How we can improve the appropriateness of ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy: the lesson of the COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has significantly modified hospital and outpatient activities. AIMS: To assess the pandemic's impact on the appropriateness of outpatient gastrointestinal (G.I.) endoscopy in a southern Italy Region. METHODS: Between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2022, we compared the number, the type of activities, and the appropriateness of the G.I. endoscopy procedures in the four territorial gastroenterology and digestive endoscopy services of the Apulia region. RESULTS: In 2019, 11 173 outpatient procedures were provided, which dropped by about 44% (P < 0.05) during 2020. The endoscopic activity was slightly reduced during 2020 (-18.77%), while every other activity dropped significantly. During 2021-2022, the overall activities slightly increased but remained below the number of activities provided before the pandemic (P < 0.05). However, the endoscopic activity increased by +6.86% from 2019 to 2022, mainly due to more colonoscopies. During the 4 years analysed, the overall appropriateness rate of the endoscopic examinations increased during 2020 (2019: 67%; 2020: 81%) while dropping again in the following years (2021: 75%; 2022; 69%). CONCLUSION: The appropriateness of the G.I. endoscopic procedures in the territorial gastroenterology services in the Apulia Region has improved during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, dropping again in the following years. Overall, the appropriateness of endoscopic procedures remains suboptimal; thus, educational activities are needed to improve the appropriateness rate to optimise the limited resources.

Influenza Vaccination and Health Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Several measures aimed at containing the spread of this virus have been recommended by international and nation public health institutions, but whether the influenza vaccine, while not protective against COVID-19, nonetheless reduces disease severity is unclear. This study evaluated the potential role of influenza vaccine in reducing the rate of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 cases recorded in the province of Brindisi (Apulia, Southern Italy) during the first pandemic wave (February-May 2020) and occurring in patients vaccinated with the influenza vaccine during the 2019-2020 influenza season were considered. From February 2020 to May 2020, 3872 inhabitants of the province of Brindisi underwent SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and 664 (8.7%) tested positive. A multivariate analysis showed that among COVID-19 patients neither hospitalization nor death was significantly associated with influenza vaccination (p > 0.05), whereas within this group male sex, older age, and chronic diseases were identified as risk factors for morbidity and mortality. Our study did not show an association between the influenza vaccine and complications of COVID-19. Nonetheless, influenza vaccination must be promoted as a central public health measure, because by reducing the burden on hospitals it can greatly benefit the management of COVID-19 patients.

Low-dose balsalazide plus a high-potency probiotic preparation is more effective than balsalazide alone or mesalazine in the treatment of acute mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Balsalazide is well tolerated and effective in treating acute ulcerative colitis. VSL#3 is a probiotic cocktail proven to be effective in preventing flare-ups of chronic pouchitis. We compared the efficacy and safety of low-dose balsalazide (2.25 g/day) plus 3 g/day VLS#3 (group A) with medium-dose balsalazide alone (group B) and with mesalazine (group C) in the treatment of mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis. MATERIAL/METHODS: Ninety patients (30 per group) were randomly enrolled, with a treatment duration of 8 weeks. Efficacy was assessed by symptoms assessment, endoscopic appearance, and histological evaluation. RESULTS: Balsalazide/VSL#3 was significantly superior to balsalazide alone and to mesalazine in obtaining remission: 24 patients of group A were in remission [per-protocol: 85.71% (C.I.95%: 62-96), on intention-to-treat: 80% (C.I.95%: 59-91)], while 21 group B [per-protocol: 80.77% (C.I. 95%: 51-82), on intention-to-treat: 77% (C.I.95%: 43-81)] and 16 group C patients [per-protocol: 72.73% (C.I. 95%: 30-75), on intention-to-treat: 53.33% (C.I.95%: 42-62)] were in remission (p<0.02). Balsalazide with or without VSL#3 was better tolerated than mesalazine: two group C patients were withdrawn from the study because of severe side-effects; 1 group A (3.33%), 3 group B (10%) and 4 group C (13.33%) patients experienced slight side-effects. The balsalazide/VSL#3 combination was faster in obtaining remission than balsalazide alone or mesalazine (4, 7.5, and 13 days in groups A, B and C, respectively) and also better in improving all parameters evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Balsalazide/VSL#3 may be a very good choice in the treatment of active mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis instead of balsalazide alone or mesalazine.

Efficacy and tolerability of ranitidine bismuth citrate plus amoxycillin and clarithromycin as first- or second-line therapy to cure Helicobacter pylori infection.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Ranitidine bismuth citrate has recently been introduced for the treatment of H. pylori infection and obtains good eradication rates; however, eradication failures still appear in a considerable proportion of cases. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of ranitidine bismuth citrate plus amoxycillin and clarithromycin as first- or second-line therapy to cure H. pylori infection. METHODOLOGY: We studied 423 consecutive H. pylori-positive patients. In 210 consecutive patients H. pylori infection was diagnosed for the first time (group A), while 213 consecutive patients were enrolled after failure of a first attempt to eradicate H. pylori (group B). All patients received ranitidine bismuth citrate 400 mg b.d. plus clarithromycin 500 mg b.d. and amoxycillin 1 g b.d. for seven days. H. pylori-status was evaluated by means of histology and rapid urease test at entry and by 13C-urea breath test in all patients one month after treatment. RESULTS: 410/423 patients completed the study (202/210 in group A and 208/213 in group B). Two patients of group A and 1 patient of group B were withdrawn from the study due to poor compliance, 6 group A patients and 4 group B patients were lost to follow-up. In group A, after the end of treatment, 181/202 patients were H. pylori-negative (per-protocol analysis: 89.60% [C.I. 95%: 82-95%]; on intention-to-treat analysis: 86.19% [C.I. 95%; 76-92%]), side-effects occurred in 29 patients (13.80%); they were severe in 2 patients and the patients were withdrawn from the study. In group B, after the end of treatment, 200/208 patients were H. pylori-negative (per-protocol analysis: 95.15% [C.I. 95%; 92-100%], on intention-to-treat analysis: 93.89% [C.I. 95%; 89-98%), side-effects occurred in 11 patients (5.13%); they were slight or mild and did not require discontinuation of the treatment. The results of group B were statistically better than group A, both in eradication rate (P < 0.01) as well as both side-effects provoked (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Ranitidine bismuth citrate-clarithromycin-amoxycillin is more effective when used as second-line therapy rather than when used as first-line therapy; second, ranitidine bismuth citrate-clarithromycin-amoxycillin shows lower and slighter side-effects when used as second-line therapy rather than when used as first-line therapy; finally, the excellent tolerability of ranitidine bismuth citrate + clarithromycin + amoxycillin influences positively the patients' compliance, both as first- and second-line therapy.