From the AGA Journals

In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.

The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.

Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.

To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.

Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).

A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.

Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.

Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.

Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.

There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).

Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”

An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.

While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.

In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.

The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.

Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.

To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.

Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).

A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.

Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.

Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.

Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.

There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).

Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”

An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.

While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.

In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.

The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.

Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.

To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.

Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).

A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.

Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.

Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.

Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.

There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).

Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”

An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.

While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update expert review outlining tenets of high-quality colonoscopy screening and surveillance.

The update includes 15 best practice advice statements aimed at the endoscopist and/or endoscopy unit, reported lead author Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues.

“The efficacy of colonoscopy varies widely among endoscopists, and lower-quality colonoscopies are associated with higher interval CRC [colorectal cancer] incidence and mortality,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

According to Dr. Keswani and colleagues, quality of colonoscopy screening and surveillance is shaped by three parameters: safety, effectiveness, and value. Some metrics may be best measured at a unit level, they noted, while others are more clinician specific.

“For uncommon outcomes (e.g., adverse events) or metrics that reflect system-based practice (e.g., bowel preparation quality), measurement of aggregate unit-level performance is best,” the investigators wrote. “In contrast, for metrics that primarily reflect colonoscopist skill (e.g., adenoma detection rate), endoscopist-level measurement is preferred to enable individual feedback.”
 

Endoscopy unit best practice advice

According to the update, endoscopy units should prepare patients for, and monitor, adverse events. Prior to the procedure, patients should be informed about possible adverse events and warning symptoms, and emergency contact information should be recorded. Following the procedure, systematic monitoring of delayed adverse events may be considered, including “postprocedure bleeding, perforation, hospital readmission, 30-day mortality, and/or interval colorectal cancer cases,” with rates reported at the unit level.

Ensuring high-quality bowel preparation is also the responsibility of the endoscopy unit, according to Dr. Keswani and colleagues, and should be measured at least annually. Units should aim for a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of at least 6, with each segment scoring at least 2, in at least 90% of colonoscopies. The update provides best practice advice on split-dose bowel prep, with patient instructions written at a sixth-grade level in their native language. If routine quality measurement reveals suboptimal bowel prep quality, instruction revision may be needed, as well as further patient education and support.

During the actual procedure, a high-definition colonoscope should be used, the expert panel wrote. They called for measurement of endoscopist performance via four parameters: cecal intubation rate, which should be at least 90%; mean withdrawal time, which should be at least 6 minutes (aspirational, ≥9 minutes); adenoma detection rate, measured annually or when a given endoscopist has accrued 250 screening colonoscopies; and serrated lesion detection rate.
 

Endoscopist best practice advice

Both adenoma detection rate and serrated lesion detection rate should also be measured at an endoscopist level, with rates of at least 30% for adenomas and at least 7% for serrated lesions (aspirational, ≥35% and ≥10%, respectively).

“If rates are low, improvement efforts should be oriented toward both colonoscopists and pathologists,” the investigators noted.

A variety of strategies are advised to improve outcomes at the endoscopist level, including a second look at the right colon to detect polyps, either in forward or retroflexed view; use of cold-snare polypectomy for nonpedunculated polyps 3-9 mm in size and avoidance of forceps in polyps greater than 2 mm in size; evaluation by an expert in polypectomy with attempted resection for patients with complex polyps lacking “overt malignant endoscopic features or pathology consistent with invasive adenocarcinoma”; and thorough documentation of all findings.

More broadly, the update advises endoscopists to follow guideline-recommended intervals for screening and surveillance, including repeat colonoscopy in 3 years for all patients with advanced adenomas versus a 10-year interval for patients with normal risk or “only distal hyperplastic polyps.”
 

Resource-limited institutions and a look ahead

Dr. Keswani and colleagues concluded the clinical practice update with a nod to the challenges of real-world practice, noting that some institutions may not have the resources to comply with all the best practice advice statements.

“If limited resources are available, measurement of cecal intubation rates, bowel preparation quality, and adenoma detection rate should be prioritized,” they wrote.

They also offered a succinct summary of outstanding research needs, saying “we anticipate future work to clarify optimal polyp resection techniques, refine surveillance intervals based on provider skill and patient risk, and highlight the benefits of artificial intelligence in improving colonoscopy quality.”

This clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. Dr. Keswani consults for Boston Scientific. The other authors had no disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 20, 2021.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update expert review outlining tenets of high-quality colonoscopy screening and surveillance.

The update includes 15 best practice advice statements aimed at the endoscopist and/or endoscopy unit, reported lead author Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues.

“The efficacy of colonoscopy varies widely among endoscopists, and lower-quality colonoscopies are associated with higher interval CRC [colorectal cancer] incidence and mortality,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

According to Dr. Keswani and colleagues, quality of colonoscopy screening and surveillance is shaped by three parameters: safety, effectiveness, and value. Some metrics may be best measured at a unit level, they noted, while others are more clinician specific.

“For uncommon outcomes (e.g., adverse events) or metrics that reflect system-based practice (e.g., bowel preparation quality), measurement of aggregate unit-level performance is best,” the investigators wrote. “In contrast, for metrics that primarily reflect colonoscopist skill (e.g., adenoma detection rate), endoscopist-level measurement is preferred to enable individual feedback.”
 

Endoscopy unit best practice advice

According to the update, endoscopy units should prepare patients for, and monitor, adverse events. Prior to the procedure, patients should be informed about possible adverse events and warning symptoms, and emergency contact information should be recorded. Following the procedure, systematic monitoring of delayed adverse events may be considered, including “postprocedure bleeding, perforation, hospital readmission, 30-day mortality, and/or interval colorectal cancer cases,” with rates reported at the unit level.

Ensuring high-quality bowel preparation is also the responsibility of the endoscopy unit, according to Dr. Keswani and colleagues, and should be measured at least annually. Units should aim for a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of at least 6, with each segment scoring at least 2, in at least 90% of colonoscopies. The update provides best practice advice on split-dose bowel prep, with patient instructions written at a sixth-grade level in their native language. If routine quality measurement reveals suboptimal bowel prep quality, instruction revision may be needed, as well as further patient education and support.

During the actual procedure, a high-definition colonoscope should be used, the expert panel wrote. They called for measurement of endoscopist performance via four parameters: cecal intubation rate, which should be at least 90%; mean withdrawal time, which should be at least 6 minutes (aspirational, ≥9 minutes); adenoma detection rate, measured annually or when a given endoscopist has accrued 250 screening colonoscopies; and serrated lesion detection rate.
 

Endoscopist best practice advice

Both adenoma detection rate and serrated lesion detection rate should also be measured at an endoscopist level, with rates of at least 30% for adenomas and at least 7% for serrated lesions (aspirational, ≥35% and ≥10%, respectively).

“If rates are low, improvement efforts should be oriented toward both colonoscopists and pathologists,” the investigators noted.

A variety of strategies are advised to improve outcomes at the endoscopist level, including a second look at the right colon to detect polyps, either in forward or retroflexed view; use of cold-snare polypectomy for nonpedunculated polyps 3-9 mm in size and avoidance of forceps in polyps greater than 2 mm in size; evaluation by an expert in polypectomy with attempted resection for patients with complex polyps lacking “overt malignant endoscopic features or pathology consistent with invasive adenocarcinoma”; and thorough documentation of all findings.

More broadly, the update advises endoscopists to follow guideline-recommended intervals for screening and surveillance, including repeat colonoscopy in 3 years for all patients with advanced adenomas versus a 10-year interval for patients with normal risk or “only distal hyperplastic polyps.”
 

Resource-limited institutions and a look ahead

Dr. Keswani and colleagues concluded the clinical practice update with a nod to the challenges of real-world practice, noting that some institutions may not have the resources to comply with all the best practice advice statements.

“If limited resources are available, measurement of cecal intubation rates, bowel preparation quality, and adenoma detection rate should be prioritized,” they wrote.

They also offered a succinct summary of outstanding research needs, saying “we anticipate future work to clarify optimal polyp resection techniques, refine surveillance intervals based on provider skill and patient risk, and highlight the benefits of artificial intelligence in improving colonoscopy quality.”

This clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. Dr. Keswani consults for Boston Scientific. The other authors had no disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 20, 2021.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update expert review outlining tenets of high-quality colonoscopy screening and surveillance.

The update includes 15 best practice advice statements aimed at the endoscopist and/or endoscopy unit, reported lead author Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues.

“The efficacy of colonoscopy varies widely among endoscopists, and lower-quality colonoscopies are associated with higher interval CRC [colorectal cancer] incidence and mortality,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

According to Dr. Keswani and colleagues, quality of colonoscopy screening and surveillance is shaped by three parameters: safety, effectiveness, and value. Some metrics may be best measured at a unit level, they noted, while others are more clinician specific.

“For uncommon outcomes (e.g., adverse events) or metrics that reflect system-based practice (e.g., bowel preparation quality), measurement of aggregate unit-level performance is best,” the investigators wrote. “In contrast, for metrics that primarily reflect colonoscopist skill (e.g., adenoma detection rate), endoscopist-level measurement is preferred to enable individual feedback.”
 

Endoscopy unit best practice advice

According to the update, endoscopy units should prepare patients for, and monitor, adverse events. Prior to the procedure, patients should be informed about possible adverse events and warning symptoms, and emergency contact information should be recorded. Following the procedure, systematic monitoring of delayed adverse events may be considered, including “postprocedure bleeding, perforation, hospital readmission, 30-day mortality, and/or interval colorectal cancer cases,” with rates reported at the unit level.

Ensuring high-quality bowel preparation is also the responsibility of the endoscopy unit, according to Dr. Keswani and colleagues, and should be measured at least annually. Units should aim for a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of at least 6, with each segment scoring at least 2, in at least 90% of colonoscopies. The update provides best practice advice on split-dose bowel prep, with patient instructions written at a sixth-grade level in their native language. If routine quality measurement reveals suboptimal bowel prep quality, instruction revision may be needed, as well as further patient education and support.

During the actual procedure, a high-definition colonoscope should be used, the expert panel wrote. They called for measurement of endoscopist performance via four parameters: cecal intubation rate, which should be at least 90%; mean withdrawal time, which should be at least 6 minutes (aspirational, ≥9 minutes); adenoma detection rate, measured annually or when a given endoscopist has accrued 250 screening colonoscopies; and serrated lesion detection rate.
 

Endoscopist best practice advice

Both adenoma detection rate and serrated lesion detection rate should also be measured at an endoscopist level, with rates of at least 30% for adenomas and at least 7% for serrated lesions (aspirational, ≥35% and ≥10%, respectively).

“If rates are low, improvement efforts should be oriented toward both colonoscopists and pathologists,” the investigators noted.

A variety of strategies are advised to improve outcomes at the endoscopist level, including a second look at the right colon to detect polyps, either in forward or retroflexed view; use of cold-snare polypectomy for nonpedunculated polyps 3-9 mm in size and avoidance of forceps in polyps greater than 2 mm in size; evaluation by an expert in polypectomy with attempted resection for patients with complex polyps lacking “overt malignant endoscopic features or pathology consistent with invasive adenocarcinoma”; and thorough documentation of all findings.

More broadly, the update advises endoscopists to follow guideline-recommended intervals for screening and surveillance, including repeat colonoscopy in 3 years for all patients with advanced adenomas versus a 10-year interval for patients with normal risk or “only distal hyperplastic polyps.”
 

Resource-limited institutions and a look ahead

Dr. Keswani and colleagues concluded the clinical practice update with a nod to the challenges of real-world practice, noting that some institutions may not have the resources to comply with all the best practice advice statements.

“If limited resources are available, measurement of cecal intubation rates, bowel preparation quality, and adenoma detection rate should be prioritized,” they wrote.

They also offered a succinct summary of outstanding research needs, saying “we anticipate future work to clarify optimal polyp resection techniques, refine surveillance intervals based on provider skill and patient risk, and highlight the benefits of artificial intelligence in improving colonoscopy quality.”

This clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. Dr. Keswani consults for Boston Scientific. The other authors had no disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 20, 2021.

A new study sought to establish a new, clinically relevant mouse model of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) that closely reflects human disease as well as the multitissue dynamics involved in the progression and regression of the condition, according to the researchers. This study focused on the association between progression of NASH and consumption of a Western diet, as well as the development of HCC.

