From the AGA Journals

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

The diagnostic performance of optical evaluation for submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) in patients with large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may be dependent on lesion morphology. While optical evaluation featured excellent performance in the assessment of flat lesions, the assessment only featured decent performance in nodular lesions, underscoring the need for additional evaluation algorithms for these lesions.

Endoscopists rely on the accuracy of real-time optical evaluation to facilitate appropriate selection of treatment; however, in studies focusing on LNPCPs, the performance of optical evaluation is modest.

The stratification of optical evaluation by lesion morphology may enable more accurate “implementation of a selective resection algorithm by identifying lesion subgroups with accurate optical evaluation performance characteristics,” first authors Sergei Vosko, MD, and Neal Shahidi, MD, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Given the potential importance of stratification in optical evaluation, Dr. Vosko and colleagues assessed the performance of the optical assessment modality based on lesion morphology in a prospective cohort of 1,583 LNPCPs measuring at least 20 mm in patients (median age, 69 years) referred for endoscopic resection.

In the observational cohort, centers performed optical evaluation before endoscopic resection. The optical prediction of SMIC was based on several different established features, including Kudo V pit pattern, depressed morphology, rigidity/fixation, and ulceration. The researchers calculated optical evaluation performance outcomes, which were reported by the dominant morphology, namely nodular (Paris 0–Is/0– IIaDIs) versus flat (Paris 0–IIa/0–IIb).

Across the overall cohort, the median lesion size was 35 mm. The investigators identified a total of 855 flat LNPCPs and 728 nodular LNPCPs, with 63.9% of LNPCPs considered granular. Additionally, the researchers reported submucosal invasive cancer in 146 LNPCPs (9.2%).

According to the investigators, the overall sensitivity of optical evaluation to diagnose submucosal invasive cancer was 67.1% (95% confidence interval, 59.2%-74.2%), while the overall specificity was 95.1% (95% CI, 93.9%-96.1%). The investigators reported significant differences between flat vs. nodular LNPCPs in terms of sensitivity (90.9% vs. 52.7%, respectively; P <.001) and specificity (96.3% vs. 93.7%; P =.027).

Overall, the SMIC miss rate was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.3%-4.0%). There was a significant difference in the SMIC miss rate between flat and nodular LNPCPs (0.6% vs. 5.9%, respectively; P < .001).

Independent predictors of missed SMIC on optical evaluation, as identified in the multiple logistic regression analysis, included nodular morphology (odds ratio, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.8-18.9; P < .001), rectosigmoid location (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P =.026), and size of at least 40 mm (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8; P =.039).

Based on the findings, the researchers suggested that all flat lesions, in the absence of optical features consistent with submucosal invasive cancer, should subsequently be removed by high-quality endoscopic mucosal resection, in conjunction with the application of “site-specific modifications and ancillary techniques where needed.”

One limitation of this study is how lesion morphology was classified, which can in some cases be subjective.

The researchers added that additional refinement is required “to robustly apply a selective resection algorithm irrespective of lesion morphology” given the modest performance value of optical evaluation in nodular lesions. “Nevertheless, it is imperative that all endoscopists embrace optical evaluation in everyday clinical practice, thus harnessing its proven ability to influence resection technique selection and the associated clinical and economic ramifications,” they concluded.

The study received financial support the Cancer Institute of New South Wales, in addition to funding from the Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation. One author reported receiving research support from Olympus Medical, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The diagnostic performance of optical evaluation for submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) in patients with large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may be dependent on lesion morphology. While optical evaluation featured excellent performance in the assessment of flat lesions, the assessment only featured decent performance in nodular lesions, underscoring the need for additional evaluation algorithms for these lesions.

Endoscopists rely on the accuracy of real-time optical evaluation to facilitate appropriate selection of treatment; however, in studies focusing on LNPCPs, the performance of optical evaluation is modest.

The stratification of optical evaluation by lesion morphology may enable more accurate “implementation of a selective resection algorithm by identifying lesion subgroups with accurate optical evaluation performance characteristics,” first authors Sergei Vosko, MD, and Neal Shahidi, MD, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Given the potential importance of stratification in optical evaluation, Dr. Vosko and colleagues assessed the performance of the optical assessment modality based on lesion morphology in a prospective cohort of 1,583 LNPCPs measuring at least 20 mm in patients (median age, 69 years) referred for endoscopic resection.

In the observational cohort, centers performed optical evaluation before endoscopic resection. The optical prediction of SMIC was based on several different established features, including Kudo V pit pattern, depressed morphology, rigidity/fixation, and ulceration. The researchers calculated optical evaluation performance outcomes, which were reported by the dominant morphology, namely nodular (Paris 0–Is/0– IIaDIs) versus flat (Paris 0–IIa/0–IIb).

Across the overall cohort, the median lesion size was 35 mm. The investigators identified a total of 855 flat LNPCPs and 728 nodular LNPCPs, with 63.9% of LNPCPs considered granular. Additionally, the researchers reported submucosal invasive cancer in 146 LNPCPs (9.2%).

According to the investigators, the overall sensitivity of optical evaluation to diagnose submucosal invasive cancer was 67.1% (95% confidence interval, 59.2%-74.2%), while the overall specificity was 95.1% (95% CI, 93.9%-96.1%). The investigators reported significant differences between flat vs. nodular LNPCPs in terms of sensitivity (90.9% vs. 52.7%, respectively; P <.001) and specificity (96.3% vs. 93.7%; P =.027).

Overall, the SMIC miss rate was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.3%-4.0%). There was a significant difference in the SMIC miss rate between flat and nodular LNPCPs (0.6% vs. 5.9%, respectively; P < .001).

Independent predictors of missed SMIC on optical evaluation, as identified in the multiple logistic regression analysis, included nodular morphology (odds ratio, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.8-18.9; P < .001), rectosigmoid location (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P =.026), and size of at least 40 mm (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8; P =.039).

Based on the findings, the researchers suggested that all flat lesions, in the absence of optical features consistent with submucosal invasive cancer, should subsequently be removed by high-quality endoscopic mucosal resection, in conjunction with the application of “site-specific modifications and ancillary techniques where needed.”

One limitation of this study is how lesion morphology was classified, which can in some cases be subjective.

The researchers added that additional refinement is required “to robustly apply a selective resection algorithm irrespective of lesion morphology” given the modest performance value of optical evaluation in nodular lesions. “Nevertheless, it is imperative that all endoscopists embrace optical evaluation in everyday clinical practice, thus harnessing its proven ability to influence resection technique selection and the associated clinical and economic ramifications,” they concluded.

The study received financial support the Cancer Institute of New South Wales, in addition to funding from the Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation. One author reported receiving research support from Olympus Medical, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The diagnostic performance of optical evaluation for submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) in patients with large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may be dependent on lesion morphology. While optical evaluation featured excellent performance in the assessment of flat lesions, the assessment only featured decent performance in nodular lesions, underscoring the need for additional evaluation algorithms for these lesions.

Endoscopists rely on the accuracy of real-time optical evaluation to facilitate appropriate selection of treatment; however, in studies focusing on LNPCPs, the performance of optical evaluation is modest.

The stratification of optical evaluation by lesion morphology may enable more accurate “implementation of a selective resection algorithm by identifying lesion subgroups with accurate optical evaluation performance characteristics,” first authors Sergei Vosko, MD, and Neal Shahidi, MD, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Given the potential importance of stratification in optical evaluation, Dr. Vosko and colleagues assessed the performance of the optical assessment modality based on lesion morphology in a prospective cohort of 1,583 LNPCPs measuring at least 20 mm in patients (median age, 69 years) referred for endoscopic resection.

In the observational cohort, centers performed optical evaluation before endoscopic resection. The optical prediction of SMIC was based on several different established features, including Kudo V pit pattern, depressed morphology, rigidity/fixation, and ulceration. The researchers calculated optical evaluation performance outcomes, which were reported by the dominant morphology, namely nodular (Paris 0–Is/0– IIaDIs) versus flat (Paris 0–IIa/0–IIb).

Across the overall cohort, the median lesion size was 35 mm. The investigators identified a total of 855 flat LNPCPs and 728 nodular LNPCPs, with 63.9% of LNPCPs considered granular. Additionally, the researchers reported submucosal invasive cancer in 146 LNPCPs (9.2%).

According to the investigators, the overall sensitivity of optical evaluation to diagnose submucosal invasive cancer was 67.1% (95% confidence interval, 59.2%-74.2%), while the overall specificity was 95.1% (95% CI, 93.9%-96.1%). The investigators reported significant differences between flat vs. nodular LNPCPs in terms of sensitivity (90.9% vs. 52.7%, respectively; P <.001) and specificity (96.3% vs. 93.7%; P =.027).

Overall, the SMIC miss rate was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.3%-4.0%). There was a significant difference in the SMIC miss rate between flat and nodular LNPCPs (0.6% vs. 5.9%, respectively; P < .001).

Independent predictors of missed SMIC on optical evaluation, as identified in the multiple logistic regression analysis, included nodular morphology (odds ratio, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.8-18.9; P < .001), rectosigmoid location (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P =.026), and size of at least 40 mm (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8; P =.039).

Based on the findings, the researchers suggested that all flat lesions, in the absence of optical features consistent with submucosal invasive cancer, should subsequently be removed by high-quality endoscopic mucosal resection, in conjunction with the application of “site-specific modifications and ancillary techniques where needed.”

One limitation of this study is how lesion morphology was classified, which can in some cases be subjective.

The researchers added that additional refinement is required “to robustly apply a selective resection algorithm irrespective of lesion morphology” given the modest performance value of optical evaluation in nodular lesions. “Nevertheless, it is imperative that all endoscopists embrace optical evaluation in everyday clinical practice, thus harnessing its proven ability to influence resection technique selection and the associated clinical and economic ramifications,” they concluded.

The study received financial support the Cancer Institute of New South Wales, in addition to funding from the Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation. One author reported receiving research support from Olympus Medical, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are in remission from their disease lack luminal signals capable of inducing macrophage hyporesponsiveness, which may contribute to a patient’s persistent vulnerability to relapse, according to a new study.

“Together with the distinct fecal metabolomic profile of UC patients in remission, our data suggest that UC patients may lack the signals required for proper macrophage education, rendering them vulnerable to relapse,” wrote study authors Lujain Maasfeh, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and colleagues in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Macrophages found in the lamina propria play a role in sustaining intestinal homeostasis. Through education by local signals, intestinal macrophages adopt a hyporesponsive phenotype and tolerogenic nature and are replenished constantly from monocytes. In patients with UC who are in remission, however, the lack of proper macrophage maturation may result in gut inflammation.

Current evidence has yet to define fully the immunomodulating determinants in the education of intestinal macrophages; however, Dr. Maasfeh and associates wrote that “intestinal microbiota and microbiota-derived metabolites increasingly are recognized for their role in imprinting tissue-specific features of intestinal macrophages.”

The researchers added that previous evidence has established that patients with UC demonstrate dysbiosis, which may impact maturation of intestinal macrophages. As such, the hyporesponsive state of intestinal lamina propria macrophages induced by the microbiota may be lost in patients with UC who are in remission, ultimately resulting in disease relapse.

To gauge the effects of fecal luminal factors on macrophage phenotype and function, the researchers extracted fecal supernatants (FS) from the fecal samples of 10 healthy volunteers and 17 patients with UC who were in remission. Following maturation of monocytes to macrophages in the presence of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor without and with FS, the researchers assessed macrophage phenotype and function. The investigators also used gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to analyze fecal metabolomic profiles.

