Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Our understanding of malignancy associated with immunosuppression in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) comes from studies of individuals with no history of cancer. We investigated whether patients with IBD and a history of cancer who were subsequently immunosuppressed have an increased risk of developing incident cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 333 patients with IBD treated at 7 academic medical centers who developed cancer and subsequently received treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), anti-TNF with an anti-metabolite (thiopurines, methotrexate), anti-metabolites, or no subsequent exposure to immunosuppressive agents (controls). We collected data on their primary outcomes of incident cancers (new or recurrent). Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards and Kaplan-Meier survival curves; study groups were compared using the Log-Rank test. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 90 patients (27%) developed an incident cancer. Patient characteristics between groups differed, but matching was not possible due to the relatively small sample sizes. There was no difference in time to (p=0.14) or type of (p= 0.61) incident cancer among the 4 groups. After adjusting for recurrence risk for type of prior cancer, there was no difference in risk of incident cancer (HR for anti-TNF=0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-1.09; HR for anti-TNF with an anti-metabolite=0.64; 95% CI, 0.26-1.59; HR for an anti-metabolite=1.08; 95% CI, 0.54-2.15) or time to subsequent cancer between study arms (p=.22). CONCLUSION: Based on a retrospective study, in patients with IBD and a history of cancer, exposure to an anti-TNF agent or an anti-metabolite following cancer was not associated with an increased risk of incident cancer, compared to patients who did not receive immunosuppression. Larger, matched, prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

: Chronic proctitis refers to persistent or relapsing inflammation of the rectum, which results from a wide range of etiologies with various pathogenic mechanisms. The patients may share similar clinical presentations. Ulcerative proctitis, chronic radiation proctitis or proctopathy, and diversion proctitis are the 3 most common forms of chronic proctitis. Although the diagnosis of these disease entities may be straightforward in the most instances based on the clinical history, endoscopic, and histologic features, differential diagnosis may sometimes become problematic, especially when their etiologies and the disease processes overlap. The treatment for the 3 forms of chronic proctitis is different, which may shed some lights on their pathogenetic pathway. This article provides an overview of the latest data on the clinical features, etiologies, diagnosis, and management of ulcerative proctitis, chronic radiation proctopathy, and diversion proctitis.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab is used to treat moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD), but its efficacy varies. Although cigarette smoking worsens CD, its impact on the infliximab response is unknown. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials to determine the effect of smoking on the induction response to infliximab. METHODS: A systematic search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register for publications, and abstracts from major conferences from January 1996 to December 2010. Random effects meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method was conducted. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the Q statistic, the I2 statistic, and tau2. RESULTS: We identified 12 articles; four were excluded due to use of non-validated scoring systems.The remaining eight included a total of 1658 patients, with 649 active smokers. Luminal response was assessed by the Crohn's Disease Activity Index in four studies (three of which included fistula response) and the Harvey-Bradshaw index in two (both including fistula response), and two studies examined only the fistula response. The relative risk for response to infliximab among smokers was 0.99 (95% CI 0.88-1.11) (tau2 = 0.0143). Analyses of the five studies examining both inflammatory and fistulizing CD were similar to the analysis of all eight studies. The pooled relative risk was 0.92 (95% CI 0.80-1.06) (tau2 = 0.0154). CONCLUSION: Though smoking worsens CD, this meta-analysis does not show a negative effect of smoking on initial response to infliximab. This must be viewed in the proper context, as long-term maintenance of response may yet be influenced by smoking status.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral lubiprostone for relieving symptoms of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with chronic noncancer pain. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Seventy-nine US and Canadian centers. SUBJECTS: Patients aged >/= 18 years with OIC, defined as <3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week. METHODS: Patients received lubiprostone 24 mcg or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in SBM frequency at week 8. RESULTS: Among randomized patients (N=418; lubiprostone, N=210; placebo, N=208), most completed the study (lubiprostone, 67.1%; placebo, 69.7%). The safety and efficacy (intent-to-treat) populations included 414 (lubiprostone, N=208; placebo, N=206) and 413 (lubiprostone, N=209; placebo, N=204) patients, respectively. The mean (standard deviation) age was 50.4 (10.9) years; most patients were female (64.4%) and white (77.7%). Changes from baseline in SBM frequency rates were significantly higher at week 8 (P=0.005) and overall (P=0.004) in patients treated with lubiprostone compared with placebo. Pairwise comparisons showed significantly greater overall improvement for abdominal discomfort (P=0.047), straining (P<0.001), constipation severity (P=0.007), and stool consistency (P<0.001) with lubiprostone compared with placebo. Moreover, patients rated the effectiveness of lubiprostone as significantly (P<0.05) better than placebo for 11 of 12 weeks. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) with lubiprostone and placebo were nausea (16.8% vs 5.8%, respectively), diarrhea (9.6% vs 2.9%), and abdominal distention (8.2% vs 2.4%). No lubiprostone-related serious AEs occurred. CONCLUSION: Lubiprostone effectively relieved OIC and associated signs and symptoms and was well tolerated in patients with chronic noncancer pain (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00595946).