AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Role of Biomarkers for the Management of Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarkers are used frequently for noninvasive monitoring and treatment decision making in the management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of UC. 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 on the clinical performance of serum C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin as biomarkers of disease activity in patients with established UC in symptomatic remission or with active symptoms. The guideline panel used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for the use of biomarkers for monitoring and management of UC and provided implementation considerations for clinical practice. RESULTS: The guideline panel made 7 conditional recommendations. In patients with UC in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests the use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over a symptom-based monitoring strategy. For patients in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g, normal fecal lactoferrin, and/or normal CRP to rule out active inflammation and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. In patients with UC with moderate to severe symptoms, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin >150 µg/g, elevated fecal lactoferrin, or elevated CRP to inform treatment decisions and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. However, in patients in symptomatic remission but elevated biomarkers, and in patients with moderate to severe symptoms with normal biomarkers, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease to inform treatment decisions. In patients with UC with mild symptoms, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease activity to inform treatment decisions. The panel identified the use of a biomarker-based monitoring strategy over an endoscopy-based monitoring strategy as a knowledge gap. The panel also proposed key implementation considerations for optimal use of biomarkers, and identified areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with UC, noninvasive biomarkers, including fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, and serum CRP can inform disease monitoring and management.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Role of Biomarkers for the Management of Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarkers are used frequently for evaluation and monitoring of patients with Crohn's disease (CD). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of CD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to formulate patient-centered clinical questions and review evidence on the performance of fecal calprotectin, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and Endoscopic Healing Index in patients with established CD who were asymptomatic, had symptoms of varying severity, or were in surgically induced remission. Biomarker performance was assessed against the gold standard of endoscopic activity, defined as a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease ≥3. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for use of biomarkers in various settings. Implementation considerations were formulated for each recommendation to inform clinical practice. RESULTS: The guideline panel made 11 conditional recommendations. In patients with CD in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over symptoms alone. In patients in symptomatic remission, a fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g and normal CRP rules out active inflammation, avoiding endoscopic evaluation for assessment of disease activity. However, elevated biomarkers in this setting merit confirmation with endoscopy before treatment adjustment. In patients with CD with mild symptoms, neither normal nor elevated biomarkers alone are sufficiently accurate to determine endoscopic activity. In patients with CD with moderate to severe symptoms, elevated fecal calprotectin or serum CRP suggests endoscopic activity, precluding routine endoscopic assessment for disease activity. In patients with CD in surgically induced remission in low-risk patients on pharmacologic prophylaxis, a normal fecal calprotectin reliably rules out endoscopic recurrence. In other postoperative settings, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment for establishing postoperative recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CD, fecal calprotectin and serum CRP can inform disease management in both asymptomatic and symptomatic disease. Discordance between symptom assessment and biomarker value may merit endoscopic evaluation for confirmation of status of disease activity.

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.

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.

Low Referral Rate for Genetic Testing in Racially and Ethnically Diverse Patients Despite Universal Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend that all colorectal tumors be assessed for mismatch repair deficiency, which could increase identification of patients with Lynch syndrome. This is of particular importance for minority populations, in whom hereditary syndromes are under diagnosed. We compared rates and outcomes of testing all tumor samples (universal testing) collected from a racially and ethnically diverse population for features of Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of colorectal tumors tested from 2012 through 2016 at 4 academic centers. Tumor samples were collected from 767 patients with colorectal cancer (52% non-Hispanic white [NHW], 26% African American, and 17% Hispanic patients). We assessed rates of tumor testing, recommendations for genetic evaluation, rates of attending a genetic evaluation, and performance of germline testing overall and by race/ethnicity. We performed univariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 92% of colorectal tumors were analyzed for mismatch repair deficiency without significant differences among races/ethnicities. However, minority patients were significantly less likely to be referred for genetic evaluation (21.2% for NHW patients vs 16.9% for African American patients and 10.9% for Hispanic patients; P = .02). Rates of genetic testing were also lower among minority patients (10.7% for NHW patients vs 6.0% for AA patients and 3.1% for Hispanic patients; P < .01). On multivariate analysis, African American race, older age, and medical center were independently associated with lack of referral for genetic evaluation and genetic testing. CONCLUSION: In a retrospective analysis, we found that despite similar rates of colorectal tumor analysis, minority patients are less likely to be recommended for genetic evaluation or to undergo germline testing for Lynch syndrome. Improvements in institutional practices in follow up after tumor testing could reduce barriers to diagnosis of Lynch diagnosis in minorities.

Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models Extension: Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool Extension to Assess Racial and Ethnic Equity-Related Risk of Bias for Clinical Prediction Models.

Introduction: Despite mounting evidence that the inclusion of race and ethnicity in clinical prediction models may contribute to health disparities, existing critical appraisal tools do not directly address such equity considerations. Objective: This study developed a critical appraisal tool extension to assess algorithmic bias in clinical prediction models. Methods: A modified e-Delphi approach was utilized to develop and obtain expert consensus on a set of racial and ethnic equity-based signaling questions for appraisal of risk of bias in clinical prediction models. Through a series of virtual meetings, initial pilot application, and an online survey, individuals with expertise in clinical prediction model development, systematic review methodology, and health equity developed and refined this tool. Results: Consensus was reached for ten equity-based signaling questions, which led to the development of the Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models (CARE-CPM) extension. This extension is intended for use along with existing critical appraisal tools for clinical prediction models. Conclusion: CARE-CPM provides a valuable risk-of-bias assessment tool extension for clinical prediction models to identify potential algorithmic bias and health equity concerns. Further research is needed to test usability, interrater reliability, and application to decision-makers.