The study used a model consisting of hyperphagic mice that lacked a functional ALMS1 gene (Foz/Foz), in addition to wild-type littermates. The model ultimately defined “the key signaling and cytokine pathways that are critical for disease development and resolution” associated with NASH, wrote Souradipta Ganguly, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues. The report was published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

According to the researchers, this study is unique given “current rodent models of NASH do not reproduce the complete spectrum of metabolic and histologic” nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) phenotypes. Likewise, the lack of “systemic studies in a single rodent model of NASH that closely recapitulates the human pathology” reinforces the importance of the new model, the researchers added.

Over time, NASH can progress to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Studies that fed wild-type mice a Western diet have largely failed to mimic the full pathology of NASH to fibrosis to HCC. In addition, the models in these studies fail to reflect the multitissue injuries frequently observed in NASH.

To circumvent these challenges, Dr. Ganguly and colleagues used ALMS1-mutated mice to develop a rodent model of metabolic syndrome that included NASH with fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. The ALMS1 mutation also resulted in the mice becoming hyperphagic, which increases hunger and leads to early-onset obesity, among other conditions characteristic of metabolic syndrome.

Researchers fed the hyperphagic Foz/Foz mice and wild-type littermates a Western diet or standard diet during a 12-week period for NASH/fibrosis and a 24-week period for HCC. After NASH was established, mice were switched back to normal chow to see if the condition regressed.

Macronutrient distribution of the study’s Western diet included 40% fat, 15% protein, and 44% carbohydrates, based on total caloric content. In contrast, the standard chow included 12% fat, 23% protein, and 65% carbohydrates from total calories.

Within 1-2 weeks, Foz mice fed the Western diet were considered steatotic. These mice subsequently developed NASH by 4 weeks of the study and grade 3 fibrosis by 12 weeks. The researchers concurrently observed the development of chronic kidney injury in the animals. Mice continuing to the 24 weeks ultimately progressed to cirrhosis and HCC; these mice demonstrated reduced survival due to cardiac dysfunction.

Mice that developed NASH were then switched to a diet consisting of normal chow. Following this switch, NASH began to regress, and survival improved. These mice did not appear to develop HCC, and total liver weight was significantly reduced compared with the mice that didn’t enter the regression phase of the study. The researchers wrote that the resolution of hepatic steatosis was also consistent with improved glucose tolerance.

In transcriptomic and histologic analyses, the researchers found strong concordance between Foz/Foz mice NASH liver and human NASH.

The study also found that early disruption of gut barrier, microbial dysbiosis, lipopolysaccharide leakage, and intestinal inflammation preceded NASH in the Foz/Foz mice fed the Western diet, resulting in acute-phase liver inflammation. The early inflammation was reflected by an increase in several chemokines and cytokines by 1-2 weeks. As NASH progressed, the liver cytokine/chemokine profile continued to evolve, leading to monocyte recruitment predominance. “Further studies will elaborate the roles of these NASH-specific microbiomial features in the development and progression of NASH fibrosis,” wrote the researchers.

The study received financial support Janssen, in addition to funding from an ALF Liver Scholar award, ACTRI/National Institutes of Health, the SDDRC, and the NIAAA/National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no conflicts.

A new study sought to establish a new, clinically relevant mouse model of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) that closely reflects human disease as well as the multitissue dynamics involved in the progression and regression of the condition, according to the researchers. This study focused on the association between progression of NASH and consumption of a Western diet, as well as the development of HCC.

The study used a model consisting of hyperphagic mice that lacked a functional ALMS1 gene (Foz/Foz), in addition to wild-type littermates. The model ultimately defined “the key signaling and cytokine pathways that are critical for disease development and resolution” associated with NASH, wrote Souradipta Ganguly, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues. The report was published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

According to the researchers, this study is unique given “current rodent models of NASH do not reproduce the complete spectrum of metabolic and histologic” nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) phenotypes. Likewise, the lack of “systemic studies in a single rodent model of NASH that closely recapitulates the human pathology” reinforces the importance of the new model, the researchers added.

Over time, NASH can progress to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Studies that fed wild-type mice a Western diet have largely failed to mimic the full pathology of NASH to fibrosis to HCC. In addition, the models in these studies fail to reflect the multitissue injuries frequently observed in NASH.

To circumvent these challenges, Dr. Ganguly and colleagues used ALMS1-mutated mice to develop a rodent model of metabolic syndrome that included NASH with fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. The ALMS1 mutation also resulted in the mice becoming hyperphagic, which increases hunger and leads to early-onset obesity, among other conditions characteristic of metabolic syndrome.

Researchers fed the hyperphagic Foz/Foz mice and wild-type littermates a Western diet or standard diet during a 12-week period for NASH/fibrosis and a 24-week period for HCC. After NASH was established, mice were switched back to normal chow to see if the condition regressed.

Macronutrient distribution of the study’s Western diet included 40% fat, 15% protein, and 44% carbohydrates, based on total caloric content. In contrast, the standard chow included 12% fat, 23% protein, and 65% carbohydrates from total calories.

Within 1-2 weeks, Foz mice fed the Western diet were considered steatotic. These mice subsequently developed NASH by 4 weeks of the study and grade 3 fibrosis by 12 weeks. The researchers concurrently observed the development of chronic kidney injury in the animals. Mice continuing to the 24 weeks ultimately progressed to cirrhosis and HCC; these mice demonstrated reduced survival due to cardiac dysfunction.

Mice that developed NASH were then switched to a diet consisting of normal chow. Following this switch, NASH began to regress, and survival improved. These mice did not appear to develop HCC, and total liver weight was significantly reduced compared with the mice that didn’t enter the regression phase of the study. The researchers wrote that the resolution of hepatic steatosis was also consistent with improved glucose tolerance.

In transcriptomic and histologic analyses, the researchers found strong concordance between Foz/Foz mice NASH liver and human NASH.

The study also found that early disruption of gut barrier, microbial dysbiosis, lipopolysaccharide leakage, and intestinal inflammation preceded NASH in the Foz/Foz mice fed the Western diet, resulting in acute-phase liver inflammation. The early inflammation was reflected by an increase in several chemokines and cytokines by 1-2 weeks. As NASH progressed, the liver cytokine/chemokine profile continued to evolve, leading to monocyte recruitment predominance. “Further studies will elaborate the roles of these NASH-specific microbiomial features in the development and progression of NASH fibrosis,” wrote the researchers.

The study received financial support Janssen, in addition to funding from an ALF Liver Scholar award, ACTRI/National Institutes of Health, the SDDRC, and the NIAAA/National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no conflicts.

A new study sought to establish a new, clinically relevant mouse model of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) that closely reflects human disease as well as the multitissue dynamics involved in the progression and regression of the condition, according to the researchers. This study focused on the association between progression of NASH and consumption of a Western diet, as well as the development of HCC.

The study used a model consisting of hyperphagic mice that lacked a functional ALMS1 gene (Foz/Foz), in addition to wild-type littermates. The model ultimately defined “the key signaling and cytokine pathways that are critical for disease development and resolution” associated with NASH, wrote Souradipta Ganguly, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues. The report was published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

According to the researchers, this study is unique given “current rodent models of NASH do not reproduce the complete spectrum of metabolic and histologic” nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) phenotypes. Likewise, the lack of “systemic studies in a single rodent model of NASH that closely recapitulates the human pathology” reinforces the importance of the new model, the researchers added.

Over time, NASH can progress to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Studies that fed wild-type mice a Western diet have largely failed to mimic the full pathology of NASH to fibrosis to HCC. In addition, the models in these studies fail to reflect the multitissue injuries frequently observed in NASH.

To circumvent these challenges, Dr. Ganguly and colleagues used ALMS1-mutated mice to develop a rodent model of metabolic syndrome that included NASH with fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. The ALMS1 mutation also resulted in the mice becoming hyperphagic, which increases hunger and leads to early-onset obesity, among other conditions characteristic of metabolic syndrome.

Researchers fed the hyperphagic Foz/Foz mice and wild-type littermates a Western diet or standard diet during a 12-week period for NASH/fibrosis and a 24-week period for HCC. After NASH was established, mice were switched back to normal chow to see if the condition regressed.

Macronutrient distribution of the study’s Western diet included 40% fat, 15% protein, and 44% carbohydrates, based on total caloric content. In contrast, the standard chow included 12% fat, 23% protein, and 65% carbohydrates from total calories.

Within 1-2 weeks, Foz mice fed the Western diet were considered steatotic. These mice subsequently developed NASH by 4 weeks of the study and grade 3 fibrosis by 12 weeks. The researchers concurrently observed the development of chronic kidney injury in the animals. Mice continuing to the 24 weeks ultimately progressed to cirrhosis and HCC; these mice demonstrated reduced survival due to cardiac dysfunction.

Mice that developed NASH were then switched to a diet consisting of normal chow. Following this switch, NASH began to regress, and survival improved. These mice did not appear to develop HCC, and total liver weight was significantly reduced compared with the mice that didn’t enter the regression phase of the study. The researchers wrote that the resolution of hepatic steatosis was also consistent with improved glucose tolerance.

In transcriptomic and histologic analyses, the researchers found strong concordance between Foz/Foz mice NASH liver and human NASH.

The study also found that early disruption of gut barrier, microbial dysbiosis, lipopolysaccharide leakage, and intestinal inflammation preceded NASH in the Foz/Foz mice fed the Western diet, resulting in acute-phase liver inflammation. The early inflammation was reflected by an increase in several chemokines and cytokines by 1-2 weeks. As NASH progressed, the liver cytokine/chemokine profile continued to evolve, leading to monocyte recruitment predominance. “Further studies will elaborate the roles of these NASH-specific microbiomial features in the development and progression of NASH fibrosis,” wrote the researchers.

The study received financial support Janssen, in addition to funding from an ALF Liver Scholar award, ACTRI/National Institutes of Health, the SDDRC, and the NIAAA/National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no conflicts.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) has published a two-part clinical practice guideline for immunizing patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that covers both live and inactivated vaccines across pediatric and adult patients.

The guideline, which has been endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, is composed of recommendations drawn from a broader body of data than prior publications on the same topic, according to Eric I. Benchimol, MD, PhD, of the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Previous guidelines on immunizations of patients with IBD considered only the limited available evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness in IBD populations, and failed to consider the ample evidence available in the general population or in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases when assessing the certainty of evidence or developing their recommendations,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
 

Part 1: Live vaccine recommendations

The first part of the guideline includes seven recommendations for use of live vaccines in patients with IBD.

In this area, decision-making is largely dependent upon use of immunosuppressive therapy, which the investigators defined as “corticosteroids, thiopurines, biologics, small molecules such as JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, and combinations thereof,” with the caveat that “there is no standard definition of immunosuppression,” and “the degree to which immunosuppressive therapy causes clinically significant immunosuppression generally is dose related and varies by drug.”

Before offering specific recommendations, Dr. Benchimol and colleagues provided three general principles to abide by: 1. Clinicians should review each patient’s history of immunization and vaccine-preventable diseases at diagnosis and on a routine basis; 2. Appropriate vaccinations should ideally be given prior to starting immunosuppressive therapy; and 3. Immunosuppressive therapy (when urgently needed) should not be delayed so that immunizations can be given in advance.

“[Delaying therapy] could lead to more anticipated harms than benefits, due to the risk of progression of the inflammatory activity and resulting complications,” the investigators wrote.

Specific recommendations in the guideline address measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); and varicella. Both vaccines are recommended for susceptible pediatric and adult patients not taking immunosuppressive therapy. In contrast, neither vaccine is recommended for immunosuppressed patients of any age. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.

Concerning vaccination within the first 6 months of life for infants born of mothers taking biologics, the expert panel did not reach a consensus.

“[T]he group was unable to recommend for or against their routine use because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence on safety outcomes was insufficient to justify a recommendation,” wrote Dr. Benchimol and colleagues. “Health care providers should be cautious with the administration of live vaccines in the first year of life in the infants of mothers using biologics. These infants should be evaluated by clinicians with expertise in the impact of exposure to monoclonal antibody biologics in utero.”
 

