Background: Multiple studies have described the effectiveness of ustekinumab (UST) and vedolizumab (VDZ) in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) failing anti- Tumor necrosis factors (TNFs); however, the effectiveness of VDZ or UST as a third-class biologic has not yet been described. Aims and Methods: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of VDZ and UST as a third-class biologic in patients with CD. Results: Two-hundred and four patients were included; 156/204 (76%) patients received VDZ as a second- and UST as a third-class therapy (group A); the remaining 48/204 (24%) patients received UST as a second- and VDZ as a third-class therapy (group B). At week 16–22, 87/156 (55.5%) patients and 27/48 (56.2%) in groups A and B, respectively, responded to treatment (p = 0.9); 41/156 (26.2%) and 15/48 (31.2%) were in clinical remission (p = 0.5). At week 52; 89/103 (86%) patients and 25/29 (86.2%) of the patients with available data had responded to third-class treatment in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.9); 31/103 (30%) and 47/29 (24.1%) were in clinical remission (p = 0.5). Conclusion: Third-class biological therapy was effective in more than half of the patients with CD. No differences in effectiveness were detected between the use of VDZ and UST as a third-class agent.

Background: The effectiveness of anti-TNF or ustekinumab (UST) as a second-line biologic after vedolizumab (VDZ) failure has not yet been described. Aims and Methods: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, We aim to investigate the effectiveness of anti-TNF and UST as second-line therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) who failed VDZ as a first-line treatment. The primary outcome was clinical response at week 16–22. Secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical remission, steroid-free clinical remission, CRP normalization, and adverse events. Results: Fifty-nine patients who failed on VDZ as a first-line treatment for CD were included; 52.8% patients received anti-TNF and 47.2% UST as a second-line therapy. In initial period (Week 16–22), the clinical response and remission rate was similar between both groups: 61.2% vs. 68%, p = 0.8 and 48.3% vs. 56%, p = 0.8 on anti-TNF and UST therapy, respectively. Furthermore, in the maintenance period the rate was similar: 75% vs. 82.3%, p = 0.8 and 62.5% vs. 70.5%, p = 0.8, respectively. Of the patients, 12 out of the 59 stopped the therapy, without a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.6). Conclusion: Second-line biological therapy after VDZ failure therapy was effective in >60% of the patients with CD. No differences in effectiveness were detected between the use of anti-TNF and UST as a second line.

Background and Aims: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Beyond traditional risk factors, chronic inflammation is increasingly recognized in its pathogenesis. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection has been proposed as a potential contributor. This study aimed to investigate the long-term effects of successful H. pylori eradication on selected CVD risk factors. Methods: Seventy-two patients were enrolled between July 2020 and November 2022 and randomized to two 14-day regimens (group 1: esomeprazole, amoxicillin, clarithromycin; group 2: esomeprazole, amoxicillin, metronidazole, colloidal bismuth subcitrate). Outcomes included homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index, lipid profiles and subfractions, and urinary trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), assessed by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Assessments were performed at baseline, two months, and one year after confirmed H. pylori eradication. Results: Of the 72 enrolled patients, 13.9% (10/72) were lost to follow-up. Baseline CVD risk factors did not differ significantly between groups. After successful eradication, both groups demonstrated significant reductions in total cholesterol (p=0.003), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p=0.010), small dense lipoprotein particles (p=0.037), and marginal decrease in TMAO concentrations (p=0.048). No significant changes were observed in body mass index (p=0.799), waist circumference (p=0.305), or HOMA-IR index (p=0.275). Conclusions: Successful eradication of H. pylori infection was associated with favorable changes in lipid metabolism and marginal decrease in TMAO levels. These findings suggest that H. pylori may contribute to CVD risk by modulating lipoprotein profiles and systemic inflammation.

Background/Objectives: High-quality bowel preparation is essential for the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy, which remains the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening. Aims: In our study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of three bowel preparation regimens—Moviprep with Donat Mg, Plenvu, and Plenvu with Donat Mg—commonly used in clinical practice in Slovenia. Methods: We conducted a randomized, multicenter, prospective study across three Slovenian gastroenterology centers. A total of 300 patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomly assigned to one of the three bowel preparation groups. Bowel cleanliness was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and lesion detection was assessed using polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Patients also completed a questionnaire assessing adverse effects, overall tolerability, and willingness to repeat the same regimen. Statistical analyses included ANOVA, chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis, and t-tests. Results: All three regimens achieved high bowel preparation adequacy (≥95%), with no statistically significant differences in total BBPS scores, PDR, or ADR. Adverse effects were mild and comparable between groups, with thirst and bloating being the most frequently reported symptoms. Patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the preparation were high across all regimens, with no significant differences. Conclusions: Moviprep with Donat Mg, Plenvu, and Plenvu with Donat Mg are all effective, safe, and well-tolerated bowel preparation regimens. Each achieved a high level of bowel cleanliness and lesion detection, exceeding ESGE minimum standards. Their comparable efficacy and tolerability support their interchangeable use in routine colonoscopy practice.

Background/Objectives: High-quality bowel preparation is essential for the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy, the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening. In our study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of three bowel preparation regimens—Moviprep with Donat Mg, Plenvu, and Plenvu with Donat Mg—commonly used in clinical practice in Slovenia. Methods: This was a randomized, multicenter, blinded clinical trial conducted across three Slovenian gastroenterology centers. A total of 300 consecutive adult patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomly assigned to one of the three bowel preparation groups. Bowel cleanliness was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and lesion detection was assessed using polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Patients also completed a questionnaire assessing adverse effects, overall tolerability, and willingness to repeat the same regimen. Statistical analyses included ANOVA, chi-square, Kruskal–Wallis, and t-tests. Results: Of the 300 patients included in the final analysis, 94 received Moviprep with Donat Mg, 96 received Plenvu, and 110 received Plenvu with Donat Mg. The mean age of participants was 58.4 ± 15.6 years; 158 patients (52.7%) were male and 142 (47.3%) were female. All three regimens achieved high bowel preparation adequacy (≥95%), with no statistically significant differences in total BBPS scores, PDR, or ADR. Adverse effects were mild and comparable between groups, with thirst and bloating being the most frequently reported symptoms. Patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the preparation were high across all regimens, with no significant differences. Conclusions: Moviprep with Donat Mg, Plenvu, and Plenvu with Donat Mg are all effective, safe, and well-tolerated bowel preparation regimens. All regimens exceeded ESGE minimum quality standards. While the findings suggest that each regimen is suitable for routine use, the study was not powered to establish equivalence, and regimen selection should therefore continue to consider individual patient characteristics, preferences, and clinical judgment.