British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) joint consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic oesophagitis in children and adults.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly common cause of dysphagia in both children and adults, as well as one of the most prevalent oesophageal diseases with a significant impact on physical health and quality of life. We have provided a single comprehensive guideline for both paediatric and adult gastroenterologists on current best practice for the evaluation and management of EoE. METHODS: The Oesophageal Section of the British Society of Gastroenterology was commissioned by the Clinical Standards Service Committee to develop these guidelines. The Guideline Development Group included adult and paediatric gastroenterologists, surgeons, dietitians, allergists, pathologists and patient representatives. The Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes process was used to generate questions for a systematic review of the evidence. Published evidence was reviewed and updated to June 2021. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations. Two rounds of voting were held to assess the level of agreement and the strength of recommendations, with 80% consensus required for acceptance. RESULTS: Fifty-seven statements on EoE presentation, diagnosis, investigation, management and complications were produced with further statements created on areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: These comprehensive adult and paediatric guidelines of the British Society of Gastroenterology and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition are based on evidence and expert consensus from a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals, including patient advocates and patient support groups, to help clinicians with the management patients with EoE and its complications.

Interim results of a randomised controlled trial of homeopathic treatment for irritable bowel syndrome.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic condition for which there is no consensus on the optimum treatment. Gastroenterology problems are some of the most common conditions treated by homeopaths, yet few trials have explored the effectiveness of individualised homeopathic treatment for IBS. A three-armed trial was conducted which compared: usual care, homeopathic treatment plus usual care and supportive listening plus usual care. The primary outcome was change in irritable bowel symptom severity score between baseline and 26 weeks, calculated using ANCOVA. An interim ANCOVA adjusted for baseline IBS severity, age and employment status found no statistically significant difference between the three arms. However, a post-hoc test comparing homeopathic treatment plus usual care to usual care alone found a statistically significant difference in favour of homeopathic treatment. In addition, 62.5 percent of patients in the homeopathic treatment arm (compared to 25.0 percent of those in the usual care arm), achieved a clinically relevant change in irritable bowel symptom severity score, which indicates a promising effect for homeopathic treatment, though these results should be interpreted with caution due to the low number of participants in the study.

Improving the quality of care for medical inpatients by placing a higher priority on ward rounds.

Models suggested for managing acute, non-elective, medical admissions include expanding geriatric services, extending the role of the acute physician and rejuvenating the role of the general physician. We investigated improving inpatient care by changing consultants' work patterns and placing a higher priority on the ward rounds. A focus group and a questionnaire were used to study the impact on several ward round parameters. All respondents reported an overall satisfaction: 93% rated the quality of care as good or excellent, 75% reported increased safe patient discharges and 68% observed improved teamwork. Length of stay reduced to 4 days from 5.3 days without an increase in readmission. The main themes showed improved quality of care, better assured patients and relatives, and better consultant job satisfaction, but also showed reduced junior doctors' independent decision-making and a slight reduction in specialty-related activity. The study concluded that placing a higher priority on ward rounds by altering consultants' work patterns has a positive impact on inpatient care.

Randomised, placebo-controlled trial and meta-analysis show benefit of ondansetron for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea: The TRITON trial.

BACKGROUND: Ondansetron may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea (IBS-D). AIM: To conduct a 12-week parallel group, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron 4 mg o.d. (titrated up to 8 mg t.d.s.) in 400 IBS-D patients. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: % responders using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) composite endpoint. Secondary and mechanistic endpoints included stool consistency (Bristol Stool Form Scale) and whole gut transit time (WGTT). After literature review, results were pooled with other placebo-controlled trials in a meta-analysis to estimate relative risks (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and number needed to treat (NNT). RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomised. On intention-to-treat analysis, 15/37 (40.5%; 95% CI 24.7%-56.4%) met the primary endpoint on ondansetron versus 12/43 (27.9%; 95% CI 14.5%-41.3%) on placebo (p = 0.19). Ondansetron improved stool consistency compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference - 0.7; 95% CI -1.0 to-0.3, p < 0.001). Ondansetron increased WGTT between baseline and week 12 (mean (SD) difference 3.8 (9.1) hours, versus placebo -2.2 (10.3) hours, p = 0.01). Meta-analysis of 327 patients from this, and two similar trials, demonstrated ondansetron was superior to placebo for the FDA composite endpoint (RR of symptoms not responding = 0.86; 95% CI 0.75-0.98, NNT = 9) and stool response (RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.52-0.82, NNT = 5), but not abdominal pain response (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.74-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Although small numbers meant the primary endpoint was not met in this trial, when pooled with other similar trials meta-analysis suggests ondansetron improves stool consistency and reduces days with loose stool and urgency. Trial registration - http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17508514.

Albumin level and patient age predict outcomes in patients referred for gastrostomy insertion: internal and external validation of a gastrostomy score and comparison with artificial neural networks.