Part 2: Inactivated vaccine recommendations

The second part of the guideline, by lead author Jennifer L. Jones, MD, of Dalhousie University, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues, provides 15 recommendations for giving inactivated vaccines to patients with IBD.

The panel considered eight vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib); herpes zoster (HZ); hepatitis B; influenza; Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcal vaccine); Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcal vaccine); human papillomavirus (HPV); and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

Generally, the above vaccines are recommended on an age-appropriate basis, regardless of immunosuppression status, albeit with varying levels of confidence. For example, the Hib vaccine is strongly recommended for pediatric patients 5 years and younger, whereas the same recommendation for older children and adults is conditional.

For several patient populations and vaccines, the guideline panel did not reach a consensus, including use of double-dose hepatitis B vaccine for immunosuppressed adults, timing seasonal flu shots with dosing of biologics, use of pneumococcal vaccines in nonimmunosuppressed patents without a risk factor for pneumococcal disease, use of meningococcal vaccines in adults not at risk for invasive meningococcal disease, and use of HPV vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years.

While immunosuppressive therapy is not a contraindication for giving inactivated vaccines, Dr. Jones and colleagues noted that immunosuppression may hinder vaccine responses.

“Given that patients with IBD on immunosuppressive therapy may have lower immune response to vaccine, further research will be needed to assess the safety and effectiveness of high-dose vs. standard-dose vaccination strategy,” they wrote, also noting that more work is needed to determine if accelerated vaccinations strategies may be feasible prior to initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline panel did not issue IBD-specific recommendations for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2; however, Dr. Jones and colleagues suggested that clinicians reference a CAG publication on the subject published earlier this year.

The guideline was supported by grants to the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes; and CANImmunize. Dr. Benchimol disclosed additional relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada; and the Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) has published a two-part clinical practice guideline for immunizing patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that covers both live and inactivated vaccines across pediatric and adult patients.

The guideline, which has been endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, is composed of recommendations drawn from a broader body of data than prior publications on the same topic, according to Eric I. Benchimol, MD, PhD, of the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Previous guidelines on immunizations of patients with IBD considered only the limited available evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness in IBD populations, and failed to consider the ample evidence available in the general population or in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases when assessing the certainty of evidence or developing their recommendations,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
 

Part 1: Live vaccine recommendations

The first part of the guideline includes seven recommendations for use of live vaccines in patients with IBD.

In this area, decision-making is largely dependent upon use of immunosuppressive therapy, which the investigators defined as “corticosteroids, thiopurines, biologics, small molecules such as JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, and combinations thereof,” with the caveat that “there is no standard definition of immunosuppression,” and “the degree to which immunosuppressive therapy causes clinically significant immunosuppression generally is dose related and varies by drug.”

Before offering specific recommendations, Dr. Benchimol and colleagues provided three general principles to abide by: 1. Clinicians should review each patient’s history of immunization and vaccine-preventable diseases at diagnosis and on a routine basis; 2. Appropriate vaccinations should ideally be given prior to starting immunosuppressive therapy; and 3. Immunosuppressive therapy (when urgently needed) should not be delayed so that immunizations can be given in advance.

“[Delaying therapy] could lead to more anticipated harms than benefits, due to the risk of progression of the inflammatory activity and resulting complications,” the investigators wrote.

Specific recommendations in the guideline address measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); and varicella. Both vaccines are recommended for susceptible pediatric and adult patients not taking immunosuppressive therapy. In contrast, neither vaccine is recommended for immunosuppressed patients of any age. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.

Concerning vaccination within the first 6 months of life for infants born of mothers taking biologics, the expert panel did not reach a consensus.

“[T]he group was unable to recommend for or against their routine use because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence on safety outcomes was insufficient to justify a recommendation,” wrote Dr. Benchimol and colleagues. “Health care providers should be cautious with the administration of live vaccines in the first year of life in the infants of mothers using biologics. These infants should be evaluated by clinicians with expertise in the impact of exposure to monoclonal antibody biologics in utero.”
 

Part 2: Inactivated vaccine recommendations

The second part of the guideline, by lead author Jennifer L. Jones, MD, of Dalhousie University, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues, provides 15 recommendations for giving inactivated vaccines to patients with IBD.

The panel considered eight vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib); herpes zoster (HZ); hepatitis B; influenza; Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcal vaccine); Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcal vaccine); human papillomavirus (HPV); and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

Generally, the above vaccines are recommended on an age-appropriate basis, regardless of immunosuppression status, albeit with varying levels of confidence. For example, the Hib vaccine is strongly recommended for pediatric patients 5 years and younger, whereas the same recommendation for older children and adults is conditional.

For several patient populations and vaccines, the guideline panel did not reach a consensus, including use of double-dose hepatitis B vaccine for immunosuppressed adults, timing seasonal flu shots with dosing of biologics, use of pneumococcal vaccines in nonimmunosuppressed patents without a risk factor for pneumococcal disease, use of meningococcal vaccines in adults not at risk for invasive meningococcal disease, and use of HPV vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years.

While immunosuppressive therapy is not a contraindication for giving inactivated vaccines, Dr. Jones and colleagues noted that immunosuppression may hinder vaccine responses.

“Given that patients with IBD on immunosuppressive therapy may have lower immune response to vaccine, further research will be needed to assess the safety and effectiveness of high-dose vs. standard-dose vaccination strategy,” they wrote, also noting that more work is needed to determine if accelerated vaccinations strategies may be feasible prior to initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline panel did not issue IBD-specific recommendations for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2; however, Dr. Jones and colleagues suggested that clinicians reference a CAG publication on the subject published earlier this year.

The guideline was supported by grants to the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes; and CANImmunize. Dr. Benchimol disclosed additional relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada; and the Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) has published a two-part clinical practice guideline for immunizing patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that covers both live and inactivated vaccines across pediatric and adult patients.

The guideline, which has been endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, is composed of recommendations drawn from a broader body of data than prior publications on the same topic, according to Eric I. Benchimol, MD, PhD, of the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Previous guidelines on immunizations of patients with IBD considered only the limited available evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness in IBD populations, and failed to consider the ample evidence available in the general population or in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases when assessing the certainty of evidence or developing their recommendations,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
 

Part 1: Live vaccine recommendations

The first part of the guideline includes seven recommendations for use of live vaccines in patients with IBD.

In this area, decision-making is largely dependent upon use of immunosuppressive therapy, which the investigators defined as “corticosteroids, thiopurines, biologics, small molecules such as JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, and combinations thereof,” with the caveat that “there is no standard definition of immunosuppression,” and “the degree to which immunosuppressive therapy causes clinically significant immunosuppression generally is dose related and varies by drug.”

Before offering specific recommendations, Dr. Benchimol and colleagues provided three general principles to abide by: 1. Clinicians should review each patient’s history of immunization and vaccine-preventable diseases at diagnosis and on a routine basis; 2. Appropriate vaccinations should ideally be given prior to starting immunosuppressive therapy; and 3. Immunosuppressive therapy (when urgently needed) should not be delayed so that immunizations can be given in advance.

“[Delaying therapy] could lead to more anticipated harms than benefits, due to the risk of progression of the inflammatory activity and resulting complications,” the investigators wrote.

Specific recommendations in the guideline address measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); and varicella. Both vaccines are recommended for susceptible pediatric and adult patients not taking immunosuppressive therapy. In contrast, neither vaccine is recommended for immunosuppressed patients of any age. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.

Concerning vaccination within the first 6 months of life for infants born of mothers taking biologics, the expert panel did not reach a consensus.

“[T]he group was unable to recommend for or against their routine use because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence on safety outcomes was insufficient to justify a recommendation,” wrote Dr. Benchimol and colleagues. “Health care providers should be cautious with the administration of live vaccines in the first year of life in the infants of mothers using biologics. These infants should be evaluated by clinicians with expertise in the impact of exposure to monoclonal antibody biologics in utero.”
 

Part 2: Inactivated vaccine recommendations

The second part of the guideline, by lead author Jennifer L. Jones, MD, of Dalhousie University, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues, provides 15 recommendations for giving inactivated vaccines to patients with IBD.

The panel considered eight vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib); herpes zoster (HZ); hepatitis B; influenza; Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcal vaccine); Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcal vaccine); human papillomavirus (HPV); and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

Generally, the above vaccines are recommended on an age-appropriate basis, regardless of immunosuppression status, albeit with varying levels of confidence. For example, the Hib vaccine is strongly recommended for pediatric patients 5 years and younger, whereas the same recommendation for older children and adults is conditional.

For several patient populations and vaccines, the guideline panel did not reach a consensus, including use of double-dose hepatitis B vaccine for immunosuppressed adults, timing seasonal flu shots with dosing of biologics, use of pneumococcal vaccines in nonimmunosuppressed patents without a risk factor for pneumococcal disease, use of meningococcal vaccines in adults not at risk for invasive meningococcal disease, and use of HPV vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years.

While immunosuppressive therapy is not a contraindication for giving inactivated vaccines, Dr. Jones and colleagues noted that immunosuppression may hinder vaccine responses.

“Given that patients with IBD on immunosuppressive therapy may have lower immune response to vaccine, further research will be needed to assess the safety and effectiveness of high-dose vs. standard-dose vaccination strategy,” they wrote, also noting that more work is needed to determine if accelerated vaccinations strategies may be feasible prior to initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline panel did not issue IBD-specific recommendations for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2; however, Dr. Jones and colleagues suggested that clinicians reference a CAG publication on the subject published earlier this year.

The guideline was supported by grants to the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes; and CANImmunize. Dr. Benchimol disclosed additional relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada; and the Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program.

The American Gastroenterological Association published a clinical practice update expert review for managing malignant alimentary tract obstructions (MATOs) that includes 14 best practice advice statements, ranging from general principles to specific clinical choices.

“There are many options available for the management of MATOs, with the addition of new modalities as interventional endoscopy continues to evolve,” Osman Ahmed, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “The important concept to understand for any physician managing MATOs is that there is no longer a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that can be applied to all patients.”

First, the investigators called for an individualized, multidisciplinary approach that includes oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists. They advised physicians to “take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient’s expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status.”

The remaining advice statements are organized by site of obstruction, with various management approaches based on candidacy for resection and other patient factors.
 

Esophageal obstruction

For patients with esophageal obstruction who are candidates for resection or chemoradiation, Dr. Ahmed and colleagues advised against routine use of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) due to “high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates.”

If such patients are at risk of malnutrition, an enteral feeding tube may be considered, although patients should be counseled about associated procedural risks, such as abdominal wall tumor seeding.

Among patients with esophageal obstruction who are not candidates for resection, SEMS insertion or brachytherapy may be used separately or in combination, according to the investigators.

“Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives,” the investigators noted.

If SEMS placement is elected, Dr. Ahmed and colleagues noted there remains ongoing debate. For this expert review, the authors advised using a fully covered stent, based on potentially higher risk for tumor ingrowth and reinterventions with uncovered SEMS.
 

Gastric outlet obstruction

According to the update, patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have good functional status and a life expectancy greater than 2 months should undergo surgical gastrojejunostomy, ideally via a laparoscopic approach instead of an open approach because of shorter hospital stays and less blood loss. If a sufficiently experienced endoscopist is available, an endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy may be performed, although Dr. Ahmed and colleagues noted that no devices have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this technique.

For patients who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy, enteral stent insertion should be considered; however, they should not be used in patients with severely impaired gastric motility or multiple luminal obstructions “because of limited benefit in these scenarios.” Instead, a venting gastrostomy may be elected.
 

Colonic obstruction

For patients with malignant colonic obstruction, SEMS may be considered as a “bridge to surgery,” wrote Dr. Ahmed and colleagues, and in the case of proximal or right-sided malignant obstruction, as a bridge to surgery or a palliative measure, keeping in mind “the technical challenges of SEMS insertion in those areas.”

Extracolonic obstruction

Finally, the expert panel suggested that SEMS may be appropriate for selective extracolonic malignancy if patients are not surgical candidates, noting that SEMS placement in this scenario “is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.”

The investigators concluded by advising clinicians to remain within the realm of their abilities when managing MATOs, and to refer when needed.

