RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, are chronic immune-mediated diseases that present a relapsing and remitting course and requires long-term treatment. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy has changed the management of the disease by reducing the need for hospitalizations, surgeries and improving patient´s quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to discuss the role of anti-TNF agents in IBD, highlighting the situations where its use as first-line therapy would be appropriate. METHODS: Narrative review summarizing the best available evidence on the topic based on searches in databases such as MedLine and PubMed up to April 2020 using the following keywords: "inflammatory bowel disease'', "anti-TNF agents" and ''biologic therapy''. CONCLUSION: Biological therapy remains the cornerstone in the treatment of IBD. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the choice of the biological agent may be challenging and should take into account several variables. Anti-TNF agents should be considered as first line therapy in specific scenarios such as acute severe ulcerative colitis, fistulizing Crohn's disease and extra-intestinal manifestations of IBD, given the strong body of evidence supporting its efficacy and safety in these situations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, are chronic immune-mediated diseases that present a relapsing and remitting course and requires long-term treatment. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy has changed the management of the disease by reducing the need for hospitalizations, surgeries and improving patient´s quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to discuss the role of anti-TNF agents in IBD, highlighting the situations where its use as first-line therapy would be appropriate. METHODS: Narrative review summarizing the best available evidence on the topic based on searches in databases such as MedLine and PubMed up to April 2020 using the following keywords: "inflammatory bowel disease'', "anti-TNF agents" and ''biologic therapy''. CONCLUSION: Biological therapy remains the cornerstone in the treatment of IBD. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the choice of the biological agent may be challenging and should take into account several variables. Anti-TNF agents should be considered as first line therapy in specific scenarios such as acute severe ulcerative colitis, fistulizing Crohn's disease and extra-intestinal manifestations of IBD, given the strong body of evidence supporting its efficacy and safety in these situations.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: As doenças inflamatórias intestinais (DII), tanto a doença de Crohn (DC) como a retocolite ulcerativa (RCU), são doenças crônicas imunomediadas que se apresentam com períodos de surto e remissão e requerem terapia a longo prazo. A terapia com anti-fator de necrose tumoral (anti-TNF) tem mudado o manejo da doença reduzindo a necessidade de hospitalizações, cirurgias e melhorando a qualidade de vida dos pacientes. OBJETIVO: O objetivo do presente trabalho é apresentar uma revisão sobre a importância dos agentes anti-TNF no contexto da DII, levando em consideração situações em que essas drogas são usadas como terapia de primeira linha. MÉTODOS: Revisão narrativa baseada nas melhores evidências disponíveis na literatura através de buscas feitas nas bases de dados MedLine e PubMed até abril de 2020, utilizando as seguintes palavras chaves: "doença inflamatória intestinal'', "agentes anti-TNF" e "terapia biológica". CONCLUSÃO: A terapia biológica permanece sendo fundamental no tratamento da DII. Na ausência de estudos "head-to-head'' comparando os biológicos entre si, a escolha do agente biológico pode ser um desafio na prática clínica e múltiplas variáveis devem ser levadas em consideração. Os agentes anti-TNF devem ser considerados terapia de primeira linha em situações específicas como na colite ulcerativa aguda grave, na doença de Crohn fistulizante e nas manifestações extra-intestinais da doença inflamatória intestinal, uma vez que há evidências científicas robustas que sustentam a sua eficácia e segurança nessas situações.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background and study aims Ambient air is the most commonly used gas for insufflation in endoscopic procedures worldwide. However, prolonged absorption of air during endoscopic examinations may cause pain and abdominal distension. Carbon dioxide insufflation (CO 2 i) has been increasingly used as an alternative to ambient air insufflation (AAi) in many endoscopic procedures due to its fast diffusion properties and less abdominal distention and pain. For endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), use of CO 2 for insufflation is adequate because this procedure is complex and prolonged. Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the efficacy and safety of CO 2 as an insufflation method during ERCP but presented conflicting results. This systematic review and meta-analysis with only RCTs evaluated the efficacy and safety of CO 2 i versus AAi during ERCP. Methods A literature search was performed using online databases with no restriction regarding idiom or year of publication. Data were extracted by two authors according to a predefined data extraction form. Outcomes evaluated were abdominal pain and distension, complications, procedure duration, and CO 2 levels. Results Eight studies (919 patients) were included. Significant results favoring CO 2 i were less abdominal distension after 1 h (MD: -1.41 [-1.81; -1.0], 95 % CI, I²â€Š= 15 %, P  < 0.00001) and less abdominal pain after 1 h (MD: -23.80 [-27.50; -20.10], 95 %CI, I²â€Š= 9 %, P  < 0.00001) and after 6 h (MD: -7.00 [-8.66; -5.33]; 95 % CI, I²â€Š= 0 %, P  < 0.00001). Conclusion Use of CO 2 i instead of AAi during ERCP is safe and associated with less abdominal distension and pain after the procedure.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is a pandemic associated with significant comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes (T2DM). RYGB is an effective treatment modality for obesity and T2DM. However, bariatric surgery is currently limited to a relatively small population of patients. The duodenal-jejunal bypass sleeve (DJBS) has recently emerged as a promising therapy for obesity and T2DM by providing similar physiological effects to RYGB. We describe a case of a patient with a previously placed DJBS presenting with abdominal pain from anchor erosion managed with an endoscopic approach. METHODS: A 58-year-old man with obesity and T2DM who had failed prior medical therapy for obesity was referred for DJBS placement. This was placed without complications. At 8 weeks follow-up, he developed abdominal pain and vomiting prompting immediate endoscopic evaluation. RESULTS: EGD revealed an anchor erosion resulting in mild stenosis of the pylorus. Additionally, hyperplastic tissue was found to be adhered to the device in the duodenal bulb. Endoscopic removal with balloon dilation was unsuccessful, and a stent was placed in a "stent-in-stent" fashion through the sleeve to compress the area of tissue ingrowth encouraging local tissue necrosis and device extraction. At 15 days follow-up, the stent was removed; however, the DJBS remained adhered and immobile. Next, the ingrowing hyperplastic tissue was resected in a piecemeal fashion. This resulted in mobilization of the sleeve anchors in the duodenal bulb and successful removal of the DJBS. CONCLUSIONS: DJBS endoscopic removal is safe and effective even in challenging cases, thus preventing the need for surgical intervention.