of amoxicillin, clarithromycin or metronidazole given for 7-14 days. However, even with the recommended treatment regimens, approximately 20% of patients will fail to obtain H. pylori eradication. The proportion of patients with first-line H. pylori therapy failure may be higher in clinical practice and it may increase thanks to diffusion of H. pylori treatment. The recommended second-line therapy is the quadruple regimen composed by tetracycline, metronidazole, bismuth salts and a PPI. However, the efficacy of this regimen is limited by poor patient's compliance due to its side effects, number of tablets per day, and long duration. Moreover, bismuth and metronidazole are not available in all countries. Alternatively, a longer-lasting (i.e. 10-14 days) PPI or RBC triple therapy with two antibiotics has generally been used. In an empirical strategy, the choice of second line depends on the treatment initially used. If a clarithromycin-based regimen was administered in first line, a quadruple regimen or PPI (or RBC) triple therapy with metronidazole and amoxicillin (or tetracycline) should be suggested as a second line. In case of second-line treatment failure, the patient should be evaluated by a case-by-case approach. A susceptibility-guided strategy, if available, is recommended in order to choose the best third-line treatment. Culture can reveal the presence of H. pylori-sensitive strains to clarithromycin (the best effective) or other antimicrobials (such as amoxicillin, metronidazole and tetracycline). Conversely, in an empirical strategy, a third-line not yet used therapy, can reach a high success rate. PPI or RBC, amoxicillin and a new antimicrobial (e.g. rifabutin, levofloxacin or furazolidone) could be used. Several studies have obtained relatively good results with triple therapy combining PPI, rifabutin, and amoxicillin, although a reversible myelotoxicity as leukopenia and thrombocytopenia has been described. Preliminary good results were also achieved with triples PPI regimens combining levofloxacin and amoxicillin without important adverse effects. Furazolidone has also shown efficacy for H. pylori eradication, although untoward reactions could limit its use, especially when high doses are employed. Finally, in more than one H. pylori treatment failure, non-antimicrobial add-on medications (such as lactoferrin, probiotics and others) could be used with the aim either to improve the eradication rate or to minimize side effects.

Recovery of gastric function after Helicobacter pylori eradication in subjects with body atrophic gastritis: prospective 4-year study.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication and atrophic changes in the gastric mucosa has not yet been fully defined. Although studies report a partial restoration of serum pepsinogen I (sPGI) levels after eradication, it is not clear if this finding reflects gastric mucosal healing on a morphological level. AIM: To assess alterations in gastric function after H. pylori eradication on moderate/severe body atrophic gastritis by determination of sPGI levels. METHODS: Twenty-three dyspeptic patients, selected from 284 consecutive H. pylori positive patients, with histological features of moderate/severe body atrophic gastritis and sPGI < 25 microg/L (11 men, mean age: 51.8 years, range: 29-79 years), underwent an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with gastric biopsies and sPGI determination at baseline. All patients underwent eradication therapy. Serum pepsinogen I was measured again after 6 months, and at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years after eradication therapy. RESULTS: Mean sPGI levels prior to eradication were 11.9 microg/L (range: 4-23 microg/L). Six months after eradication therapy, mean sPGI levels significantly increased to 17.4 microg/L (P = 0.04). At the completion of the study, 4 years after eradication, sPGI levels increased from 17.4 to 32.7 microg/L (P = 0.01). A significant progressive increase in sPGI levels was observed from 6 months to 1 year (17.4 to 23.9 microg/L) and from 1 to 2 years (23.9 to 26.0 microg/L, P = 0.01). Serum pepsinogen I levels higher than the cut-off value of 25 microg/L were observed at various time-points: 6.3% of patients at 6 months (1/16), 33.3% (5/15) at 1 year, 50% (7/14) at 24 months, 66.7% (6/9) at 36 months and 87.5% (7/8) at 4 years. CONCLUSION: After H. pylori eradication, subjects with body atrophic gastritis showed long-term improvement of physiological gastric function, reflected by significantly and continually increasing sPGI levels over a 4-year period.

Efficacy of mesalazine in the treatment of symptomatic diverticular disease.

We aimed to improve symptoms by means of mesalazine in symptomatic colonic diverticular disease patients. One hundred seventy outpatients (98 M, 72 F; age, 67.1 years; range, 39-84 years) were assigned to four different schedules: rifaximin, 200 mg bid (Group R1: 39 pts), rifaximin, 400 mg bid (Group R2: 43 pts), mesalazine, 400 mg bid (Group M1: 40 pts), and mesalazine, 800 mg bid (Group M2: 48 pts), for 10 days per month. At baseline and after 3 months we recorded 11 clinical variables (upper/lower abdominal pain/discomfort, bloating, tenesmus, diarrhea, abdominal tenderness, fever, general illness, nausea, emesis, dysuria), scored from 0 = no symptoms to 3 = severe. The global symptomatic score was the sum of all symptom scores. After 3 months in all schedules but Group R1, 3 of the 11 symptoms improved (P < 0.03); the global score decreased in all groups but Group R1 (P < 0.0001). Mesalazine-treated patients had the lowest global score at 3 months (P < 0.001). Mesalazine is as effective as rifaximin (higher dosage schedule) for diminishing some symptoms, but it appears to be better than rifaximin for improving the global score in those patients.