“[I]t is important for physicians to understand their limits and expertise and recognize when cases are best managed at experienced high-volume centers,” they wrote.

The clinical practice update expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. Dr. Lee disclosed a relationship with Boston Scientific.

The American Gastroenterological Association published a clinical practice update expert review for managing malignant alimentary tract obstructions (MATOs) that includes 14 best practice advice statements, ranging from general principles to specific clinical choices.

“There are many options available for the management of MATOs, with the addition of new modalities as interventional endoscopy continues to evolve,” Osman Ahmed, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “The important concept to understand for any physician managing MATOs is that there is no longer a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that can be applied to all patients.”

First, the investigators called for an individualized, multidisciplinary approach that includes oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists. They advised physicians to “take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient’s expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status.”

The remaining advice statements are organized by site of obstruction, with various management approaches based on candidacy for resection and other patient factors.
 

Esophageal obstruction

For patients with esophageal obstruction who are candidates for resection or chemoradiation, Dr. Ahmed and colleagues advised against routine use of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) due to “high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates.”

If such patients are at risk of malnutrition, an enteral feeding tube may be considered, although patients should be counseled about associated procedural risks, such as abdominal wall tumor seeding.

Among patients with esophageal obstruction who are not candidates for resection, SEMS insertion or brachytherapy may be used separately or in combination, according to the investigators.

“Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives,” the investigators noted.

If SEMS placement is elected, Dr. Ahmed and colleagues noted there remains ongoing debate. For this expert review, the authors advised using a fully covered stent, based on potentially higher risk for tumor ingrowth and reinterventions with uncovered SEMS.
 

Gastric outlet obstruction

According to the update, patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have good functional status and a life expectancy greater than 2 months should undergo surgical gastrojejunostomy, ideally via a laparoscopic approach instead of an open approach because of shorter hospital stays and less blood loss. If a sufficiently experienced endoscopist is available, an endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy may be performed, although Dr. Ahmed and colleagues noted that no devices have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this technique.

For patients who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy, enteral stent insertion should be considered; however, they should not be used in patients with severely impaired gastric motility or multiple luminal obstructions “because of limited benefit in these scenarios.” Instead, a venting gastrostomy may be elected.
 

Colonic obstruction

For patients with malignant colonic obstruction, SEMS may be considered as a “bridge to surgery,” wrote Dr. Ahmed and colleagues, and in the case of proximal or right-sided malignant obstruction, as a bridge to surgery or a palliative measure, keeping in mind “the technical challenges of SEMS insertion in those areas.”

Extracolonic obstruction

Finally, the expert panel suggested that SEMS may be appropriate for selective extracolonic malignancy if patients are not surgical candidates, noting that SEMS placement in this scenario “is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.”

The investigators concluded by advising clinicians to remain within the realm of their abilities when managing MATOs, and to refer when needed.

“[I]t is important for physicians to understand their limits and expertise and recognize when cases are best managed at experienced high-volume centers,” they wrote.

The clinical practice update expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. Dr. Lee disclosed a relationship with Boston Scientific.

The American Gastroenterological Association published a clinical practice update expert review for managing malignant alimentary tract obstructions (MATOs) that includes 14 best practice advice statements, ranging from general principles to specific clinical choices.

“There are many options available for the management of MATOs, with the addition of new modalities as interventional endoscopy continues to evolve,” Osman Ahmed, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “The important concept to understand for any physician managing MATOs is that there is no longer a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that can be applied to all patients.”

First, the investigators called for an individualized, multidisciplinary approach that includes oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists. They advised physicians to “take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient’s expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status.”

The remaining advice statements are organized by site of obstruction, with various management approaches based on candidacy for resection and other patient factors.
 

Esophageal obstruction

For patients with esophageal obstruction who are candidates for resection or chemoradiation, Dr. Ahmed and colleagues advised against routine use of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) due to “high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates.”

If such patients are at risk of malnutrition, an enteral feeding tube may be considered, although patients should be counseled about associated procedural risks, such as abdominal wall tumor seeding.

Among patients with esophageal obstruction who are not candidates for resection, SEMS insertion or brachytherapy may be used separately or in combination, according to the investigators.

“Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives,” the investigators noted.

If SEMS placement is elected, Dr. Ahmed and colleagues noted there remains ongoing debate. For this expert review, the authors advised using a fully covered stent, based on potentially higher risk for tumor ingrowth and reinterventions with uncovered SEMS.
 

Gastric outlet obstruction

According to the update, patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have good functional status and a life expectancy greater than 2 months should undergo surgical gastrojejunostomy, ideally via a laparoscopic approach instead of an open approach because of shorter hospital stays and less blood loss. If a sufficiently experienced endoscopist is available, an endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy may be performed, although Dr. Ahmed and colleagues noted that no devices have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this technique.

For patients who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy, enteral stent insertion should be considered; however, they should not be used in patients with severely impaired gastric motility or multiple luminal obstructions “because of limited benefit in these scenarios.” Instead, a venting gastrostomy may be elected.
 

Colonic obstruction

For patients with malignant colonic obstruction, SEMS may be considered as a “bridge to surgery,” wrote Dr. Ahmed and colleagues, and in the case of proximal or right-sided malignant obstruction, as a bridge to surgery or a palliative measure, keeping in mind “the technical challenges of SEMS insertion in those areas.”

Extracolonic obstruction

Finally, the expert panel suggested that SEMS may be appropriate for selective extracolonic malignancy if patients are not surgical candidates, noting that SEMS placement in this scenario “is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.”

The investigators concluded by advising clinicians to remain within the realm of their abilities when managing MATOs, and to refer when needed.

“[I]t is important for physicians to understand their limits and expertise and recognize when cases are best managed at experienced high-volume centers,” they wrote.

The clinical practice update expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. Dr. Lee disclosed a relationship with Boston Scientific.

In a real-world test, tofacitinib had a similar safety profile to what was seen in clinical trials. The majority of adverse events seen were infections, and few were serious; however, the study did find evidence of rare venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with preexisting risk factors, which suggests that precaution is warranted in this group.

Tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Three phase 3 clinical trials and an open-label, long-term extension trial found that the drug was associated with increased infection rates and higher lipid levels.

In rheumatoid arthritis patients, an interim analysis of a safety clinical trial of twice-daily doses of 10 mg tofacitinib showed increased rates of pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality, compared to treatment with a dose of 5 mg or a tumor necrosis factor antagonist. That finding led to a black box label warning against thrombosis.

The current study, led by Parakkal Deepak, MBBS, MS, and colleagues and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, included patients from six centers in the United States.

The findings suggest that patients should be counseled about the potential risk for herpes zoster (HZ) reactivation, especially older patients taking corticosteroids. The authors also recommended vaccination with an inactivated HZ vaccine. “Our data suggest a careful risk-benefit discussion before starting tofacitinib, especially in patients with preexisting risk factors for VTE, dose deescalation to the lowest clinically feasible dose, and monitoring for clinical signs of VTE, especially among those who continue on a dose of 10 mg twice a day,” the authors wrote.

The researchers followed 260 patients over a median of 6 months (median age, 38 years; 58.1% male; 71.9% non-Hispanic). Overall, 88.5% had previously received treatment with a biologic, most often an anti–TNF-alpha agent (76.5%). During follow-up, 15.7% experienced adverse events, most commonly infections (5.0%) and rash (3.5%). Joint pain (1.5%) and anemia (1.5%) also occurred. The incidence rate for any adverse event was 27.2 per 100 person-years. Adverse events occurred more often in older patients (mean age, 42 vs. 37 years; P = .02) and those who had not undergone previous anti-TNF therapy (63.4% vs 79.8%; P = .03). There was no association between concomitant steroid use and adverse events on univariate analysis. Of the overall cohort, 5.8% experienced a severe adverse event, with the most common being herpes zoster rash (26.7% of severe adverse events). Therapy was discontinued by 4.6%.

Five patients developed herpes zoster (3.29 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.37-7.90). Risk factors for VTE were seen in 31.2% of the cohort, and two cases of VTE occurred during follow-up (1.32 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.33-5.28), both in patients with extensive UC. There was no increased risk of complications following abdominal surgery.

At baseline, 38.4% had an abnormal lipid profile, and this increased to 48.3% following 8 weeks of treatment.

Overall, 45% of patients were anemic at baseline. Females experienced a significant improvement by week 26 (median hemoglobin level, 13.0 g/dL; interquartile range, 12.5-13.8), while a similar improvement occurred by week 52 in males (median hemoglobin level, 13.6 g/dL; IQR, 12.57-14.0). At 52 weeks, the mean increase in hemoglobin was 5% (IQR, 0%-11.1%). The increase was greater in females (7.7%; IQR, 4.2%-11.7%) than in males (2.1%; IQR, –0.5% to 11.3%).

Limitations of the study include its retrospective nature and that the tools by which data were collected could have missed some adverse events because they were not adequately captured in the treating clinician’s notes. However, the data trend similarly to a prospective study.

“In summary, we report safety signals on a real-world cohort of patients with UC initiated on tofacitinib in whom increasing age is a risk factor for AEs and consistent with recent reports of a dose-dependent risk of HZ reactivation and VTE events in patients with a risk factor for VTE on the 10-mg twice-daily dosing,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Gastroenterology, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, the Givin’ it all for Guts Foundation, and the Lawrence C. Pakula, MD, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Innovation and Education Fund. The authors have financial ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated July 19, 2021.

In a real-world test, tofacitinib had a similar safety profile to what was seen in clinical trials. The majority of adverse events seen were infections, and few were serious; however, the study did find evidence of rare venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with preexisting risk factors, which suggests that precaution is warranted in this group.

Tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Three phase 3 clinical trials and an open-label, long-term extension trial found that the drug was associated with increased infection rates and higher lipid levels.

In rheumatoid arthritis patients, an interim analysis of a safety clinical trial of twice-daily doses of 10 mg tofacitinib showed increased rates of pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality, compared to treatment with a dose of 5 mg or a tumor necrosis factor antagonist. That finding led to a black box label warning against thrombosis.

The current study, led by Parakkal Deepak, MBBS, MS, and colleagues and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, included patients from six centers in the United States.

The findings suggest that patients should be counseled about the potential risk for herpes zoster (HZ) reactivation, especially older patients taking corticosteroids. The authors also recommended vaccination with an inactivated HZ vaccine. “Our data suggest a careful risk-benefit discussion before starting tofacitinib, especially in patients with preexisting risk factors for VTE, dose deescalation to the lowest clinically feasible dose, and monitoring for clinical signs of VTE, especially among those who continue on a dose of 10 mg twice a day,” the authors wrote.

The researchers followed 260 patients over a median of 6 months (median age, 38 years; 58.1% male; 71.9% non-Hispanic). Overall, 88.5% had previously received treatment with a biologic, most often an anti–TNF-alpha agent (76.5%). During follow-up, 15.7% experienced adverse events, most commonly infections (5.0%) and rash (3.5%). Joint pain (1.5%) and anemia (1.5%) also occurred. The incidence rate for any adverse event was 27.2 per 100 person-years. Adverse events occurred more often in older patients (mean age, 42 vs. 37 years; P = .02) and those who had not undergone previous anti-TNF therapy (63.4% vs 79.8%; P = .03). There was no association between concomitant steroid use and adverse events on univariate analysis. Of the overall cohort, 5.8% experienced a severe adverse event, with the most common being herpes zoster rash (26.7% of severe adverse events). Therapy was discontinued by 4.6%.

Five patients developed herpes zoster (3.29 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.37-7.90). Risk factors for VTE were seen in 31.2% of the cohort, and two cases of VTE occurred during follow-up (1.32 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.33-5.28), both in patients with extensive UC. There was no increased risk of complications following abdominal surgery.

At baseline, 38.4% had an abnormal lipid profile, and this increased to 48.3% following 8 weeks of treatment.

Overall, 45% of patients were anemic at baseline. Females experienced a significant improvement by week 26 (median hemoglobin level, 13.0 g/dL; interquartile range, 12.5-13.8), while a similar improvement occurred by week 52 in males (median hemoglobin level, 13.6 g/dL; IQR, 12.57-14.0). At 52 weeks, the mean increase in hemoglobin was 5% (IQR, 0%-11.1%). The increase was greater in females (7.7%; IQR, 4.2%-11.7%) than in males (2.1%; IQR, –0.5% to 11.3%).

