AGA Clinical Practice Update on Appropriate and Tailored Polypectomy: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we provide guidance on the appropriate use of different polypectomy techniques. We focus on polyps <2 cm in size that are most commonly encountered by the practicing endoscopist, including use of classification systems to characterize polyps and various polypectomy methods. We review characteristics of polyps that require complex polypectomy techniques and provide guidance on which types of polyps require more advanced management by a therapeutic endoscopist or surgeon. This CPU does not provide a detailed review of complex polypectomy techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, which should only be performed by endoscopists with advanced training. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPU Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: A structured visual assessment using high-definition white light and/or electronic chromoendoscopy and with photodocumentation should be conducted for all polyps found during routine colonoscopy. Closely inspect colorectal polyps for features of submucosally invasive cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Use cold snare polypectomy for polyps <10 mm in size. Cold forceps polypectomy can alternatively be used for 1- to 3-mm polyps where cold snare polypectomy is technically difficult. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Do not use hot forceps polypectomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should be familiar with various techniques, such as cold and hot snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection, to ensure effective, safe, and optimal resection of intermediate-size polyps (10-19 mm). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Consider using lifting agents or underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for removal of sessile polyps 10-19 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Serrated polyps should be resected using cold resection techniques. Submucosal injection may be helpful for polyps >10 mm if margins cannot be well delineated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Use hot snare polypectomy to remove pedunculated lesions >10 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Do not routinely use clips to close resection sites for polyps <20 mm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Refer patients with polyps to endoscopic referral centers in the context of size ≥20 mm, challenging polypectomy location, or recurrent polyp at a prior polypectomy site. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Tattoo lesions that may need future localization at endoscopy or surgery. Tattoos should be placed in a location that will not interfere with subsequent attempts at endoscopic resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Refer patients with nonpedunculated polyps with clear evidence of submucosally invasive cancer for surgical evaluation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Understand the endoscopy suite's electrosurgical generator settings appropriate for polypectomy or postpolypectomy thermal techniques.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Iron Deficiency Anemia: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we will Best Practice Advice (BPA) guidance on the appropriate management of iron deficiency anemia. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Since systematic reviews were not performed, these BPA statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: No single formulation of oral iron has any advantages over any other. Ferrous sulfate is preferred as the least expensive iron formulation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Give oral iron once a day at most. Every-other-day iron dosing may be better tolerated for some patients with similar or equal rates of iron absorption as daily dosing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Add vitamin C to oral iron supplementation to improve absorption. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Intravenous iron should be used if the patient does not tolerate oral iron, ferritin levels do not improve with a trial of oral iron, or the patient has a condition in which oral iron is not likely to be absorbed. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Intravenous iron formulations that can replace iron deficits with 1 or 2 infusions are preferred over those that require more than 2 infusions. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: All intravenous iron formulations have similar risks; true anaphylaxis is very rare. The vast majority of reactions to intravenous iron are complement activation-related pseudo-allergy (infusion reactions) and should be treated as such. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Intravenous iron therapy should be used in individuals who have undergone bariatric procedures, particularly those that are likely to disrupt normal duodenal iron absorption, and have iron-deficiency anemia with no identifiable source of chronic gastrointestinal blood loss. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: In individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and iron-deficiency anemia, clinicians first should determine whether iron-deficiency anemia is owing to inadequate intake or absorption, or loss of iron, typically from gastrointestinal bleeding. Active inflammation should be treated effectively to enhance iron absorption or reduce iron depletion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Intravenous iron therapy should be given in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease, iron-deficiency anemia, and active inflammation with compromised absorption. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: In individuals with portal hypertensive gastropathy and iron-deficiency anemia, oral iron supplements initially should be used to replenish iron stores. Intravenous iron therapy should be used in patients with ongoing bleeding who do not respond to oral iron therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: In individuals with portal hypertensive gastropathy and iron-deficiency anemia without another identified source of chronic blood loss, treatment of portal hypertension with nonselective ß-blockers can be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: In individuals with iron-deficiency anemia secondary to gastric antral vascular ectasia who have an inadequate response to iron replacement, consider endoscopic therapy with endoscopic band ligation or thermal methods such as argon plasma coagulation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: In patients with iron-deficiency anemia and celiac disease, ensure adherence to a gluten-free diet to improve iron absorption. Consider oral iron supplementation based on the severity of iron deficiency and patient tolerance, followed by intravenous iron therapy if iron stores do not improve. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Deep enteroscopy performed in patients with iron-deficiency anemia suspected to have small-bowel bleeding angioectasias should be performed with a distal attachment to improve detection and facilitate treatment. Small-bowel angioectasias may be treated with ablative thermal therapies such as argon plasma coagulation or with mechanical methods such as hemostatic clips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: Endoscopic treatment of angioectasias should be accompanied with iron replacement. Medical therapy for small-bowel angioectasias should be reserved for compassionate treatment in refractory cases when iron replacement and endoscopic therapy are ineffective.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Refractory Celiac Disease: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this expert review is to summarize the diagnosis and management of refractory celiac disease. It will review evaluation of patients with celiac disease who have persistent or recurrent symptoms, differential diagnosis, nutritional support, potential therapeutic options, and surveillance for complications of this condition. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Since systematic reviews were not performed, these BPA statements do not carry formal ratings of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: In patients believed to have celiac disease who have persistent or recurrent symptoms or signs, the initial diagnosis of celiac disease should be confirmed by review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: In patients with confirmed celiac disease with persistent or recurrent symptoms or signs (nonresponsive celiac disease), ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of these symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for villous atrophy. If villous atrophy persists or the initial diagnosis of celiac disease was not confirmed, consider other causes of villous atrophy, including common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients with nonresponsive celiac disease, after exclusion of gluten ingestion, perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, lactose or fructose intolerance, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies to distinguish between subtypes of refractory celiac disease and to exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma. Type 1 refractory celiac disease is characterized by a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population and type 2 is defined by the presence of an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consultation with an expert hematopathologist is necessary to interpret these studies. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Perform small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and computed tomography or magnetic resonance enterography to exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis at initial diagnosis of type 2 refractory celiac disease. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies in patients diagnosed with refractory celiac disease. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Correct deficiencies in macro- and micronutrients using oral supplements and/or enteral support. Consider parenteral nutrition for patients with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Corticosteroids, most commonly open-capsule budesonide or, if unavailable, prednisone, are the medication of choice and should be used as first-line therapy in either type 1 or type 2 refractory celiac disease. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Patients with refractory celiac disease require regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy. Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Patients with refractory celiac disease without response to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials.