Interventions for malnutrition in hospitalized adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is associated with poor outcomes in hospitalized adults. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of hospital-initiated interventions for patients with malnutrition. METHODS: Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library from January 1, 2000 to June 3, 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing interventions for hospitalized adults diagnosed or identified as at-risk for malnutrition using malnutrition screening and diagnostic assessment tools. Individual reviewers extracted study data and performed quality checks for accuracy. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model with variance correction. We assessed the overall strength of evidence at the outcome level. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. RESULTS: We found 11 RCTs that assessed two types of interventions: specialized nutrition care (8 RCTs) and increased protein provision (3 RCTs). The pooled findings of 11 RCTs found moderate strength of evidence that specialized nutrition care and increased protein provision reduced mortality by 21% (relative risk [RR]: 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-0.98; absolute risk reduction [ARR]: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.03 to -0.00). Pooled estimates indicated a nonsignificant decrease of 0.18 days in the length of stay (9 RCTs) and a 10% reduction in readmissions (7 RCTs). No eligible RCTs assessed parenteral or enteral nutrition. CONCLUSION: Certain malnutrition-focused hospital-initiated interventions (e.g., specialized nutrition care and increased protein provision) reduce mortality and may improve the quality of life among patients at risk for or diagnosed with malnutrition. Future trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of parenteral and enteral nutrition.

Utilization of an Electronic Medical Record-integrated Dashboard Improves Identification and Treatment of Anemia and Iron Deficiency in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency (ID) and anemia are one of the most common extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), usually complicating the course both in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Despite their high prevalence and significant impact on patients, this particular aspect is still underestimated by clinicians. Although guidelines have been recently published to address this problem, these recommendations do not address pediatric specific concerns and do not provide guidance as to how implement these guidelines in clinical practice. The aims of this quality improvement (QI) initiative were to improve the rates of detection and treatment of anemia in children with IBD. METHODS: After the creation of a multidisciplinary team of skateholders in IBD and anemia, we launched a multifaceted QI strategy that included the development of a pediatric evidence-based care pathway, utilization of an electronic medical record (EMR)-integrated dashboard to track patients, and generation of an automated provider-based monthly report. Data were collected and graphed into statistical process control charts. RESULTS: These key strategies resulted in improved rates of ID screening from 31.7% to 63.6%, in increased treatment rates from 38.2% to 49.9%, and in decreased prevalence of anemia from 35.8% to 29.7%, which was reflected by a greater decline in patients with quiescent disease. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement strategies incorporating the creation of a pediatric evidence-based care pathway with an EMR-supported electronic dashboard were the foundation of a successful intervention in the management of ID and anemia in pediatric IBD. Our positive results demonstrate the potential of QI initiatives using automated technology to assist clinicians in their commitment to provide evidence-based IBD care and enhance patient outcomes.

A Novel Clinical Decision Support System for Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk Stratification in the Critically Ill.

INTRODUCTION: Acid suppression therapy can reduce the development of stress and medication-related mucosal disease when prescribed appropriately. Suboptimal inpatient prescribing of acid suppression therapy therefore may lead to increased development of gastrointestinal hemorrhage in high-risk populations. The aim of this quality improvement study was to improve appropriate acid suppression therapy in patients admitted to ICUs in an academic medical center. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ADAPTATION: An adaptable, multifaceted implementation strategy guided by unit-based root cause analysis was initially developed in a single ICU with a high-risk population. Identifiable targets of intervention, including provider awareness, unstructured rounding protocols, and electronic communication tools, were augmented by the development of an automated alert system. This electronic dashboard risk-stratified patients based on information derived from the electronic medical record (EMR). The dashboard then offered clinical decision support. Use of the dashboard and percentage of appropriate acid suppression therapy prescriptions were tracked over time. RESULTS: Appropriate acid suppression therapy prescribing was improved from 72.9% to 86.0% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Automated technology including an EMR-supported electronic dashboard was the foundation of successful intervention. Considering the deleterious effects of both under- and overprescribing of acid suppression therapy, particularly in high-risk patient populations, this type of technology may lead to enhanced patient outcomes.

Outcomes of Emergency Medical Patients Admitted to an Intermediate Care Unit With Detailed Admission Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: An important, but not well characterized, population receiving intermediate care is that of medical patients admitted directly from the emergency department. OBJECTIVE: To characterize emergency medical patients and their outcomes when admitted to an intermediate care unit with clearly defined admission guidelines. METHODS: Demographic data, admitting diagnoses, illness severity, comorbid conditions, lengths of stay, and hospital mortality were characterized for all emergency medical patients admitted directly to an intermediate care unit from July through December 2012. RESULTS: A total of 317 unique patients were admitted (mean age, 54 [SD, 16] years). Most patients were admitted with respiratory (26.5%) or cardiac (17.0%) syndromes. The mean (SD) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score version II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score version II, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were 15.6 (6.5), 20.7 (11.8), and 2.7 (2.3), respectively. Severity of illness and length of stay were significantly different for patients who required intensive care within 24 hours of admission (n = 16) or later (n = 25), patients who continued with inter mediate care for more than 24 hours (n = 247), and patients who were downgraded or discharged in less than 24 hours (n = 29). Overall hospital mortality was 4.4% (14 deaths). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medical patients with moderate severity of illness and comorbidity can be admitted to an intermediate level of care with relatively infrequent transfer to intensive care and relatively low mortality.