Background: Diverticular disease is one of the most common disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. 28-45% of the population develop colonic diverticula, while about 25% suffer symptoms and about 5% complications. Aim: To create formal guidelines for diagnosis and management. Methods: Six working groups with 44 participants analyzed key questions in subject areas assigned to them. Following a systematic literature search, 451 publications were included. Consensus was obtained by agreement within the working groups, two Delphi processes and a guideline conference. Results: Targeted management of diverticular disease requires a classificatory diagnosis. A new classification was created. In addition to the clinical examination, intestinal ultrasound or computed tomography is the determining factor. Interval colonoscopy is recommended to exclude comorbidities. A low-fiber diet, obesity, lack of exercise, smoking and immunosuppression have an adverse impact on diverticulosis. This can lead to diverticulitis. Antibiotics are no longer recommended in uncomplicated diverticulitis if no risk factors such as immunosuppression are present. If close monitoring is ensured, uncomplicated diverticulitis can be treated on an outpatient basis. Complicated diverticulitis should be treated in hospital, involving broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, where necessary abscess drainage, and surgery, if possible laparoscopically. In the case of chronic relapsing diverticulitis, the risk of perforation decreases with each episode, so that surgery is no longer recommended after the second episode but only following individual assessment. Conclusions: New findings on diverticular disease call into question the overuse of antibiotics and excessive indications for surgery. Targeted treatment requires a precise diagnosis and intensive interdisciplinary cooperation. i 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Purpose To study the therapeutic effects of probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and identify subgroups benefiting most. Background Some trials investigating therapeutic effects in irritable bowel syndrome have shown benefits in IBS subgroups only. Probiotic treatment seems to be promising. Methods Patients with irritable bowel syndrome (120; Rome II) were recruited to a prospective double-blind study and randomized to either EcN (n = 60) or placebo (n = 60) given for 12 weeks. Objectives were to describe efficacy and safety of EcN in different groups of irritable bowel syndrome. Outcome was assessed by ‘Integrative Medicine Patient Satisfaction Scale’. Results Altogether, the responder rate was higher in the EcN than in the placebo group. However, only after 10 and 11 weeks, the differences were significant (Δ 20.0% points [95% CI 2.6; 37.4], p = 0.01 and Δ 18.3% points [95% CI 1.0; 35.7], p = 0.02, respectively). The best response was observed in the subgroup of patients with gastroenteritis or antibiotics prior to irritable bowel syndrome onset (Δ 45.7% points, p = 0.029). No significant differences were observed in any other subgroup. Both treatment groups showed similar adverse events and tolerance. Conclusions Probiotic EcN shows effects in irritable bowel syndrome, especially in patients with altered enteric microflora, e.g. after gastroenterocolitis or administration of antibiotics.

Comparative data regarding different regimens of oral mesalazine (mesalamine) for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis are limited. To evaluate whether 3.0 g mesalazine once-daily (OD) is superior to the standard treatment of 0.5 g mesalazine three times daily (t.d.s.) and to prove the therapeutic equivalence of OD vs. t.d.s. dosing of total 1.5 g mesalazine for remission maintenance in patients with ulcerative colitis. A 1-year, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy study was undertaken in patients with endoscopically and histologically confirmed ulcerative colitis in remission. Patients were randomised to oral mesalazine 3.0 g OD, 1.5 g OD or 0.5 g t.d.s. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients still in clinical remission at the final visit, with clinical relapse being defined as CAI score >4 and an increase of ≥3 from baseline. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 162/217 3.0 g OD patients (75%), 129/212 1.5 g OD patients (61%) and 150/218 0.5 g t.d.s. patients (69%) in the intention-to-treat population, and in 152/177 (86%), 121/182 (67%) and 144/185 (78%) in the per protocol population respectively; 3.0 g OD was superior to both low-dose regimens for the primary endpoint (i.e. P < 0.001, 3.0 g OD vs. 1.5 g OD; P = 0.024, 3.0 g OD vs. 0.5 g t.d.s.; superiority test, per protocol population). Safety analysis, including comprehensive renal monitoring, revealed no concern in any treatment group. Mesalazine 3.0 g once daily was the most effective dose for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis of the three regimens assessed, with no penalty in terms of safety.

Summary: Background: Previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the efficacy of mesalazine in the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis.Aim: To investigate the efficacy and safety of mesalazine granules in the prevention of recurrence of diverticulitis after acute uncomplicated diverticulitis.Methods: Two phase 3, randomised, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind multicentre trials (SAG‐37 and SAG‐51) investigated mesalazine granules in patients with prior episodes (<6 months) of uncomplicated left‐sided diverticulitis. Patients were randomised to receive either 3 g mesalazine once daily or placebo (SAG‐37, n=345) or to receive either 1.5 g mesalazine once daily, 3 g once daily or placebo for 96 weeks (SAG‐51, n=330). The primary endpoint was the proportion of recurrence‐free patients during 48 weeks (SAG‐37 and SAG‐51) or 96 weeks (SAG‐51) of treatment.Results: Mesalazine did not increase the proportion of recurrence‐free patients over 48 or 96 weeks compared to placebo. In SAG‐37, the proportion of recurrence‐free patients during 48 weeks was 67.9% with mesalazine and 74.4% with placebo (P=.226). In SAG‐51, the proportion of recurrence‐free patients over 48 weeks was 46.0% with 1.5 g mesalazine, 52.0% with 3 g mesalazine and 58.0% with placebo (P=.860 for 3 g mesalazine vs placebo) and over 96 weeks 6.9%, 9.8% and 23.1% respectively (P=.980 for 3 g mesalazine vs placebo). Patients with only one diverticulitis episode in the year prior to study entry had a lower recurrence risk compared to >1 episode. Safety data revealed no new adverse events.Conclusion: Mesalazine was not superior to placebo in preventing recurrence of diverticulitis.