Factors influencing the presence of potentially explosive gases during colonoscopy: Results of the SATISFACTION study.

This study tested the hypothesis that bowel preparation with mannitol should not affect the colonic concentration of H2 and CH4 . Therefore, the SATISFACTION study, an international, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group phase II-III study investigated this issue. The phase II dose-finding part of the study evaluated H2 , CH4 , and O2 concentrations in 179 patients randomized to treatment with 50 g, 100 g, or 150 g mannitol. Phase III of the study compared the presence of intestinal gases in 680 patients randomized (1:1) to receive mannitol 100 g in single dose or a standard split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-Asc preparation (2 L PEG-Asc). Phase II results showed that mannitol did not influence the concentration of intestinal gases. During phase III, no patient in either group had H2 or CH4 concentrations above the critical thresholds. In patients with H2 and/or CH4 levels above detectable concentrations, the mean values were below the risk thresholds by at least one order of magnitude. The results also highlighted the effectiveness of standard washing and insufflation maneuvers in removing residual intestinal gases. In conclusion, bowel cleansing with mannitol was safe as the concentrations of H2 and CH4 were the same as those found in patients prepared with 2 L PEG-Asc. In both groups, the concentrations of gases were influenced more by the degree of cleansing achieved and the insufflation and washing maneuvers performed than by the preparation used for bowel cleansing. The trial protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04759885) and with EudraCT (eudract_number: 2019-002856-18).

Clinical features of type 1 and 2 refractory celiac disease: Results from a large cohort over a decade.

OBJECTIVES: Refractory celiac disease (RCeD) is a rare complication of celiac disease (CeD) with a severe prognosis. We describe a cohort of patients with RCeD, their clinical and histological features at diagnosis, after therapy and at lymphoma onset, and the rate and causes of death over a 17-year follow-up. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled RCeD-I and RCeD-II patients attending our center between January 2002 and October 2019. Medical data were collected at diagnosis and during monitoring. Response to therapy, changes in RCeD molecular markers, number of hospitalizations, discharge diagnosis, and cause and date of death were evaluated. The control cohort consisted of 1015 responsive CeD patients. RESULTS: Compared with RCeD-I, RCeD-II more frequently exhibits diarrhea (83 vs 64%), anemia (61 vs 50%), hypoalbuminemia (70 vs 21%), parenteral nutrition need (48 vs 7%), ulcerative jejuno-ileitis (7 vs 39%), and extended small intestinal atrophy (62 vs 21%). One RCeD-I and six RCeD-II patients developed lymphoma. Ten RCeD-II patients died, four from lymphoma progression. Among RCeD-II patients, atrophy extension was the only parameter correlated with hypoalbuminemia and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical severity, response to therapy, and mortality differ between RCeD-I and RCeD-II. Atrophy extension, evaluated at capsule endoscopy, was associated with disease severity and mortality.

Oral mannitol for bowel preparation: a dose-finding phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Successful bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy depends on the instructions, diet, the laxative product, and patient adherence, which all affect colonoscopy quality. Nevertheless, there are no laxatives which combine effectiveness, safety, easy self-administration, good patient acceptance, and low cost. However, mannitol, a sugar alcohol, could be an attractive candidate for use in clinical practice if it is shown to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety. AIMS: The present phase II dose-finding study compared three doses of mannitol (50, 100, and 150 g) to identify the best dose to be used in a subsequent phase III study. METHODS: The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, caecal intubation rate, adherence, acceptability, and safety profile, including measurement of potentially dangerous colonic gas concentrations (CH4, H2, O2), were considered in all patients. A weighted algorithm was used to identify the best mannitol dose for use in the subsequent study. RESULTS: The per-protocol population included 60 patients in the 50 g group, 54 in the 100 g group, and 49 in the 150 g group. The 100 g dose was the best as it afforded optimal colon cleansing efficacy (94.4% of patients had adequate BP), adherence, acceptability, and safety, including negligible gas concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that the colon cleansing efficacy and safety of mannitol were dose dependent. Conversely, gas concentrations were not dose dependent and negligible in all patients. Combined evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, using a weighted algorithm, determined that mannitol 100 g was the best dose for the phase III study.

Pharmacokinetics of oral mannitol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

This study aimed to define the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of oral mannitol used as an osmotic laxative for bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The PKs of oral mannitol was evaluated in a substudy as part of a phase II dose-finding, international, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, endoscopist-blinded study. Patients were randomly assigned to take 50, 100, or 150 g mannitol. Venous blood samples were drawn at baseline (T0), 1 h (T1), 2 h (T2), 4 h (T4), and 8 h (T8) after completion of mannitol self-administration. The mean mannitol plasma concentrations (mg/ml) were dose-dependent with a consistent difference among doses. The mean maximum concentration (Cmax) ± SD was 0.63 ± 0.15, 1.02 ± 0.28, and 1.36 ± 0.39 mg/ml, in the three dosage groups, respectively. The mean area under the curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-∞) was 2.667 ± 0.668, 4.992 ± 1.706, and 7.403 ± 3.472 mg/ml*h in the 50, 100, and 150 g mannitol dose groups, respectively. Bioavailability was similar in the three dose groups and was just over 20% (0.243 ± 0.073, 0.209 ± 0.081, and 0.228 ± 0.093 in the 50, 100, and 150 g mannitol dose groups, respectively). The present study showed that the bioavailability of oral mannitol is just over 20% and is similar for the three tested doses (50, 100, and 150 g). The linear increase in Cmax, AUC0-t8, and AUC0-∞ must be considered when choosing the oral mannitol dose for bowel preparation to avoid its systemic osmotic effects.

Blood Bacterial DNA Load and Profiling Differ in Colorectal Cancer Patients Compared to Tumor-Free Controls.

Inflammation and immunity are linked to intestinal adenoma (IA) and colorectal cancer (CRC) development. The gut microbiota is associated with CRC risk. Epithelial barrier dysfunction can occur, possibly leading to increased intestinal permeability in CRC patients. We conducted a case-control study including 100 incident histologically confirmed CRC cases, and 100 IA and 100 healthy subjects, matched to cases by center, sex and age. We performed 16S rRNA gene analysis of blood and applied conditional logistic regression. Further analyses were based on negative binomial distribution normalization and Random Forest algorithm. We found an overrepresentation of blood 16S rRNA gene copies in colon cancer as compared to tumor-free controls. For high levels of gene copies, community diversity was higher in colon cancer cases than controls. Bacterial taxa and operational taxonomic unit abundances were different between groups and were able to predict CRC with an accuracy of 0.70. Our data support the hypothesis of a higher passage of bacteria from gastrointestinal tract to bloodstream in colon cancer. This result can be applied on non-invasive diagnostic tests for colon cancer control.