Limitations of the study include its retrospective nature and that the tools by which data were collected could have missed some adverse events because they were not adequately captured in the treating clinician’s notes. However, the data trend similarly to a prospective study.

“In summary, we report safety signals on a real-world cohort of patients with UC initiated on tofacitinib in whom increasing age is a risk factor for AEs and consistent with recent reports of a dose-dependent risk of HZ reactivation and VTE events in patients with a risk factor for VTE on the 10-mg twice-daily dosing,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Gastroenterology, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, the Givin’ it all for Guts Foundation, and the Lawrence C. Pakula, MD, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Innovation and Education Fund. The authors have financial ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated July 19, 2021.

In a real-world test, tofacitinib had a similar safety profile to what was seen in clinical trials. The majority of adverse events seen were infections, and few were serious; however, the study did find evidence of rare venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with preexisting risk factors, which suggests that precaution is warranted in this group.

Tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Three phase 3 clinical trials and an open-label, long-term extension trial found that the drug was associated with increased infection rates and higher lipid levels.

In rheumatoid arthritis patients, an interim analysis of a safety clinical trial of twice-daily doses of 10 mg tofacitinib showed increased rates of pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality, compared to treatment with a dose of 5 mg or a tumor necrosis factor antagonist. That finding led to a black box label warning against thrombosis.

The current study, led by Parakkal Deepak, MBBS, MS, and colleagues and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, included patients from six centers in the United States.

The findings suggest that patients should be counseled about the potential risk for herpes zoster (HZ) reactivation, especially older patients taking corticosteroids. The authors also recommended vaccination with an inactivated HZ vaccine. “Our data suggest a careful risk-benefit discussion before starting tofacitinib, especially in patients with preexisting risk factors for VTE, dose deescalation to the lowest clinically feasible dose, and monitoring for clinical signs of VTE, especially among those who continue on a dose of 10 mg twice a day,” the authors wrote.

The researchers followed 260 patients over a median of 6 months (median age, 38 years; 58.1% male; 71.9% non-Hispanic). Overall, 88.5% had previously received treatment with a biologic, most often an anti–TNF-alpha agent (76.5%). During follow-up, 15.7% experienced adverse events, most commonly infections (5.0%) and rash (3.5%). Joint pain (1.5%) and anemia (1.5%) also occurred. The incidence rate for any adverse event was 27.2 per 100 person-years. Adverse events occurred more often in older patients (mean age, 42 vs. 37 years; P = .02) and those who had not undergone previous anti-TNF therapy (63.4% vs 79.8%; P = .03). There was no association between concomitant steroid use and adverse events on univariate analysis. Of the overall cohort, 5.8% experienced a severe adverse event, with the most common being herpes zoster rash (26.7% of severe adverse events). Therapy was discontinued by 4.6%.

Five patients developed herpes zoster (3.29 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.37-7.90). Risk factors for VTE were seen in 31.2% of the cohort, and two cases of VTE occurred during follow-up (1.32 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.33-5.28), both in patients with extensive UC. There was no increased risk of complications following abdominal surgery.

At baseline, 38.4% had an abnormal lipid profile, and this increased to 48.3% following 8 weeks of treatment.

Overall, 45% of patients were anemic at baseline. Females experienced a significant improvement by week 26 (median hemoglobin level, 13.0 g/dL; interquartile range, 12.5-13.8), while a similar improvement occurred by week 52 in males (median hemoglobin level, 13.6 g/dL; IQR, 12.57-14.0). At 52 weeks, the mean increase in hemoglobin was 5% (IQR, 0%-11.1%). The increase was greater in females (7.7%; IQR, 4.2%-11.7%) than in males (2.1%; IQR, –0.5% to 11.3%).

Limitations of the study include its retrospective nature and that the tools by which data were collected could have missed some adverse events because they were not adequately captured in the treating clinician’s notes. However, the data trend similarly to a prospective study.

“In summary, we report safety signals on a real-world cohort of patients with UC initiated on tofacitinib in whom increasing age is a risk factor for AEs and consistent with recent reports of a dose-dependent risk of HZ reactivation and VTE events in patients with a risk factor for VTE on the 10-mg twice-daily dosing,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Gastroenterology, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, the Givin’ it all for Guts Foundation, and the Lawrence C. Pakula, MD, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Innovation and Education Fund. The authors have financial ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated July 19, 2021.

A network meta-analysis of current first-line dual, triple, and quadruple therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection found that vonoprazan triple therapy was most effective, while standard triple therapy of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), amoxicillin, and clarithromycin was least effective. Levofloxacin-containing triple therapy performed best in Western countries and West Asia, while reverse hybrid therapy was most effective in East Asia.

The results “[suggest that] a new approach concerning H. pylori treatment is now needed and that the time for transitioning from trial and error to antimicrobial stewardship [of H. pylori infection] has arrived,” wrote Theodore Rokkas, PhD, MD, of the European University of Cyprus in Engomi, and colleagues. Their study was published online April 8 in Gastroenterology.

H. pylori infection is the primary cause of gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, gastric mucosa–associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, and gastric cancer.

Since H. pylori infection was first recognized, physicians have employed a range of drugs in double, triple, and quadruple combinations to combat it.

Despite those efforts, treatment success is lower than with many other infectious diseases. A newcomer is the potassium-competing acid blocker vonoprazan, which increases efficacy of amoxicillin combination therapies and has, thereby, generated renewed interest in all combination therapies, according to the study authors. Vonoprazan is currently available in some Asian countries, but not the United States or Europe.

Current guidelines for H. pylori treatment relied on randomized controlled trials and relevant pair-wise meta-analyses, but no previous pairwise analysis has included all currently available medications, the authors noted. Network meta-analyses can help fill this evidence gap: They incorporate both direct and indirect evidence from a collection of randomized controlled trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of three or more regimens.

The researchers conducted a network meta-analysis that included 68 randomized, controlled trials totaling 22,975 patients. The following regimens were included in the analysis: Concomitant quadruple bismuth treatment (bismuth quadruple therapy), concomitant quadruple nonbismuth treatment (nonbismuth quadruple therapy), high-dose amoxicillin double treatment (Amox-dual therapy), levofloxacin-containing treatment (Levo-therapy), reverse hybrid therapy (R-hybrid therapy), sequential quadruple treatment (sequential therapy), standard triple treatment (triple therapy), and vonoprazan-containing therapy (Vono-triple therapy).

Statistically significant results were found with Vono-triple therapy versus triple therapy (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-8.94), sequential therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53), nonbismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.45-2.98), bismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.02-2.11), and Levo-therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53).

In the overall data, mean cure rates greater than 90% were seen only in Vono-triple therapy (91.4%; 95% CI, 88.5-93.5%) and R-hybrid therapy (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%). Cure rates were lower for Nonbismuth quadruple therapy (84.3%; 95% CI, 82.7-85.8%), Levo-therapy (83.8%; 95% CI, 82.1-85.4%), Sequential therapy (83.7%; 95% CI, 82.7-84.7%), bismuth quadruple therapy (81.3%; 95% CI, 79.5-83.1%), Amox-dual therapy (80.2%; 75.3%-84.4%), and triple therapy (75.7%; 95% CI, 74.9-76.4%). Levo-therapy performed best in Western countries (88.5%; 95% CI, 86.5-90.5%) and West Asia (88.4%; 95% CI, 84.6-91.1%). R-hybrid therapy performed best in East Asia (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%).

A surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value, which represents the efficacy of the intervention compared to an ideal intervention, was 92.4% for Vono-triple therapy. The second highest SUCRA value was for 68.8% for nonbismuth quadruple therapy. The SUCRA value of standard triple therapy was 4.7%.

A key limitation to the study is that Vono-triple therapy was tested only in Japan, and requires additional study in other geographic regions.

The study received support from the Department of Veteran Affairs. The authors have consulted for and received research funding from various pharmaceutical companies.

A network meta-analysis of current first-line dual, triple, and quadruple therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection found that vonoprazan triple therapy was most effective, while standard triple therapy of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), amoxicillin, and clarithromycin was least effective. Levofloxacin-containing triple therapy performed best in Western countries and West Asia, while reverse hybrid therapy was most effective in East Asia.

The results “[suggest that] a new approach concerning H. pylori treatment is now needed and that the time for transitioning from trial and error to antimicrobial stewardship [of H. pylori infection] has arrived,” wrote Theodore Rokkas, PhD, MD, of the European University of Cyprus in Engomi, and colleagues. Their study was published online April 8 in Gastroenterology.

H. pylori infection is the primary cause of gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, gastric mucosa–associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, and gastric cancer.

Since H. pylori infection was first recognized, physicians have employed a range of drugs in double, triple, and quadruple combinations to combat it.

Despite those efforts, treatment success is lower than with many other infectious diseases. A newcomer is the potassium-competing acid blocker vonoprazan, which increases efficacy of amoxicillin combination therapies and has, thereby, generated renewed interest in all combination therapies, according to the study authors. Vonoprazan is currently available in some Asian countries, but not the United States or Europe.

Current guidelines for H. pylori treatment relied on randomized controlled trials and relevant pair-wise meta-analyses, but no previous pairwise analysis has included all currently available medications, the authors noted. Network meta-analyses can help fill this evidence gap: They incorporate both direct and indirect evidence from a collection of randomized controlled trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of three or more regimens.

The researchers conducted a network meta-analysis that included 68 randomized, controlled trials totaling 22,975 patients. The following regimens were included in the analysis: Concomitant quadruple bismuth treatment (bismuth quadruple therapy), concomitant quadruple nonbismuth treatment (nonbismuth quadruple therapy), high-dose amoxicillin double treatment (Amox-dual therapy), levofloxacin-containing treatment (Levo-therapy), reverse hybrid therapy (R-hybrid therapy), sequential quadruple treatment (sequential therapy), standard triple treatment (triple therapy), and vonoprazan-containing therapy (Vono-triple therapy).

Statistically significant results were found with Vono-triple therapy versus triple therapy (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-8.94), sequential therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53), nonbismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.45-2.98), bismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.02-2.11), and Levo-therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53).

In the overall data, mean cure rates greater than 90% were seen only in Vono-triple therapy (91.4%; 95% CI, 88.5-93.5%) and R-hybrid therapy (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%). Cure rates were lower for Nonbismuth quadruple therapy (84.3%; 95% CI, 82.7-85.8%), Levo-therapy (83.8%; 95% CI, 82.1-85.4%), Sequential therapy (83.7%; 95% CI, 82.7-84.7%), bismuth quadruple therapy (81.3%; 95% CI, 79.5-83.1%), Amox-dual therapy (80.2%; 75.3%-84.4%), and triple therapy (75.7%; 95% CI, 74.9-76.4%). Levo-therapy performed best in Western countries (88.5%; 95% CI, 86.5-90.5%) and West Asia (88.4%; 95% CI, 84.6-91.1%). R-hybrid therapy performed best in East Asia (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%).

A surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value, which represents the efficacy of the intervention compared to an ideal intervention, was 92.4% for Vono-triple therapy. The second highest SUCRA value was for 68.8% for nonbismuth quadruple therapy. The SUCRA value of standard triple therapy was 4.7%.

A key limitation to the study is that Vono-triple therapy was tested only in Japan, and requires additional study in other geographic regions.

The study received support from the Department of Veteran Affairs. The authors have consulted for and received research funding from various pharmaceutical companies.

A network meta-analysis of current first-line dual, triple, and quadruple therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection found that vonoprazan triple therapy was most effective, while standard triple therapy of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), amoxicillin, and clarithromycin was least effective. Levofloxacin-containing triple therapy performed best in Western countries and West Asia, while reverse hybrid therapy was most effective in East Asia.

The results “[suggest that] a new approach concerning H. pylori treatment is now needed and that the time for transitioning from trial and error to antimicrobial stewardship [of H. pylori infection] has arrived,” wrote Theodore Rokkas, PhD, MD, of the European University of Cyprus in Engomi, and colleagues. Their study was published online April 8 in Gastroenterology.

