Endoscopy versus early surgery for the management of chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic stone removal and stenting of pancreatic strictures are the initial treatment for treating chronic pancreatitis-related pain. Surgery is considered when endoscopic interventions fail to improve symptoms. In this meta-analysis, we have compared early surgery versus endoscopic interventions. METHODS: The study was performed as per the PRISMA statement. The literature search was conducted on online databases to identify studies that compared endoscopy and surgery for the management of chronic pancreatitis symptoms. Primary outcomes of interest were pain relief, complications, and exocrine/endocrine insufficiency. Secondary outcomes were mean length of stay and mean number of procedures. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated using random-effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Of a total of 9880 articles that were screened, three randomized controlled trials and two retrospective studies with 602 patients (71.4% males) were found to be eligible. Endoscopic interventions were performed in 317 patients and 285 patients underwent early surgery. Early surgery provided significantly better pain relief compared to endoscopy (OR 0.46; 95%CI 0.27-0.80; p = 0.01; I2 = 17.65%) and required less number of procedures (Mean difference 1.66; 95%CI 0.9-2.43; p = 0.00; I2 = 96.46%). There was no significant difference in procedure-related complication (OR 0.91; 95%CI 0.51-1.61; p = 0.74; I2 = 38.8%), endocrine (OR 1.18; 95%CI 0.63-2.20; p = 0.61; I2 = 28.24%), or exocrine insufficiency (OR 1.78; 95%CI 0.66-4.79; p = 0.25; I2 = 30.97%) or the length of stay (Mean difference 1.21; 95%CI -7.12 to 4.70; p = 0.69). CONCLUSION: Compared to endoscopy, early surgery appears to be better in controlling chronic pancreatitis-related pain, with no significant difference in procedure-related complications. However, larger randomized controlled trials are needed to ascertain their efficacy.

Narrow band imaging for detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), a precursor of gastric adenocarcinoma, is challenging to diagnose with white light endoscopy (WLE) and can be missed by random gastric biopsies. Narrowband imaging (NBI) may potentially improve the detection of GIM. However, pooled estimates from prospective studies are lacking. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing NBI and WLE alone for detection of GIM and synchronous dysplasia. Primary outcome was pooled detection rate of GIM by NBI compared with WLE in prospective studies. The secondary outcome was concurrent dysplasia detection. RESULTS: Ten studies were found eligible from 306 articles screened. Eight prospective studies were found eligible for primary endpoint of GIM detection. Two other retrospective studies were included for dysplasia detection. A total of 1366 subjects (694 males, 54.4 ± 5.08 years) underwent upper endoscopy. GIM was detected in 482 (35.3%) subjects. NBI detected GIM in 32% additional subjects (70% vs 38%, RR 1.79; 95% CI 1.34-2.37; P < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed newer NBI scopes (GIF260) detected significantly more GIM than WLE (RR 2.47; 95% CI 1.63-3.76; P < 0.01) but not the older (H180) NBI endoscopes (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.93-1.88; P = 0.11). There was moderate heterogeneity between the studies (I2  = 63%). In five studies (n = 628) that reported dysplasia, there was no significant difference between NBI and WLE in dysplasia detection (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.81-1.47; P = 0.58). CONCLUSION: Narrowband imaging can significantly increase the detection of GIM when used in addition to standard white light exam during an upper endoscopy.

Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increasingly reported in seriously ill patients with COVID-19 infection. Incidence of VTE has been reported before and results varied widely in study cohorts. AREA OF UNCERTAINTY: Incidence of major VTE (segmental pulmonary embolism and above and proximal deep vein thrombosis) which is a contributor to mortality and morbidity is not known. Also, data is unclear on the optimal anticoagulation regimen to prevent VTE. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases including PubMed were searched until May 12, 2020, to include studies reporting VTE in hospitalized COVID-19 adult patients. MOOSE guidelines were followed in selection, and 11 studies were included. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively assess the VTE burden in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and potential benefits of therapeutic dosing of anticoagulation compared with prophylaxis dosing for VTE prevention. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: Many societies and experts recommend routine prophylactic anticoagulation with heparin for VTE prevention in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In this meta-analysis, the pooled rate of major VTE was 12.5% in hospitalized patients and 17.2% in intensive care unit patients. When therapeutic anticoagulation dosing was compared with prophylactic anticoagulation, the pooled odds ratio of VTE was 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.14-0.75; P = 0.008, I = 0%) suggesting statistical significance with therapeutic dosing of anticoagulation for primary prevention of VTE in all hospitalized patients. However, this should be interpreted with caution as the bleeding events and safety profile could not be ascertained because of lack of adequate information. We recommend applying this finding to hospitalized COVID 19 patients only after carefully weighing individual bleeding risks and benefits. CONCLUSION: Major VTE events, especially pulmonary embolism, seem to be high in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Therapeutic anticoagulation dosing seems to significantly benefit the odds of preventing any VTE when compared with prophylactic dosing in all hospitalized patients.