In healthy donors, fecal luminal factors effectively downregulated Toll-like receptor signaling, cytokine signaling, as well as antigen presentation in macrophages. In contrast, the fecal luminal factors in patients with UC demonstrated less potency in their ability to induce lipopolysaccharide hyporesponsiveness. An immune pathway scoring analysis also showed a consistently higher reaction potential among UC remission FS-treated macrophages vs. healthy FS-treated macrophages.

While FS treatment did not seem to affect the phagocytic and bactericidal abilities of macrophages, the researchers observed that the healthy FS-treated macrophages better suppressed a cluster of differentiation 4⁺ T-cell activation as well as interferon gamma secretion vs. FS-treated macrophages from patients with UC in remission. The FS-treated macrophages in the UC remission population also featured less potency in their ability to suppress CD4+ T-cell activation and cytokine secretion.

The authors acknowledged a few limitations, including the small sample size and the effects from using in vitro system.

“Identification of the factors involved in intestinal macrophage education is important to maintain/reestablish gut homeostasis in patients with UC,” they concluded.

The study received financial support from Swedish Research Council-Medicine, in addition to funding from a Region Västra Götaland ALF-agreement, the Knut och Alice Wallenberg Foundation Wallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine at the University of Gothenburg, Ruth and Richard Julin’s foundation, Adlerbertska Foundation, Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren Foundation, and Apotekare Hedberg’s Foundation. The authors disclose no conflicts.

Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are in remission from their disease lack luminal signals capable of inducing macrophage hyporesponsiveness, which may contribute to a patient’s persistent vulnerability to relapse, according to a new study.

“Together with the distinct fecal metabolomic profile of UC patients in remission, our data suggest that UC patients may lack the signals required for proper macrophage education, rendering them vulnerable to relapse,” wrote study authors Lujain Maasfeh, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and colleagues in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Macrophages found in the lamina propria play a role in sustaining intestinal homeostasis. Through education by local signals, intestinal macrophages adopt a hyporesponsive phenotype and tolerogenic nature and are replenished constantly from monocytes. In patients with UC who are in remission, however, the lack of proper macrophage maturation may result in gut inflammation.

Current evidence has yet to define fully the immunomodulating determinants in the education of intestinal macrophages; however, Dr. Maasfeh and associates wrote that “intestinal microbiota and microbiota-derived metabolites increasingly are recognized for their role in imprinting tissue-specific features of intestinal macrophages.”

The researchers added that previous evidence has established that patients with UC demonstrate dysbiosis, which may impact maturation of intestinal macrophages. As such, the hyporesponsive state of intestinal lamina propria macrophages induced by the microbiota may be lost in patients with UC who are in remission, ultimately resulting in disease relapse.

To gauge the effects of fecal luminal factors on macrophage phenotype and function, the researchers extracted fecal supernatants (FS) from the fecal samples of 10 healthy volunteers and 17 patients with UC who were in remission. Following maturation of monocytes to macrophages in the presence of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor without and with FS, the researchers assessed macrophage phenotype and function. The investigators also used gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to analyze fecal metabolomic profiles.

In healthy donors, fecal luminal factors effectively downregulated Toll-like receptor signaling, cytokine signaling, as well as antigen presentation in macrophages. In contrast, the fecal luminal factors in patients with UC demonstrated less potency in their ability to induce lipopolysaccharide hyporesponsiveness. An immune pathway scoring analysis also showed a consistently higher reaction potential among UC remission FS-treated macrophages vs. healthy FS-treated macrophages.

While FS treatment did not seem to affect the phagocytic and bactericidal abilities of macrophages, the researchers observed that the healthy FS-treated macrophages better suppressed a cluster of differentiation 4⁺ T-cell activation as well as interferon gamma secretion vs. FS-treated macrophages from patients with UC in remission. The FS-treated macrophages in the UC remission population also featured less potency in their ability to suppress CD4+ T-cell activation and cytokine secretion.

The authors acknowledged a few limitations, including the small sample size and the effects from using in vitro system.

“Identification of the factors involved in intestinal macrophage education is important to maintain/reestablish gut homeostasis in patients with UC,” they concluded.

The study received financial support from Swedish Research Council-Medicine, in addition to funding from a Region Västra Götaland ALF-agreement, the Knut och Alice Wallenberg Foundation Wallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine at the University of Gothenburg, Ruth and Richard Julin’s foundation, Adlerbertska Foundation, Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren Foundation, and Apotekare Hedberg’s Foundation. The authors disclose no conflicts.

Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are in remission from their disease lack luminal signals capable of inducing macrophage hyporesponsiveness, which may contribute to a patient’s persistent vulnerability to relapse, according to a new study.

“Together with the distinct fecal metabolomic profile of UC patients in remission, our data suggest that UC patients may lack the signals required for proper macrophage education, rendering them vulnerable to relapse,” wrote study authors Lujain Maasfeh, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and colleagues in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Macrophages found in the lamina propria play a role in sustaining intestinal homeostasis. Through education by local signals, intestinal macrophages adopt a hyporesponsive phenotype and tolerogenic nature and are replenished constantly from monocytes. In patients with UC who are in remission, however, the lack of proper macrophage maturation may result in gut inflammation.

Current evidence has yet to define fully the immunomodulating determinants in the education of intestinal macrophages; however, Dr. Maasfeh and associates wrote that “intestinal microbiota and microbiota-derived metabolites increasingly are recognized for their role in imprinting tissue-specific features of intestinal macrophages.”

The researchers added that previous evidence has established that patients with UC demonstrate dysbiosis, which may impact maturation of intestinal macrophages. As such, the hyporesponsive state of intestinal lamina propria macrophages induced by the microbiota may be lost in patients with UC who are in remission, ultimately resulting in disease relapse.

To gauge the effects of fecal luminal factors on macrophage phenotype and function, the researchers extracted fecal supernatants (FS) from the fecal samples of 10 healthy volunteers and 17 patients with UC who were in remission. Following maturation of monocytes to macrophages in the presence of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor without and with FS, the researchers assessed macrophage phenotype and function. The investigators also used gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to analyze fecal metabolomic profiles.

In healthy donors, fecal luminal factors effectively downregulated Toll-like receptor signaling, cytokine signaling, as well as antigen presentation in macrophages. In contrast, the fecal luminal factors in patients with UC demonstrated less potency in their ability to induce lipopolysaccharide hyporesponsiveness. An immune pathway scoring analysis also showed a consistently higher reaction potential among UC remission FS-treated macrophages vs. healthy FS-treated macrophages.

While FS treatment did not seem to affect the phagocytic and bactericidal abilities of macrophages, the researchers observed that the healthy FS-treated macrophages better suppressed a cluster of differentiation 4⁺ T-cell activation as well as interferon gamma secretion vs. FS-treated macrophages from patients with UC in remission. The FS-treated macrophages in the UC remission population also featured less potency in their ability to suppress CD4+ T-cell activation and cytokine secretion.

The authors acknowledged a few limitations, including the small sample size and the effects from using in vitro system.

“Identification of the factors involved in intestinal macrophage education is important to maintain/reestablish gut homeostasis in patients with UC,” they concluded.

The study received financial support from Swedish Research Council-Medicine, in addition to funding from a Region Västra Götaland ALF-agreement, the Knut och Alice Wallenberg Foundation Wallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine at the University of Gothenburg, Ruth and Richard Julin’s foundation, Adlerbertska Foundation, Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren Foundation, and Apotekare Hedberg’s Foundation. The authors disclose no conflicts.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new clinical practice update expert review for the diagnosis and management of atrophic gastritis (AG) from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on cases linked to Helicobacter pylori infection or autoimmunity.

This update addresses a sparsity of guidelines for AG in the United States and should be seen as complementary to the AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia, according to the authors led by Shailja C. Shah, MD, MPH, of the gastroenterology section at Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego.

The 2020 guidelines didn’t specifically discuss diagnosis and management of AG; however, a diagnosis of intestinal metaplasia based on gastric histopathology indicates the presence AG since metaplasia occurs in atrophic mucosa. Nevertheless, AG often goes unmentioned in histopathology reports. Such omissions are important because AG is an important stage in the potential development of gastric cancer.

AG is believed to result from genetic and environmental factors. The two primary triggers for the condition are H. pylori infection (HpAG) and autoimmunity (AIG). The condition results from chronic inflammation and replacement of normal gastric glandular structures with connective tissue or nonnative epithelium. It can proceed to other precancerous conditions, including gastric intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia. An estimated 15% of the U.S. population has AG, according to the authors, although this prevalence could be higher in populations with higher rates of H. pylori infection. AIG is rare, occurring in 0.5%-2% of the U.S. population.

Among individuals with AG, 0.1%-0.3% per year go on to develop gastric adenocarcinoma, though additional factors could heighten this risk. Furthermore, 0.4%-0.7% per year go on develop type 1 neuroendocrine tumors.

HpAG and AIG have different patterns of mucosal involvement. During diagnosis, the authors advised careful mucosal visualization with air insufflation and mucosal cleansing. High-definition white-light endoscopy is more sensitive than traditional WLE in the identification of premalignant mucosal changes.

AG diagnosis should be confirmed by histopathology. The updated Sydney protocol should be used to obtain biopsies, and serum pepsinogens can be used to identify extensive atrophy, though this testing is not generally available in the United States for clinical use. When histology results are suggestive of AIG, the presence of parietal cell antibodies and intrinsic factor antibodies can contribute to a diagnosis, although the former can be prone to false positives because of H. pylori infection, and the latter has low sensitivity.

Patients identified with AG should be tested for H. pylori and treated for infection, followed by nonserologic testing to confirm treatment success. If H. pylori is present, successful eradication may allow for reversal of AG to normal gastric mucosa; however, patients may have irreversible changes. This could leave them at elevated risk of further progression, though elimination of H. pylori does appear to blunt that risk somewhat.

Neoplastic complications from AG are rare, and the benefits of surveillance among those with AG have not been demonstrated in prospective trials. Observational trials show that severe AG is associated with greater risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, and other factors, such as comorbidities and patient values and priorities, should inform decision-making. When called for, providers should consider surveillance endoscopies every 3 years, though the authors noted that the optimal surveillance interval is unknown. Factors such as the quality of the original endoscopy, family history of gastric cancer, and a history of immigration from regions with high rates of H. pylori infection may impact decisions on surveillance intervals.

AG can lead to iron or vitamin B₁₂ deficiency, so patients with AG, especially those with corpus-predominant AG, should be evaluated for both. AG should also be considered as a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with either deficiency.

A diagnosis of AIG should be accompanied by screening for autoimmune thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes or Addison’s disease may also be indicated if clinical presentation is consistent.

Because AG is commonly underdiagnosed, the authors advise that gastroenterologists and pathologists should improve coordination to maximize diagnosis of the condition, and they call for comparative clinical trials to improve risk stratification algorithms and surveillance strategies.

The authors disclose no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new clinical practice update expert review for the diagnosis and management of atrophic gastritis (AG) from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on cases linked to Helicobacter pylori infection or autoimmunity.

This update addresses a sparsity of guidelines for AG in the United States and should be seen as complementary to the AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia, according to the authors led by Shailja C. Shah, MD, MPH, of the gastroenterology section at Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego.