H. pylori infection is the primary cause of gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, gastric mucosa–associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, and gastric cancer.

Since H. pylori infection was first recognized, physicians have employed a range of drugs in double, triple, and quadruple combinations to combat it.

Despite those efforts, treatment success is lower than with many other infectious diseases. A newcomer is the potassium-competing acid blocker vonoprazan, which increases efficacy of amoxicillin combination therapies and has, thereby, generated renewed interest in all combination therapies, according to the study authors. Vonoprazan is currently available in some Asian countries, but not the United States or Europe.

Current guidelines for H. pylori treatment relied on randomized controlled trials and relevant pair-wise meta-analyses, but no previous pairwise analysis has included all currently available medications, the authors noted. Network meta-analyses can help fill this evidence gap: They incorporate both direct and indirect evidence from a collection of randomized controlled trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of three or more regimens.

The researchers conducted a network meta-analysis that included 68 randomized, controlled trials totaling 22,975 patients. The following regimens were included in the analysis: Concomitant quadruple bismuth treatment (bismuth quadruple therapy), concomitant quadruple nonbismuth treatment (nonbismuth quadruple therapy), high-dose amoxicillin double treatment (Amox-dual therapy), levofloxacin-containing treatment (Levo-therapy), reverse hybrid therapy (R-hybrid therapy), sequential quadruple treatment (sequential therapy), standard triple treatment (triple therapy), and vonoprazan-containing therapy (Vono-triple therapy).

Statistically significant results were found with Vono-triple therapy versus triple therapy (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-8.94), sequential therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53), nonbismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.45-2.98), bismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.02-2.11), and Levo-therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53).

In the overall data, mean cure rates greater than 90% were seen only in Vono-triple therapy (91.4%; 95% CI, 88.5-93.5%) and R-hybrid therapy (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%). Cure rates were lower for Nonbismuth quadruple therapy (84.3%; 95% CI, 82.7-85.8%), Levo-therapy (83.8%; 95% CI, 82.1-85.4%), Sequential therapy (83.7%; 95% CI, 82.7-84.7%), bismuth quadruple therapy (81.3%; 95% CI, 79.5-83.1%), Amox-dual therapy (80.2%; 75.3%-84.4%), and triple therapy (75.7%; 95% CI, 74.9-76.4%). Levo-therapy performed best in Western countries (88.5%; 95% CI, 86.5-90.5%) and West Asia (88.4%; 95% CI, 84.6-91.1%). R-hybrid therapy performed best in East Asia (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%).

A surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value, which represents the efficacy of the intervention compared to an ideal intervention, was 92.4% for Vono-triple therapy. The second highest SUCRA value was for 68.8% for nonbismuth quadruple therapy. The SUCRA value of standard triple therapy was 4.7%.

A key limitation to the study is that Vono-triple therapy was tested only in Japan, and requires additional study in other geographic regions.

The study received support from the Department of Veteran Affairs. The authors have consulted for and received research funding from various pharmaceutical companies.

In a small study of Hirschsprung’s disease (HSCR) patients, those with a low-fiber colonic mucosal acetylcholinesterase-positive (AChE+) innervation phenotype were more likely to suffer from postoperative enterocolitis, which can be life-threatening.

The study lends insight into crosstalk between the human enteric nervous and immune systems. It suggests a role for acetylcholine-secreting (cholinergic) nerve fibers in aganglionic sections of colon in patients with HSCR, which is a congenital disorder marked by the absence of enteric neuronal cells in the distal part of the gut.

There are also potential clinical implications. “These observations suggest that HSCR patients with low-fiber phenotype might have a higher risk of developing postoperative enterocolitis and that the fiber phenotype could serve as a predictive marker for development of prophylactic therapy,” wrote Simone Keck, PhD,  of the University of Basel (Switzerland) and colleagues in a study published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

HSCR is a multigenetic congenital condition that includes a lack of enteric ganglia cells (aganglionosis) in the distal part of the colon, leading to intestinal obstruction and prestenotic megacolon. Treatment consists of pull-through surgery to remove the aganglionic portion of the bowel, but 20%-50% of patients develop life-threatening HSCR-associated enterocolitis before or after surgery. Although the mechanism of the complication is uncertain, immune cells, intestinal barrier function, and the microbiome may play a role.

Mouse models have shown connections between the immune and nervous system, but it has been challenging to study the effects of specific neurotransmitters in humans. There are more than 30 separate neurotransmitters in the enteric nervous system, making it difficult to tease apart individual functions. But there are comparatively few enteric nervous system neurotransmitters in patients with HSCR and the aganglionic colon in these patients contains enlarged AChE+ nerve fibers, “neuronal cholinergic function can be examined particularly well” among these patients. .

The researchers of the current study from analyzed tissue from 44 pediatric HSCR patients who underwent pull-through surgery, along with 6 non-HSCR controls who had surgery for various other reasons. Tissue samples were semiquantitatively categorized according to the extent of colonic mucosal AChE+ innervation: Low-fiber rectosigmoid tissue lacked intrinsic nerve cell bodies and mucosal ACHe+ innervation, while high-fiber tissue lacked nerve cell bodies but had mucosal AChE+ innervation. The researchers also determined tissue cytokine profile and immune cell frequencies, and used confocal immunofluorescence microscopy to determine proximity of macrophages to nerve fibers and 16S-rDNA sequencing to determine microbial populations.

They found that aganglionic low-fiber samples had higher levels of inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-17, IL-1-beta, and IL6. Levels of these cytokines were lower in both ganglionic sections of the colon and in high-fiber samples with mucosal AChE+ nerve fibers. Low-fiber samples also had elevated Th17 T cells, compared with high-fiber, aganglionic, and ganglionic distal colon samples. Regulatory T cells were highest in cholinergic high-fiber segments.

Out of 42 patients, 9 developed enterocolitis within 1 year of surgery; 7 had a low-fiber phenotype, while 2 were high-fiber. This difference was not statistically significant, but the researchers then performed a retrospective analysis of 29 HSCR patients to validate the findings. Of these, 14 developed enterocolitis after surgery, with 12 of the cases occurring among children with the low-fiber phenotype, and 2 cases occurred among those with the high-fiber phenotype.

The findings could help guide postsurgical management of HSCR by allowing clinicians to employ preventive measures against enterocolitis, such as high-volume enemas, antibiotics, prebiotics, probiotics, or dietary changes. Th17 cells are known to migrate to nearby mesenteric lymph nodes, where they may promote enterocolitis, and this site is usually not removed during HSCR surgery. Fiber phenotype could prompt a surgeon to also remove mesenteric lymph nodes to reduce enterocolitis risk. A potential therapeutic strategy is to target IL-17 or IL-23.

The study was funded by the University of Basel. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

In a small study of Hirschsprung’s disease (HSCR) patients, those with a low-fiber colonic mucosal acetylcholinesterase-positive (AChE+) innervation phenotype were more likely to suffer from postoperative enterocolitis, which can be life-threatening.

The study lends insight into crosstalk between the human enteric nervous and immune systems. It suggests a role for acetylcholine-secreting (cholinergic) nerve fibers in aganglionic sections of colon in patients with HSCR, which is a congenital disorder marked by the absence of enteric neuronal cells in the distal part of the gut.

There are also potential clinical implications. “These observations suggest that HSCR patients with low-fiber phenotype might have a higher risk of developing postoperative enterocolitis and that the fiber phenotype could serve as a predictive marker for development of prophylactic therapy,” wrote Simone Keck, PhD,  of the University of Basel (Switzerland) and colleagues in a study published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

HSCR is a multigenetic congenital condition that includes a lack of enteric ganglia cells (aganglionosis) in the distal part of the colon, leading to intestinal obstruction and prestenotic megacolon. Treatment consists of pull-through surgery to remove the aganglionic portion of the bowel, but 20%-50% of patients develop life-threatening HSCR-associated enterocolitis before or after surgery. Although the mechanism of the complication is uncertain, immune cells, intestinal barrier function, and the microbiome may play a role.

Mouse models have shown connections between the immune and nervous system, but it has been challenging to study the effects of specific neurotransmitters in humans. There are more than 30 separate neurotransmitters in the enteric nervous system, making it difficult to tease apart individual functions. But there are comparatively few enteric nervous system neurotransmitters in patients with HSCR and the aganglionic colon in these patients contains enlarged AChE+ nerve fibers, “neuronal cholinergic function can be examined particularly well” among these patients. .

The researchers of the current study from analyzed tissue from 44 pediatric HSCR patients who underwent pull-through surgery, along with 6 non-HSCR controls who had surgery for various other reasons. Tissue samples were semiquantitatively categorized according to the extent of colonic mucosal AChE+ innervation: Low-fiber rectosigmoid tissue lacked intrinsic nerve cell bodies and mucosal ACHe+ innervation, while high-fiber tissue lacked nerve cell bodies but had mucosal AChE+ innervation. The researchers also determined tissue cytokine profile and immune cell frequencies, and used confocal immunofluorescence microscopy to determine proximity of macrophages to nerve fibers and 16S-rDNA sequencing to determine microbial populations.

They found that aganglionic low-fiber samples had higher levels of inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-17, IL-1-beta, and IL6. Levels of these cytokines were lower in both ganglionic sections of the colon and in high-fiber samples with mucosal AChE+ nerve fibers. Low-fiber samples also had elevated Th17 T cells, compared with high-fiber, aganglionic, and ganglionic distal colon samples. Regulatory T cells were highest in cholinergic high-fiber segments.

Out of 42 patients, 9 developed enterocolitis within 1 year of surgery; 7 had a low-fiber phenotype, while 2 were high-fiber. This difference was not statistically significant, but the researchers then performed a retrospective analysis of 29 HSCR patients to validate the findings. Of these, 14 developed enterocolitis after surgery, with 12 of the cases occurring among children with the low-fiber phenotype, and 2 cases occurred among those with the high-fiber phenotype.

The findings could help guide postsurgical management of HSCR by allowing clinicians to employ preventive measures against enterocolitis, such as high-volume enemas, antibiotics, prebiotics, probiotics, or dietary changes. Th17 cells are known to migrate to nearby mesenteric lymph nodes, where they may promote enterocolitis, and this site is usually not removed during HSCR surgery. Fiber phenotype could prompt a surgeon to also remove mesenteric lymph nodes to reduce enterocolitis risk. A potential therapeutic strategy is to target IL-17 or IL-23.

The study was funded by the University of Basel. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

In a small study of Hirschsprung’s disease (HSCR) patients, those with a low-fiber colonic mucosal acetylcholinesterase-positive (AChE+) innervation phenotype were more likely to suffer from postoperative enterocolitis, which can be life-threatening.

The study lends insight into crosstalk between the human enteric nervous and immune systems. It suggests a role for acetylcholine-secreting (cholinergic) nerve fibers in aganglionic sections of colon in patients with HSCR, which is a congenital disorder marked by the absence of enteric neuronal cells in the distal part of the gut.

There are also potential clinical implications. “These observations suggest that HSCR patients with low-fiber phenotype might have a higher risk of developing postoperative enterocolitis and that the fiber phenotype could serve as a predictive marker for development of prophylactic therapy,” wrote Simone Keck, PhD,  of the University of Basel (Switzerland) and colleagues in a study published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

HSCR is a multigenetic congenital condition that includes a lack of enteric ganglia cells (aganglionosis) in the distal part of the colon, leading to intestinal obstruction and prestenotic megacolon. Treatment consists of pull-through surgery to remove the aganglionic portion of the bowel, but 20%-50% of patients develop life-threatening HSCR-associated enterocolitis before or after surgery. Although the mechanism of the complication is uncertain, immune cells, intestinal barrier function, and the microbiome may play a role.

Mouse models have shown connections between the immune and nervous system, but it has been challenging to study the effects of specific neurotransmitters in humans. There are more than 30 separate neurotransmitters in the enteric nervous system, making it difficult to tease apart individual functions. But there are comparatively few enteric nervous system neurotransmitters in patients with HSCR and the aganglionic colon in these patients contains enlarged AChE+ nerve fibers, “neuronal cholinergic function can be examined particularly well” among these patients. .

