BackgroundCholecystectomy in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is controversial. A randomized trial found cholecystectomy to reduce the recurrence rate of IAP but did not include... Show moreBackgroundCholecystectomy in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is controversial. A randomized trial found cholecystectomy to reduce the recurrence rate of IAP but did not include preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). As EUS is effective in detecting gallstone disease, cholecystectomy may be indicated only in patients with gallstone disease. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of EUS in patients with IAP, and the rate of recurrent pancreatitis in patients in whom EUS could not determine the aetiology (EUS-negative IAP).MethodsThis prospective multicentre cohort study included patients with a first episode of IAP who underwent outpatient EUS. The primary outcome was detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcomes included adverse events after EUS, recurrence of pancreatitis, and quality of life during 1-year follow-up.ResultsAfter screening 957 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis from 24 centres, 105 patients with IAP were included and underwent EUS. In 34 patients (32 per cent), EUS detected an aetiology: (micro)lithiasis and biliary sludge (23.8 per cent), chronic pancreatitis (6.7 per cent), and neoplasms (2.9 per cent); 2 of the latter patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy. During 1-year follow-up, the pancreatitis recurrence rate was 17 per cent (12 of 71) among patients with EUS-negative IAP versus 6 per cent (2 of 34) among those with positive EUS. Recurrent pancreatitis was associated with poorer quality of life.ConclusionEUS detected an aetiology in a one-third of patients with a first episode of IAP, requiring mostly cholecystectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy. The role of cholecystectomy in patients with EUS-negative IAP remains uncertain and warrants further study. Show less
Background and AimsWe aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of increasing adalimumab dose intervals compared to the conventional dosing interval in patients with Crohn’s disease [CD] in stable... Show moreBackground and AimsWe aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of increasing adalimumab dose intervals compared to the conventional dosing interval in patients with Crohn’s disease [CD] in stable clinical and biochemical remission.DesignWe conducted a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, comparing increased adalimumab intervals with the 2-weekly interval in adult CD patients in clinical remission. Quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Results are shown as differences and incremental net monetary benefit [iNMB] at relevant willingness to accept [WTA] levels.ResultsWe randomized 174 patients to the intervention [n = 113] and control [n = 61] groups. No difference was found in utility (difference: −0.017, 95% confidence interval [−0.044; 0.004]) and total costs (−€943, [−€2226; €1367]) over the 48-week study period between the two groups. Medication costs per patient were lower (−€2545, [−€2780; −€2192]) in the intervention group, but non-medication healthcare (+€474, [+€149; +€952]) and patient costs (+€365 [+€92; €1058]) were higher. Cost–utility analysis showed that the iNMB was €594 [−€2099; €2050], €69 [−€2908; €1965] and −€455 [−€4,096; €1984] at WTA levels of €20 000, €50 000 and €80 000, respectively. Increasing adalimumab dose intervals was more likely to be cost-effective at WTA levels below €53 960 per quality-adjusted life year. Above €53 960 continuing the conventional dose interval was more likely to be cost-effective.ConclusionWhen the loss of a quality-adjusted life year is valued at less than €53 960, increasing the adalimumab dose interval is a cost-effective strategy in CD patients in stable clinical and biochemical remission. Show less
Background: Iron deficiency (ID) and anemia in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) are associated with a reduced quality of life. We assessed the prevalence of ID and anemia in Dutch... Show moreBackground: Iron deficiency (ID) and anemia in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) are associated with a reduced quality of life. We assessed the prevalence of ID and anemia in Dutch outpatients with IBD and compared routine ID(A) management among medical professionals to the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) treatment guidelines. Methods: Between January and November 2021, consecutive adult outpatients with IBD were included in this study across 16 Dutch hospitals. Clinical and biochemical data were extracted from medical records. Additionally, medical professionals filled out questionnaires regarding routine ID(A) management. Results: In total, 2197 patients (1271 Crohn’s Disease, 849 Ulcerative Colitis, and 77 IBD-unclassified) were included. Iron parameters were available in 59.3% of cases. The overall prevalence of anemia, ID, and IDA was: 18.0%, 43.4%, and 12.2%, respectively. The prevalence of all three conditions did not differ between IBD subtypes. ID(A) was observed more frequently in patients with biochemically active IBD than in quiescent IBD (ID: 70.8% versus 23.9%; p < 0.001). Contrary to the guidelines, most respondents prescribed standard doses of intravenous or oral iron regardless of biochemical parameters or inflammation. Lastly, 25% of respondents reported not treating non-anemic ID. Conclusions: One in five patients with IBD suffers from anemia that—despite inconsistently measured iron parameters—is primarily caused by ID. Most medical professionals treat IDA with oral iron or standard doses of intravenous iron regardless of biochemical inflammation; however, non-anemic ID is often overlooked. Raising awareness about the management of ID(A) is needed to optimize and personalize routine care. Show less
Background: Iron deficiency (ID) and anemia in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) are associated with a reduced quality of life. We assessed the prevalence of ID and anemia in Dutch... Show moreBackground: Iron deficiency (ID) and anemia in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) are associated with a reduced quality of life. We assessed the prevalence of ID and anemia in Dutch outpatients with IBD and compared routine ID(A) management among medical professionals to the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) treatment guidelines. Methods: Between January and November 2021, consecutive adult outpatients with IBD were included in this study across 16 Dutch hospitals. Clinical and biochemical data were extracted from medical records. Additionally, medical professionals filled out questionnaires regarding routine ID(A) management. Results: In total, 2197 patients (1271 Crohn’s Disease, 849 Ulcerative Colitis, and 77 IBD-unclassified) were included. Iron parameters were available in 59.3% of cases. The overall prevalence of anemia, ID, and IDA was: 18.0%, 43.4%, and 12.2%, respectively. The prevalence of all three conditions did not differ between IBD subtypes. ID(A) was observed more frequently in patients with biochemically active IBD than in quiescent IBD (ID: 70.8% versus 23.9%; p < 0.001). Contrary to the guidelines, most respondents prescribed standard doses of intravenous or oral iron regardless of biochemical parameters or inflammation. Lastly, 25% of respondents reported not treating non-anemic ID. Conclusions: One in five patients with IBD suffers from anemia that—despite inconsistently measured iron parameters—is primarily caused by ID. Most medical professionals treat IDA with oral iron or standard doses of intravenous iron regardless of biochemical inflammation; however, non-anemic ID is often overlooked. Raising awareness about the management of ID(A) is needed to optimize and personalize routine care. Show less
Background & AimsPrevious randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis... Show moreBackground & AimsPrevious randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years.MethodsIn this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life.ResultsAfter a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups.ConclusionsAt long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571. Show less
