Hôpital Beaujon

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is thatthere is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the completeprocess including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increasedautophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in manycases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as forreviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multipleassays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagyrelated protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

BACKGROUND: Lu)-Dotatate in patients with advanced, progressive, somatostatin-receptor-positive midgut neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: Lu-Dotatate group) or octreotide LAR alone (113 patients) administered intramuscularly at a dose of 60 mg every 4 weeks (control group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, safety, and the side-effect profile. The final analysis of overall survival will be conducted in the future as specified in the protocol; a prespecified interim analysis of overall survival was conducted and is reported here. RESULTS: Lu-Dotatate group as compared with no patients in the control group, with no evidence of renal toxic effects during the observed time frame. CONCLUSIONS: Lu-Dotatate group. (Funded by Advanced Accelerator Applications; NETTER-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01578239 ; EudraCT number 2011-005049-11 .).

BACKGROUND: Among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) leads to longer overall survival than gemcitabine therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 493 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to receive a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (oxaliplatin [85 mg per square meter of body-surface area], irinotecan [180 mg per square meter, reduced to 150 mg per square meter after a protocol-specified safety analysis], leucovorin [400 mg per square meter], and fluorouracil [2400 mg per square meter] every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the median disease-free survival was 21.6 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 12.8 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for cancer-related event, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.73; P<0.001). The disease-free survival rate at 3 years was 39.7% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 21.4% in the gemcitabine group. The median overall survival was 54.4 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 35.0 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 63.4% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 48.6% in the gemcitabine group. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 75.9% of the patients in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and in 52.9% of those in the gemcitabine group. One patient in the gemcitabine group died from toxic effects (interstitial pneumonitis). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects. (Funded by R&D Unicancer and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526135 ; EudraCT number, 2011-002026-52 .).

BACKGROUND: Treatment with pegylated interferon (peginterferon) and ribavirin for 48 weeks is more effective than conventional interferon and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of 24 or 48 weeks of treatment with peginterferon-alpha2a plus a low or standard dose of ribavirin. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind trial. SETTING: 99 international centers. PATIENTS: 1311 patients with chronic hepatitis C. INTERVENTION: Peginterferon-alpha2a, 180 microg/wk, for 24 or 48 weeks plus a low-dose (800 mg/d) or standard weight-based dose (1000 or 1200 mg/d) of ribavirin. MEASUREMENT: Sustained virologic response: undetectable HCV RNA concentration at the end of treatment and during 12 to 24 weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: Overall and in patients infected with HCV genotype 1, 48 weeks of treatment was statistically superior to 24 weeks and standard-dose ribavirin was statistically superior to low-dose ribavirin. In patients with HCV genotype 1, absolute differences in sustained virologic response rates between 48 and 24 weeks of treatment were 11.2% (95% CI, 3.6% to 18.9%) and 11.9% (CI, 4.7% to 18.9%), respectively, between standard- and low-dose ribavirin. Sustained virologic response rates for peginterferon-alpha2a and standard-dose ribavirin for 48 weeks were 63% (CI, 59% to 68%) overall and 52% (CI, 46% to 58%) in patients with HCV genotype 1. In patients with HCV genotypes 2 or 3, the sustained virologic response rates in the 4 treatment groups were not statistically significantly different. CONCLUSION: Treatment with peginterferon-alpha2a and ribavirin may be individualized by genotype. Patients with HCV genotype 1 require treatment for 48 weeks and a standard dose of ribavirin; those with HCV genotypes 2 or 3 seem to be adequately treated with a low dose of ribavirin for 24 weeks.

BACKGROUND: The multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib has shown activity against pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in preclinical models and phase 1 and 2 trials. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of sunitinib in patients with advanced, well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. All patients had Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease progression documented within 12 months before baseline. A total of 171 patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive best supportive care with either sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg per day or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival; secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The study was discontinued early, after the independent data and safety monitoring committee observed more serious adverse events and deaths in the placebo group as well as a difference in progression-free survival favoring sunitinib. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the sunitinib group as compared with 5.5 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.66; P<0.001). A Cox proportional-hazards analysis of progression-free survival according to baseline characteristics favored sunitinib in all subgroups studied. The objective response rate was 9.3% in the sunitinib group versus 0% in the placebo group. At the data cutoff point, 9 deaths were reported in the sunitinib group (10%) versus 21 deaths in the placebo group (25%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89; P=0.02). The most frequent adverse events in the sunitinib group were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous daily administration of sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and the objective response rate as compared with placebo among patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00428597.).

Hundreds of individual human cancer genome sequences are expected to be published in 2010, and thousands per year after that. The International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) was launched with the aim of keeping track of the data relating to large-scale cancer genome studies of all major cancers in adults and children — a total of 50 different cancer types and/or subtypes. In this issue the ICGC team ( http://www.icgc.org ) spells out the policies and planning for the project. The International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) was launched to coordinate large-scale cancer genome studies in tumours from 50 different cancer types and/or subtypes that are of clinical and societal importance across the globe. Systematic studies of more than 25,000 cancer genomes at the genomic, epigenomic and transcriptomic levels will reveal the repertoire of oncogenic mutations, uncover traces of the mutagenic influences, define clinically relevant subtypes for prognosis and therapeutic management, and enable the development of new cancer therapies.