Multi-pilot implementation experiences of patient-centered pathology reports: lessons learned for the advancement of patient-centered tools for cancer decision-making.

PURPOSE: New federal legislation in the United States grants patients expanded access to their medical records, making it critical that medical records information is understandable to patients. Provision of informational summaries significantly increase patient perceptions of patient-centered care and reduce feelings of uncertainty, yet their use for cancer pathology is limited. METHODS: Our team developed and piloted patient-centered versions of pathology reports (PCPRs) for four cancer organ sites: prostate, bladder, breast, and colorectal polyp. The objective of this analysis was to identify common barriers and facilitators to support dissemination of PCPRs in care delivery settings. We analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from pilot PCPR implementations, guided by the RE-AIM framework to explore constructs of reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. RESULTS: We present two case studies of PCPR implementation - breast cancer and colorectal polyps-that showcase diverse workflows for pathology reporting. Cross-pilot learnings emphasize the potential for PCPRs to improve patient satisfaction, knowledge, quality of shared decision-making activities, yet several barriers to dissemination exist. CONCLUSION: While there is promise in expanding patient-centered cancer communication tools, more work is needed to expand the technological capacity for PCPRs and connect PCPRs to opportunities to reduce costs, improve quality, and reduce waste in care delivery systems.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Chronic Gastrointestinal Pain in Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: This expert review summarizes approaches to management of pain in disorders of gut-brain interaction. This review focuses specifically on approaches to pain that persist if first-line therapies aimed at addressing visceral causes of pain are unsuccessful. The roles of a therapeutic patient-provider relationship, nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies, and avoidance of opioids are discussed. METHODS: This was not a formal systematic review but was based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation was performed. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Effective management of persistent pain in disorders of gut-brain interaction requires a collaborative, empathic, culturally sensitive, patient-provider relationship. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Providers should master patient-friendly language about the pathogenesis of pain, leveraging advances in neuroscience and behavioral science. Providers also must understand the psychological contexts in which pain is perpetuated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Opioids should not be prescribed for chronic gastrointestinal pain because of a disorder of gut-brain interaction. If patients are referred on opioids, these medications should be prescribed responsibly, via multidisciplinary collaboration, until they can be discontinued. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Nonpharmacologic therapies should be considered routinely as part of comprehensive pain management, and ideally brought up early on in care. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Providers should optimize medical therapies that are known to modulate pain and be able to differentiate when gastrointestinal pain is triggered by visceral factors vs centrally mediated factors. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Providers should familiarize themselves with a few effective neuromodulators, knowing the dosing, side effects, and targets of each and be able to explain to the patient why these drugs are used for the management of persistent pain.

