| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Leenhardt, R., et al.
(författare)
-
A guide for assessing the clinical relevance of findings in small bowel capsule endoscopy : analysis of 8064 answers of international experts to an illustrated script questionnaire
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology. - : Elsevier BV. - 2210-7401. ; 45:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and aim: Although recommended, the P-score used for assessing the pertinence / relevance of findings seen in small bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) is based on a low level of knowledge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of the most frequent SBCE findings through an illustrated script questionnaire. Materials and Methods: Sixteen types of SBCE findings were illustrated four times each in three different settings (occult and overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and suspected Crohn's disease), and with a variable number (n = 1/n = 2–5/n ≥ 6), thus providing a questionnaire with 192 scenarios and 576 illustrated questions. Fifteen international experts were asked to rate the finding's relevance for each question as very unlikely (−2) / unlikely (−1) / doubtful (0) / likely (+1) / very likely (+2). The median score (≤−0.75, between -0.75 and 0.75, or ≥0.75) obtained for each scenario determined a low (P0), intermediate (P1) or high (P2) relevance, respectively. Results: 8064 answers were analyzed. Participation and completion rates were 93% and 100%, respectively. In overt or occult OGIB, resultant P2 findings were 'typical angiectasia', 'deep ulceration', 'stenosis', and'blood', whatever their numbers, and 'superficial ulcerations' when multiple. While in suspected CD, consensus P2 lesions were 'deep ulceration' and 'stenosis' whatever their numbers, and 'aphthoid erosions' and 'superficial ulcerations' when multiple. Conclusion: This study establishes a guide for the evaluation of relevance of SBCE findings. It represents a step forward for SB-CE interpretation and is intended to be used as a tool for teaching and academic research.
|
|
| 3. |
- Marteau, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Combined oral and enema treatment with Pentasa (mesalazine) is superior to oral therapy alone in patients with extensive mild/moderate active ulcerative colitis: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Gut. - : BMJ. - 1468-3288 .- 0017-5749. ; 54:7, s. 960-965
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and aims: Oral aminosalicylates are well established in the treatment of active mild/moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) when the disease is extensive (that is, beyond the splenic flexure). The majority of clinical symptoms relate to disease activity in the distal part of the colon and therefore this study was designed to investigate if adding a mesalazine enema to oral mesalazine has additional benefit for patients with extensive mild/moderate active UC. Methods: A randomised double blind study was performed in 127 ambulatory patients. All received 4 g/day (twice daily dosing) oral mesalazine for eight weeks. During the initial four weeks, they additionally received an enema at bedtime containing 1 g of mesalazine or placebo. Disease activity was assessed using the ulcerative colitis disease activity index, with clinical and endoscopic signs at four and eight weeks. Results: Remission was obtained in 44% (95% confidence interval (CI) 31%, 58%) of the mesalazine enema group (Me) and in 34% (95% CI 21%, 49%) of the placebo enema group (Pl) at four weeks (p = 0.31) and in 64% (95% CI 50%, 76%) of the Me group versus 43% (95% CI 28%, 58%) of the Pl group at eight weeks (p = 0.03). Improvement was obtained in 89% (95% CI 78%, 96%) of the Me group versus 62% (95% CI 46%, 75%) of the Pl group at four weeks (p = 0.0008) and in 86% (95% CI 75%, 94%) of the Me group versus 68% (95% CI 53%, 81%) of the Pl group at eight weeks (p = 0.026). Conclusion: In patients with extensive mild/moderate active UC, the combination therapy is superior to oral therapy. It is safe, well accepted, and may be regarded as firstline treatment.
|
|
