Simethicone use during gastrointestinal endoscopy: Position statement of the Gastroenterological Society of Australia.

Concern has been raised regarding the use of simethicone, a de-foaming agent, during endoscopic procedures. Following reports of simethicone residue in endoscope channels despite high level disinfection, an endoscope manufacturer recommended that it not be used due to concerns of biofilm formation and a possible increased risk of microorganism transmission. However, a detailed mucosal assessment is essential in performing high-standard endoscopic procedures. This is impaired by bubbles within the gastrointestinal lumen. The Gastroenterological Society of Australia's Infection Control in Endoscopy Guidelines (ICEG) Committee conducted a literature search utilizing the MEDLINE database. Further references were sourced from published paper bibliographies. Following a review of the available evidence, and drawing on extensive clinical experience, the multidisciplinary ICEG committee considered the risks and benefits of simethicone use in formulating four recommendations. Published reports have documented residual liquid or crystalline simethicone in endoscope channels after high level disinfection. There are no data confirming that simethicone can be cleared from channels by brushing. Multiple series report benefits of simethicone use during gastroscopy and colonoscopy in improving mucosal assessment, adenoma detection rate, and reducing procedure time. There are no published reports of adverse events related specifically to the use of simethicone, delivered either orally or via any endoscope channel. An assessment of the risks and benefits supports the continued use of simethicone during endoscopic procedures. Strict adherence to instrument reprocessing protocols is essential.

Unintended consequences: the potential impacts of the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) 2019 gonorrhoea guidelines.

In 2019 the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) guidelines for the management of gonorrhoea were updated. Epidemiological treatment was reserved for sexual contacts presenting within 14 days of exposure only. The aim of this evaluation was to review the potential implications of the new guidelines on the management of gonorrhoea contacts. For this retrospective service evaluation, all gonorrhoea contacts presenting to two UK sexual health services in 2018 were identified using the Genitourinary Medicine Clinic Activity Dataset (GUMCAD) code Partner notification: gonorrhoea contact (PNG). Demographics, clinical characteristics and outcome data were collected from the electronic patient records. The 2019 guidelines were retrospectively applied to evaluate impact. For 436 patients seen as gonorrhoea contacts, gonorrhoea prevalence was 36% (159/436), and chlamydia prevalence 19% (83/429). Gonorrhoea prevalence varied with sexual risk: women 57% (61/107), heterosexual men 20% (28/143), men who have sex with men (MSM) 38% (69/183, p < .001); and with time since exposure: prevalence 43% (114/267) in those presenting within 14 days, 28% (42/149) after 14 days (p = .003). Epidemiological treatment of contacts presenting within 14 days would result in the treatment of 73% (114/156) of confirmed cases, with 37% (153/416) contacts unnecessarily treated. The BASHH gonorrhoea guideline changes represent an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship by reducing unnecessary treatment of gonorrhoea negative contacts.