AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) can be effective in eradicating BE and related neoplasia and has greater risk of harms and resource use than surveillance endoscopy. This clinical practice guideline aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients, conducted an evidence review, and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations regarding the use of EET in patients with BE under the following scenarios: presence of (1) high-grade dysplasia, (2) low-grade dysplasia, (3) no dysplasia, and (4) choice of stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or focal EMR plus ablation, and (5) endoscopic submucosal dissection vs EMR. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 5 recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. Based on the available evidence, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of EET in patients with BE high-grade dysplasia and conditional recommendation against EET in BE without dysplasia. The panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of EET in BE low-grade dysplasia; patients with BE low-grade dysplasia who place a higher value on the potential harms and lower value on the benefits (which are uncertain) regarding reduction of esophageal cancer mortality could reasonably select surveillance endoscopy. In patients with visible lesions, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of focal EMR plus ablation over stepwise EMR. In patients with visible neoplastic lesions undergoing resection, the use of either endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was suggested based on lesion characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the indications for EET in the management of BE and related neoplasia. Guidance is also provided regarding the considerations surrounding implementation of EET. Providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to guide future research opportunities.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults With Obesity.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pharmacological management of obesity improves outcomes and decreases the risk of obesity-related complications. This American Gastroenterological Association guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about pharmacological interventions for overweight and obesity. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to prioritize clinical questions, identify patient-centered outcomes, and conduct an evidence synthesis of the following agents: semaglutide 2.4 mg, liraglutide 3.0 mg, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), naltrexone-bupropion ER, orlistat, phentermine, diethylpropion, and Gelesis100 oral superabsorbent hydrogel. The guideline panel used the evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for the pharmacological management of obesity and provided implementation considerations for clinical practice. RESULTS: The guideline panel made 9 recommendations. The panel strongly recommended the use of pharmacotherapy in addition to lifestyle intervention in adults with overweight and obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, or ≥27 kg/m2 with weight-related complications) who have an inadequate response to lifestyle interventions. The panel suggested the use of semaglutide 2.4 mg, liraglutide 3.0 mg, phentermine-topiramate ER, and naltrexone-bupropion ER (based on moderate certainty evidence), and phentermine and diethylpropion (based on low certainty evidence), for long-term management of overweight and obesity. The guideline panel suggested against the use of orlistat. The panel identified the use of Gelesis100 oral superabsorbent hydrogel as a knowledge gap. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with overweight and obesity who have an inadequate response to lifestyle interventions alone, long-term pharmacological therapy is recommended, with multiple effective and safe treatment options.

Impact of withdrawal time on adenoma detection rate: results from a prospective multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Performing a high-quality colonoscopy is critical for optimizing the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Colonoscopy withdrawal time (a surrogate measure) of ≥6 minutes is recommended; however, a threshold of a high-quality withdrawal and its impact on ADR are not known. METHODS: We examined withdrawal time (excluding polyp resection and bowel cleaning time) of subjects undergoing screening and/or surveillance colonoscopy in a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. We examined the relationship of withdrawal time in 1-minute increments on ADR and reported odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the maximal inspection time threshold that impacts the ADR. RESULTS: A total of 1142 subjects (age, 62.3 ± 8.9 years; 80.5% men) underwent screening (45.9%) or surveillance (53.6%) colonoscopy. The screening group had a median withdrawal time of 9.0 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 3.3) with an ADR of 49.6%, whereas the surveillance group had a median withdrawal time of 9.3 minutes (IQR, 4.3) with an ADR of 63.9%. ADR correspondingly increased for a withdrawal time of 6 minutes to 13 minutes, beyond which ADR did not increase (50.4% vs 76.6%, P < .01). For every 1-minute increase in withdrawal time, there was 6% higher odds of detecting an additional subject with an adenoma (OR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.10; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multicenter, randomized controlled trial underscore the importance of a high-quality examination and efforts required to achieve this with an incremental yield in ADR based on withdrawal time. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03952611.).

Evidence-Based Cognitive Endoscopy Simulators: Do They Exist? A Systematic Search and Evaluation of Existing Platforms.