BACKGROUND: In phase 2 trials, telaprevir, a hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 protease inhibitor, in combination with peginterferon-ribavirin, as compared with peginterferon-ribavirin alone, has shown improved efficacy, with potential for shortening the duration of treatment in a majority of patients. METHODS: In this international, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 1088 patients with HCV genotype 1 infection who had not received previous treatment for the infection to one of three groups: a group receiving telaprevir combined with peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin for 12 weeks (T12PR group), followed by peginterferon-ribavirin alone for 12 weeks if HCV RNA was undetectable at weeks 4 and 12 or for 36 weeks if HCV RNA was detectable at either time point; a group receiving telaprevir with peginterferon-ribavirin for 8 weeks and placebo with peginterferon-ribavirin for 4 weeks (T8PR group), followed by 12 or 36 weeks of peginterferon-ribavirin on the basis of the same HCV RNA criteria; or a group receiving placebo with peginterferon-ribavirin for 12 weeks, followed by 36 weeks of peginterferon-ribavirin (PR group). The primary end point was the proportion of patients who had undetectable plasma HCV RNA 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment (sustained virologic response). RESULTS: Significantly more patients in the T12PR or T8PR group than in the PR group had a sustained virologic response (75% and 69%, respectively, vs. 44%; P<0.001 for the comparison of the T12PR or T8PR group with the PR group). A total of 58% of the patients treated with telaprevir were eligible to receive 24 weeks of total treatment. Anemia, gastrointestinal side effects, and skin rashes occurred at a higher incidence among patients receiving telaprevir than among those receiving peginterferon-ribavirin alone. The overall rate of discontinuation of the treatment regimen owing to adverse events was 10% in the T12PR and T8PR groups and 7% in the PR group. CONCLUSIONS: Telaprevir with peginterferon-ribavirin, as compared with peginterferon-ribavirin alone, was associated with significantly improved rates of sustained virologic response in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection who had not received previous treatment, with only 24 weeks of therapy administered in the majority of patients. (Funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Tibotec; ADVANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00627926.).

Fibrosis is a common endpoint of clinical trials in chronic hepatitis C, and liver biopsy remains the gold standard for fibrosis evaluation. However, variability in the distribution of fibrosis within the liver is a potential limitation. Our aim was to assess the heterogeneity of liver fibrosis and its influence on the accuracy of assessment of fibrosis with liver biopsy. Surgical samples of livers from patients with chronic hepatitis C were studied. Measurement of fibrosis was performed on the whole section by using both image analysis and METAVIR score (reference value). From the digitized image of the whole section, virtual biopsy specimens of increasing length were produced. Fibrosis was assessed independently on each individual virtual biopsy specimen. Results were compared with the reference value according to the length of the biopsy specimen. By using image analysis, the coefficient of variation of fibrosis measurement with 15-mm long biopsy specimens was 55%; and for biopsy specimens of 25-mm length it was 45%. By using the METAVIR scoring system, 65% of biopsies 15 mm in length were categorized correctly according to the reference value. This increased to 75% for a 25-mm liver biopsy specimen without any substantial benefit for longer biopsy specimens. Sampling variability of fibrosis is a significant limitation in the assessment of fibrosis with liver biopsy. In conclusion, this study suggests that a length of at least 25 mm is necessary to evaluate fibrosis accurately with a semiquantitative score. Sampling variability becomes a major limitation when using more accurate methods such as automated image analysis.

PURPOSE Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and safety in the phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted at 119 medical centers in 27 countries. Eligible patients with advanced HCC, previously treated with sorafenib, were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS; one-sided significance thresholds, P = .0174 [final analysis] and P = .002 [first interim analysis], respectively). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug. RESULTS Between May 31, 2016, and November 23, 2017, 413 patients were randomly assigned. As of January 2, 2019, median follow-up was 13.8 months for pembrolizumab and 10.6 months for placebo. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 16.0 months) for pembrolizumab versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.5 months) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.781; 95% CI, 0.611 to 0.998; P = .0238). Median PFS for pembrolizumab was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.1 months) for placebo at the first interim analysis (HR, 0.775; 95% CI, 0.609 to 0.987; P = .0186) and 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0 months) at final analysis (HR, 0.718; 95% CI, 0.570 to 0.904; P = .0022). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 147 (52.7%) and 62 patients (46.3%) for pembrolizumab versus placebo; those that were treatment related occurred in 52 (18.6%) and 10 patients (7.5%), respectively. No hepatitis C or B flares were identified. CONCLUSION In this study, OS and PFS did not reach statistical significance per specified criteria. The results are consistent with those of KEYNOTE-224, supporting a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio for pembrolizumab in this population.

Survivals of two series of CLL patients (99 from a retrospective series and 196 from a prospective series) were studied separately. The three main staging systems (Rai, Binet, Rundles) agreed well, but as far as survival is concerned, too many stages are defined. The authors performed a Cox multivariate analysis of survival in order to isolate important prognostic factors at diagnosis and to use them to build a simple three-stage classification. Thrombopenia and anemia appeared as the most important risk factors. Among the nonanemic and nonthrombopenic patients, the number of involved areas was clearly related to prognosis in the authors' two series. This study allowed the authors to propose a new classification in three prognostic groups. Group C: anemia (Hb less than 10 g) and/or thrombopenia (platelets less than 100,000/mm3); about 15% of the patients; median of 2 years. Group B: no anemia, no thrombopenia, three or more involved areas (counting as one each of the following: axillary, cervical, inguinal, lymph nodes, whether unilateral or bilateral, spleen and liver); about 30% of patients; median of 7 years. Group A: no anemia, no thrombopenia, less than three involved areas; about 55% of patients; the survival of this group does not seem different from that of the French population of the same age and sex distribution. This three-stage classification only requires clinical examination and routine hemogram, has a good prognostic value which was confirmed on the series of Montserrat and Rozman (146 patients), and should therefore be helpful in planning new clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a progressive liver disease with no approved treatment. Resmetirom is an oral, liver-directed, thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist in development for the treatment of NASH with liver fibrosis. METHODS: We are conducting an ongoing phase 3 trial involving adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH and a fibrosis stage of F1B, F2, or F3 (stages range from F0 [no fibrosis] to F4 [cirrhosis]). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily resmetirom at a dose of 80 mg or 100 mg or placebo. The two primary end points at week 52 were NASH resolution (including a reduction in the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] activity score by ≥2 points; scores range from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more severe disease) with no worsening of fibrosis, and an improvement (reduction) in fibrosis by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score. RESULTS: Overall, 966 patients formed the primary analysis population (322 in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 323 in the 100-mg resmetirom group, and 321 in the placebo group). NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis was achieved in 25.9% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 29.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 9.7% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Fibrosis improvement by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score was achieved in 24.2% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 25.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 14.2% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). The change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from baseline to week 24 was -13.6% in the 80-mg resmetirom group and -16.3% in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 0.1% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Diarrhea and nausea were more frequent with resmetirom than with placebo. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across trial groups: 10.9% in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 12.7% in the 100-mg resmetirom group, and 11.5% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the 80-mg dose and the 100-mg dose of resmetirom were superior to placebo with respect to NASH resolution and improvement in liver fibrosis by at least one stage. (Funded by Madrigal Pharmaceuticals; MAESTRO-NASH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03900429.).

BACKGROUND: In phase 2 studies, treatment with the all-oral combination of the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir and the NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir resulted in high rates of sustained virologic response among previously untreated patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, open-label study involving previously untreated patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive ledipasvir and sofosbuvir in a fixed-dose combination tablet once daily for 12 weeks, ledipasvir-sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks, ledipasvir-sofosbuvir for 24 weeks, or ledipasvir-sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 24 weeks. The primary end point was a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Of the 865 patients who underwent randomization and were treated, 16% had cirrhosis, 12% were black, and 67% had HCV genotype 1a infection. The rates of sustained virologic response were 99% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96 to 100) in the group that received 12 weeks of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir; 97% (95% CI, 94 to 99) in the group that received 12 weeks of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir plus ribavirin; 98% (95% CI, 95 to 99) in the group that received 24 weeks of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir; and 99% (95% CI, 97 to 100) in the group that received 24 weeks of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir plus ribavirin. No patient in either 12-week group discontinued ledipasvir-sofosbuvir owing to an adverse event. The most common adverse events were fatigue, headache, insomnia, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily ledipasvir-sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks was highly effective in previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; ION-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01701401.).

AIMS: Large randomized trials have shown that beta-blockers reduce mortality and hospital admissions in patients with heart failure. The effects of beta-blockers in elderly patients with a broad range of left ventricular ejection fraction are uncertain. The SENIORS study was performed to assess effects of the beta-blocker, nebivolol, in patients >/=70 years, regardless of ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 2128 patients aged >/=70 years with a history of heart failure (hospital admission for heart failure within the previous year or known ejection fraction </=35%), 1067 to nebivolol (titrated from 1.25 mg once daily to 10 mg once daily), and 1061 to placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of all cause mortality or cardiovascular hospital admission (time to first event). Analysis was by intention to treat. Mean duration of follow-up was 21 months. Mean age was 76 years (SD 4.7), 37% were female, mean ejection fraction was 36% (with 35% having ejection fraction >35%), and 68% had a prior history of coronary heart disease. The mean maintenance dose of nebivolol was 7.7 mg and of placebo 8.5 mg. The primary outcome occurred in 332 patients (31.1%) on nebivolol compared with 375 (35.3%) on placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99; P=0.039]. There was no significant influence of age, gender, or ejection fraction on the effect of nebivolol on the primary outcome. Death (all causes) occurred in 169 (15.8%) on nebivolol and 192 (18.1%) on placebo (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.71-1.08; P=0.21). CONCLUSION: Nebivolol, a beta-blocker with vasodilating properties, is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for heart failure in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 who do not have a sustained response to therapy with peginterferon-ribavirin, outcomes after retreatment are suboptimal. Boceprevir, a protease inhibitor that binds to the HCV nonstructural 3 (NS3) active site, has been suggested as an additional treatment. METHODS: To assess the effect of the combination of boceprevir and peginterferon-ribavirin for retreatment of patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection, we randomly assigned patients (in a 1:2:2 ratio) to one of three groups. In all three groups, peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin were administered for 4 weeks (the lead-in period). Subsequently, group 1 (control group) received placebo plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 44 weeks; group 2 received boceprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 32 weeks, and patients with a detectable HCV RNA level at week 8 received placebo plus peginterferon-ribavirin for an additional 12 weeks; and group 3 received boceprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 44 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 403 patients were treated. The rate of sustained virologic response was significantly higher in the two boceprevir groups (group 2, 59%; group 3, 66%) than in the control group (21%, P<0.001). Among patients with an undetectable HCV RNA level at week 8, the rate of sustained virologic response was 86% after 32 weeks of triple therapy and 88% after 44 weeks of triple therapy. Among the 102 patients with a decrease in the HCV RNA level of less than 1 log(10) IU per milliliter at treatment week 4, the rates of sustained virologic response were 0%, 33%, and 34% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Anemia was significantly more common in the boceprevir groups than in the control group, and erythropoietin was administered in 41 to 46% of boceprevir-treated patients and 21% of controls. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of boceprevir to peginterferon-ribavirin resulted in significantly higher rates of sustained virologic response in previously treated patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection, as compared with peginterferon-ribavirin alone. (Funded by Schering-Plough [now Merck]; HCV RESPOND-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00708500.).

The need for standards in the management of patients with endocrine tumors of the digestive system prompted the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) to organize a first Consensus Conference, which was held in Frascati (Rome) and was based on the recently published ENETS guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of digestive neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Here, we report the tumor-node-metastasis proposal for foregut NETs of the stomach, duodenum, and pancreas that was designed, discussed, and consensually approved at this conference. In addition, we report the proposal for a working formulation for the grading of digestive NETs based on mitotic count and Ki-67 index. This proposal, which needs to be validated, is meant to help clinicians in the stratification, treatment, and follow-up of patients.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for chronic hepatitis B are suboptimal. In the search for improved therapies, we compared the efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon alfa plus lamivudine, pegylated interferon alfa without lamivudine, and lamivudine alone for the treatment of hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B. METHODS: A total of 814 patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B received either peginterferon alfa-2a (180 microg once weekly) plus oral placebo, peginterferon alfa-2a plus lamivudine (100 mg daily), or lamivudine alone. The majority of patients in the study were Asian (87 percent). Most patients were infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotype B or C. Patients were treated for 48 weeks and followed for an additional 24 weeks. RESULTS: After 24 weeks of follow-up, significantly more patients who received peginterferon alfa-2a monotherapy or peginterferon alfa-2a plus lamivudine than those who received lamivudine monotherapy had HBeAg seroconversion (32 percent vs. 19 percent [P<0.001] and 27 percent vs. 19 percent [P=0.02], respectively) or HBV DNA levels below 100,000 copies per milliliter (32 percent vs. 22 percent [P=0.01] and 34 percent vs. 22 percent [P=0.003], respectively). Sixteen patients receiving peginterferon alfa-2a (alone or in combination) had hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seroconversion, as compared with 0 in the group receiving lamivudine alone (P=0.001). The most common adverse events were those known to occur with therapies based on interferon alfa. Serious adverse events occurred in 4 percent, 6 percent, and 2 percent of patients receiving peginterferon alfa-2a monotherapy, combination therapy, and lamivudine monotherapy, respectively. Two patients receiving lamivudine monotherapy had irreversible liver failure after the cessation of treatment--one underwent liver transplantation, and the other died. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B, peginterferon alfa-2a offers superior efficacy over lamivudine, on the basis of HBeAg seroconversion, HBV DNA suppression, and HBsAg seroconversion.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current world position on laparoscopic liver surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Multiple series have reported on the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver surgery. Small and medium sized procedures have become commonplace in many centers, while major laparoscopic liver resections have been performed with efficacy and safety equaling open surgery in highly specialized centers. Although the field has begun to expand rapidly, no consensus meeting has been convened to discuss the evolving field of laparoscopic liver surgery. METHODS: On November 7 to 8, 2008, 45 experts in hepatobiliary surgery were invited to participate in a consensus conference convened in Louisville, KY, US. In addition, over 300 attendees were present from 5 continents. The conference was divided into sessions, with 2 moderators assigned to each, so as to stimulate discussion and highlight controversies. The format of the meeting varied from formal presentation of experiential data to expert opinion debates. Written and video records of the presentations were produced. Specific areas of discussion included indications for surgery, patient selection, surgical techniques, complications, patient safety, and surgeon training. RESULTS: The consensus conference used the terms pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy, and the hybrid technique to define laparoscopic liver procedures. Currently acceptable indications for laparoscopic liver resection are patients with solitary lesions, 5 cm or less, located in liver segments 2 to 6. The laparoscopic approach to left lateral sectionectomy should be considered standard practice. Although all types of liver resection can be performed laparoscopically, major liver resections (eg, right or left hepatectomies) should be reserved for experienced surgeons facile with more advanced laparoscopic hepatic resections. Conversion should be performed for difficult resections requiring extended operating times, and for patient safety, and should be considered prudent surgical practice rather than failure. In emergent situations, efforts should be made to control bleeding before converting to a formal open approach. Utilization of a hand assist or hybrid technique may be faster, safer, and more efficacious. Indications for surgery for benign hepatic lesions should not be widened simply because the surgery can be done laparoscopically. Although data presented on colorectal metastases did not reveal an adverse effect of the laparoscopic approach on oncological outcomes in terms of margins or survival, adequacy of margins and ability to detect occult lesions are concerns. The pure laparoscopic technique of left lateral sectionectomy was used for adult to child donation while the hybrid approach has been the only one reported to date in the case of adult to adult right lobe donation. Laparoscopic liver surgery has not been tested by controlled trials for efficacy or safety. A prospective randomized trial appears to be logistically prohibitive; however, an international registry should be initiated to document the role and safety of laparoscopic liver resection. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe and effective approach to the management of surgical liver disease in the hands of trained surgeons with experience in hepatobiliary and laparoscopic surgery. National and international societies, as well as governing boards, should become involved in the goal of establishing training standards and credentialing, to ensure consistent standards and clinical outcomes.

