Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The antibiotic resistance profile of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is constantly changing. Up-to-date and reliable data for the effectiveness of first-line H. pylori treatment protocols are necessary to provide evidence-based best-practice guidelines.

Objectives: To determine the effectiveness, compliance and safety of first-line treatment for H. pylori in Israel.

Methods: An observational, prospective, multicenter study was conducted in tertiary referral centers in Israel, as part of the European registry on H. pylori management (Hp-EuReg). H. pylori-infected patients were included from 2013 to March 2020. Data collected included demographics, clinical data, diagnostic tests, previous eradication attempts, current treatment, compliance, adverse events, and treatment outcome result.

Results: In total, 242 patients were registered, including 121 (50%) who received first-line therapy, 41% of these individuals received clarithromycin based triple therapy and 58.9% received a four-drug regimen. The overall effectiveness of first-line therapy was 85% and 86% by modified intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses, respectively. The effectiveness of both sequential and concomitant therapies was 100% while clarithromycin-based triple therapy achieved an eradication rate of 79%. Treatment eradication was higher among patients who received high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) compared to those treated with low dose PPI (100% vs. 81.5% respectively, P < 0.01). No difference in treatment effectiveness was found between 7-, 10-, and 14-day treatment.

Conclusions: The effectiveness of clarithromycin-based triple therapy is suboptimal. First-line treatment of H. pylori infection should consist of four drugs, including high dose PPI, according to international guidelines.

Despite advances in therapeutic modalities, especially with biologic treatments, the number of hospitalizations due to complications for Crohn's disease did not decrease. We examined the prevalence and possible predictive factors of hospitalizations in Crohn's disease. A systematic literature search was conducted until 31 October 2018. Relevant studies were screened according to established protocol. Retrospective cohort studies describing hospitalizations of Crohn's disease patients were included. Meta-analysis was performed by using comprehensive meta-analysis software. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated for the number of patients hospitalized. Twelve studies published before 31 March 2018 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were comprised of 23 data-sets and included 4421 patients from six countries. A funnel plot demonstrates a moderate publication bias. We reported the event rates for the number of patients hospitalized, in a follow-up survey of 20,987 patient-years, and for the patients who underwent surgery in a follow-up of 5061 patient-years, with ORs of 0.233 with 95%CI 0.227–0.239, and 0.124 with 95%CI 0.114–0.135 (P < 0.001), respectively. Thus, when collecting the data from 12 cohort studies we found that hospitalization takes place in 23.3% of the patients, and operation in 12.4% along their disease duration. Patients with Crohn's disease may be hospitalized due to exacerbation of their inflammatory disease, because of non-inflammatory disease (such as fistula or stricture), or due to medical complications. The goal of therapy should be to keep the Crohn's disease patients in their natural environment and out of the hospital and to prevent surgery as much as possible.

Background: Temporal trends in the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the Arab and Jewish populations in Israel have been poorly described.

Objectives: To compare the annual incidence and prevalence rates of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in the Arab and Jewish populations in Israel between the years 2003 and 2008.

Methods: We applied a common case identification algorithm to the Clalit Health Services database to both determine trends in age-adjusted incidence and prevalence rates for IBD in both populations during this period and estimate the burden of IBD in Israel.

Results: The incidence of CD in the Arab population increased from 3.1/100,000 in 2003 to 10.6/100,000 person-years in 2008, compared with a decrease in the Jewish population from 14.3/100,000 to 11.7/100,000 person-years for the same period. The incidence of UC in the Arab population increased from 4.1/100,000 in 2003 to 5.0/100,000 person-years in 2008, a low but stable rate, compared with a decrease from 16.4/100,000 to 9.5/100,000 person-years for the same time period in the Jewish population. The prevalence of both diseases increased due to the accumulation of incident cases but remained much lower among Arabs.

Conclusions: Understanding the factors underlying the differences in incidence and prevalence of IBD in the Jewish and Arab populations may shed light on the genetic and environmental factors associated with these diseases.