BACKGROUND: The development of guidelines by gastroenterology societies increasingly stresses evidence-based endoscopic practice. AIMS: We performed a systematic assessment to determine whether endoscopic video teaching platforms incorporate evidence-based educational strategies and methods in order to disseminate guideline-based endoscopic management strategies. METHODS: Platforms with a video component were systematically identified using the Google search engine, Apple and Android application stores, and searching four major gastroenterology society websites and three known platforms, to identify all relevant platforms. Two video samples from each teaching platform were reviewed independently by two authors and assessed for use of a priori defined principles of evidence-based medicine, as determined by consensus agreement and for the use of simulation. RESULTS: Fourteen platforms were included in the final analysis, and two videos from each were analyzed. One of the 14 platforms used simulation and incorporated evidence-based medicine principles consistently. Nine of the 14 platforms were not transparent in regard to citation. None of the platforms consistently cited the certainty of evidence or explained how evidence was selected. CONCLUSIONS: Education of guideline-based endoscopic management strategies using principles of evidence-based medicine is under-utilized in endoscopic videos. In addition, the use of cognitive simulation is absent in this arena. There is a paucity of evidence-based cognitive endoscopy simulators designed for fellows that incorporate systematic evaluation, and efforts should be made to create this platform.

AGA Technical Review on Intragastric Balloons in the Management of Obesity.

Several strategies are available to address the obesity epidemic and range from noninvasive lifestyle interventions to medications and bariatric surgical procedures. Endoscopic bariatric techniques, such as intragastric balloons, have become an attractive alternative as a tool for weight loss that can augment the effect of lifestyle interventions. This technical review includes multiple systematic reviews performed to support a clinical practice guideline by the American Gastroenterological Association on the role of intragastric balloons as a tool for weight loss. The systematic reviews targeted a priori selected clinical questions about the effectiveness and periprocedural care of intragastric balloons and concomitant and subsequent weight-loss strategies.

Meet EBE: The Development of an Evidence-Based Endoscopy Simulator.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the digital era of evidence-based medicine, there is a paucity of video endoscopy teaching platforms that use evidence-based medicine principles, or that allow for cognitive simulation of endoscopic management strategies. We created a guideline-based teaching platform for fellows that incorporates these features, and tested it. METHODS: A pilot video module with embedded questions was drafted, and after incorporation of feedback from several attending gastroenterologists, an additional 2 modules were created. The embedded questions were designed to simulate cognitive management decisions as if the viewer were doing the endoscopy procedure in the video. A narrator explained the evidence behind the task being performed, and its certainty based on endoscopic guidelines. Quizzes and surveys were developed and administered to a sample of attendings and fellows who completed the video modules to test efficacy, usability, and likeability. RESULTS: Three video modules, named evidence-based endoscopy (EBE), incorporating low fidelity simulation, and utilizing evidence-based medicine principles, were created. Eight fellows and 10 attendings completed the video modules and all quizzes and surveys. Mean test scores improved from before to after completing the video modules (56% to 92%; mean difference = -35%; 95% confidence interval, 27%-47%). Surveys indicated that the product was viewed favorably by participants, and that there is a strong desire for this type of educational product. CONCLUSIONS: The EBE simulator is a unique, desirable, and effective educational platform based on evidence-based medicine principles that fills a gap in available tools for endoscopy education. Further studies are needed to assess whether EBE can aid in long-term knowledge retention and increase adherence to guideline recommendations.

AGA Rapid Review and Guideline for SARS-CoV2 Testing and Endoscopy Post-Vaccination: 2021 Update.

This guideline provides updated recommendations on the role of preprocedure testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) in individuals undergoing endoscopy in the post-vaccination period and replaces the prior guideline from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) (released July 29, 2020). Since the start of the pandemic, our increased understanding of transmission has facilitated the implementation of practices to promote patient and health care worker (HCW) safety. Simultaneously, there has been increasing recognition of the potential harm associated with delays in patient care, as well as inefficiency of endoscopy units. With widespread vaccination of HCWs and the general population, a re-evaluation of AGA's prior recommendations was warranted. In order to update the role of preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2, the AGA guideline panel reviewed the evidence on prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infections in individuals undergoing endoscopy; patient and HCW risk of infections that may be acquired immediately before, during, or after endoscopy; effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in reducing risk of infections and transmission; patient and HCW anxiety; patient delays in care and potential impact on cancer burden; and endoscopy volumes. The panel considered the certainty of the evidence, weighed the benefits and harms of routine preprocedure testing, and considered burden, equity, and cost using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Based on very low certainty evidence, the panel made a conditional recommendation against routine preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2 in patients scheduled to undergo endoscopy. The panel placed a high value on minimizing additional delays in patient care, acknowledging the reduced endoscopy volumes, downstream impact on delayed cancer diagnoses, and burden of testing on patients.