The researchers of the current study from analyzed tissue from 44 pediatric HSCR patients who underwent pull-through surgery, along with 6 non-HSCR controls who had surgery for various other reasons. Tissue samples were semiquantitatively categorized according to the extent of colonic mucosal AChE+ innervation: Low-fiber rectosigmoid tissue lacked intrinsic nerve cell bodies and mucosal ACHe+ innervation, while high-fiber tissue lacked nerve cell bodies but had mucosal AChE+ innervation. The researchers also determined tissue cytokine profile and immune cell frequencies, and used confocal immunofluorescence microscopy to determine proximity of macrophages to nerve fibers and 16S-rDNA sequencing to determine microbial populations.

They found that aganglionic low-fiber samples had higher levels of inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-17, IL-1-beta, and IL6. Levels of these cytokines were lower in both ganglionic sections of the colon and in high-fiber samples with mucosal AChE+ nerve fibers. Low-fiber samples also had elevated Th17 T cells, compared with high-fiber, aganglionic, and ganglionic distal colon samples. Regulatory T cells were highest in cholinergic high-fiber segments.

Out of 42 patients, 9 developed enterocolitis within 1 year of surgery; 7 had a low-fiber phenotype, while 2 were high-fiber. This difference was not statistically significant, but the researchers then performed a retrospective analysis of 29 HSCR patients to validate the findings. Of these, 14 developed enterocolitis after surgery, with 12 of the cases occurring among children with the low-fiber phenotype, and 2 cases occurred among those with the high-fiber phenotype.

The findings could help guide postsurgical management of HSCR by allowing clinicians to employ preventive measures against enterocolitis, such as high-volume enemas, antibiotics, prebiotics, probiotics, or dietary changes. Th17 cells are known to migrate to nearby mesenteric lymph nodes, where they may promote enterocolitis, and this site is usually not removed during HSCR surgery. Fiber phenotype could prompt a surgeon to also remove mesenteric lymph nodes to reduce enterocolitis risk. A potential therapeutic strategy is to target IL-17 or IL-23.

The study was funded by the University of Basel. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update concerning endoscopic evaluation and management of early complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery.

The seven best practice advice statements, based on available evidence and expert opinion, range from a general call for high familiarity with available interventions to specific approaches for managing postoperative leaks.

According to lead author Vivek Kumbhari, MD, PhD, director of advanced endoscopy, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues, the update was written in consideration of increasing rates of bariatric/metabolic surgery.

“Bariatric/metabolic surgery is unmatched with respect to its weight loss and metabolic benefits,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “The selection criteria will continue to broaden, likely resulting in increasing numbers of less robust patients undergoing surgery (e.g., children, elderly, and those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidities).”

Although the 90-day overall complication rate across all patients undergoing bariatric/metabolic surgery is only 4%, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues noted that this rate is considerably higher, at 20.1%, among patients aged older than 65 years.

“As utilization escalates, so will the number of patients who suffer early complications,” they wrote.

The first three items of best practice advice describe who should be managing complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery, and how.

Foremost, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues called for a multidisciplinary approach; they suggested that endoscopists should work closely with related specialists, such as bariatric/metabolic surgeons and interventional radiologists.

“Timely communication between the endoscopist, radiologist, surgeon, nutritionists, and inpatient medical team or primary care physician will result in efficient, effective care with prompt escalation and deescalation,” they wrote. “Daily communication is advised.”

The next two best practice advice statements encourage high familiarity with endoscopic treatments, postsurgical anatomy, interventional radiology, and surgical interventions, including risks and benefits of each approach.

“The endoscopist should ... have expertise in interventional endoscopy techniques, including but not limited to using concomitant fluoroscopy, stent deployment and retrieval, pneumatic balloon dilation, incisional therapies, endoscopic suturing, and managing percutaneous drains,” the investigators wrote. “Having the ability to perform a wide array of therapies will enhance the likelihood that the optimal endoscopic strategy will be employed, as opposed to simply performing a technique with which the endoscopist has experience.”

Following these best practices, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues advised screening patients with postoperative complications for comorbidities, both medical in nature (such as infection) and psychological.

“Patients often have higher depression and anxiety scores, as well as a lower physical quality of life, and medical teams sometimes neglect the patient’s psychological state,” they wrote. “It is imperative that the multidisciplinary team recognize and acknowledge the patient’s psychological comorbidities and engage expertise to manage them.”

Next, the investigators advised that endoscopic intervention should be considered regardless of time interval since surgery, including the immediate postoperative period.

“Endoscopy is often indicated as the initial therapeutic modality, and it can safely be performed,” Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues wrote. “When endoscopy is performed, it is advised to use carbon dioxide for insufflation. Caution should be used when advancing the endoscope into the small bowel, as it is best to minimize pressure along the fresh staple lines. In cases in which the patient is critically ill or the interventional endoscopist does not have extensive experience with such a scenario, the endoscopy should be performed in the operating room with a surgeon present (preferably the surgeon who performed the operation).”

Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues discussed functional stenosis, which can precipitate and propagate leaks. They noted that “downstream stenosis is frequently seen at the level of the incisura angularis or in the proximal stomach when a sleeve gastrectomy is performed in a patient with a prior laparoscopic adjustable gastric band.”

To address stenosis, the update calls for “aggressive dilation” using a large pneumatic balloon, preferably with fluoroscopy to make sure the distal end of the balloon does not cross the pylorus. The investigators noted that endoscopic suturing may be needed if a tear involving the muscularis propria is encountered.

Lastly, the clinical practice update offers comprehensive guidance for managing staple-line leaks, which “most commonly occur along the staple line of the proximal stomach.”

As leaks are thought to stem from ischemia, “most leaks are not present upon completion of the operation, and they develop over the subsequent weeks, often in the setting of downstream stenosis,” the investigators wrote.

To guide management of staple-line leaks, the investigators presented a treatment algorithm that incorporates defect size, time since surgery, and presence or absence of stenosis.

For example, a defect smaller than 10 mm occurring within 6 weeks of surgery and lacking stenosis may be managed with a percutaneous drain and diversion. In contrast, a defect of similar size, also without stenosis, but occurring later than 6 weeks after the initial procedure, should be managed with endoscopic internal drainage or vacuum therapy.

“Clinicians should recognize that the goal for endoscopic management of staple-line leaks is often not necessarily initial closure of the leak site, but rather techniques to promote drainage of material from the perigastric collection into the gastric lumen such that the leak site closes by secondary intention,” wrote Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues.

The clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Apollo Endosurgery, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update concerning endoscopic evaluation and management of early complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery.

The seven best practice advice statements, based on available evidence and expert opinion, range from a general call for high familiarity with available interventions to specific approaches for managing postoperative leaks.

According to lead author Vivek Kumbhari, MD, PhD, director of advanced endoscopy, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues, the update was written in consideration of increasing rates of bariatric/metabolic surgery.

“Bariatric/metabolic surgery is unmatched with respect to its weight loss and metabolic benefits,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “The selection criteria will continue to broaden, likely resulting in increasing numbers of less robust patients undergoing surgery (e.g., children, elderly, and those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidities).”

Although the 90-day overall complication rate across all patients undergoing bariatric/metabolic surgery is only 4%, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues noted that this rate is considerably higher, at 20.1%, among patients aged older than 65 years.

“As utilization escalates, so will the number of patients who suffer early complications,” they wrote.

The first three items of best practice advice describe who should be managing complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery, and how.

Foremost, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues called for a multidisciplinary approach; they suggested that endoscopists should work closely with related specialists, such as bariatric/metabolic surgeons and interventional radiologists.

“Timely communication between the endoscopist, radiologist, surgeon, nutritionists, and inpatient medical team or primary care physician will result in efficient, effective care with prompt escalation and deescalation,” they wrote. “Daily communication is advised.”

The next two best practice advice statements encourage high familiarity with endoscopic treatments, postsurgical anatomy, interventional radiology, and surgical interventions, including risks and benefits of each approach.

“The endoscopist should ... have expertise in interventional endoscopy techniques, including but not limited to using concomitant fluoroscopy, stent deployment and retrieval, pneumatic balloon dilation, incisional therapies, endoscopic suturing, and managing percutaneous drains,” the investigators wrote. “Having the ability to perform a wide array of therapies will enhance the likelihood that the optimal endoscopic strategy will be employed, as opposed to simply performing a technique with which the endoscopist has experience.”

Following these best practices, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues advised screening patients with postoperative complications for comorbidities, both medical in nature (such as infection) and psychological.

“Patients often have higher depression and anxiety scores, as well as a lower physical quality of life, and medical teams sometimes neglect the patient’s psychological state,” they wrote. “It is imperative that the multidisciplinary team recognize and acknowledge the patient’s psychological comorbidities and engage expertise to manage them.”

Next, the investigators advised that endoscopic intervention should be considered regardless of time interval since surgery, including the immediate postoperative period.

“Endoscopy is often indicated as the initial therapeutic modality, and it can safely be performed,” Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues wrote. “When endoscopy is performed, it is advised to use carbon dioxide for insufflation. Caution should be used when advancing the endoscope into the small bowel, as it is best to minimize pressure along the fresh staple lines. In cases in which the patient is critically ill or the interventional endoscopist does not have extensive experience with such a scenario, the endoscopy should be performed in the operating room with a surgeon present (preferably the surgeon who performed the operation).”

Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues discussed functional stenosis, which can precipitate and propagate leaks. They noted that “downstream stenosis is frequently seen at the level of the incisura angularis or in the proximal stomach when a sleeve gastrectomy is performed in a patient with a prior laparoscopic adjustable gastric band.”

To address stenosis, the update calls for “aggressive dilation” using a large pneumatic balloon, preferably with fluoroscopy to make sure the distal end of the balloon does not cross the pylorus. The investigators noted that endoscopic suturing may be needed if a tear involving the muscularis propria is encountered.

Lastly, the clinical practice update offers comprehensive guidance for managing staple-line leaks, which “most commonly occur along the staple line of the proximal stomach.”

As leaks are thought to stem from ischemia, “most leaks are not present upon completion of the operation, and they develop over the subsequent weeks, often in the setting of downstream stenosis,” the investigators wrote.

To guide management of staple-line leaks, the investigators presented a treatment algorithm that incorporates defect size, time since surgery, and presence or absence of stenosis.

For example, a defect smaller than 10 mm occurring within 6 weeks of surgery and lacking stenosis may be managed with a percutaneous drain and diversion. In contrast, a defect of similar size, also without stenosis, but occurring later than 6 weeks after the initial procedure, should be managed with endoscopic internal drainage or vacuum therapy.

“Clinicians should recognize that the goal for endoscopic management of staple-line leaks is often not necessarily initial closure of the leak site, but rather techniques to promote drainage of material from the perigastric collection into the gastric lumen such that the leak site closes by secondary intention,” wrote Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues.

The clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Apollo Endosurgery, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update concerning endoscopic evaluation and management of early complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery.

The seven best practice advice statements, based on available evidence and expert opinion, range from a general call for high familiarity with available interventions to specific approaches for managing postoperative leaks.

According to lead author Vivek Kumbhari, MD, PhD, director of advanced endoscopy, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues, the update was written in consideration of increasing rates of bariatric/metabolic surgery.

“Bariatric/metabolic surgery is unmatched with respect to its weight loss and metabolic benefits,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “The selection criteria will continue to broaden, likely resulting in increasing numbers of less robust patients undergoing surgery (e.g., children, elderly, and those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidities).”

Although the 90-day overall complication rate across all patients undergoing bariatric/metabolic surgery is only 4%, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues noted that this rate is considerably higher, at 20.1%, among patients aged older than 65 years.

“As utilization escalates, so will the number of patients who suffer early complications,” they wrote.

The first three items of best practice advice describe who should be managing complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery, and how.

Foremost, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues called for a multidisciplinary approach; they suggested that endoscopists should work closely with related specialists, such as bariatric/metabolic surgeons and interventional radiologists.

“Timely communication between the endoscopist, radiologist, surgeon, nutritionists, and inpatient medical team or primary care physician will result in efficient, effective care with prompt escalation and deescalation,” they wrote. “Daily communication is advised.”