Survey Finds Gender Disparities Impact Both Women Mentors and Mentees in Gastroenterology.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroenterologists at all levels of practice benefit from formal mentoring. Much of the current literature on mentoring in gastroenterology is based on expert opinion rather than data. In this study, we aimed to identify gender-related barriers to successful mentoring relationships from the mentor and mentee perspectives. METHODS: A voluntary, web-based survey was distributed to physicians at 20 academic institutions across the United States. Overall, 796 gastroenterology fellows and faculty received the survey link, with 334 physicians responding to the survey (42% response rate), of whom 299 (90%; 129 women and 170 men) completed mentorship questions and were included in analysis. RESULTS: Responses of women and men were compared. Compared with men, more women preferred a mentor of the same gender (38.6% women vs 4.2% men, P < 0.0001) but less often had one (45.5% vs 70.2%, P < 0.0001). Women also reported having more difficulty finding a mentor (44.4% vs 16.0%, P < 0.0001) and more often cited inability to identify a mentor of the same gender as a contributing factor (12.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.0004). More women mentors felt comfortable advising women mentees about work-life balance (88.3% vs 63.8%, P = 0.0005). Nonetheless, fewer women considered themselves effective mentors (33.3% vs 52.6%, P = 0.03). More women reported feeling pressured to mentor because of their gender (39.5% vs 0.9% of men, P < 0.0001). Despite no gender differences, one-third of respondents reported negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to mentor and be mentored. DISCUSSION: Inequities exist in the experiences of women mentees and mentors in gastroenterology, which may affect career advancement and job satisfaction.

Case-Control Studies of the Efficacy of Screening Tests That Seek to Prevent Cancer Incidence: Results of an Approach That Utilizes Administrative Claims Data That Do Not Provide Information Regarding Test Indication.

Case-control studies evaluating a screening test's efficacy in reducing cancer mortality require accurate classification of test indication to obtain a valid result. However, for analogous studies of cancer incidence, determination of test indication is not as critical because, to define exposure, we need consider only tests that can identify precursor lesions whose treatment might prevent cancer, not tests leading to cancer diagnosis. This study utilizes US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, which do not include information about colonoscopy indication, to evaluate the efficacy of colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence. Cases were Medicare enrollees diagnosed with CRC between 1996 and 2013; up to 3 controls were matched to each case. Colonoscopy receipt prior to presumed onset of occult cancer was associated with an approximately 60% reduction in CRC incidence (odds ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval: 0.40, 0.42). The association was robust to differing exposure windows and estimates of occult cancer duration and is similar to those from CRC incidence studies in which exam indication was available. Our results suggest that, when it is impractical/impossible to determine whether tests were conducted for screening, the efficacy of a test in preventing cancer incidence can still be estimated using a case-control study design.

Managing the Measurement of Colonoscopy Quality.

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is our current best colonoscopy quality indicator, but it is not without limitations. In this issue of the Journal, novel ADR benchmarks are proposed based on historical local colonoscopy results. These minimally acceptable, standard of care, and aspirational benchmarks may encourage continuous quality improvement through the explicit determination of notably higher but proven achievable ADR targets, although validation in clinical practice is needed. Ultimately, we must transition from ADR measurement to the implementation of robust quality improvement processes that assure the best outcomes for our patients.

Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy versus colonoscopy for reduction of colorectal cancer mortality.

PURPOSE: Colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy are both recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, but their relative effectiveness is unclear. We sought to evaluate the ability of each of these two modalities to reduce CRC mortality. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Cases were persons aged 70-85 years who died of CRC and were matched to up to three non-CRC controls. Receipt of endoscopy was ascertained from Medicare claims and endoscopy indication assigned using a validated algorithm. Conditional logistic regression models were developed to estimate the association between screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy and CRC mortality. We conducted secondary analyses by race, sex, and endoscopist characteristics, and with varying duration of the look-back period. RESULTS: In the initial analysis using all available look-back years, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy was associated with a 35% reduction in CRC mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48, 0.89), while screening colonoscopy was associated with a 74% reduction (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.23, 0.30). Sigmoidoscopy was not associated with any reduction in proximal CRC mortality. The association between colonoscopy and reduced CRC mortality was stronger in the distal than the proximal colon. Results were similar in analyses using a 5-year look-back period. CONCLUSIONS: Screening colonoscopy was associated with greater reductions in CRC mortality than screening sigmoidoscopy, and with a greater reduction in the distal than the proximal colon. These results provide additional information on the relative benefits of screening for CRC with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) pharmacotherapy and the risk of serious infection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The magnitude of risk of serious infections due to available medical therapies of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the existing IBD literature to estimate the risk of serious infection in adult IBD patients associated with available medical therapies. METHODS: Studies were identified by a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Randomized controlled trials comparing IBD medical therapies with no restrictions on language, country of origin, or publication date were included. A network meta-analysis was used to pool direct between treatment comparisons with indirect trial evidence while preserving randomization. RESULTS: Thirty-nine articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria; one study was excluded from the analysis due to disconnectedness. We found no evidence of increased odds of serious infection in comparisons of the different treatment strategies against each other, including combination therapy with a biologic and immunomodulator compared to biologic monotherapy. Similar results were seen in the comparisons between the newer biologics (e.g. vedolizumab) and the anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. CONCLUSIONS: No treatment strategy was found to confer a higher risk of serious infection than another, although wide confidence intervals indicate that a clinically significant difference cannot be excluded. These findings provide a better understanding of the risk of serious infection from IBD pharmacotherapy in the adult population. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO ( CRD42014013497 ).