Liver fibrosis is the main predictor of the progression of chronic hepatitis C, and its assessment by liver biopsy (LB) can help determine therapy. However, biopsy is an invasive procedure with several limitations. A new, noninvasive medical device based on transient elastography has been designed to measure liver stiffness. The aim of this study was to investigate the use of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) in the evaluation of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. We prospectively enrolled 327 patients with chronic hepatitis C in a multicenter study. Patients underwent LB and LSM. METAVIR liver fibrosis stages were assessed on biopsy specimens by 2 pathologists. LSM was performed by transient elastography. Efficiency of LSM and optimal cutoff values for fibrosis stage assessment were determined by a receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis and cross-validated by the jack-knife method. LSM was well correlated with fibrosis stage (Kendall correlation coefficient: 0.55; P < .0001). The areas under ROC curves were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84) for F > or =2, 0.91 (0.87-0.96) for F > or =3, and 0.97 (0.93-1) for F=4; for larger biopsies, these values were, respectively, 0.81, 0.95, and 0.99. Optimal stiffness cutoff values of 8.7 and 14.5 kPa showed F > or =2 and F=4, respectively. In conclusion, noninvasive assessment of liver stiffness with transient elastography appears as a reliable tool to detect significant fibrosis or cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation with the use of low tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure is considered best practice in the care of many critically ill patients. However, its role in anesthetized patients undergoing major surgery is not known. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned 400 adults at intermediate to high risk of pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery to either nonprotective mechanical ventilation or a strategy of lung-protective ventilation. The primary outcome was a composite of major pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications occurring within the first 7 days after surgery. RESULTS: The two intervention groups had similar characteristics at baseline. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 21 of 200 patients (10.5%) assigned to lung-protective ventilation, as compared with 55 of 200 (27.5%) assigned to nonprotective ventilation (relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 0.68; P=0.001). Over the 7-day postoperative period, 10 patients (5.0%) assigned to lung-protective ventilation required noninvasive ventilation or intubation for acute respiratory failure, as compared with 34 (17.0%) assigned to nonprotective ventilation (relative risk, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.61; P=0.001). The length of the hospital stay was shorter among patients receiving lung-protective ventilation than among those receiving nonprotective ventilation (mean difference, -2.45 days; 95% CI, -4.17 to -0.72; P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a practice of nonprotective mechanical ventilation, the use of a lung-protective ventilation strategy in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery was associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced health care utilization. (IMPROVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01282996.).