High-Definition Colonoscopy Compared With Cuff- and Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy: Results From a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mucosal exposure devices including distal attachments such as the cuff and cap have shown variable results in improving adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with high-definition white light colonoscopy (HDWLE). METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy comparing HDWLE to 2 different types of distal attachments: cuff (CF) (Endocuff Vision) or cap (CP) (Reveal). The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rate, right-sided ADR, withdrawal time, and adverse events. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t test and categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test using statistical software Stata version16. A P value <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 1203 subjects were randomized to either HDWLE (n = 384; mean 62 years of age; 81.3% males), CF (n = 379; mean 62.7 years of age; 79.9% males) or CP (n = 379; mean age 62.1 years of age; 80.5% males). No significant differences were found among 3 groups for ADR (57.3%, 59.1%, and 55.7%; P = .6), adenomas per colonoscopy (1.4 ± 1.9, 1.6 ± 2.4, and 1.4 ± 2; P = .3), advanced adenoma (7.6%, 9.2%, and 8.2%; P = .7), sessile serrated lesion (6.8%, 6.3%, and 5.5%; P = .8), or right ADR (48.2%, 49.3%, and 46.2%; P = .7). The number of polyps per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CF group compared with HDWLE and CP group (2.7 ± 3.4, 2.3 ± 2.5, and 2.2 ± 2.3; P = .013). In a multivariable model, after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, withdrawal time, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, there was no impact of device type on the primary outcome of ADR (P = .77). In screening patients, CF resulted in more neoplasms per colonoscopy (CF: 1.7 ± 2.6, HDWLE: 1.3 ± 1.7, and CP: 1.2 ± 1.8; P = .047) with a shorter withdrawal time. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multicenter randomized controlled trial do not show any significant benefit of using either distal attachment devices (CF or CP) over HDWLE, at least in high-detector endoscopists. The Endocuff may have an advantage in the screening population. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03952611).

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Healthcare Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. OBJECTIVE: Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. METHODS: IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. RESULTS: The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included. CONCLUSIONS: Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

AGA Institute Rapid Review of the Gastrointestinal and Liver Manifestations of COVID-19, Meta-Analysis of International Data, and Recommendations for the Consultative Management of Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Multiple gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, including diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as liver enzyme abnormalities, have been variably reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This document provides best practice statements and recommendations for consultative management based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of international data on GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search to identify published and unpublished studies using OVID Medline and preprint servers (medRxiv, LitCovid, and SSRN) up until April 5, 2020; major journal sites were monitored for US publications until April 19, 2020. We pooled the prevalence of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as liver function tests abnormalities, using a fixed-effect model and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. RESULTS: We identified 118 studies and used a hierarchal study selection process to identify unique cohorts. We performed a meta-analysis of 47 studies including 10,890 unique patients. Pooled prevalence estimates of GI symptoms were as follows: diarrhea 7.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2%-8.2%), nausea/vomiting 7.8% (95% CI, 7.1%-8.5%), and abdominal pain 2.7% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.4%). Most studies reported on hospitalized patients. The pooled prevalence estimates of elevated liver abnormalities were as follows: aspartate transaminase 15.0% (95% CI, 13.6%-16.5%) and alanine transaminase 15.0% (95% CI, 13.6%-16.4%). When we compared studies from China to studies from other countries in subgroup analyses, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and liver abnormalities were more prevalent outside of China, with diarrhea reported in 18.3% (95% CI, 16.6%-20.1%). Isolated GI symptoms were reported rarely. We also summarized the Gl and liver adverse effects of the most commonly utilized medications for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: GI symptoms are associated with COVID-19 in <10% of patients. In studies outside of China, estimates are higher. Further studies are needed with standardized GI symptoms questionnaires and liver function test checks on admission to better quantify and qualify the association of these symptoms with COVID-19. Based on findings from our meta-analysis, we provide several Best Practice Statements for the consultative management of COVID-19.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Health Care Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a highly transmissible virus that can infect health care personnel and patients in health care settings. Specific care activities, in particular aerosol-generating procedures, may have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created significant challenges in health care facilities, particularly with severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used to protect health care personnel (HCP). Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care are needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. OBJECTIVE: Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. METHODS: IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including front-line clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of preventive care, public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. RESULTS: The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence.