Background: Increased activity of intestinal alkaline phosphatase (AP) occurs locally in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), aimed at repairing inflammatory tissue damage. We evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of exogenous AP administered to patients with UC in an open-label, first-in-patient exploratory trial, conducted in the Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology hospital departments in the Czech Republic and Italy. Methods: Twenty-one patients were enrolled (13 females), age 23–54 years, with steroid- and/or immunosuppressant-refractory, moderate/severe UC (Mayo score 6–11). Oral AP enzyme 30,000 U was administered daily for 7 days, intraduodenally. Efficacy outcomes were changes in Mayo score at Day 21 posttreatment; changes in Modified Truelove–Witts Severity index (MTWSI) at Days 21, 63; C-reactive protein and stool calprotectin levels at Days 7, 21, 63. Safety evaluations were adverse events and laboratory abnormalities reported up to Day 63 posttreatment. Results: No clinically relevant adverse events causing withdrawal or considered serious, or laboratory abnormalities or antibody formation against AP were observed. Mayo scores were significantly decreased at Day 21, and MTWSI at Days 21 and 63. C-reactive protein and stool calprotectin levels were decreased at Days 21 and 63. Clinical response on the Mayo score after a single 7-day AP course was 48% at Day 21. Conclusions: In this uncontrolled trial, administration of exogenous AP enzyme daily over a 7-day course to patients with UC was associated with short-term improvement in disease activity scores, with clinical effects being observed within 21 days and associated with reductions in C-reactive protein and stool calprotectin. AP enzyme treatment was well tolerated and nonimmunogenic. (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009;)

Background and study aims Single-center studies, which were retrospective and/or involved unblinded colonoscopists, have suggested that water exchange, but not water immersion, compared with air insufflation significantly increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR), particularly in the proximal and right colon. Head-to-head comparison of the three techniques with ADR as primary outcome and blinded colonoscopists has not been reported to date. In a randomized controlled trial with blinded colonoscopists, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the three insertion techniques on ADR. Patients and methods A total of 1224 patients aged 50 – 70 years (672 males) and undergoing screening colonoscopy were randomized 1:1:1 to water exchange, water immersion, or air insufflation. Split-dose bowel preparation was adopted to optimize colon cleansing. After the cecum had been reached, a second colonoscopist who was blinded to the insertion technique performed the withdrawal. The primary outcome was overall ADR according to the three insertion techniques (water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation). Secondary outcomes were other pertinent overall and right colon procedure-related measures. Results Baseline characteristics of the three groups were comparable. Compared with air insufflation, water exchange achieved a significantly higher overall ADR (49.3 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 44.3 % – 54.2 % vs. 40.4 % 95 %CI 35.6 % – 45.3 %; P = 0.03); water exchange showed comparable overall ADR vs. water immersion (43.4 %, 95 %CI 38.5 % – 48.3 %; P = 0.28). In the right colon, water exchange achieved a higher ADR than air insufflation (24.0 %, 95 %CI 20.0 % – 28.5 % vs. 16.9 %, 95 %CI 13.4 % – 20.9 %; P = 0.04) and a higher advanced ADR (6.1 %, 95 %CI 4.0 % – 9.0 % vs. 2.5 %, 95 %CI 1.2 % – 4.6 %; P = 0.03). Compared with air insufflation, the mean number of adenomas per procedure was significantly higher with water exchange (P = 0.04). Water exchange achieved the highest cleanliness scores (overall and in the right colon). These variables were comparable between water immersion and air insufflation. Conclusions The design with blinded observers strengthens the validity of the observation that water exchange, but not water immersion, can achieve significantly higher adenoma detection than air insufflation. Based on this evidence, the use of water exchange should be encouraged. Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02041507).

Cronkhite-Canada syndrome is a rare disease characterised by diffuse polyposis of the gastrointestinal tract, diarrhoea, weight loss, abdominal pain, cutaneous hyperpigmentation, dystrophic changes of fingernails, and alopecia. The etiology is probably autoimmune and diagnosis is based on history, physical examination, endoscopic findings of gastrointestinal polyposis, and histology. The disease is very rare; about 450 cases have been described in the literature so far. We present a review of the literature with our own picture documentation of this rare condition.

Objective. Evidence does not support an association between systemic corticosteroid use and the development of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and prophylactic anti-ulcer therapy is not routinely indicated. The aim was to find out the opinion of physicians in the Czech Republic on corticosteroid-induced ulcers. Materials and methods. A questionnaire-based study targeting 360 physicians of different specialties (100 from Gastroenterology, 100 from General Practice, 80 from Pneumology/Immunology, and 80 from Neurology/Neurosurgery). Results. Eighty-two percent of the physicians considered corticosteroids ulcerogenic, 7.5% of the responders considered them ulcerogenic only in patients with a family history of PUD, and 10.3% of the physicians considered corticosteroids non-ulcerogenic. Seventy-five percent of the responders would administer concomitant antisecretory treatment. Sixty-seven percent of the physicians thought that PUD was a frequent complication of corticosteroid therapy. If the ulcerogenic potential of ibuprophene, diclofenac, and prednisone was a subject of the physicians' judgment, a majority (40.5%) considered prednisone to be the most ulcerogenic substance. Thirty percent of gastroenterologists (vs. 1.9% of others; p < 0.001) did not consider corticosteroids to be ulcerogenic; 27.4% (vs. 4.3%; p < 0.01) would not administer an antisecretory prophylaxis routinely. Conclusions. Although there is no evidence showing an association between PUD and the use of corticosteroids, a majority of physicians consider corticosteroids gastrotoxic. This applies, to a lesser extent, to gastroenterologists. Action should be taken to explode the myth about the gastrotoxicity of corticosteroids and to minimize useless expenses on concomitant prophylaxis.

Water immersion insertion and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, as alternative colonoscopic techniques, are able to reduce patient discomfort during and after the procedure. We assessed whether the combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation is superior in efficacy and patient comfort to other colonoscopic techniques. In a prospective, randomized study, a total of 420 patients were randomized to either water immersion insertion and CO2 insufflation during withdrawal (water/CO2), water insertion and air insufflation during withdrawal (water/air), CO2 insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (CO2/CO2), or air insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (air/air). The main outcome was the success of minimal sedation colonoscopy, which was defined as reaching the cecum without switching to another insertion method and without additional sedation beyond the initial 2 mg of midazolam. Patient comfort during and after the procedure was assessed. A total of 404 patients were analyzed. The success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy in the water insertion arm (water/CO2 and water/air) was 97% compared with 83.3% in the gas insertion arm (CO2/CO2 and air/air; P<0.0001). Intraprocedural pain and bloating were significantly lower in the water/CO2 group than in all other groups. Patient discomfort in the water/CO2 group during 24 h after the procedure was comparable with that in the CO2/CO2 group and significantly lower than that in the air groups (water/air and air/air). No complications were recorded during the study. The combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation appears to be an effective and safe method for minimal sedation colonoscopy. Overall patient discomfort was significantly reduced compared with that in other techniques.

Objective. It is controversial whether endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is beneficial in all patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to assess diagnostic yield, safety and impact of EUS-FNA on management of patients with solid pancreatic mass. Material and methods. Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic mass were enrolled. Gold standard for final diagnosis included histology from surgical resection. In patients without surgery, clinical evaluation methods and repeated imaging studies were used for the comparison of initial cytology and final diagnosis. Patients were followed-up prospectively focusing on subsequent treatment. Results. Among 207 enrolled patients, final diagnosis was malignant in 163 (78.6%) and benign in 44 (21.4%). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA in diagnosing pancreatic cancer were 92.6% (95% CI: 87.20–95.96), 88.6% (95% CI: 74.64–95.64) and 91.8% (95% CI: 87.24–94.81), respectively. No major and five (2.4%) minor complications occurred. Of 151 true-positive patients by EUS-FNA, 57 (37.7%) were surgically explored, of whom 28 (49.1%) underwent resection. Ten of 12 patients with false-negative cytology were explored based on detection of mass on EUS, of whom two had a delay due to false-negative cytology without curative treatment. From the whole study cohort, EUS-FNA had positive and negative impacts on subsequent management in 136 (65.7%) and 2 (0.9%) patients, respectively. Conclusions. EUS-FNA provides accurate diagnosis in 92% and has positive therapeutic impact in two-thirds of patients with solid pancreatic mass. Despite negative cytology, surgical exploration is recommended in clinical suspicion for pancreatic cancer and solid mass on EUS.