Crohn’s disease [CD] is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] that can result in progressive bowel damage and disability.1 CD can affect individuals of any age, from children to the elderly,2,3 and may cause significant morbidity and impact on quality of life. Up to one-third of patients present with complicated behaviour [strictures, fistula, or abscesses] at diagnosis.4 Most patients over time will develop a complication, with roughly 50% of patients requiring surgery within 10 years of diagnosis.5–7 As the precise aetiology of CD remains unknown, a curative therapy is not yet available.8 Several agents are available for the medical treatment of CD. Medical agents include mesalazine [5-ASA], locally active steroids [such as budesonide], systemic steroids, thiopurines such as azathioprine [AZA] and mercaptopurine [MP], methotrexate [MTX], and biologic therapies (such as anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF], anti-integrins, and anti-interleukin [IL] 12/23]. The European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] produces and regularly updates several guidelines aimed at providing evidence-based guidance on critical aspects of IBD care to all health care professionals who manage patients with IBD. To provide high-quality evidence-based recommendations on medical treatment in CD, ECCO decided to develop these guidelines by adopting the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation] approach.9 GRADE is a systematic process for developing guidelines which addresses how to frame the health care questions, summarise the evidence, formulate the recommendations, and grade their strength and the quality of the associated evidence. GRADE increases transparency at all levels of this process and makes explicit the three considerations that lead to a particular recommendation: the quality of the evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, and the patients’ values and preferences. Therefore ECCO reviewed the available high-quality evidence on the medical management of CD and developed evidence-based recommendations on the medical treatment of adult patients with CD. These guidelines do not cover specific situations, such as postoperative management of adult patients with CD, which was already covered in the latest ECCO Guidelines on Crohn’s disease.10 Based on the GRADE workflow, the Guidelines Committee of ECCO [GuiCom] selected a panel of 48 experts supported by a team of methodologists and librarians. Selection was based on IBD expertise, scientific background, and knowledge of the GRADE methodology. All panellists received adequate training in GRADE before starting the process. Additionally, four patients with CD representing the European Federation of Crohn’s and Colitis Associations [EFCCA] were invited to participate in all face-to-face meetings and to provide their experiences and state their preferences. Three domains for medical treatment of CD were identified: 1] induction therapy; 2] maintenance therapy; 3] therapy of fistulising perianal disease. All panellists were assigned to one of three working groups coordinated by one to two working group leaders under the supervision of two Guideline coordinators. The panellists first formulated a series of specific questions using the PICO format [Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes] which were deemed to be clinically important for the medical treatment of CD. The outcomes of all PICO questions were subsequently graded as ‘not important’, ‘important’, or ‘critical’ during a face-to-face kick-off meeting in Vienna, using a Delphi consensus process. A team of professional librarians performed a comprehensive literature search on EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Central databases using specific search strings for each PICO question [Supplementary Files 1, 2, and 3, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. Two independent working group members [one assigned to the PICO and another one from the same group as a second reviewer] assessed the relevance of each abstract to PICO and included or excluded all the relevant papers for the final data extraction and analysis. Subsequently, the working group members assigned to each PICO question systematically reviewed and summarised the evidence on every outcome, to compile a Summary of Findings [SoF] table for each question. The GRADE method follows a hierarchical approach to synthesise evidence; recent high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials were preferentially used to create the recommendations. When these were not available, individual randomised clinical trials [RCTs] followed by observational studies were reviewed; results of individual studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis as appropriate and when needed. To define disease activity and severity [mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe], we accepted the definitions used by the investigators of the studies selected as an evidence basis for our work. The quality of evidence was classified into the following four categories in accordance with the GRADE approach: ‘high’ [meaning that further research is unlikely to change our in the research may change our in the research to change our in the and [meaning that any of is each PICO the quality of evidence was to the quality of evidence outcomes graded as The strength of each was graded as [meaning the of an the or or as [meaning the balance is the quality of evidence, values or and the outcomes were not in the clinical this was in the To the recommendations, we from the systematic reviews or our group of methodologists performed the All recommendations were to by the panel the ECCO for each with and from a of ECCO members who to the were not selected to be of the The final of all was panel members during a final consensus meeting in and to a final recommendations were at of the panellists with the and associated strength The of the and and the of the were reviewed by two Guideline Committee members and by the ECCO who the final of these The literature search the relevant definitions of and a of the and the the evidence can be in the Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC As CD is a therapy to in the and in the The that chronic and results in to a recent in medical treatment and disease is that and may patients to their and therapy are to high-quality evidence is not available to this affect the of medical These include disease disease activity and to and of perianal or fistulising the individual for and the individual and the and of each be As is a clinical and is of to disease and therapy at based on and approach will provide the with the to therapy the of of the disease and which is to be to disease to the management of CD a series of health care maintenance be to be and be and appropriate guidance or for and be as in ECCO or the of for induction of of Crohn’s disease performed a meta-analysis of that the of or with in patients with active CD [Supplementary 1, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The of from to patients with disease with or disease were was significant for induction of clinical [Supplementary 1, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. A recent Cochrane significant and to be in our as was significant in to when with [Supplementary 2, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. the trials of was over for clinical [Supplementary 3, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. significant in to was in trials that [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. meta-analysis a significant on clinical the that at of another meta-analysis was to any such A pooled of three trials of a of a in the Crohn’s with the in and was not clinically Two trials with for induction of clinical A pooled a of [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. was not by any significant in for [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. in trials that the of was to patients with The of or for the treatment of CD not in using for the induction of clinical in patients with active Crohn’s disease to the A Cochrane systematic and included three that at a of with [Supplementary 2, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. Two of these clinical as in or at at was in all three was to for clinical and clinical in patients with active CD in the to the As with steroids which are associated with systemic activity and systemic and and a was to be in the reviewed A Cochrane systematic and meta-analysis from reviewed two that at a of with mesalazine to a mesalazine in patients with active CD [Supplementary 3, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. All trials clinical in or and clinical at was not to mesalazine for clinical in patients with active CD in the [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. clinical was in patients in patients mesalazine [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The of was with and in groups [Supplementary and available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. studies the of treatment on CD. and to clinical or with the of these the European on the of to or Therefore a was not on to CD, for the treatment of patients with Crohn’s we the of systemic for the induction of clinical and Two on the of systemic or with for the treatment of active available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. was at a of 48 and on a basis to and of from to with a of is at over an from these studies in a Cochrane systematic patients on induction of clinical was in patients as with were to be as in clinical in the two studies patients on the of patients from the of systemic was available from one patients with The of was in patients with included of and in patients with and in was for the outcomes to which a quality of evidence the of thiopurines as for the induction of of Crohn’s disease Several studies on the of thiopurines with for induction of and in [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. trials the of thiopurines for induction of clinical in with or patients were The active was in four of these and the active was in the The trials were in of of active and of for of the trials for the of The pooled was performed on an basis and for induction of thiopurines and in the active with in the group Three trials on clinical not with of disease these of of disease were of the patients as with of clinical The of clinical was was and to data and the quality of evidence was for this [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. one on during The pooled of any was not and thiopurines were in two of of developed The quality of evidence was deemed to a of and on a quality of The groups was at for and for of the trials on at the of the induction data were available that for a pooled trials in of such as or in thiopurines as with a of at and at and for the thiopurines and a of in the group and a significant in in and one relevant was this patients with active CD were randomised to of or for with a of at that was over a [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. a of patients with were in clinical The of treatment for and was in with this is by and such as the of studies were that for the induction of of CD. was in the the of for CD and the decided to Three and studies the of and thiopurines for induction of in [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. These studies used and of Two studies used at of and and one used at All patients were and received systemic steroids at of the individual studies or the pooled a significant in the to [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. the of is with the data are and the quality of evidence is for can be Based on the evidence, on a for the of for clinical in patients with CD not be may be as an for patients with disease when be The to therapy in patients a be the of and to in patients with Crohn’s disease who not to therapy are and therapies for the treatment of CD include and is not in the European for CD, is available in and is a at a of at 2, and during induction and every is a at a of and followed by every is a at a of at 2, and followed by every on agents and from several meta-analyses of their for induction of clinical and clinical [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC in patients who not adequate or were to data were available for the induction two studies a the evidence was to on clinical were and data on were by to the of patients included in the meta-analysis on outcomes and and and quality of are was in of The of on and in a that with and were to for induction of The of of biologic agents is a of that patients with fistulising perianal complicated from the of to a of or of agents be the first in disease these results are based on from clinical the of and thiopurines over to clinical and one the of therapy of with as with for the induction of clinical in patients to therapies [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. this therapy was not to for clinical therapy was associated with at this was at the of was in to associated with therapy the of used in this was the used in CD patients of therapy with a when starting to in patients with Crohn’s who an to therapy The and Crohn’s the of with over in patients to who to to steroids or [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. therapy in of clinical at as with therapy was to result in at this was in for were of in therapy A in clinical is patients who or an to thiopurines and in therapy is in such maintenance in with the benefits in of A of of the of therapy starting therapy in this be in the of evidence, an approach be for induction of in patients with Crohn’s disease with to therapy to therapy high-quality is an that to the by the and CD, induction be using a of systematic and meta-analysis pooled the results from in which was with for induction of in patients with active available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. patients with or induction of clinical and induction of clinical at were and a meta-analysis was an of clinical of [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The quality of evidence was The of clinical was [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The quality of evidence was CD patients that of patients at as with of The quality of evidence was on or The pooled of any was not and [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. the pooled of any was not and [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC the quality of evidence was The of to be for induction of and in patients with Crohn’s disease with to therapy to therapy is a that by the in is at a of at 2, and for and every who do not at can from an at Three randomised trials patients with or on induction of clinical induction of clinical and in adult patients with active available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. in these studies were followed for to 10 was in patients with [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. clinical was in patients with [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The quality of evidence for these outcomes was of with were not with [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The quality of evidence for this was to from the of or for the treatment of active Crohn’s disease in patients who therapy systematic and meta-analysis performed an of and for induction of in patients with active CD who were or to a of patients with or on induction of clinical and clinical [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The pooled of clinical and clinical were not and the quality of evidence was for a of patients with or on or The pooled of any was not and the pooled of any was not and the quality of evidence was surgery be as an in is for the induction of in patients with CD, as a and of at or a or a Crohn’s of with and is a knowledge on how to CD in of the the and or in patients with disease. Therefore the is to the who the individual and of systemic steroids are in in CD, are by important Additionally, of not disease Therefore we that the of or to steroids the of 10 or within of starting steroids, a within of steroids, or the for a of in all a are not in thiopurines a of and are for in CD patients are with steroids at the of patients with a of steroids and in at and is associated with a of this may be medical and surgery are not or are associated with individual patients with CD as a or with or to therapy we the of These include agents [such as and or All these agents are in and CD The on and and the induction of in the of with thiopurines is for of therapy over was in the performed to The the of or the of and over or in with this be and in The for the of Crohn’s that the of with in patients at of as with a was associated with of and for surgery in patients with A that is associated with to clinical the and of therapy to be a in in the therapy not to be associated with at in the a that therapy is associated with for and as with Therefore the is to the who and to be as specific such as the at for or and at for specific such as patients who or are is evidence on the and in patients with or as a first assessed the and of these agents when used in therapy as with to be in the in was in patients with in patients with CD