BACKGROUND: Significant mortality after gastrostomy insertion remains and some risk factors have been identified, but no predictive scoring system exists. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for mortality, formulate a predictive scoring system, and validate the score. Comparison to an artificial neural network (ANN). DESIGN: Endoscopic database analysis. SETTING: Six hospitals (2 teaching hospitals) in the South Yorkshire region, United Kingdom. PATIENTS: This study involved all patients referred for gastrostomy insertion. INTERVENTION: Generation of clinical scores to predict 30-day mortality in patients undergoing gastrostomy insertion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Risk factors for 30-day mortality. Internal and external validation of the score. Comparison with an ANN. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed that 30-day mortality was associated with age, albumin levels, and cardiac and neurological comorbidities. Multivariate analysis showed that only age and albumin levels were independent. Modeling provided scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 corresponding to 30-day mortalities of 0% (0-2.1), 7% (2.9-13.9), 21.3% (13.5-30.9), and 37.3% (24.1-51.9), respectively. Application of the scoring system at the other teaching hospital and the 4 district general hospitals gave 30-day mortality rates that were not significantly different from those predicted. Receiver operating characteristic curves for the score and the ANN were comparable. LIMITATIONS: Nonrandomized study. Score not used as a decision-making tool. CONCLUSION: The gastrostomy score provides an estimate of 30-day mortality for patients (and their relatives) when gastrostomy insertion is being discussed. This score requires evaluation as a decision-making tool in clinical practice. ANN analysis results were similar to the outcomes from the clinical score.

Treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea using titrated ondansetron (TRITON): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea (IBS-D) affects up to 4% of the general population. Symptoms include frequent, loose, or watery stools with associated urgency, resulting in marked reduction of quality of life and loss of work productivity. Ondansetron, a 5HT3 receptor antagonist, has had an excellent safety record for over 20 years as an antiemetic, yet is not widely used in the treatment of IBS-D. It has, however, been shown to slow colonic transit and in a small randomised, placebo-controlled, cross-over pilot study, benefited patients with IBS-D. METHODS: This trial is a phase III, parallel group, randomised, double-blind, multi-centre, placebo-controlled trial, with embedded mechanistic studies. Participants (n = 400) meeting Rome IV criteria for IBS-D will be recruited from outpatient and primary care clinics and by social media to receive either ondansetron (dose titrated up to 24 mg daily) or placebo for 12 weeks. Throughout the trial, participants will record their worst abdominal pain, worst urgency, stool frequency, and stool consistency on a daily basis. The primary endpoint is the proportion of "responders" in each group, using Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations. Secondary endpoints include pain intensity, stool consistency, frequency, and urgency. Mood and quality of life will also be assessed. Mechanistic assessments will include whole gut transit, faecal tryptase and faecal bile acid concentrations at baseline and between weeks 8 and 11. A subgroup of participants will also undergo assessment of sensitivity (n = 80) using the barostat, and/or high-resolution colonic manometry (n = 40) to assess motor patterns in the left colon and the impact of ondansetron. DISCUSSION: The TRITON trial aims to assess the effect of ondansetron across multiple centres. By defining ondansetron's mechanisms of action we hope to better identify patients with IBS-D who are likely to respond. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN17508514 , Registered on 2 October 2017.

One-year investigator-blind randomized multicenter trial comparing Asacol 2.4 g once daily with 800 mg three times daily for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Mesalazine (Asacol) is still widely prescribed in divided doses for ulcerative colitis (UC), despite evidence that adherence is improved by once-daily (OD) prescribing. We aimed to investigate whether OD Asacol was as effective as three times (TDS) daily dosing, and to evaluate the role of treatment adherence. METHODS: An investigator-blind randomized trial was undertaken comparing OD Asacol (three 800 mg tablets) versus one 800 mg TDS in maintenance of remission of UC over 1 year. The primary endpoint was relapse rate, and noninferiority would be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportions relapsing (TDS-OD) exceeded -10%. Adherence was measured by tablet counts and self-reported adherence. A subgroup of patients used a bottle cap that recorded all bottle opening events. RESULTS: In all, 213 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, relapse rates were 31% (95% CI 22%-40%) in the OD and 45% (95% CI 35%-54%) in the TDS group. Primary analysis confirmed the noninferiority of OD dosing. Two of the study populations, ITT and per-protocol (PP), showed potential superiority of OD dosing. All measures of adherence showed that it was significantly better in the OD group. Multivariate analysis, however, showed OD dosing was associated with lower relapse risk independently of adherence. CONCLUSIONS: OD dosing with Asacol 2.4 g is as safe and effective as TDS dosing, and secondary analysis confirmed significantly reduced relapse rates. The benefit, however, was clinically borderline and may relate in part to ease of adherence.