The cause for gender differences in the epidemiology, natural history and response to therapy in many diseases is unknown and has seldom been investigated in depth. Sex hormones are blamed for many of these changes, mostly without any scientific evidence. In this review I will describe some of the evidence for gender differences in gastrointestinal diseases. Gender medicine and its application for gastroenterology is a new field and one warranting research.
 

Background: Dedicated, organ-specific screening clinics have been shown to significantly reduce cancer morbidity and mortality.

Objectives: To establish a dedicated clinic for Clalit Health Service patients at high risk for hereditary gastrointestinal cancer and to provide them with clinical and genetic counseling, diagnostic screening and follow–up.

Results: During the 3 years of the clinic's activity, 634 high risk families, including 3804 at-risk relatives, were evaluated. The most common conditions were hereditary colorectal syndromes, Lynch syndrome (n=259), undefined young-onset or familial colorectal cancer (n=214), familial adenomatous polyposis (n=55), and others (n=106). They entered follow-up protocols and 52 underwent surgical procedures.

Conclusions: Consistent public and professional education is needed to increase awareness of hereditary colorectal cancer and the possibility of family screening, early diagnosis and therapy. The public health services – i.e., the four health management organizations – should provide genetic testing for these patients who, at present, are required to pay for almost all of these available but costly tests. Dedicated colorectal surgical units are needed to provide the specialized therapeutic procedures needed by patients with familial colorectal cancer. Our future plans include adding psychosocial support for these at-risk patients and their families as well as preventive lifestyle and dietary intervention. 

Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard procedure for screening for colorectal cancer and surveillance after polypectomy or colorectal cancer surgery, for diagnosis in symptomatic patients and patients with fecal occult blood, and for screening in the high risk population. The adherence of referring physicians to the accepted recommendations can prevent long waiting lists for colonoscopy and save lives, costs and resources.

Objectives: To evaluate the knowledge of primary care physicians and gastroenterologists in Israel about current guidelines for colonoscopy screening and surveillance.

Methods: A 10-item questionnaire on proper follow-up colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy and screening for colorectal cancer in various clinical and epidemiological situations was administered to 100 expert gastroenterologists and 100 primary care physicians at a professional meeting. Answers were evaluated for each group of physicians and compared using the chi-square test.

Results: The compliance rate was 45% for the gastroenterologists and 80% for the primary care physicians. The rate of correct answers to the specific items ranged from 18.7% to 93.75% for the gastroenterologists and from 6.2% to 58.5% for the primary care physicians (P < 0.001 for almost every item).

Conclusions: The knowledge of physicians regarding the screening and surveillance of colorectal cancer needs to be improved.

Background: Open access gastroscopy allows physicians to refer patients for endoscopic procedures without a prior consultation.

Objectives: To compare the safety and efficacy of OAG[1] with gastroscopy performed after a gastroenterological consultation.

Methods: Patients referred for gastroscopy directly (open access) or after consultation with a gastroenterologist, by physicians in the departments of internal medicine and surgery at a major tertiary center, were compared for indications, background disease, outcome and diagnostic yield. The data were collected prospectively over a 5 month period following the introduction of OAG at the center. Physicians in both departments participated in an education program on the indications and procedure of gastroscopy. For each patient referred for OAG the attending physician completed a specially designed questionnaire that had to be signed by a senior physician. Data were managed and analyzed with Excel and SPSS software.

Results: The study sample comprised 494 patients: of whom 236 were referred for OAG and 258 after prior consultation. On multivariate analysis, hospitalization in the department of internal medicine was the only independent factor for OAG. Severe background disease and aspirin treatment had no effect on physician use of OAG, although they served as a “red light” for the gastroenterology consultants. There was no difference in the diagnostic yield of the procedures (26.4% normal findings for OAG and 28.3% for consultations) or in mortality rates. The main indications for referral to gastroscopy in the surgery department were melena, hematemesis, and "coffee grounds," and anemia and vomiting in the internal medicine department.
Conclusions: OAG is feasible and beneficial in an academic medical center setting, with no bias in appropriateness of indications or decrease in the diagnostic yield compared to the traditional approach. More attention should be directed to safety issues by the referring physicians