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Zenker's diverticulum is a rare disease in the general population. Its treatment can be carried out by either an endoscopic or surgical approach. The objective of this study was to systematically identify all reports that compare both treatment modalities and to assess the outcomes in terms of length of procedure, length of hospitalization, time until diet introduction, complication rates, and recurrence rates. METHODS: A search of Medline and Embase selected all studies that compared different methods of surgical and endoscopic treatment for Zenker's diverticulum published in the English, Portuguese, and Spanish languages between 1975 and 2014. The meta-analysis was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Data were extracted and analyzed for five different outcomes. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, describing outcomes of endoscopic versus surgical treatment for 596 patients with Zenker's diverticulum. A meta-analysis of the studies suggested a statistically significant reduction in operating time and length of hospitalization, favoring endoscopic treatment (standardized mean difference (SMD) - 78.06, 95 %CI - 90.63, - 65.48 and SMD - 3.72, 95 %CI - 4.49, - 2.95, respectively), just as with the reduction in the fasting period (SMD - 4.30, 95 %CI - 5.18, - 3.42) and risk of complications (SMD - 0.09, 95 %CI 0.03, 0.43) for patients who had undergone the endoscopic approach in comparison with the surgical group. Also, a statistically significant reduction in the risk of symptom recurrence was seen when the treatment of Zenker's diverticulum was carried out by a surgical approach compared with endoscopic treatment (SMD 0.08, 95 %CI 0.03, 0.13). CONCLUSION: Compared with a surgical approach, endoscopic treatment appeared to result in a shorter length of procedure and hospitalization, earlier diet introduction, and lower rates of complications, but in higher rates of symptom recurrence.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To investigate the available data on the treatment of early colorectal cancer (CRC), either endoscopically or surgically. METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL COCHRANE, LILACS and EBSCO for articles published up to August 2015. No language or dates filters were applied. Inclusion criteria were studies with published data about patients with early colonic or rectal cancer undergoing either endoscopic resection (i.e., mucosectomy or submucosal dissection) or surgical resection (i.e., open or laparoscopic). Extracted data items undergoing meta-analysis were en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate, and complications. A complementary analysis was performed on procedure time. The risk of bias among studies was evaluated with funnel-plot expressions, and sensitivity analyses were carried out whenever a high heterogeneity was found. The risk of bias within studies was assessed with the Newcastle score. RESULTS: A total of 12,819 articles were identified in the preliminary search. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, three cohort studies with a total of 768 patients undergoing endoscopic resection and 552 patients undergoing surgical resection were included. The en bloc resection rate risk difference was -11% [-13%, -8% confidence interval (CI)], demonstrating worse outcome results for the endoscopic resection group as compared to the surgical resection group [number need to harm (NNH) =10]. The curative resection rate risk difference was -9% [(-12%, 6% CI)] after a sensitivity analysis was performed, which also demonstrated worse outcomes in the intervention group (NNH =12). The complications rate exhibited a -7% risk difference [(-11%, -4% CI)], denoting a lesser number of complications in the endoscopic group [Number Need to Treat (NNT =15). A complementary analysis of procedure time with two of the selected studies demonstrated a mean difference of -118.32 min [(-127.77, -108.87 CI)], in favor of endoscopic resection, even though such data lacks homogeneity across studies, and could be heavily influenced by local expertise. Long-term results were found in only one study and therefore were not included in the final analysis. CONCLUSIONS: According to the current available data, the treatment of early CRC by surgical resection is associated with higher curative resection rates and higher en bloc resection rates, despite of higher complications rates, as compared to endoscopic resection. Shorter procedure times are associated with the endoscopic methods of treatment, however high heterogeneity levels limit this conclusion.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain is present in the vast majority of patients with chronic pancreatitis, being frequently debilitating. Celiac plexus block (CPB) is an interventional technique that can be considered to provide a temporary pain relief. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness and safeness of endoscopic-ultrasound (EUS) comparing with percutaneous-guided CBP in patients with pancreatic pain. METHODS: A systematic review of English and non-English articles using MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and COCHRANE (via BVS). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Only randomized control trials (RCT) comparing the beneficial and harmful effects of EUS and percutaneous-guided celiac plexus block for managing pancreatic pain were included. Data was extracted and analyzed on variables including pain relief and related procedure complications. RESULTS: Two RCT met the inclusion criteria. Both studies assessed the primary outcome (reduction on pain score) and evaluated adverse effects. The drugs injected were the same; nevertheless percutaneous technique was guided by fluoroscopy in one study and by computer tomography (CT) in other. The results showed that the EUS-CPB group was more effective to reduce pain score after 4 weeks after the procedure, with risk of bias to do this affirmation. No statistical difference in pain relief at 1, 8 and 12 weeks and in complications rates. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, no statistically significant difference was noted in pain relief and complications for EUS and percutaneous - CPB.

Asunto(s)