Search

Introduction: Biological therapies used for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have shown to be effective and safe, although these results were obtained from studies involving mostly a young population, who are generally included in clinical trials. The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy and safety of the different biological treatments in the elderly population., Methods: Multicenter study was carried out in the GETECCU group. Patients diagnosed with IBD and aged over 65 years at the time of initiating biological therapy (infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, ustekinumab or vedolizumab) were retrospectively included. Among the patients included, clinical response was assessed after drug induction (12 weeks of treatment) and at 52 weeks. Patients' colonoscopy data in week 52 were assessment, where available. Regarding complications, development of oncological events during follow-up and infectious processes occurring during biological treatment were collected (excluding bowel infection by cytomegalovirus)., Results: A total of 1090 patients were included. After induction, at approximately 12-14 weeks of treatment, 419 patients (39.6%) were in clinical remission, 502 patients (47.4%) had responded without remission and 137 patients (12.9%) had no response. At 52 weeks of treatment 442 patients (57.1%) had achieved clinical remission, 249 patients had responded without remission (32.2%) and 53 patients had no response to the treatment (6.8%). Before 52 weeks, 129 patients (14.8%) had discontinued treatment due to inefficacy, this being significantly higher (p<0.0001) for Golimumab - 9 patients (37.5%) - compared to the other biological treatments analyzed. With respect to tumor development, an oncological event was observed in 74 patients (6.9%): 30 patients (8%) on infliximab, 23 (7.14%) on adalimumab, 3 (11.1%) on golimumab, 10 (6.4%) on ustekinumab, and 8 (3.8%) on vedolizumab. The incidence was significantly lower (p=0.04) for the vedolizumab group compared to other treatments. As regards infections, these occurred in 160 patients during treatment (14.9%), with no differences between the different biologicals used (p=0.61): 61 patients (19.4%) on infliximab, 39 (12.5%) on adalimumab, 5 (17.8%) on golimumab, 22 (14.1%) on ustekinumab, and 34 (16.5%) on vedolizumab., Conclusions: Biological drug therapies have response rates in elderly patients similar to those described in the general population, Golimumab was the drug that was discontinued most frequently due to inefficacy. In our experience, tumor development was more frequent in patients who used anti-TNF therapies compared to other targets, although its incidence was generally low and that this is in line with younger patients based on previous literature., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background and Study Aims: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is a condition with high risk for colorectal cancer. The Endocuff device has been shown to increase adenoma detection in the general and screening population. We aimed to ascertain whether Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy increases detection of serrated lesions in comparison with standard colonoscopy during the surveillance of patients with SPS.  METHODS:  In a multicenter randomized controlled study, patients who met SPS criteria I and/or III under surveillance (previous resection of all serrated lesions ≥ 4 mm) were consecutively randomly allocated 1:1 to Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy, performed by expert endoscopists. The main outcome was the mean number of serrated lesions detected per patient., Results: 122 patients (standard colonoscopy n = 60; Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy n = 62; 59 % men; mean age 60.6 (standard deviation [SD] 7.5) were included at 4 centers. Baseline variables (demographic data, SPS phenotype, colorectal cancer [CRC] history, cumulative polyps, and follow-up), cecal intubation rate, and withdrawal time were similar between groups. There was no statistically significant difference between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy and standard colonoscopy for the mean number of serrated lesions detected per patient: 5.8 (95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 4.4 - 7.2) and 5.0 (3.9 - 6.1), respectively ( P  = 0.36). There were also no differences between Endocuff-assisted and standard colonoscopy for detection of sessile serrated lesions (mean number per patient 2.5 [1.3 - 3.6] vs. 2.0 [1.1 - 3.0], P  = 0.54) and adenomas (0.9 [0.5 - 1.3] vs. 0.5 [0.3 - 0.7], P  = 0.12)., Conclusion: Use of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy did not significantly increase the number of serrated lesion detected per patient during surveillance of SPS., Competing Interests: M. Pellisé is a consultant for Norgine Iberia; has received fees for conferences from Norgine, Olympus, and Casen Recordati; and receives an editorial fee from Thieme. Other authors do not have any conflict of interest., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)