The 2020 guidelines didn’t specifically discuss diagnosis and management of AG; however, a diagnosis of intestinal metaplasia based on gastric histopathology indicates the presence AG since metaplasia occurs in atrophic mucosa. Nevertheless, AG often goes unmentioned in histopathology reports. Such omissions are important because AG is an important stage in the potential development of gastric cancer.

AG is believed to result from genetic and environmental factors. The two primary triggers for the condition are H. pylori infection (HpAG) and autoimmunity (AIG). The condition results from chronic inflammation and replacement of normal gastric glandular structures with connective tissue or nonnative epithelium. It can proceed to other precancerous conditions, including gastric intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia. An estimated 15% of the U.S. population has AG, according to the authors, although this prevalence could be higher in populations with higher rates of H. pylori infection. AIG is rare, occurring in 0.5%-2% of the U.S. population.

Among individuals with AG, 0.1%-0.3% per year go on to develop gastric adenocarcinoma, though additional factors could heighten this risk. Furthermore, 0.4%-0.7% per year go on develop type 1 neuroendocrine tumors.

HpAG and AIG have different patterns of mucosal involvement. During diagnosis, the authors advised careful mucosal visualization with air insufflation and mucosal cleansing. High-definition white-light endoscopy is more sensitive than traditional WLE in the identification of premalignant mucosal changes.

AG diagnosis should be confirmed by histopathology. The updated Sydney protocol should be used to obtain biopsies, and serum pepsinogens can be used to identify extensive atrophy, though this testing is not generally available in the United States for clinical use. When histology results are suggestive of AIG, the presence of parietal cell antibodies and intrinsic factor antibodies can contribute to a diagnosis, although the former can be prone to false positives because of H. pylori infection, and the latter has low sensitivity.

Patients identified with AG should be tested for H. pylori and treated for infection, followed by nonserologic testing to confirm treatment success. If H. pylori is present, successful eradication may allow for reversal of AG to normal gastric mucosa; however, patients may have irreversible changes. This could leave them at elevated risk of further progression, though elimination of H. pylori does appear to blunt that risk somewhat.

Neoplastic complications from AG are rare, and the benefits of surveillance among those with AG have not been demonstrated in prospective trials. Observational trials show that severe AG is associated with greater risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, and other factors, such as comorbidities and patient values and priorities, should inform decision-making. When called for, providers should consider surveillance endoscopies every 3 years, though the authors noted that the optimal surveillance interval is unknown. Factors such as the quality of the original endoscopy, family history of gastric cancer, and a history of immigration from regions with high rates of H. pylori infection may impact decisions on surveillance intervals.

AG can lead to iron or vitamin B₁₂ deficiency, so patients with AG, especially those with corpus-predominant AG, should be evaluated for both. AG should also be considered as a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with either deficiency.

A diagnosis of AIG should be accompanied by screening for autoimmune thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes or Addison’s disease may also be indicated if clinical presentation is consistent.

Because AG is commonly underdiagnosed, the authors advise that gastroenterologists and pathologists should improve coordination to maximize diagnosis of the condition, and they call for comparative clinical trials to improve risk stratification algorithms and surveillance strategies.

The authors disclose no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new clinical practice update expert review for the diagnosis and management of atrophic gastritis (AG) from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on cases linked to Helicobacter pylori infection or autoimmunity.

This update addresses a sparsity of guidelines for AG in the United States and should be seen as complementary to the AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia, according to the authors led by Shailja C. Shah, MD, MPH, of the gastroenterology section at Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego.

The 2020 guidelines didn’t specifically discuss diagnosis and management of AG; however, a diagnosis of intestinal metaplasia based on gastric histopathology indicates the presence AG since metaplasia occurs in atrophic mucosa. Nevertheless, AG often goes unmentioned in histopathology reports. Such omissions are important because AG is an important stage in the potential development of gastric cancer.

AG is believed to result from genetic and environmental factors. The two primary triggers for the condition are H. pylori infection (HpAG) and autoimmunity (AIG). The condition results from chronic inflammation and replacement of normal gastric glandular structures with connective tissue or nonnative epithelium. It can proceed to other precancerous conditions, including gastric intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia. An estimated 15% of the U.S. population has AG, according to the authors, although this prevalence could be higher in populations with higher rates of H. pylori infection. AIG is rare, occurring in 0.5%-2% of the U.S. population.

Among individuals with AG, 0.1%-0.3% per year go on to develop gastric adenocarcinoma, though additional factors could heighten this risk. Furthermore, 0.4%-0.7% per year go on develop type 1 neuroendocrine tumors.

HpAG and AIG have different patterns of mucosal involvement. During diagnosis, the authors advised careful mucosal visualization with air insufflation and mucosal cleansing. High-definition white-light endoscopy is more sensitive than traditional WLE in the identification of premalignant mucosal changes.

AG diagnosis should be confirmed by histopathology. The updated Sydney protocol should be used to obtain biopsies, and serum pepsinogens can be used to identify extensive atrophy, though this testing is not generally available in the United States for clinical use. When histology results are suggestive of AIG, the presence of parietal cell antibodies and intrinsic factor antibodies can contribute to a diagnosis, although the former can be prone to false positives because of H. pylori infection, and the latter has low sensitivity.

Patients identified with AG should be tested for H. pylori and treated for infection, followed by nonserologic testing to confirm treatment success. If H. pylori is present, successful eradication may allow for reversal of AG to normal gastric mucosa; however, patients may have irreversible changes. This could leave them at elevated risk of further progression, though elimination of H. pylori does appear to blunt that risk somewhat.

Neoplastic complications from AG are rare, and the benefits of surveillance among those with AG have not been demonstrated in prospective trials. Observational trials show that severe AG is associated with greater risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, and other factors, such as comorbidities and patient values and priorities, should inform decision-making. When called for, providers should consider surveillance endoscopies every 3 years, though the authors noted that the optimal surveillance interval is unknown. Factors such as the quality of the original endoscopy, family history of gastric cancer, and a history of immigration from regions with high rates of H. pylori infection may impact decisions on surveillance intervals.

AG can lead to iron or vitamin B₁₂ deficiency, so patients with AG, especially those with corpus-predominant AG, should be evaluated for both. AG should also be considered as a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with either deficiency.

A diagnosis of AIG should be accompanied by screening for autoimmune thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes or Addison’s disease may also be indicated if clinical presentation is consistent.

Because AG is commonly underdiagnosed, the authors advise that gastroenterologists and pathologists should improve coordination to maximize diagnosis of the condition, and they call for comparative clinical trials to improve risk stratification algorithms and surveillance strategies.

The authors disclose no relevant conflicts of interest.

A clinical practice update expert review from the American Gastroenterological Association gives advice on management of endoscopic perforations in the gastrointestinal tract, including esophageal, gastric, duodenal and periampullary, and colon perforation.

There are various techniques for dealing with perforations, including through-the-scope clips (TTSCs), over-the-scope clips (OTSCs), self-expanding metal stents (SEMS), and endoscopic suturing. Newer methods include biological glue and esophageal vacuum therapy. These techniques have been the subject of various retrospective analyses, but few prospective studies have examined their safety and efficacy.

In the expert review, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, authors led by Jeffrey H. Lee, MD, MPH, AGAF, of the department of gastroenterology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, emphasized that gastroenterologists should have a perforation protocol in place and practice procedures that will be used to address perforations. Endoscopists should also recognize their own limits and know when a patient should be sent to experienced, high-volume centers for further care.

In the event of a perforation, the entire team should be notified immediately, and carbon dioxide insufflation should be used at a low flow setting. The endoscopist should clean up luminal material to reduce the chance of peritoneal contamination, and then treat with an antibiotic regimen that counters gram-negative and anaerobic bacteria.
 

Esophageal perforation

Esophageal perforations most commonly occur during dilation of strictures, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Perforations of the mucosal flap may happen during so-called third-space endoscopy techniques like peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Small perforations can be readily addressed with TTSCs. Larger perforations call for some combination of TTSCs, endoscopic suturing, fibrin glue injection, or esophageal stenting, though the latter is discouraged because of the potential for erosion.

A more concerning complication of POEM is delayed barrier failure, which can cause leaks, mediastinitis, or peritonitis. These complications have been estimated to occur in 0.2%-1.1% of cases.

In the event of an esophageal perforation, the area should be kept clean by suctioning, or by altering patient position if required. Perforations 1-2 cm in size can be closed using OTSCs. Excessive bleeding or larger tears can be addressed using a fully covered SEMS.

Leaks that occur in the ensuing days after the procedure should be closed using TTSCs, OTSCs, or endosuturing, followed by putting in a fully covered stent. Esophageal fistula should be addressed with a fully covered stent with a tight fit.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy is a newer technique to address large or persistent esophageal perforations. A review found it had a 96% success rate for esophageal perforations.
 

Gastric perforations

Gastric perforations often result from peptic ulcer disease or ingestion of something caustic, and it is a high risk during EMR and ESD procedures (0.4%-0.7% intraprocedural risk). The proximal gastric wall isn’t thick as in the gastric antrum, so proximal endoscopic resections require extra care. Lengthy procedures should be done under anesthesia. Ongoing gaseous insufflation during a perforation may worsen the problem because of heightened intraperitoneal pressure. OTSCs may be a better choice than TTSCs for 1-3 cm perforations, while endoloop/TTSC can be used for larger ones.

Duodenal and periampullary perforations

Duodenal and periampullary perforations occur during duodenal stricture dilation, EMR, endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic ultrasound, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ECRP). The thin duodenal wall makes it more susceptible to perforation than the esophagus, stomach, or colon.

Closing a duodenum perforation can be difficult. Type 1 perforations typically show sudden bleeding and lumen deflation, and often require surgical intervention. Some recent reports have suggested success with TTSCs, OTSCs, band ligation, and endoloops. Type 2 perforations are less obvious, and the endoscopist must examine the gas pattern on fluoroscopic beneath the liver or in the area of the right kidney. Retroperitoneal air following ERCP, if asymptomatic, doesn’t necessarily require intervention.

The challenges presented by the duodenum mean that, for large duodenal polyps, EMR should only be done by experienced endoscopists who are skilled at mucosal closure, and only experts should attempt ESD. Proteolytic enzymes from the pancreas can also pool in the duodenum, which can degrade muscle tissue and lead to delayed perforations. TTSC, OTSC, endosuturing, polymer gels or sheets, and TTSC combined with endoloop cinching have been used to close resection-associated perforations.
 

Colon perforation

Colon perforation may be caused by diverticulitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or occasionally colonic obstruction. Iatrogenic causes are more common and include endoscopic resection, hot forceps biopsy, dilation of stricture resulting from radiation or Crohn’s disease, colonic stenting, and advancement of colonoscope across angulations or into diverticula without straightening the endoscope

Large perforations are usually immediately noticeable and should be treated surgically, as should hemodynamic instability or delayed perforations with peritoneal signs.

Endoscopic closure should be attempted when the perforation site is clean, and lower rectal perforations can generally be repaired with TTSC, OTSC, or endoscopic suturing. In the cecum, or in a torturous or unclean colon, it may be difficult or dangerous to remove the colonoscope and insert an OTSC, and endoscopic suturing may not be possible, making TTSC the only procedure available for right colon perforations. The X-Tack Endoscopic HeliX Tacking System is a recently introduced, through-the-scope technology that places suture-tethered tacks into tissue surrounding the perforation and cinches it together. The system in principle can close large or irregular colonic and small bowel perforations using gastroscopes and colonoscopes, but no human studies have yet been published.
 