with disease or to at one surgery be as an the of a for induction of and for using of clinical the or of therapy not on on the disease severity impact of disease in the individual the and for the inflammatory of and disease appropriate studies that the of over a on the of and and that for disease be studies were by this as important research the of for maintenance of in patients with Crohn’s disease for the maintenance of of CD [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. significant [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. trials that assessed and were from to with trials a of were significant in the of patients an or to or The data were and this [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. are for the maintenance of in patients with Crohn’s disease The of maintenance treatment with or to patients with CD who are in one [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. meta-analysis included data from trials and A of patients with to were included and followed for to was to in disease activity in was to for the maintenance of in patients outcomes were in four trials and a of patients followed for to The of during maintenance treatment with thiopurines was with The of in patients with thiopurines was and were the the of therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease for that the of thiopurines disease Two studies the of of the for of Crohn’s disease in and the trials [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The excluded from our table was not or the adult patients with a recent of CD were randomised to or to were to active disease in this The results were not significant for any of the critical outcomes of clinical not the two groups patients with and were in The of as and were in patients in the group and in the group methotrexate for the maintenance of in patients with Crohn’s disease on the of are from one patients were of or of for [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. with active CD, who to of treatment with were assigned to at a of or for for CD were the of patients who in was in the group in the group 50% of the patients in the group by the of the were in in the group as with the group over the observational [one and the a and patients in the group in the of the was one treatment of these of severity to treatment or from the The of was in patients with Crohn’s disease who with maintenance treatment using the same treatment is Two systematic reviews the of maintenance treatment with and to patients with CD who disease with the same [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. trials and were pooled in the meta-analysis from one was on two on and two on A of patients were included and followed for to of the studies included and one included all was as a The of with was The following values were with with and with A significant the three are pooled data available on of all as a performed in the of a Cochrane the for for and were and with is as with for the maintenance of in CD the and of do not the of that may in and observational for clinical in patients with Crohn’s disease who with at every was to in clinical in patients with CD who with [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. patients every and patients every were in clinical as with patients and was at clinical and a of with data are to the the of to clinical in patients with Crohn’s disease who with outcomes for the maintenance of with in CD patients [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC to in the induction were to every or or a of the patients were in clinical as with of A that at clinical was by of patients every and by of patients every as with in the The treatment every and was and was treatment every and Therefore was every or was in of patients of patients The pooled of any was not patients who were and are data on as this was assessed in a of patients at was significant in patients in the group as with patients in the treatment were during the of were and with significant in the and was an of in the maintenance groups patients in and data are to the are randomised trials or with agents for the maintenance of clinical in patients with CD who or with the same A included trials used the to define clinical with The a time of All were the the the quality of evidence was specific was the in the maintenance Based on is evidence to to or in patients who to induction treatment with any or is a to that and to trials that for the of who from a biologic over the Crohn’s disease patients in clinical under is evidence to for or the of to clinical outcomes as to care from two with a of patients with CD were used to this [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. These two of over clinically based for any of our critical clinical [one clinical [one [one [one or [one the a of IBD patients with to maintenance therapy were randomised to or groups were or to a and of the that in patients in clinical a or was in and of in clinical or at were and based the group who received during the patients with CD, with an induction therapy with and were randomised to the following three based on clinical and levels of with of or of or based on clinical The was to a was in clinical with from to in the three in in in studies important in their which the strength of our The outcomes in studies were clinical important such as and to be The in Crohn’s that is on and and that during the induction may outcomes and treatment the that with adequate of patients are Crohn’s disease patients who to an is evidence to for or the of to clinical outcomes to the of in patients on therapy with active to the of of and to clinical was with on clinical in one in a of patients with CD with were randomised to every or based on and levels using the was in clinical the group and the group [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. studies a adequate and clinical outcomes from clinical to Based on these observational recent clinical guidelines and a group of experts supported the of the quality of evidence from observational a of patients with active IBD with who and clinical were for and at a of was in of patients in the as with in the clinical was in and in the group another a of the using a of was to a at was this group and a group in which were of was significant in clinical the approach was in the evidence not an a and clinical outcomes a of thiopurines in Crohn’s disease patients in on maintenance as the of is when the treatment is our meta-analysis to the two of in CD patients in on maintenance therapy [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. from four trials were included received from to before randomised to or or to or All studies a time of to results that the of clinical is [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. meta-analysis for was the data a with of the results were not significant [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. for the be performed the data from the To the evidence for the of clinical is in of of as when the treatment was the of was not and from studies that patients treatment for are and this an important research from observational studies and for the of and in patients to treatment with The time and the of patients included in the studies of the meta-analysis are to and that may in the reviewed the literature to the approach of using thiopurines an literature we not evidence the two treatment one was of thiopurines was with thiopurines in the of therapy in patients with IBD. The was as was not to data from and CD specific was patients with Crohn’s disease who with the of and we with A Cochrane based on two the same patients who therapy with or [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The same the of for therapy or These results are to an of in the therapy studies included and studies are to the A of when agents are with the and were as 10 in one meta-analysis of patients included in the patients with Crohn’s disease who with the of and we with the basis of a meta-analysis of studies on by the data included were the and groups to be to the relevant PICO question. The result of this not any in maintenance of clinical therapy and [Supplementary and Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. this meta-analysis was to of in the studies with a are quality data available for clinical in the which is an that follows the of patients in the on the of were in patients with or at years of The meta-analysis by which was not any in with and therapy [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. is evidence to or of therapy in Crohn’s disease patients the to therapy be and and be with the randomised