Palmela C, et al. J Gastric Cancer. 2017 Mar;17:e8. https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2017.17.e8

Background: Intestinal ultrasound is emerging as a non-invasive tool for monitoring disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease patients due to its low cost, excellent safety profile, and availability. Herein, we comprehensively review the role of intestinal ultrasound in the management of these patients. Summary: Intestinal ultrasound has a good accuracy in the diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, as well as in the assessment of disease activity, extent, and evaluating disease-related complications, namely strictures, fistulae, and abscesses. Even though not fully validated, several scores have been developed to assess disease activity using ultrasound. Importantly, intestinal ultrasound can also be used to assess response to treatment. Changes in ultrasonographic parameters are observed as early as 4 weeks after treatment initiation and persist during short- and long-term follow-up. Additionally, Crohn’s disease patients with no ultrasound improvement seem to be at a higher risk of therapy intensification, need for steroids, hospitalisation, or even surgery. Similarly to Crohn’s disease, intestinal ultrasound has a good performance in the diagnosis, activity, and disease extent assessment in ulcerative colitis patients. In fact, in patients with severe acute colitis, higher bowel wall thickness at admission is associated with the need for salvage therapy and the absence of a significant decrease in this parameter may predict the need for colectomy. Short-term data also evidence the role of intestinal ultrasound in evaluating therapy response, with ultrasound changes observed after 2 weeks of treatment and significant improvement after 12 weeks of follow-up in ulcerative colitis. Key Messages: Intestinal ultrasound is a valuable tool to assess disease activity and complications, and to monitor response to therapy. Even though longer prospective data are warranted, intestinal ultrasound may lead to a change in the paradigm of inflammatory bowel disease management as it can be used in a point-of-care setting, enabling earlier intervention if needed.

The impact of COVID-19 on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients under pharmacological immunosuppression is still not clearly understood. We investigated the incidence of COVID-19 and the impact of immunosuppression and containment measures on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large IBD cohort, from a multicenter cohort from 21st of February to 30th of June, 2020. Ninety-seven patients with IBD (43 UC, 53 CD, one unclassified IBD) and concomitant COVID-19 over a total of 23,879 patients with IBD were enrolled in the study. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with IBD vs. the general population was 0.406% and 0.402% cases, respectively. Twenty-three patients (24%) were hospitalized, 21 (22%) had pneumonia, four (4%) were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit, and one patient died. Lethality in our cohort was 1% compared to 9% in the general population. At multivariable analysis, age > 65 years was associated with increased risk of pneumonia and hospitalization (OR 11.6, 95% CI 2.18–62.60; OR 5.1, 95% CI 1.10–23.86, respectively), treatment with corticosteroids increased the risk of hospitalization (OR 7.6, 95% CI 1.48–40.05), whereas monoclonal antibodies were associated with reduced risk of pneumonia and hospitalization (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.04–0.52; OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.10–0.90, respectively). The risk of COVID-19 in patients with IBD is similar to the general population. National lockdown was effective in preventing infection in our cohort. Advanced age and treatment with corticosteroids impacted negatively on the outcome of COVID-19, whereas monoclonal antibodies did not seem to have a detrimental effect.

Introduction: Microscopic colitis (MC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease with unclear etiology. Bile acid (BA) malabsorption has been described in MC patients. Farnesoid X receptor (FXR) is the main BA receptor; FXR-mediated mechanisms prevent the noxious effects of BA accumulation, preserving the integrity of the intestinal epithelial barrier and preventing intestinal inflammation. Aim: Our aim was to describe the expression of FXR in patients with MC. Methods: Archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples from the terminal ileum, right and left colon were obtained from patients with MC and matched controls. Immunohistochemistry was performed and nuclear FXR expression scored in a semi-quantitative way. Results: 169 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples from 35 patients with MC and 31 controls were retrieved. There was a significant reduction of FXR expression in patients with MC versus controls both in the right colon (moderate-strong FXR expression: 21.1 vs. 64.3%; p = 0.003) and left colon (moderate-strong FXR expression: 8.3 vs. 38.7%; p = 0.027). No significant differences in FXR expression were observed in the ileum of patients with MC (moderate-strong FXR expression: 76.9 vs. 90.9%; p = 0.5). We found no difference in FXR expression between the two types of MC. No association between the degree of lymphocyte infiltration or the thickness of collagen band and FXR expression was found. Conclusions: Patients with MC present a significantly lower expression of FXR in the colon. This could render colonic epithelial cells more susceptible to the deleterious effects of BA, contributing to disease pathogenesis and symptoms in MC.

Introduction: The prevalence of choledocholithiasis among patients with acute cholecystitis is estimated to be between 9 and 16.5%. There are no validated algorithms to predict choledocholithiasis in this group of patients. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the choledocholithiasis diagnostic score proposed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, in patients with acute cholecystitis. Material/Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study, covering a 4-year period at a secondary care hospital, was performed. All patients with an encoded diagnosis of acute cholecystitis and with at least one of the following procedures were included: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and intraoperative cholangiography. Results: Among 4,369 patients with the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, 40 (0.92%) had clinical or sonographic suspicion of choledocholithiasis. Their mean age was 68.1 ± 15 years, and 22 (55%) were men. Thirty-one of the patients included (77.5%) had a high risk of choledocholithiasis, and 9 (22.5%) had an intermediate risk. In 16 (51.6%) of the 31 patients with a high risk, the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis was confirmed. In 2 (22.2%) of the 9 patients with an intermediate risk, the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis was also confirmed. The high risk score for choledocholithiasis had a positive predictive value of 52% and a sensitivity of 89%. The intermediate risk score for choledocholithiasis had a positive predictive value of 22% and a sensitivity of 11%. Discussion and Conclusions: Suspicion of choledocholithiasis in patients with acute cholecystitis was a rare event (<1%). The sensitivity of the high risk score was approximately the same as found in published series with patients with suspected choledocholithiasis overall (86%), while the positive predictive value was substantially lower (52 vs. 79.8%). Therefore, in patients with acute cholecystitis and suspected choledocholithiasis, this score should not be used to screen for common bile duct stones, and a sensitive method should be used prior to ERCP.