Conclusion

This update was a collaborative effort by four endoscopists who felt that it was timely to review the issue of perforations since they can be serious and challenging to manage. The evolution of endoscopic techniques over the last few years, however, has made the closure of spontaneous and iatrogenic perforations much less fear provoking, and they wished to summarize the approaches to a variety of such situations in order to guide practitioners who may encounter them.

“Although perforation is a serious event, with novel endoscopic techniques and tools, the endoscopist should no longer be paralyzed when it occurs,” the authors concluded.

Some authors reported relationships, such as consulting for or royalties from, device companies such as Medtronic and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

This article was updated Oct. 25, 2021.

A clinical practice update expert review from the American Gastroenterological Association gives advice on management of endoscopic perforations in the gastrointestinal tract, including esophageal, gastric, duodenal and periampullary, and colon perforation.

There are various techniques for dealing with perforations, including through-the-scope clips (TTSCs), over-the-scope clips (OTSCs), self-expanding metal stents (SEMS), and endoscopic suturing. Newer methods include biological glue and esophageal vacuum therapy. These techniques have been the subject of various retrospective analyses, but few prospective studies have examined their safety and efficacy.

In the expert review, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, authors led by Jeffrey H. Lee, MD, MPH, AGAF, of the department of gastroenterology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, emphasized that gastroenterologists should have a perforation protocol in place and practice procedures that will be used to address perforations. Endoscopists should also recognize their own limits and know when a patient should be sent to experienced, high-volume centers for further care.

In the event of a perforation, the entire team should be notified immediately, and carbon dioxide insufflation should be used at a low flow setting. The endoscopist should clean up luminal material to reduce the chance of peritoneal contamination, and then treat with an antibiotic regimen that counters gram-negative and anaerobic bacteria.
 

Esophageal perforation

Esophageal perforations most commonly occur during dilation of strictures, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Perforations of the mucosal flap may happen during so-called third-space endoscopy techniques like peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Small perforations can be readily addressed with TTSCs. Larger perforations call for some combination of TTSCs, endoscopic suturing, fibrin glue injection, or esophageal stenting, though the latter is discouraged because of the potential for erosion.

A more concerning complication of POEM is delayed barrier failure, which can cause leaks, mediastinitis, or peritonitis. These complications have been estimated to occur in 0.2%-1.1% of cases.

In the event of an esophageal perforation, the area should be kept clean by suctioning, or by altering patient position if required. Perforations 1-2 cm in size can be closed using OTSCs. Excessive bleeding or larger tears can be addressed using a fully covered SEMS.

Leaks that occur in the ensuing days after the procedure should be closed using TTSCs, OTSCs, or endosuturing, followed by putting in a fully covered stent. Esophageal fistula should be addressed with a fully covered stent with a tight fit.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy is a newer technique to address large or persistent esophageal perforations. A review found it had a 96% success rate for esophageal perforations.
 

Gastric perforations

Gastric perforations often result from peptic ulcer disease or ingestion of something caustic, and it is a high risk during EMR and ESD procedures (0.4%-0.7% intraprocedural risk). The proximal gastric wall isn’t thick as in the gastric antrum, so proximal endoscopic resections require extra care. Lengthy procedures should be done under anesthesia. Ongoing gaseous insufflation during a perforation may worsen the problem because of heightened intraperitoneal pressure. OTSCs may be a better choice than TTSCs for 1-3 cm perforations, while endoloop/TTSC can be used for larger ones.

Duodenal and periampullary perforations

Duodenal and periampullary perforations occur during duodenal stricture dilation, EMR, endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic ultrasound, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ECRP). The thin duodenal wall makes it more susceptible to perforation than the esophagus, stomach, or colon.

Closing a duodenum perforation can be difficult. Type 1 perforations typically show sudden bleeding and lumen deflation, and often require surgical intervention. Some recent reports have suggested success with TTSCs, OTSCs, band ligation, and endoloops. Type 2 perforations are less obvious, and the endoscopist must examine the gas pattern on fluoroscopic beneath the liver or in the area of the right kidney. Retroperitoneal air following ERCP, if asymptomatic, doesn’t necessarily require intervention.

The challenges presented by the duodenum mean that, for large duodenal polyps, EMR should only be done by experienced endoscopists who are skilled at mucosal closure, and only experts should attempt ESD. Proteolytic enzymes from the pancreas can also pool in the duodenum, which can degrade muscle tissue and lead to delayed perforations. TTSC, OTSC, endosuturing, polymer gels or sheets, and TTSC combined with endoloop cinching have been used to close resection-associated perforations.
 

Colon perforation

Colon perforation may be caused by diverticulitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or occasionally colonic obstruction. Iatrogenic causes are more common and include endoscopic resection, hot forceps biopsy, dilation of stricture resulting from radiation or Crohn’s disease, colonic stenting, and advancement of colonoscope across angulations or into diverticula without straightening the endoscope

Large perforations are usually immediately noticeable and should be treated surgically, as should hemodynamic instability or delayed perforations with peritoneal signs.

Endoscopic closure should be attempted when the perforation site is clean, and lower rectal perforations can generally be repaired with TTSC, OTSC, or endoscopic suturing. In the cecum, or in a torturous or unclean colon, it may be difficult or dangerous to remove the colonoscope and insert an OTSC, and endoscopic suturing may not be possible, making TTSC the only procedure available for right colon perforations. The X-Tack Endoscopic HeliX Tacking System is a recently introduced, through-the-scope technology that places suture-tethered tacks into tissue surrounding the perforation and cinches it together. The system in principle can close large or irregular colonic and small bowel perforations using gastroscopes and colonoscopes, but no human studies have yet been published.
 

Conclusion

This update was a collaborative effort by four endoscopists who felt that it was timely to review the issue of perforations since they can be serious and challenging to manage. The evolution of endoscopic techniques over the last few years, however, has made the closure of spontaneous and iatrogenic perforations much less fear provoking, and they wished to summarize the approaches to a variety of such situations in order to guide practitioners who may encounter them.

“Although perforation is a serious event, with novel endoscopic techniques and tools, the endoscopist should no longer be paralyzed when it occurs,” the authors concluded.

Some authors reported relationships, such as consulting for or royalties from, device companies such as Medtronic and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

This article was updated Oct. 25, 2021.

A clinical practice update expert review from the American Gastroenterological Association gives advice on management of endoscopic perforations in the gastrointestinal tract, including esophageal, gastric, duodenal and periampullary, and colon perforation.

There are various techniques for dealing with perforations, including through-the-scope clips (TTSCs), over-the-scope clips (OTSCs), self-expanding metal stents (SEMS), and endoscopic suturing. Newer methods include biological glue and esophageal vacuum therapy. These techniques have been the subject of various retrospective analyses, but few prospective studies have examined their safety and efficacy.

In the expert review, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, authors led by Jeffrey H. Lee, MD, MPH, AGAF, of the department of gastroenterology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, emphasized that gastroenterologists should have a perforation protocol in place and practice procedures that will be used to address perforations. Endoscopists should also recognize their own limits and know when a patient should be sent to experienced, high-volume centers for further care.

In the event of a perforation, the entire team should be notified immediately, and carbon dioxide insufflation should be used at a low flow setting. The endoscopist should clean up luminal material to reduce the chance of peritoneal contamination, and then treat with an antibiotic regimen that counters gram-negative and anaerobic bacteria.
 

Esophageal perforation

Esophageal perforations most commonly occur during dilation of strictures, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Perforations of the mucosal flap may happen during so-called third-space endoscopy techniques like peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Small perforations can be readily addressed with TTSCs. Larger perforations call for some combination of TTSCs, endoscopic suturing, fibrin glue injection, or esophageal stenting, though the latter is discouraged because of the potential for erosion.

A more concerning complication of POEM is delayed barrier failure, which can cause leaks, mediastinitis, or peritonitis. These complications have been estimated to occur in 0.2%-1.1% of cases.

In the event of an esophageal perforation, the area should be kept clean by suctioning, or by altering patient position if required. Perforations 1-2 cm in size can be closed using OTSCs. Excessive bleeding or larger tears can be addressed using a fully covered SEMS.

Leaks that occur in the ensuing days after the procedure should be closed using TTSCs, OTSCs, or endosuturing, followed by putting in a fully covered stent. Esophageal fistula should be addressed with a fully covered stent with a tight fit.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy is a newer technique to address large or persistent esophageal perforations. A review found it had a 96% success rate for esophageal perforations.
 

Gastric perforations

Gastric perforations often result from peptic ulcer disease or ingestion of something caustic, and it is a high risk during EMR and ESD procedures (0.4%-0.7% intraprocedural risk). The proximal gastric wall isn’t thick as in the gastric antrum, so proximal endoscopic resections require extra care. Lengthy procedures should be done under anesthesia. Ongoing gaseous insufflation during a perforation may worsen the problem because of heightened intraperitoneal pressure. OTSCs may be a better choice than TTSCs for 1-3 cm perforations, while endoloop/TTSC can be used for larger ones.

Duodenal and periampullary perforations

Duodenal and periampullary perforations occur during duodenal stricture dilation, EMR, endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic ultrasound, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ECRP). The thin duodenal wall makes it more susceptible to perforation than the esophagus, stomach, or colon.

Closing a duodenum perforation can be difficult. Type 1 perforations typically show sudden bleeding and lumen deflation, and often require surgical intervention. Some recent reports have suggested success with TTSCs, OTSCs, band ligation, and endoloops. Type 2 perforations are less obvious, and the endoscopist must examine the gas pattern on fluoroscopic beneath the liver or in the area of the right kidney. Retroperitoneal air following ERCP, if asymptomatic, doesn’t necessarily require intervention.

The challenges presented by the duodenum mean that, for large duodenal polyps, EMR should only be done by experienced endoscopists who are skilled at mucosal closure, and only experts should attempt ESD. Proteolytic enzymes from the pancreas can also pool in the duodenum, which can degrade muscle tissue and lead to delayed perforations. TTSC, OTSC, endosuturing, polymer gels or sheets, and TTSC combined with endoloop cinching have been used to close resection-associated perforations.
 

Colon perforation

Colon perforation may be caused by diverticulitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or occasionally colonic obstruction. Iatrogenic causes are more common and include endoscopic resection, hot forceps biopsy, dilation of stricture resulting from radiation or Crohn’s disease, colonic stenting, and advancement of colonoscope across angulations or into diverticula without straightening the endoscope

Large perforations are usually immediately noticeable and should be treated surgically, as should hemodynamic instability or delayed perforations with peritoneal signs.

Endoscopic closure should be attempted when the perforation site is clean, and lower rectal perforations can generally be repaired with TTSC, OTSC, or endoscopic suturing. In the cecum, or in a torturous or unclean colon, it may be difficult or dangerous to remove the colonoscope and insert an OTSC, and endoscopic suturing may not be possible, making TTSC the only procedure available for right colon perforations. The X-Tack Endoscopic HeliX Tacking System is a recently introduced, through-the-scope technology that places suture-tethered tacks into tissue surrounding the perforation and cinches it together. The system in principle can close large or irregular colonic and small bowel perforations using gastroscopes and colonoscopes, but no human studies have yet been published.
 

Conclusion

This update was a collaborative effort by four endoscopists who felt that it was timely to review the issue of perforations since they can be serious and challenging to manage. The evolution of endoscopic techniques over the last few years, however, has made the closure of spontaneous and iatrogenic perforations much less fear provoking, and they wished to summarize the approaches to a variety of such situations in order to guide practitioners who may encounter them.

