Role of wireless capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel

Capsule endoscopy (CE) offers state-of-the-art imaging of the small bowel. In Crohn's disease its clinical role is still uncertain. This report analyses the usefulness of CE in patients with suspected Cronh's disease, in patients with established Crohn's disease (when assessing severity, occult gastrointestinal bleeding and/or as a guide to therapy), in patients with inflammatory bowel disease unclassified (IBDU), and in individuals with ulcerative colitis. The first item in this group is the most important although there is no strong evidence to establish the position of CE in the diagnostic workup. In patients with established Crohn's disease, recently developed activity scores are promising tools for an accurate assessment of severity. As a guide to therapy, CE should be focused on patients with unexplained symptoms when other investigations are inconclusive. In postoperative Crohn's Disease, international consensus recommended considering CE only if ileocolonoscopy is contraindicated or unsuccessful. In the case of IBDU, studies have shown a significant proportion of patients reclassified with Crohn's disease. In this setting, CE could have a role determining small bowel involvement. The role of CE in ulcerative colitis is limited. Some authors advocate CE before colectomy for refractory cases in order to exclude Crohn's disease. In summary, CE offers a new horizon in inflammatory bowel disease, and a better knowledge of mucosal abnormalities that could offer a paradigm shift: changing from symptom-based disease activity estimation to direct mucosal healing monitoring. Nevertheless, randomized controlled studies are still needed to provide stronger evidence in this setting.

Evaluación económica de la monoterapia con tocilizumab frente a adalimumab en artritis reumatoide.

BACKGROUND Tocilizumab (TCZ) was superior to adalimumab (ADA), as monotherapy, in reducing signs and symptoms of adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when methotrexate (MTX) treatment is poorly tolerated or inappropriate. The aim of the study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of TCZ vs ADA in these patients. METHODS Economic evaluation of the cost per response or remission of TCZ vs ADA from ADACTA (time horizon: 24 weeks). Clinical response criteria ACR or disease remission criteria, DAS28. PERSPECTIVE National Health System. The costs included (acquisition, administration and monitoring of medicines; € 2012) were obtained from Spanish sources. Simple univariate sensitivity analyzes were performed. RESULTS ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 response rates with TCZ and ADA were obtained in 65% and 49.4% (p <0.01), 47.2% and 27.8% (p <0.01); and 32.5% and 17.9% (p <0.01) of patients, respectively. DAS28 remission occurred in 39.9% and 10.5%, respectively (p <0.0001). The cost per response was lower with TCZ than with ADA (ACR20: € 8,105 and € 11,553; ACR50: € 11,162 and € 20,529; ACR70: € 16,211 and € 31,882) respectively. The cost of DAS28 remission was € 13,204 and € 54,352, respectively. Treatment with TCZ was dominant (more effective, with lower costs vs ADA) in all scenarios analyzed. CONCLUSIONS According to this analysis, in Spain TCZ monotherapy is an efficient strategy vs ADA for treating RA patients intolerant to MTX or in which there is inappropriate response.