The next two best practice advice statements encourage high familiarity with endoscopic treatments, postsurgical anatomy, interventional radiology, and surgical interventions, including risks and benefits of each approach.

“The endoscopist should ... have expertise in interventional endoscopy techniques, including but not limited to using concomitant fluoroscopy, stent deployment and retrieval, pneumatic balloon dilation, incisional therapies, endoscopic suturing, and managing percutaneous drains,” the investigators wrote. “Having the ability to perform a wide array of therapies will enhance the likelihood that the optimal endoscopic strategy will be employed, as opposed to simply performing a technique with which the endoscopist has experience.”

Following these best practices, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues advised screening patients with postoperative complications for comorbidities, both medical in nature (such as infection) and psychological.

“Patients often have higher depression and anxiety scores, as well as a lower physical quality of life, and medical teams sometimes neglect the patient’s psychological state,” they wrote. “It is imperative that the multidisciplinary team recognize and acknowledge the patient’s psychological comorbidities and engage expertise to manage them.”

Next, the investigators advised that endoscopic intervention should be considered regardless of time interval since surgery, including the immediate postoperative period.

“Endoscopy is often indicated as the initial therapeutic modality, and it can safely be performed,” Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues wrote. “When endoscopy is performed, it is advised to use carbon dioxide for insufflation. Caution should be used when advancing the endoscope into the small bowel, as it is best to minimize pressure along the fresh staple lines. In cases in which the patient is critically ill or the interventional endoscopist does not have extensive experience with such a scenario, the endoscopy should be performed in the operating room with a surgeon present (preferably the surgeon who performed the operation).”

Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues discussed functional stenosis, which can precipitate and propagate leaks. They noted that “downstream stenosis is frequently seen at the level of the incisura angularis or in the proximal stomach when a sleeve gastrectomy is performed in a patient with a prior laparoscopic adjustable gastric band.”

To address stenosis, the update calls for “aggressive dilation” using a large pneumatic balloon, preferably with fluoroscopy to make sure the distal end of the balloon does not cross the pylorus. The investigators noted that endoscopic suturing may be needed if a tear involving the muscularis propria is encountered.

Lastly, the clinical practice update offers comprehensive guidance for managing staple-line leaks, which “most commonly occur along the staple line of the proximal stomach.”

As leaks are thought to stem from ischemia, “most leaks are not present upon completion of the operation, and they develop over the subsequent weeks, often in the setting of downstream stenosis,” the investigators wrote.

To guide management of staple-line leaks, the investigators presented a treatment algorithm that incorporates defect size, time since surgery, and presence or absence of stenosis.

For example, a defect smaller than 10 mm occurring within 6 weeks of surgery and lacking stenosis may be managed with a percutaneous drain and diversion. In contrast, a defect of similar size, also without stenosis, but occurring later than 6 weeks after the initial procedure, should be managed with endoscopic internal drainage or vacuum therapy.

“Clinicians should recognize that the goal for endoscopic management of staple-line leaks is often not necessarily initial closure of the leak site, but rather techniques to promote drainage of material from the perigastric collection into the gastric lumen such that the leak site closes by secondary intention,” wrote Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues.

The clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Apollo Endosurgery, and others.

The gender gap in gastroenterology persists – currently, women constitute 39% of fellows, but only 22% of senior AGA members and less than 18% of all practicing gastroenterologists – and it has gained even greater significance within the “current historical moment” of the COVID pandemic and growing cognizance of systemic sexism and racism, according to experts.

During the pandemic, women have been more likely to stay home to care for ill family members and children affected by school closures, which increases their already disproportionate share of unpaid work, wrote Jessica Bernica, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston with her associates in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. They noted that, according to one study, this “holds true for female physicians, who despite their more privileged positions, also experience higher demands at home, impacting their ability to contribute to teaching, service, and research.”

At the same time, the pandemic has brought into focus which jobs are “truly essential” – and that they are “overwhelmingly [held] by women and people of color, who are often underpaid and undervalued,” the experts wrote. The growing focus on systemic racism has also increased awareness of the chronic gender discrimination faced by female minorities, as well as by women in general, they added. In the field of gastroenterology, inherent gender bias – both systemic and self-directed – can bar women from advancing beginning as early as medical school.

To help address these issues, the experts outlined key opportunities for change as women navigate professional “forks in the road” throughout their careers.
 

Throughout their careers

During medical school and residency, women can specifically request gastroenterology rotations (“ideally with both inpatient and outpatient exposure”), attend society conferences, participate in research themselves, and join a research track or serve as chief medical resident. When applying for gastroenterology fellowships, they can prioritize programs with female faculty, which were recently found to be more likely to hire female fellows.

During fellowship, women can avail themselves of female mentors, who can help them strategize about ways to address gender bias, connect with GI groups and societies, and learn endoscopy techniques, including “unique approaches ... [that] overcome the challenges of standard scope sizes and accessibility.” At the institutional level, opportunities to affect positive changes for women trainees include “formal education on the benefits of hands-on learning and encouraging explicit and open communication between parties regarding invitation to, comfort with, and type of physical contact prior to a case.”

After fellowship, early-career gastroenterologists should scrutinize contracts for details on pay and research support, and they should ideally join a practice that either already has many women physicians on staff, or that ensures salary transparency and has “parental leave policies that are compatible with [applicants’] personal and professional goals.” But the experts advocated caution about part-time positions, which may purport to offer more flexibility but turn into full-time work for part-time pay and can preclude participation in practice management.

The experts recommended midcareer female gastroenterologists call out their own achievements rather than waiting for recognition, “actively seek promotion and tenure,” negotiate their salaries (as men tend to do routinely), and think twice before accepting professional roles that are uncompensated or do not clearly promote career advancement.

Senior gastroenterologists have unique opportunities to spearhead changes in institutional policies and practices, according to the experts. Specific examples include “explicitly stating [in job listings] that salary is negotiable, creating transparent written compensation plans, and conducting audits of job offers” to help mitigate any inequities in pay or hiring practices. In addition, senior women gastroenterologists can mentor individual women in the field, implement formal trainings on implicit bias, ensure that their practice or department tracks the gender of gastroenterologists who join, leave, or are promoted.

The experts did not report receiving funding for the work. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

The gender gap in gastroenterology persists – currently, women constitute 39% of fellows, but only 22% of senior AGA members and less than 18% of all practicing gastroenterologists – and it has gained even greater significance within the “current historical moment” of the COVID pandemic and growing cognizance of systemic sexism and racism, according to experts.

During the pandemic, women have been more likely to stay home to care for ill family members and children affected by school closures, which increases their already disproportionate share of unpaid work, wrote Jessica Bernica, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston with her associates in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. They noted that, according to one study, this “holds true for female physicians, who despite their more privileged positions, also experience higher demands at home, impacting their ability to contribute to teaching, service, and research.”

At the same time, the pandemic has brought into focus which jobs are “truly essential” – and that they are “overwhelmingly [held] by women and people of color, who are often underpaid and undervalued,” the experts wrote. The growing focus on systemic racism has also increased awareness of the chronic gender discrimination faced by female minorities, as well as by women in general, they added. In the field of gastroenterology, inherent gender bias – both systemic and self-directed – can bar women from advancing beginning as early as medical school.

To help address these issues, the experts outlined key opportunities for change as women navigate professional “forks in the road” throughout their careers.
 

Throughout their careers

During medical school and residency, women can specifically request gastroenterology rotations (“ideally with both inpatient and outpatient exposure”), attend society conferences, participate in research themselves, and join a research track or serve as chief medical resident. When applying for gastroenterology fellowships, they can prioritize programs with female faculty, which were recently found to be more likely to hire female fellows.

During fellowship, women can avail themselves of female mentors, who can help them strategize about ways to address gender bias, connect with GI groups and societies, and learn endoscopy techniques, including “unique approaches ... [that] overcome the challenges of standard scope sizes and accessibility.” At the institutional level, opportunities to affect positive changes for women trainees include “formal education on the benefits of hands-on learning and encouraging explicit and open communication between parties regarding invitation to, comfort with, and type of physical contact prior to a case.”

After fellowship, early-career gastroenterologists should scrutinize contracts for details on pay and research support, and they should ideally join a practice that either already has many women physicians on staff, or that ensures salary transparency and has “parental leave policies that are compatible with [applicants’] personal and professional goals.” But the experts advocated caution about part-time positions, which may purport to offer more flexibility but turn into full-time work for part-time pay and can preclude participation in practice management.

The experts recommended midcareer female gastroenterologists call out their own achievements rather than waiting for recognition, “actively seek promotion and tenure,” negotiate their salaries (as men tend to do routinely), and think twice before accepting professional roles that are uncompensated or do not clearly promote career advancement.

Senior gastroenterologists have unique opportunities to spearhead changes in institutional policies and practices, according to the experts. Specific examples include “explicitly stating [in job listings] that salary is negotiable, creating transparent written compensation plans, and conducting audits of job offers” to help mitigate any inequities in pay or hiring practices. In addition, senior women gastroenterologists can mentor individual women in the field, implement formal trainings on implicit bias, ensure that their practice or department tracks the gender of gastroenterologists who join, leave, or are promoted.

The experts did not report receiving funding for the work. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

The gender gap in gastroenterology persists – currently, women constitute 39% of fellows, but only 22% of senior AGA members and less than 18% of all practicing gastroenterologists – and it has gained even greater significance within the “current historical moment” of the COVID pandemic and growing cognizance of systemic sexism and racism, according to experts.

During the pandemic, women have been more likely to stay home to care for ill family members and children affected by school closures, which increases their already disproportionate share of unpaid work, wrote Jessica Bernica, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston with her associates in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. They noted that, according to one study, this “holds true for female physicians, who despite their more privileged positions, also experience higher demands at home, impacting their ability to contribute to teaching, service, and research.”

At the same time, the pandemic has brought into focus which jobs are “truly essential” – and that they are “overwhelmingly [held] by women and people of color, who are often underpaid and undervalued,” the experts wrote. The growing focus on systemic racism has also increased awareness of the chronic gender discrimination faced by female minorities, as well as by women in general, they added. In the field of gastroenterology, inherent gender bias – both systemic and self-directed – can bar women from advancing beginning as early as medical school.

To help address these issues, the experts outlined key opportunities for change as women navigate professional “forks in the road” throughout their careers.
 

Throughout their careers

During medical school and residency, women can specifically request gastroenterology rotations (“ideally with both inpatient and outpatient exposure”), attend society conferences, participate in research themselves, and join a research track or serve as chief medical resident. When applying for gastroenterology fellowships, they can prioritize programs with female faculty, which were recently found to be more likely to hire female fellows.

During fellowship, women can avail themselves of female mentors, who can help them strategize about ways to address gender bias, connect with GI groups and societies, and learn endoscopy techniques, including “unique approaches ... [that] overcome the challenges of standard scope sizes and accessibility.” At the institutional level, opportunities to affect positive changes for women trainees include “formal education on the benefits of hands-on learning and encouraging explicit and open communication between parties regarding invitation to, comfort with, and type of physical contact prior to a case.”

After fellowship, early-career gastroenterologists should scrutinize contracts for details on pay and research support, and they should ideally join a practice that either already has many women physicians on staff, or that ensures salary transparency and has “parental leave policies that are compatible with [applicants’] personal and professional goals.” But the experts advocated caution about part-time positions, which may purport to offer more flexibility but turn into full-time work for part-time pay and can preclude participation in practice management.

The experts recommended midcareer female gastroenterologists call out their own achievements rather than waiting for recognition, “actively seek promotion and tenure,” negotiate their salaries (as men tend to do routinely), and think twice before accepting professional roles that are uncompensated or do not clearly promote career advancement.

Senior gastroenterologists have unique opportunities to spearhead changes in institutional policies and practices, according to the experts. Specific examples include “explicitly stating [in job listings] that salary is negotiable, creating transparent written compensation plans, and conducting audits of job offers” to help mitigate any inequities in pay or hiring practices. In addition, senior women gastroenterologists can mentor individual women in the field, implement formal trainings on implicit bias, ensure that their practice or department tracks the gender of gastroenterologists who join, leave, or are promoted.

The experts did not report receiving funding for the work. They reported having no conflicts of interest.