“Although perforation is a serious event, with novel endoscopic techniques and tools, the endoscopist should no longer be paralyzed when it occurs,” the authors concluded.

Some authors reported relationships, such as consulting for or royalties from, device companies such as Medtronic and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

This article was updated Oct. 25, 2021.

Combinations of abnormal pH-impedance metrics better predicted nonresponse to proton pump inhibitor therapy, as well as benefit of treatment escalation, than individual metrics in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) on twice-daily PPI.

The researchers found a higher proportion of nonresponders to PPI in a group of patients that had combinations of abnormal reflux burden, characterized as acid exposure time greater than 4%, more than 80 reflux episodes, and/or mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) less than 1,500 ohms, with 85% of these patients improving following initiation of invasive GERD management such as antireflux surgery or magnetic sphincter augmentation.

Not only does the combination of metrics offer more value in identifying responders to PPI than individual metrics, but the combination also offer greater value in “subsequently predicting response to escalation of antireflux management,” study authors C. Prakash Gyawali, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in Gastroenterology.

Currently in question is the applicability of thresholds for metrics from pH impedance monitoring for studies performed on PPI. According to Dr. Gyawali and colleagues, thresholds from the Lyon Consensus may be too high and likewise lack optimal sensitivity for detecting refractory acid burden in patients on PPI, while thresholds based on pH-metry alone, as reported in other publications, may also lack specificity.

To determine which metrics from “on PPI” pH impedance studies predict escalation therapy needs, the researchers analyzed deidentified pH impedance studies performed in healthy volunteers (n=66; median age, 37.5 years) and patients with GERD (n = 43; median age, 57.0 years); both groups were on twice-daily PPI. The investigators compared median values for pH impedance metrics between healthy volunteers and patients with proven GERD using validated measures.

Data were included from a total of three groups: tracings from European and North American healthy volunteers who received twice-daily PPI for 5-7 days; tracings from European patients with heartburn-predominant proven GERD with prior abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI who subsequently received twice-daily PPI; and tracings from a cohort of patients with regurgitation-predominant, proven GERD and prior abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI who subsequently received twice-daily PPI.

A improvement in heartburn of at least 50%, as recorded on 4-point Likert-type scales, defined PPI responders and improvements following antireflux surgery in the European comparison group. Additionally, an improvement of at least 50% on the GERD Health-Related Quality of Life scale also characterized PPI responders and improvements following magnetic sphincter augmentation in the North American comparison group.

There was no significant difference between PPI responders and nonresponders in terms of individual conventional and novel reflux metrics. The combinations of metrics associated with abnormal reflux burden and abnormal mucosal integrity (acid exposure time >4%, >80 reflux episodes, and MNBI <1,500 ohms) were observed in 32.6% of patients with heartburn and 40.5% of patients with regurgitation-predominant GERD, but no healthy volunteers. The combinations were also observed in 57.1% and 82.4% of nonresponders, respectively.

The authors defined a borderline category (acid exposure time, >0.5% but <4%; >40 but <80 reflux episodes), which accounted for 32.6% of patients with heartburn-predominant GERD and 50% of those regurgitation-predominant GERD. Nonresponse among these borderline cases was identified in 28.6% and 81%, respectively.

“Performance characteristics of the presence of abnormal reflux burden and/or abnormal mucosal integrity in predicting PPI nonresponse consisted of sensitivity, 0.50; specificity, 0.71; and AUC, 0.59 (P = .15),” the authors explained. “Performance characteristics of abnormal and borderline reflux burden categories together in predicting PPI nonresponse consisted of sensitivity, 0.86; specificity, 0.36; and AUC, 0.62 (P = .07).”

Limitations of this study included its retrospective nature, small sample sizes for the healthy volunteer and GERD populations, and the lack of data on relevant clinical information, including body mass index, dietary patterns, and PPI types and doses. Additionally, the findings may lack generalizability because of the inclusion of only patients with GERD who underwent surgical management.

Despite these limitations, the researchers wrote that the findings and identified “thresholds will be useful in planning prospective outcome studies to conclusively determine when to escalate antireflux therapy when GERD symptoms persist despite bid PPI therapy.”

The study researchers reported conflicts of interest with several pharmaceutical companies. No funding was reported for the study.

Combinations of abnormal pH-impedance metrics better predicted nonresponse to proton pump inhibitor therapy, as well as benefit of treatment escalation, than individual metrics in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) on twice-daily PPI.

The researchers found a higher proportion of nonresponders to PPI in a group of patients that had combinations of abnormal reflux burden, characterized as acid exposure time greater than 4%, more than 80 reflux episodes, and/or mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) less than 1,500 ohms, with 85% of these patients improving following initiation of invasive GERD management such as antireflux surgery or magnetic sphincter augmentation.

Not only does the combination of metrics offer more value in identifying responders to PPI than individual metrics, but the combination also offer greater value in “subsequently predicting response to escalation of antireflux management,” study authors C. Prakash Gyawali, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in Gastroenterology.

Currently in question is the applicability of thresholds for metrics from pH impedance monitoring for studies performed on PPI. According to Dr. Gyawali and colleagues, thresholds from the Lyon Consensus may be too high and likewise lack optimal sensitivity for detecting refractory acid burden in patients on PPI, while thresholds based on pH-metry alone, as reported in other publications, may also lack specificity.

To determine which metrics from “on PPI” pH impedance studies predict escalation therapy needs, the researchers analyzed deidentified pH impedance studies performed in healthy volunteers (n=66; median age, 37.5 years) and patients with GERD (n = 43; median age, 57.0 years); both groups were on twice-daily PPI. The investigators compared median values for pH impedance metrics between healthy volunteers and patients with proven GERD using validated measures.

Data were included from a total of three groups: tracings from European and North American healthy volunteers who received twice-daily PPI for 5-7 days; tracings from European patients with heartburn-predominant proven GERD with prior abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI who subsequently received twice-daily PPI; and tracings from a cohort of patients with regurgitation-predominant, proven GERD and prior abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI who subsequently received twice-daily PPI.

A improvement in heartburn of at least 50%, as recorded on 4-point Likert-type scales, defined PPI responders and improvements following antireflux surgery in the European comparison group. Additionally, an improvement of at least 50% on the GERD Health-Related Quality of Life scale also characterized PPI responders and improvements following magnetic sphincter augmentation in the North American comparison group.

There was no significant difference between PPI responders and nonresponders in terms of individual conventional and novel reflux metrics. The combinations of metrics associated with abnormal reflux burden and abnormal mucosal integrity (acid exposure time >4%, >80 reflux episodes, and MNBI <1,500 ohms) were observed in 32.6% of patients with heartburn and 40.5% of patients with regurgitation-predominant GERD, but no healthy volunteers. The combinations were also observed in 57.1% and 82.4% of nonresponders, respectively.

The authors defined a borderline category (acid exposure time, >0.5% but <4%; >40 but <80 reflux episodes), which accounted for 32.6% of patients with heartburn-predominant GERD and 50% of those regurgitation-predominant GERD. Nonresponse among these borderline cases was identified in 28.6% and 81%, respectively.

“Performance characteristics of the presence of abnormal reflux burden and/or abnormal mucosal integrity in predicting PPI nonresponse consisted of sensitivity, 0.50; specificity, 0.71; and AUC, 0.59 (P = .15),” the authors explained. “Performance characteristics of abnormal and borderline reflux burden categories together in predicting PPI nonresponse consisted of sensitivity, 0.86; specificity, 0.36; and AUC, 0.62 (P = .07).”

Limitations of this study included its retrospective nature, small sample sizes for the healthy volunteer and GERD populations, and the lack of data on relevant clinical information, including body mass index, dietary patterns, and PPI types and doses. Additionally, the findings may lack generalizability because of the inclusion of only patients with GERD who underwent surgical management.

Despite these limitations, the researchers wrote that the findings and identified “thresholds will be useful in planning prospective outcome studies to conclusively determine when to escalate antireflux therapy when GERD symptoms persist despite bid PPI therapy.”

The study researchers reported conflicts of interest with several pharmaceutical companies. No funding was reported for the study.

Combinations of abnormal pH-impedance metrics better predicted nonresponse to proton pump inhibitor therapy, as well as benefit of treatment escalation, than individual metrics in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) on twice-daily PPI.

The researchers found a higher proportion of nonresponders to PPI in a group of patients that had combinations of abnormal reflux burden, characterized as acid exposure time greater than 4%, more than 80 reflux episodes, and/or mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) less than 1,500 ohms, with 85% of these patients improving following initiation of invasive GERD management such as antireflux surgery or magnetic sphincter augmentation.

Not only does the combination of metrics offer more value in identifying responders to PPI than individual metrics, but the combination also offer greater value in “subsequently predicting response to escalation of antireflux management,” study authors C. Prakash Gyawali, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in Gastroenterology.

Currently in question is the applicability of thresholds for metrics from pH impedance monitoring for studies performed on PPI. According to Dr. Gyawali and colleagues, thresholds from the Lyon Consensus may be too high and likewise lack optimal sensitivity for detecting refractory acid burden in patients on PPI, while thresholds based on pH-metry alone, as reported in other publications, may also lack specificity.

To determine which metrics from “on PPI” pH impedance studies predict escalation therapy needs, the researchers analyzed deidentified pH impedance studies performed in healthy volunteers (n=66; median age, 37.5 years) and patients with GERD (n = 43; median age, 57.0 years); both groups were on twice-daily PPI. The investigators compared median values for pH impedance metrics between healthy volunteers and patients with proven GERD using validated measures.

Data were included from a total of three groups: tracings from European and North American healthy volunteers who received twice-daily PPI for 5-7 days; tracings from European patients with heartburn-predominant proven GERD with prior abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI who subsequently received twice-daily PPI; and tracings from a cohort of patients with regurgitation-predominant, proven GERD and prior abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI who subsequently received twice-daily PPI.

A improvement in heartburn of at least 50%, as recorded on 4-point Likert-type scales, defined PPI responders and improvements following antireflux surgery in the European comparison group. Additionally, an improvement of at least 50% on the GERD Health-Related Quality of Life scale also characterized PPI responders and improvements following magnetic sphincter augmentation in the North American comparison group.

There was no significant difference between PPI responders and nonresponders in terms of individual conventional and novel reflux metrics. The combinations of metrics associated with abnormal reflux burden and abnormal mucosal integrity (acid exposure time >4%, >80 reflux episodes, and MNBI <1,500 ohms) were observed in 32.6% of patients with heartburn and 40.5% of patients with regurgitation-predominant GERD, but no healthy volunteers. The combinations were also observed in 57.1% and 82.4% of nonresponders, respectively.

The authors defined a borderline category (acid exposure time, >0.5% but <4%; >40 but <80 reflux episodes), which accounted for 32.6% of patients with heartburn-predominant GERD and 50% of those regurgitation-predominant GERD. Nonresponse among these borderline cases was identified in 28.6% and 81%, respectively.

“Performance characteristics of the presence of abnormal reflux burden and/or abnormal mucosal integrity in predicting PPI nonresponse consisted of sensitivity, 0.50; specificity, 0.71; and AUC, 0.59 (P = .15),” the authors explained. “Performance characteristics of abnormal and borderline reflux burden categories together in predicting PPI nonresponse consisted of sensitivity, 0.86; specificity, 0.36; and AUC, 0.62 (P = .07).”

