Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Increase Solid Gastric Residue Rates on Upper Endoscopy Especially in Patients With Complicated Diabetes: A Case-Control Study.

INTRODUCTION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) prescribed for weight loss and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can delay gastric emptying, but risk factors and impact on procedure outcomes remain unclear. METHODS: We compared frequency of gastric residue on upper endoscopy in patients on a GLP-1RA and propensity score-matched controls in this retrospective case-control study of consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic procedures over a 3.5-year period. GLP-1RAs were not held before endoscopy. The gastric residue presence was assessed by reviewing endoscopy reports and images. Predictors and consequences of gastric residue with GLP-1RA were determined. RESULTS: In 306 GLP-1RA users compared with matched controls, rates of gastric residue were significantly higher with GLP-1RA use (14% vs 4%, P < 0.01), especially in patients with T2DM (14% vs 4%, P < 0.01), with insulin dependence (17% vs 5%, P < 0.01) and T2DM complications (15% vs 2%, P < 0.01). Lower gastric residue rates were noted after prolonged fasting and clear liquids for concurrent colonoscopy (2% vs 11%, P < 0.01) and in patients with afternoon procedures (4% vs 11%, P < 0.01). While 22% with gastric residue required intubation and 25% had early procedure termination, no procedural complications or aspiration were recorded. DISCUSSION: GLP-1RA use is associated with increased gastric residue on upper endoscopy, particularly in patients with T2DM, surpassing the impact of opiates alone. Risk is highest in the presence of T2DM complications while prolonged fasting and a clear-liquid diet are protective. This increased risk of gastric residue does not appear to translate to an increased risk of procedural complications.

Accelerated Infliximab Infusion Safety and Tolerability Is Non-inferior to Standard Infusion Protocol in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study.

Background and Aim: Infliximab is typically given over an infusion time of 2 hours, leading to a significant burden in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. We aimed to determine the safety and cost-effectiveness of an accelerated infliximab infusion of 1 hour, compared with the standard 2-hour infusion. Methods: Open-label randomized trial where IBD patients receiving maintenance infliximab infusions were randomly assigned to 1- and 2-hour infusion groups, corresponding to study and control groups, respectively. The primary outcome was the rate of infusion reactions. Secondary outcomes were assessment of the effect of premedications and immunomodulators on the rate of infusion reactions, and cost-effectiveness analysis. The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on direct nursing costs for the infusion time, indirect infusion center costs, and cost of productivity loss for patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05340764. Results: From November 2020 to November 2021, 96 patients were randomly assigned: 51 (53%) to the 1-hour infusion group and 45 (47%) to the 2-hour infusion group. Over a median time of 1 year, 309 infusions were administered in the control group, and 376 in the study group. Fifty-seven (18%) infusions in the control group and 45 (12%) infusions in the study group experienced an infusion reaction. The only infusion reaction was asymptomatic hypotension not requiring infusion discontinuation. No other infusion reactions (mild or moderate/severe) were seen. Diphenhydramine was associated with an increased rate of infusion reactions (OR 2.04 [95% CI 1.18-3.52], P = .01). The average costs were estimated to reduce by 37% in the accelerated infusion group. Conclusions: Accelerated 1-hour infusions are non-inferior in safety and superior in cost-effectiveness compared with standard 2-hour infusions in IBD patients receiving maintenance infliximab infusions. Trial Identification Number: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05340764.

An Interactive Video Educational Tool Does Not Improve the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Inadequate bowel preparation leads to poor outcomes in colonoscopy. Prior investigations have demonstrated improved bowel preparation with pre-procedural educational videos. We aimed to determine whether an interactive, online educational video could improve bowel preparation scores in an outpatient population. METHODS: We performed a prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial at our hospital-based outpatient endoscopy center. Eligible patients were randomized to two groups. Both groups received standard verbal and written instructions, while the intervention group also received access to an interactive, online video. The primary outcome was improvement in the bowel preparation scores graded using the Boston bowel prep score (BBPS). Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate, total number of polyps detected, patient satisfaction, pre-procedure anxiety, and complication rates. RESULTS: The difference in BBPS in the intervention group (8) compared to the control group (7.6) did not meet statistical significance in our primary outcome of improvement in BBPS (p = 0.076). However, on subgroup analysis, there was a statistically significant improvement in BBPS in the intervention group among African Americans (p = 0.007) and patients older than 65 (p = 0.026). Those in the intervention arm rated pre-procedural materials "very easy" to understand significantly more often than in the control arm (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an interactive, online educational video for bowel preparation did not lead to improvement in overall BBPS. However, among patients at higher risk for inadequate bowel preparation, such as African Americans and elderly patients, there may be a benefit.