Consensus statements for management of Barrett's dysplasia and early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, based on a Delphi process.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) is increasingly common among patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to provide consensus recommendations based on the medical literature that clinicians could use to manage patients with BE and low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or early-stage EA. METHODS: We performed an international, multidisciplinary, systematic, evidence-based review of different management strategies for patients with BE and dysplasia or early-stage EA. We used a Delphi process to develop consensus statements. The results of literature searches were screened using a unique, interactive, Web-based data-sifting platform; we used 11,904 papers to inform the choice of statements selected. An a priori threshold of 80% agreement was used to establish consensus for each statement. RESULTS: Eighty-one of the 91 statements achieved consensus despite generally low quality of evidence, including 8 clinical statements: (1) specimens from endoscopic resection are better than biopsies for staging lesions, (2) it is important to carefully map the size of the dysplastic areas, (3) patients that receive ablative or surgical therapy require endoscopic follow-up, (4) high-resolution endoscopy is necessary for accurate diagnosis, (5) endoscopic therapy for HGD is preferred to surveillance, (6) endoscopic therapy for HGD is preferred to surgery, (7) the combination of endoscopic resection and radiofrequency ablation is the most effective therapy, and (8) after endoscopic removal of lesions from patients with HGD, all areas of BE should be ablated. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a data-sifting platform and used the Delphi process to create evidence-based consensus statements for the management of patients with BE and early-stage EA. This approach identified important clinical features of the diseases and areas for future studies.

Antioxidants versus corticosteroids in the treatment of severe alcoholic hepatitis--a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Severe alcoholic hepatitis is associated with high morbidity and short-term mortality. Corticosteroids are the only widely used therapy but established contraindications to treatment or the risk of serious side-effects limit their use. The perceived need for alternative treatments together with the theoretical benefits of anti-oxidant therapy triggered the design of a randomised clinical trial comparing these treatment modalities. METHODS: One hundred and one patients were randomized into a clinical trial of corticosteroids or a novel antioxidant cocktail with a primary endpoint of 30-day mortality. RESULTS: At 30 days there were 16 deaths (30%) in the corticosteroid treated group compared with 22 deaths (46%) in the antioxidant treated group (P=0.05). The odds of dying by 30 days were 2.4 greater for patients on antioxidants (95% confidence interval 1.0-5.6). A diagnosis of sepsis was made more frequently in the AO group (P=0.05), although microbiologically proven episodes of infection occurred more often in the CS group (P<0.01). The survival advantage for corticosteroid treated patients was lost at 1 year of follow-up (P=0.43). CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that corticosteroids in the form of prednisolone 30 mg daily are superior to a broad antioxidant cocktail in the treatment of severe alcoholic hepatitis.