Limitations of this study included its retrospective nature, small sample sizes for the healthy volunteer and GERD populations, and the lack of data on relevant clinical information, including body mass index, dietary patterns, and PPI types and doses. Additionally, the findings may lack generalizability because of the inclusion of only patients with GERD who underwent surgical management.

Despite these limitations, the researchers wrote that the findings and identified “thresholds will be useful in planning prospective outcome studies to conclusively determine when to escalate antireflux therapy when GERD symptoms persist despite bid PPI therapy.”

The study researchers reported conflicts of interest with several pharmaceutical companies. No funding was reported for the study.

Among Asian-Pacific populations, the first-degree relatives (FDRs) of individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a significantly increased risk for IBD themselves, according to a large analysis of data from South Korea. The greatest risk was found in siblings and for Crohn’s disease (CD).

The analysis of the South Korean Health Insurance Database included a cohort of 21,940,795 individuals from about 12 million families, with data collected between 2002 and 2017.

Previous studies have examined risk of IBD and familial relationships with existing IBD patients, but they have been subject to biases and have been heterogeneous in design, according to the authors, led by co–first authors Hyun Jung Kim, MD, of Korea University in Seoul, South Korea, and Shailja C. Shah, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. There are few true population-based studies that quantify specific risks for family members of IBD patients, and none that were conducted in non-Western populations.

There are concerns about extrapolating familial IBD risk estimates from Western European populations to Asian populations because new data suggest that there are both genetic and nongenetic disease risk factors that reflect geography and ethnicity, the authors noted.

The researchers identified 45,717 individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 17,848 with CD. Mean annual incidence rates were 4.6 cases of UC and 3.2 cases of CD per 100,000 person-years, which was relatively stable across the study period.

In all, 3.8% of UC and 3.1% of CD diagnoses occurred in FDR’s of existing patients. Among those with an FDR with IBD, the incidence of UC and CD was 54.5 and 99.2 per 100,000 person-years, respectively. When compared with individuals who had no FDRs with IBD, subjects who had an FDR with CD were at a more than 20-fold increased risk of CD (incident rate ratio, 22.2; 95% confidence interval, 20.5-24.5), whereas individuals with an FDR with UC were at a little more than a 10-fold risk for UC (IRR, 10.2; 95% CI, 9.39-11.1).

Subjects with an FDR with CD were at higher risk of UC (IRR, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.77-4.50), and those with an FDR with UC were at higher risk of CD (IRR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.45-3.49). After adjustment for smoking, having an FDR with IBD was associated with an almost eightfold increased risk of UC (IRR, 7.94; 95% CI, 6.98-9.03) and a nearly 20-fold increased risk of CD (IRR, 19.03; 95% CI, 15.58-23.25).

The investigators also performed an analysis based on type of relative, with matching relations with unaffected relatives as the reference for each comparison. The highest risk for incident CD was with twin siblings (IRR, 336.2; 95% CI, 235.0-481.1) followed by nontwin siblings (IRR, 27.6; 95% CI, 24.6-30.9). The risk of CD among offspring of an affected father was 9.40 (95% CI, 6.81-13.0) and 6.54 (95% CI, 4.17-10.3) for offspring of affected mothers. There was a similar pattern for UC, although the magnitude was smaller: 163.7 for twin siblings (95% CI, 105.6-253.9), 13.1 for nontwin siblings (95% CI, 11.4-15.0), 7.11 for offspring of affected fathers (95% CI, 6.10-8.29), and 8.77 for offspring of affected mothers (95% CI, 7.46-10.3).

The researchers found no evidence of a birth cohort effect. Family history and IBD risk is a complicated relationship. Family history includes shared genetics as well as similar environmental exposures, and gene-environment interactions can add another layer of uncertainty. Previous studies have found that asymptomatic family members of IBD patients sometimes have preclinical signs such as changes in intestinal permeability, immune function, the microbiome, and biomarker levels.

IBD has emerged recently among Asian-Pacific populations as a serious health concern, with a recent rapid increase. This may reflect a shift in potentially modifiable environmental triggers. “Precisely quantifying familial risk and patterns might enable more accurate risk counseling and better-targeted clinical surveillance for earlier diagnosis and treatment among FDRs. Moreover, an accurate definition of familial IBD risk across populations also might inform subsequent investigations untangling the various shared environmental and genetic contributions,” the authors wrote.

Although genetic susceptibility is generally accepted as the predominant driver in familial trends for IBD, the authors noted their “study was not designed to determine the contribution of genetic vs. nongenetic determinants to familial IBD risk, and future well-designed dedicated investigations are needed to provide this clarity.”

The study is limited by the relatively short follow-up period, which may not have captured all IBD cases within patients’ families.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among Asian-Pacific populations, the first-degree relatives (FDRs) of individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a significantly increased risk for IBD themselves, according to a large analysis of data from South Korea. The greatest risk was found in siblings and for Crohn’s disease (CD).

The analysis of the South Korean Health Insurance Database included a cohort of 21,940,795 individuals from about 12 million families, with data collected between 2002 and 2017.

Previous studies have examined risk of IBD and familial relationships with existing IBD patients, but they have been subject to biases and have been heterogeneous in design, according to the authors, led by co–first authors Hyun Jung Kim, MD, of Korea University in Seoul, South Korea, and Shailja C. Shah, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. There are few true population-based studies that quantify specific risks for family members of IBD patients, and none that were conducted in non-Western populations.

There are concerns about extrapolating familial IBD risk estimates from Western European populations to Asian populations because new data suggest that there are both genetic and nongenetic disease risk factors that reflect geography and ethnicity, the authors noted.

The researchers identified 45,717 individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 17,848 with CD. Mean annual incidence rates were 4.6 cases of UC and 3.2 cases of CD per 100,000 person-years, which was relatively stable across the study period.

In all, 3.8% of UC and 3.1% of CD diagnoses occurred in FDR’s of existing patients. Among those with an FDR with IBD, the incidence of UC and CD was 54.5 and 99.2 per 100,000 person-years, respectively. When compared with individuals who had no FDRs with IBD, subjects who had an FDR with CD were at a more than 20-fold increased risk of CD (incident rate ratio, 22.2; 95% confidence interval, 20.5-24.5), whereas individuals with an FDR with UC were at a little more than a 10-fold risk for UC (IRR, 10.2; 95% CI, 9.39-11.1).

Subjects with an FDR with CD were at higher risk of UC (IRR, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.77-4.50), and those with an FDR with UC were at higher risk of CD (IRR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.45-3.49). After adjustment for smoking, having an FDR with IBD was associated with an almost eightfold increased risk of UC (IRR, 7.94; 95% CI, 6.98-9.03) and a nearly 20-fold increased risk of CD (IRR, 19.03; 95% CI, 15.58-23.25).

The investigators also performed an analysis based on type of relative, with matching relations with unaffected relatives as the reference for each comparison. The highest risk for incident CD was with twin siblings (IRR, 336.2; 95% CI, 235.0-481.1) followed by nontwin siblings (IRR, 27.6; 95% CI, 24.6-30.9). The risk of CD among offspring of an affected father was 9.40 (95% CI, 6.81-13.0) and 6.54 (95% CI, 4.17-10.3) for offspring of affected mothers. There was a similar pattern for UC, although the magnitude was smaller: 163.7 for twin siblings (95% CI, 105.6-253.9), 13.1 for nontwin siblings (95% CI, 11.4-15.0), 7.11 for offspring of affected fathers (95% CI, 6.10-8.29), and 8.77 for offspring of affected mothers (95% CI, 7.46-10.3).

The researchers found no evidence of a birth cohort effect. Family history and IBD risk is a complicated relationship. Family history includes shared genetics as well as similar environmental exposures, and gene-environment interactions can add another layer of uncertainty. Previous studies have found that asymptomatic family members of IBD patients sometimes have preclinical signs such as changes in intestinal permeability, immune function, the microbiome, and biomarker levels.

IBD has emerged recently among Asian-Pacific populations as a serious health concern, with a recent rapid increase. This may reflect a shift in potentially modifiable environmental triggers. “Precisely quantifying familial risk and patterns might enable more accurate risk counseling and better-targeted clinical surveillance for earlier diagnosis and treatment among FDRs. Moreover, an accurate definition of familial IBD risk across populations also might inform subsequent investigations untangling the various shared environmental and genetic contributions,” the authors wrote.

Although genetic susceptibility is generally accepted as the predominant driver in familial trends for IBD, the authors noted their “study was not designed to determine the contribution of genetic vs. nongenetic determinants to familial IBD risk, and future well-designed dedicated investigations are needed to provide this clarity.”

The study is limited by the relatively short follow-up period, which may not have captured all IBD cases within patients’ families.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among Asian-Pacific populations, the first-degree relatives (FDRs) of individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a significantly increased risk for IBD themselves, according to a large analysis of data from South Korea. The greatest risk was found in siblings and for Crohn’s disease (CD).

The analysis of the South Korean Health Insurance Database included a cohort of 21,940,795 individuals from about 12 million families, with data collected between 2002 and 2017.

Previous studies have examined risk of IBD and familial relationships with existing IBD patients, but they have been subject to biases and have been heterogeneous in design, according to the authors, led by co–first authors Hyun Jung Kim, MD, of Korea University in Seoul, South Korea, and Shailja C. Shah, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. There are few true population-based studies that quantify specific risks for family members of IBD patients, and none that were conducted in non-Western populations.

There are concerns about extrapolating familial IBD risk estimates from Western European populations to Asian populations because new data suggest that there are both genetic and nongenetic disease risk factors that reflect geography and ethnicity, the authors noted.

The researchers identified 45,717 individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 17,848 with CD. Mean annual incidence rates were 4.6 cases of UC and 3.2 cases of CD per 100,000 person-years, which was relatively stable across the study period.

In all, 3.8% of UC and 3.1% of CD diagnoses occurred in FDR’s of existing patients. Among those with an FDR with IBD, the incidence of UC and CD was 54.5 and 99.2 per 100,000 person-years, respectively. When compared with individuals who had no FDRs with IBD, subjects who had an FDR with CD were at a more than 20-fold increased risk of CD (incident rate ratio, 22.2; 95% confidence interval, 20.5-24.5), whereas individuals with an FDR with UC were at a little more than a 10-fold risk for UC (IRR, 10.2; 95% CI, 9.39-11.1).

Subjects with an FDR with CD were at higher risk of UC (IRR, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.77-4.50), and those with an FDR with UC were at higher risk of CD (IRR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.45-3.49). After adjustment for smoking, having an FDR with IBD was associated with an almost eightfold increased risk of UC (IRR, 7.94; 95% CI, 6.98-9.03) and a nearly 20-fold increased risk of CD (IRR, 19.03; 95% CI, 15.58-23.25).

The investigators also performed an analysis based on type of relative, with matching relations with unaffected relatives as the reference for each comparison. The highest risk for incident CD was with twin siblings (IRR, 336.2; 95% CI, 235.0-481.1) followed by nontwin siblings (IRR, 27.6; 95% CI, 24.6-30.9). The risk of CD among offspring of an affected father was 9.40 (95% CI, 6.81-13.0) and 6.54 (95% CI, 4.17-10.3) for offspring of affected mothers. There was a similar pattern for UC, although the magnitude was smaller: 163.7 for twin siblings (95% CI, 105.6-253.9), 13.1 for nontwin siblings (95% CI, 11.4-15.0), 7.11 for offspring of affected fathers (95% CI, 6.10-8.29), and 8.77 for offspring of affected mothers (95% CI, 7.46-10.3).