Factors predicting the diagnostic yield and intervention in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding investigated using capsule endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: In patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGB), capsule endoscopy (CE) is the investigation of choice after negative conventional endoscopy. However, there is paucity of data on which clinical factors predict the ability of CE to detect pathology and alter management. AIM: To investigate clinical factors which predict a higher diagnostic yield and a change in management in patients presenting with OGB. METHODS: Data was collected in patients with OGB for type of OGB [overt (OB) or iron deficiency anaemia (IDA)], co-morbidity, use of anticoagulants, transfusion dependence, subsequent CE diagnosis and follow up data. Factors that predicted a higher yield and a change in management were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 427 patients (IDA 74%) with a mean age of 58 years (range 17-92).The diagnostic yield was 50% with a change in management in 30% of patients. The commonest finding was angiodysplasia in 52% of patients. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic yield between the two groups (OB: 56%, IDA 48%, p=0.15). On logistic regression, age (p=0.001), the use of warfarin (p=0.02) and liver co-morbidity (p=0.001) were significant factors which predicted a higher yield with CE. Factors which predicted a change in management included the presence of co-morbidity (p=0.02) and having a diagnosis of angiodysplasia on CE (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: This is a large series of CE in OGB. Increasing age, anti-coagulation and liver co-morbidity are significant predictors of a positive diagnostic yield whilst the presence of co-morbidity or a diagnosis of angiodysplasia may predict a change in management.

Push enteroscopy in the era of capsule endoscopy.

GOALS: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of push enteroscopy in relation to indication and compare the yield in patients who had capsule endoscopy followed by push enteroscopy against capsule endoscopy naive patients. BACKGROUND: With the advent of capsule endoscopy the role of push enteroscopy needs to be reevaluated. STUDY: Patients who underwent push enteroscopy from January 2002 to May 2006 were included. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five patients underwent push enteroscopy: 93 females, average age 55 years. There were 74 cases where both push enteroscopy (PE) and capsule endoscopy (CE) were performed. Indications for PE were iron deficiency anemia (n=51), overt bleeding (n=31), suspected celiac disease (n=32), refractory celiac disease (n=19), assessment for Crohn's disease (n=10), and miscellaneous (n=12). In 148 patients, an average length of 70 cm of small bowel was examined (range 30 to 130 cm). PE was unsuccessful in 7 patients due to anatomic strictures or patient distress. The overall diagnostic yield was 30% with the highest yield in overt bleeding when compared with other subgroups (P<0.001). Nine percent of lesions were within the reach of a standard endoscope. Comparison of the diagnostic yield in patients who had CE followed by PE against CE naive patients was 41% versus 47%, respectively (P<1). There were no cases where push enteroscopy recognized a lesion that had not been already detected by capsule endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Push enteroscopy has the greatest diagnostic yield in patients with overt bleeding when compared with other referral indications. PE should be used as an adjuvant to CE for therapeutic intervention.

Capsule endoscopy: is there a role for nurses as physician extenders?

Capsule endoscopy is a novel technique for examining the small bowel; however, data interpretation is time consuming and requires expertise. This study aimed to compare the interpretation of capsule endoscopy between an experienced gastroenterologist and a nurse. A total of 50 consecutive videos were viewed independently by a nurse and a physician, both blinded to the referral indications. The nurse had no prior experience with capsule endoscopy. Possible pathology was graded in a pre-agreed standardized manner, with findings described as "relevant," "uncertain," or "irrelevant." Another gastroenterologist, who had knowledge of all the cases including follow-up data and clinical outcomes, independently arbitrated. Findings showed no difference in the number of relevant or uncertain pathologies identified. The nurse reader was more likely to record irrelevant findings (4.7 vs. 2.0 lesions; p < .01) and required more time to read the videos than the physician (mean = 73 vs. 58 min; p < .01). This study shows that a nurse capsule endoscopy reader is as capable as an experienced physician in identifying small bowel mucosal abnormalities on capsule endoscopy. Capsule endoscopy is an area in which nurses could develop as physician extenders.

Capsule endoscopy changes patient management in routine clinical practice.

Our objective was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and effect of capsule endoscopy on patient management in routine clinical practice. Three hundred examinations were performed (176 females; mean age, 51 years), with a median follow-up of 17 months. Indications included overt bleeding (n=55), anemia (n=104), suspected Crohn's disease (n=68), celiac disease (n=35), suspected functional symptoms (n=23), polyposis (n=5), and miscellaneous (n=10). The overall diagnostic yield was 39%, but it was notably higher in overt bleeders, 66%, compared to 46% in the anemia group (P<0.025), 32% in the suspected Crohn's group (P<0.001), and 17% in the functional group (P<0.001). As a result of capsule endoscopy, management was altered in 26% of patients. This study shows that capsule endoscopy has both a high diagnostic yield and an impact on subsequent patient management. These data further support the role of capsule endoscopy in routine clinical practice.