The researchers found no evidence of a birth cohort effect. Family history and IBD risk is a complicated relationship. Family history includes shared genetics as well as similar environmental exposures, and gene-environment interactions can add another layer of uncertainty. Previous studies have found that asymptomatic family members of IBD patients sometimes have preclinical signs such as changes in intestinal permeability, immune function, the microbiome, and biomarker levels.

IBD has emerged recently among Asian-Pacific populations as a serious health concern, with a recent rapid increase. This may reflect a shift in potentially modifiable environmental triggers. “Precisely quantifying familial risk and patterns might enable more accurate risk counseling and better-targeted clinical surveillance for earlier diagnosis and treatment among FDRs. Moreover, an accurate definition of familial IBD risk across populations also might inform subsequent investigations untangling the various shared environmental and genetic contributions,” the authors wrote.

Although genetic susceptibility is generally accepted as the predominant driver in familial trends for IBD, the authors noted their “study was not designed to determine the contribution of genetic vs. nongenetic determinants to familial IBD risk, and future well-designed dedicated investigations are needed to provide this clarity.”

The study is limited by the relatively short follow-up period, which may not have captured all IBD cases within patients’ families.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published an expert review and clinical practice update addressing endoscopic surveillance and management of colorectal dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Because of practice-altering advances in therapy and surveillance over the past 2 decades, an updated approach is needed, according to authors led by Sanjay K. Murthy, MD, of Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and Fernando Velayos, MD, from Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center.

“Not long ago, notions of imperceptible CRC [colorectal cancer] development and urgent need for colectomy in the face of dysplasia dominated IBD practice,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “However, improvements in disease management, as well as endoscopic technology and quality, have dramatically changed the way in which we conceptualize and manage IBD-related dysplasia over the past 20 years.”

Most notably, the authors called for a more conservative approach to sample collection and intervention.

“The practices of taking nontargeted biopsies and of referring patients for colectomy in the setting of low-grade or invisible dysplasia are being increasingly challenged in favor of ‘smart’ approaches that emphasize careful inspection and targeted sampling of visible and subtle lesions using newer technologies ... as well as endoscopic management of most lesions that appear endoscopically resectable,” the authors wrote. “Indeed, surgery is being increasingly reserved for lesions harboring strong risk factors for invasive cancer or when endoscopic clearance is not possible.”

The 14 best practice advice statements cover a variety of topics, including appropriate lesion terminology and characterization, endoscopy timing, and indications for biopsies, resection, and colectomy.

“The proposed conceptual model and best practice advice statements in this review are best used in conjunction with evolving literature and existing societal guidelines as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors noted.
 

Lesion descriptions

First, the authors provided best practice advice for retirement of three older terms: “dysplasia-associated lesion or mass, adenoma-like mass, and flat dysplasia.” Instead, they advised sorting precancerous colorectal lesions into one of three categories: nonpolypoid (less than 2.5 mm tall), polypoid (at least 2.5 mm tall), or invisible (if detected by nontargeted biopsy).

According to the update, lesion descriptions should also include location, morphology, size, presence of ulceration, clarity of borders, presence within an area of past or current colitis, use of special visualization techniques, and perceived completeness of resection.
 

Surveillance timing

All patients with chronic IBD should undergo colonoscopy screening for dysplasia 8-10 years after diagnosis, the authors wrote. Subsequent colonoscopies should be performed every 1-5 years, depending on risk factors, such as family history of colorectal cancer and quality of prior surveillance exams.

Higher-risk patients may require colonoscopies earlier and more frequently, according to the update. Patients diagnosed with primary sclerosing cholangitis, for instance, should undergo immediate colonoscopy, while patients at high risk of dysplasia (such as those with prior CRC) should undergo annual pouch surveillance.
 

General principles and surveillance colonoscopy

“Conditions and practices for dysplasia detection should be optimized,” the authors wrote, “including control of inflammation, use of high-definition endoscopes, bowel preparation, careful washing and inspection of all colorectal mucosa, and targeted sampling of any suspicious mucosal irregularities.”

Endoscopists should consider use of dye spray chromoendoscopy, “particularly if a standard definition endoscope is used or if there is a history of dysplasia,” the authors wrote. Alternatively, virtual chromoendoscopy may be used in conjunction with high-definition endoscopy.
 

Biopsy, resection, and colectomy

According to the update, if chromoendoscopy is used, then biopsies should be targeted “where mucosal findings are suspicious for dysplasia or are inexplicably different from the surrounding mucosa.”

If chromoendoscopy isn’t used, then the authors advised clinicians to also perform nontargeted biopsies, ideally four per 10 cm of colon, in addition to targeted biopsies of suspicious areas.

When lesions are clearly demarcated and lack submucosal fibrosis or stigmata of invasive cancer, then endoscopic resection is preferred over biopsy. Following resection, mucosal biopsies are usually unnecessary, “unless there are concerns about resection completeness.”

“If the resectability of a lesion is in question, referral to a specialized endoscopist or inflammatory bowel disease center is suggested,” wrote the authors.

They noted that, if visible dysplasia is truly unresectable or if invisible multifocal/high-grade dysplasia is encountered, then colectomy should be performed.
 

IBD control

Finally, the authors emphasized the importance of adequately managing IBD activity to reduce dysplasia risk.

“Because CRC risk in IBD is primarily driven by inflammation, and available data do not demonstrate a clear independent chemopreventive effect of available agents, the focus of chemoprevention in IBD should be control of inflammation,” they wrote.

The expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published an expert review and clinical practice update addressing endoscopic surveillance and management of colorectal dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Because of practice-altering advances in therapy and surveillance over the past 2 decades, an updated approach is needed, according to authors led by Sanjay K. Murthy, MD, of Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and Fernando Velayos, MD, from Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center.

“Not long ago, notions of imperceptible CRC [colorectal cancer] development and urgent need for colectomy in the face of dysplasia dominated IBD practice,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “However, improvements in disease management, as well as endoscopic technology and quality, have dramatically changed the way in which we conceptualize and manage IBD-related dysplasia over the past 20 years.”

Most notably, the authors called for a more conservative approach to sample collection and intervention.

“The practices of taking nontargeted biopsies and of referring patients for colectomy in the setting of low-grade or invisible dysplasia are being increasingly challenged in favor of ‘smart’ approaches that emphasize careful inspection and targeted sampling of visible and subtle lesions using newer technologies ... as well as endoscopic management of most lesions that appear endoscopically resectable,” the authors wrote. “Indeed, surgery is being increasingly reserved for lesions harboring strong risk factors for invasive cancer or when endoscopic clearance is not possible.”

The 14 best practice advice statements cover a variety of topics, including appropriate lesion terminology and characterization, endoscopy timing, and indications for biopsies, resection, and colectomy.

“The proposed conceptual model and best practice advice statements in this review are best used in conjunction with evolving literature and existing societal guidelines as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors noted.
 

Lesion descriptions

First, the authors provided best practice advice for retirement of three older terms: “dysplasia-associated lesion or mass, adenoma-like mass, and flat dysplasia.” Instead, they advised sorting precancerous colorectal lesions into one of three categories: nonpolypoid (less than 2.5 mm tall), polypoid (at least 2.5 mm tall), or invisible (if detected by nontargeted biopsy).

According to the update, lesion descriptions should also include location, morphology, size, presence of ulceration, clarity of borders, presence within an area of past or current colitis, use of special visualization techniques, and perceived completeness of resection.
 

Surveillance timing

All patients with chronic IBD should undergo colonoscopy screening for dysplasia 8-10 years after diagnosis, the authors wrote. Subsequent colonoscopies should be performed every 1-5 years, depending on risk factors, such as family history of colorectal cancer and quality of prior surveillance exams.

Higher-risk patients may require colonoscopies earlier and more frequently, according to the update. Patients diagnosed with primary sclerosing cholangitis, for instance, should undergo immediate colonoscopy, while patients at high risk of dysplasia (such as those with prior CRC) should undergo annual pouch surveillance.
 

General principles and surveillance colonoscopy

“Conditions and practices for dysplasia detection should be optimized,” the authors wrote, “including control of inflammation, use of high-definition endoscopes, bowel preparation, careful washing and inspection of all colorectal mucosa, and targeted sampling of any suspicious mucosal irregularities.”

Endoscopists should consider use of dye spray chromoendoscopy, “particularly if a standard definition endoscope is used or if there is a history of dysplasia,” the authors wrote. Alternatively, virtual chromoendoscopy may be used in conjunction with high-definition endoscopy.
 

Biopsy, resection, and colectomy

According to the update, if chromoendoscopy is used, then biopsies should be targeted “where mucosal findings are suspicious for dysplasia or are inexplicably different from the surrounding mucosa.”

If chromoendoscopy isn’t used, then the authors advised clinicians to also perform nontargeted biopsies, ideally four per 10 cm of colon, in addition to targeted biopsies of suspicious areas.

When lesions are clearly demarcated and lack submucosal fibrosis or stigmata of invasive cancer, then endoscopic resection is preferred over biopsy. Following resection, mucosal biopsies are usually unnecessary, “unless there are concerns about resection completeness.”

“If the resectability of a lesion is in question, referral to a specialized endoscopist or inflammatory bowel disease center is suggested,” wrote the authors.

They noted that, if visible dysplasia is truly unresectable or if invisible multifocal/high-grade dysplasia is encountered, then colectomy should be performed.
 

IBD control

Finally, the authors emphasized the importance of adequately managing IBD activity to reduce dysplasia risk.

“Because CRC risk in IBD is primarily driven by inflammation, and available data do not demonstrate a clear independent chemopreventive effect of available agents, the focus of chemoprevention in IBD should be control of inflammation,” they wrote.

The expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published an expert review and clinical practice update addressing endoscopic surveillance and management of colorectal dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Because of practice-altering advances in therapy and surveillance over the past 2 decades, an updated approach is needed, according to authors led by Sanjay K. Murthy, MD, of Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and Fernando Velayos, MD, from Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center.

“Not long ago, notions of imperceptible CRC [colorectal cancer] development and urgent need for colectomy in the face of dysplasia dominated IBD practice,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “However, improvements in disease management, as well as endoscopic technology and quality, have dramatically changed the way in which we conceptualize and manage IBD-related dysplasia over the past 20 years.”

Most notably, the authors called for a more conservative approach to sample collection and intervention.

“The practices of taking nontargeted biopsies and of referring patients for colectomy in the setting of low-grade or invisible dysplasia are being increasingly challenged in favor of ‘smart’ approaches that emphasize careful inspection and targeted sampling of visible and subtle lesions using newer technologies ... as well as endoscopic management of most lesions that appear endoscopically resectable,” the authors wrote. “Indeed, surgery is being increasingly reserved for lesions harboring strong risk factors for invasive cancer or when endoscopic clearance is not possible.”

The 14 best practice advice statements cover a variety of topics, including appropriate lesion terminology and characterization, endoscopy timing, and indications for biopsies, resection, and colectomy.

“The proposed conceptual model and best practice advice statements in this review are best used in conjunction with evolving literature and existing societal guidelines as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors noted.
 

Lesion descriptions

First, the authors provided best practice advice for retirement of three older terms: “dysplasia-associated lesion or mass, adenoma-like mass, and flat dysplasia.” Instead, they advised sorting precancerous colorectal lesions into one of three categories: nonpolypoid (less than 2.5 mm tall), polypoid (at least 2.5 mm tall), or invisible (if detected by nontargeted biopsy).

According to the update, lesion descriptions should also include location, morphology, size, presence of ulceration, clarity of borders, presence within an area of past or current colitis, use of special visualization techniques, and perceived completeness of resection.
 

Surveillance timing

All patients with chronic IBD should undergo colonoscopy screening for dysplasia 8-10 years after diagnosis, the authors wrote. Subsequent colonoscopies should be performed every 1-5 years, depending on risk factors, such as family history of colorectal cancer and quality of prior surveillance exams.

Higher-risk patients may require colonoscopies earlier and more frequently, according to the update. Patients diagnosed with primary sclerosing cholangitis, for instance, should undergo immediate colonoscopy, while patients at high risk of dysplasia (such as those with prior CRC) should undergo annual pouch surveillance.
 

General principles and surveillance colonoscopy

“Conditions and practices for dysplasia detection should be optimized,” the authors wrote, “including control of inflammation, use of high-definition endoscopes, bowel preparation, careful washing and inspection of all colorectal mucosa, and targeted sampling of any suspicious mucosal irregularities.”

Endoscopists should consider use of dye spray chromoendoscopy, “particularly if a standard definition endoscope is used or if there is a history of dysplasia,” the authors wrote. Alternatively, virtual chromoendoscopy may be used in conjunction with high-definition endoscopy.
 

Biopsy, resection, and colectomy

According to the update, if chromoendoscopy is used, then biopsies should be targeted “where mucosal findings are suspicious for dysplasia or are inexplicably different from the surrounding mucosa.”

If chromoendoscopy isn’t used, then the authors advised clinicians to also perform nontargeted biopsies, ideally four per 10 cm of colon, in addition to targeted biopsies of suspicious areas.

When lesions are clearly demarcated and lack submucosal fibrosis or stigmata of invasive cancer, then endoscopic resection is preferred over biopsy. Following resection, mucosal biopsies are usually unnecessary, “unless there are concerns about resection completeness.”

“If the resectability of a lesion is in question, referral to a specialized endoscopist or inflammatory bowel disease center is suggested,” wrote the authors.

They noted that, if visible dysplasia is truly unresectable or if invisible multifocal/high-grade dysplasia is encountered, then colectomy should be performed.
 

IBD control

Finally, the authors emphasized the importance of adequately managing IBD activity to reduce dysplasia risk.

“Because CRC risk in IBD is primarily driven by inflammation, and available data do not demonstrate a clear independent chemopreventive effect of available agents, the focus of chemoprevention in IBD should be control of inflammation,” they wrote.

The expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Climate change is a global threat, and it presents a dual problem to health care: The system must address health threats that may be caused or exacerbated by climate change, while at the same time minimizing its environmental impact, according to the authors of a paper in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Because of how often it is performed, endoscopy may have one of the highest environmental impacts of any health care procedure. Waste produced by endoscopy is the third largest source in a typical hospital, equivalent yearly to burning 39 million pounds of coal or 13,500 tons of plastic. That makes endoscopy a key target in reducing the environmental footprint of health care, according to the authors, who were led by Rosemary Haddock, MBChB, MRCP, of Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, Scotland.

Climate change has direct impacts on health, ranging from the effects of wildfire smoke and pollution on respiratory and cardiac health to food insecurity, heat stroke, and alterations to the geographic ranges of vector-borne diseases. It also raises the risk of future pandemics like COVID-19. “Climate change is a major threat to health and threatens to undermine the last 50 years of public health gains,” the authors wrote.

Although the effects of climate change on gastrointestinal diseases has not been studied as extensively as other organ systems, there are known impacts. These include more gastrointestinal infections at higher temperatures, the risk of enteric pathogens and viral hepatitis as a result of flooding and higher water temperatures, and malnutrition caused by the disruption of food crops and distribution. “It seems a little unlikely that the organs which we are interested in as gastroenterologists and hepatologists are largely exempt from the direct effects of hotter temperatures, when every other human organ system appears to be affected almost without exception,” the authors wrote.

Those issues put an onus on health care to address climate change, not only in health care delivery but also to find ways to reduce emissions as an industry. Hospitals and other large facilities can act as “anchor institutions” that set an example within the community and influence others since they procure goods and services and own assets and land. To date, few institutions have adopted this stance.

A key question is how health care institutions can reduce resource use while maintaining quality of care. One approach is to identify areas of medical overuse, where wasteful practices have no patient benefit. The authors believe that a reduction in endoscopic procedures could have one of the largest impacts on carbon emissions. They emphasized that reduced numbers of procedures would likely have greater effect than making procedures “greener.”

Some endoscopic procedures offer little value to the patient. The approach of screening to combat disease, introduced in 1968, should be challenged in some patient groups because it can lead to unnecessary procedures.

The American Gastroenterological Association has identified some procedures as commonly overused, including screening colonoscopy in average-risk individuals, surveillance colonoscopy for low-risk polyps, and surveillance esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus. The authors note that performing fewer endoscopies will require shifts in behavior, referral patterns, education, and culture, all of which will take time.

In the meantime, endoscopists can take some steps to reduce the footprint of existing procedures: source supplies through sustainable means, which is important because supply chain emissions account for more than half of health care emissions; seek out sources of renewable energy; use their institution’s status as an “anchor institution” to pressure suppliers into using sustainable practices; evaluate less invasive procedures, such as Cytosponge or fecal immunochemical test; employ reusable or recyclable equipment; minimize the use of nitrous oxide, which is a key greenhouse gas; segregate infectious waste; and develop multiple recycling streams.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Climate change is a global threat, and it presents a dual problem to health care: The system must address health threats that may be caused or exacerbated by climate change, while at the same time minimizing its environmental impact, according to the authors of a paper in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Because of how often it is performed, endoscopy may have one of the highest environmental impacts of any health care procedure. Waste produced by endoscopy is the third largest source in a typical hospital, equivalent yearly to burning 39 million pounds of coal or 13,500 tons of plastic. That makes endoscopy a key target in reducing the environmental footprint of health care, according to the authors, who were led by Rosemary Haddock, MBChB, MRCP, of Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, Scotland.

Climate change has direct impacts on health, ranging from the effects of wildfire smoke and pollution on respiratory and cardiac health to food insecurity, heat stroke, and alterations to the geographic ranges of vector-borne diseases. It also raises the risk of future pandemics like COVID-19. “Climate change is a major threat to health and threatens to undermine the last 50 years of public health gains,” the authors wrote.

Although the effects of climate change on gastrointestinal diseases has not been studied as extensively as other organ systems, there are known impacts. These include more gastrointestinal infections at higher temperatures, the risk of enteric pathogens and viral hepatitis as a result of flooding and higher water temperatures, and malnutrition caused by the disruption of food crops and distribution. “It seems a little unlikely that the organs which we are interested in as gastroenterologists and hepatologists are largely exempt from the direct effects of hotter temperatures, when every other human organ system appears to be affected almost without exception,” the authors wrote.

Those issues put an onus on health care to address climate change, not only in health care delivery but also to find ways to reduce emissions as an industry. Hospitals and other large facilities can act as “anchor institutions” that set an example within the community and influence others since they procure goods and services and own assets and land. To date, few institutions have adopted this stance.

A key question is how health care institutions can reduce resource use while maintaining quality of care. One approach is to identify areas of medical overuse, where wasteful practices have no patient benefit. The authors believe that a reduction in endoscopic procedures could have one of the largest impacts on carbon emissions. They emphasized that reduced numbers of procedures would likely have greater effect than making procedures “greener.”

Some endoscopic procedures offer little value to the patient. The approach of screening to combat disease, introduced in 1968, should be challenged in some patient groups because it can lead to unnecessary procedures.

The American Gastroenterological Association has identified some procedures as commonly overused, including screening colonoscopy in average-risk individuals, surveillance colonoscopy for low-risk polyps, and surveillance esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus. The authors note that performing fewer endoscopies will require shifts in behavior, referral patterns, education, and culture, all of which will take time.

In the meantime, endoscopists can take some steps to reduce the footprint of existing procedures: source supplies through sustainable means, which is important because supply chain emissions account for more than half of health care emissions; seek out sources of renewable energy; use their institution’s status as an “anchor institution” to pressure suppliers into using sustainable practices; evaluate less invasive procedures, such as Cytosponge or fecal immunochemical test; employ reusable or recyclable equipment; minimize the use of nitrous oxide, which is a key greenhouse gas; segregate infectious waste; and develop multiple recycling streams.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Climate change is a global threat, and it presents a dual problem to health care: The system must address health threats that may be caused or exacerbated by climate change, while at the same time minimizing its environmental impact, according to the authors of a paper in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Because of how often it is performed, endoscopy may have one of the highest environmental impacts of any health care procedure. Waste produced by endoscopy is the third largest source in a typical hospital, equivalent yearly to burning 39 million pounds of coal or 13,500 tons of plastic. That makes endoscopy a key target in reducing the environmental footprint of health care, according to the authors, who were led by Rosemary Haddock, MBChB, MRCP, of Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, Scotland.

Climate change has direct impacts on health, ranging from the effects of wildfire smoke and pollution on respiratory and cardiac health to food insecurity, heat stroke, and alterations to the geographic ranges of vector-borne diseases. It also raises the risk of future pandemics like COVID-19. “Climate change is a major threat to health and threatens to undermine the last 50 years of public health gains,” the authors wrote.

Although the effects of climate change on gastrointestinal diseases has not been studied as extensively as other organ systems, there are known impacts. These include more gastrointestinal infections at higher temperatures, the risk of enteric pathogens and viral hepatitis as a result of flooding and higher water temperatures, and malnutrition caused by the disruption of food crops and distribution. “It seems a little unlikely that the organs which we are interested in as gastroenterologists and hepatologists are largely exempt from the direct effects of hotter temperatures, when every other human organ system appears to be affected almost without exception,” the authors wrote.

Those issues put an onus on health care to address climate change, not only in health care delivery but also to find ways to reduce emissions as an industry. Hospitals and other large facilities can act as “anchor institutions” that set an example within the community and influence others since they procure goods and services and own assets and land. To date, few institutions have adopted this stance.

A key question is how health care institutions can reduce resource use while maintaining quality of care. One approach is to identify areas of medical overuse, where wasteful practices have no patient benefit. The authors believe that a reduction in endoscopic procedures could have one of the largest impacts on carbon emissions. They emphasized that reduced numbers of procedures would likely have greater effect than making procedures “greener.”

Some endoscopic procedures offer little value to the patient. The approach of screening to combat disease, introduced in 1968, should be challenged in some patient groups because it can lead to unnecessary procedures.

The American Gastroenterological Association has identified some procedures as commonly overused, including screening colonoscopy in average-risk individuals, surveillance colonoscopy for low-risk polyps, and surveillance esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus. The authors note that performing fewer endoscopies will require shifts in behavior, referral patterns, education, and culture, all of which will take time.

In the meantime, endoscopists can take some steps to reduce the footprint of existing procedures: source supplies through sustainable means, which is important because supply chain emissions account for more than half of health care emissions; seek out sources of renewable energy; use their institution’s status as an “anchor institution” to pressure suppliers into using sustainable practices; evaluate less invasive procedures, such as Cytosponge or fecal immunochemical test; employ reusable or recyclable equipment; minimize the use of nitrous oxide, which is a key greenhouse gas; segregate infectious waste; and develop multiple recycling streams.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.