Clinical Insights into the Gastrointestinal Manifestations of COVID-19.

The month of December 2019 became a critical part of the time of humanity when the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the Wuhan, Hubei Province in China. As of April 13th, 2020, there have been approximately 1.9 million cases and 199,000 deaths across the world, which were associated with COVID-19. The COVID-19 is the seventh coronavirus to be identified to infect humans. In the past, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome were the two coronaviruses that infected humans with a high fatality, particularly among the elderly. Fatalities due to COVID-19 are higher in patients older than 50 years of age or those with multimorbid conditions. The COVID-19 is mainly transmitted through respiratory droplets, with the most common symptoms being high fever, cough, myalgia, atypical symptoms included sputum production, headache, hemoptysis and diarrhea. However, the incubation period can range from 2 to 14 days without any symptoms. It is particularly true with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in which patients can still shed the virus even after pulmonary symptoms have resolved. Given the high percentage of COVID-19 patients that present with GI symptoms (e.g., nausea and diarrhea), screening patients for GI symptoms remain essential. Recently, cases of fecal-oral transmission of COVID-19 have been confirmed in the USA and China, indicating that the virus can replicate in both the respiratory and digestive tract. Moreover, the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, diagnostic procedures, treatments and prevention of the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 remain to be elucidated.

Current and future implications of COVID-19 on gastroenterology training and clinical practice.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected almost every country on the globe, affecting 185 countries with more than 2.6 million cases and 182,000 deaths as of April 22, 2020. The United States (US) has seen an exponential surge in the COVID-19 patients and has become the epicentre with more than 845,000 confirmed cases and 46,000 deaths. The governments and healthcare providers all over the world are racing with time to reduce the rate of increase in active cases by social distancing to flatten the curve of this pandemic. Practicing gastroenterologists are facing multiple challenges in the safe practice of medicine because of patient's inability to visit physicians' offices, endoscopy centers and the threat of potential virus spread through gastrointestinal secretions by endoscopies in emergent cases. The gastroenterological associations from Europe and North America have made position statements to guide gastroenterologists to navigate through the clinical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gastroenterology fellows are on the frontlines during the COVID-19 pandemic, experiencing personal, physical and economic stresses. They had to balance the programmatic changes to meet the demands of the patient care with the additional pressure to meet training requirements. Given the imperatives for social and physical distancing, training programmes have to implement innovative educational methods to substitute traditional teaching. Healthcare organisations must synchronise institutional workforce needs with trainee safety, education and well-being. In this perspective, we have discussed the challenges that can be anticipated and implementing strategies to support fellows during the times of the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 and gastrointestinal endoscopies: Current insights and emergent strategies.

A new coronavirus emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan city of China, named as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the disease was called coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The infection due to this virus spread exponentially throughout China and then spread across >205 nations, including the United States (US). Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies are routinely performed in the US and globally. Previous reports of isolated infection outbreaks were reported with endoscopes acting as potential vectors. While multidrug-resistant organisms have been reported to be spread by endoscopes, few cases of viruses such as hepatitis B and C are noted in the literature. COVID-19 is predominately spread by droplet transmission, although recent evidence has showed that shedding in feces and feco-oral transmission could also be possible. It is unclear if COVID-19 could be transmitted by endoscopes, but it could theoretically happen due to contact with mucous membranes and body fluids. GI endoscopies involve close contact with oral and colonic contents exposing endoscopy staff to respiratory and oropharyngeal secretions. This can increase the risk of contamination and contribute to virus transmission. Given these risks, all major GI societies have called for rescheduling elective non-urgent procedures and perform only emergent or urgent procedures based on the clinical need. Furthermore, pre-screening of all individuals prior to endoscopy is recommended. This article focuses on the risk of COVID-19 transmission by GI shedding, the potential role of endoscopes as a vector of this novel virus, including transmission during endoscopies, and prevention strategies including deferral of elective non-urgent endoscopy procedures.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage versus Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) has been the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis patients who are not suitable for surgery. The effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) as an alternative to PT-GBD is not clear. In this meta-analysis, we have compared their efficacy and adverse events. Methods: We adhered to the PRISMA statement to conduct this meta-analysis. Online databases were searched for studies that compared EUS-GBD and PT-GBD for acute cholecystitis. The primary outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the random-effects model. Results: A total of 396 articles were screened, and 11 eligible studies were identified. There were 1136 patients, of which 57.5% were male, 477 (mean age 73.33 ± 11.28 years) underwent EUS-GBD, and 698 (mean age 73.77 ± 8.7 years) underwent PT-GBD. EUS-GBD had significantly better technical success (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.17-0.94; p = 0.04), fewer adverse events (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.21-0.61; p = 0.00), and lower reintervention rates (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.05-0.57; p = 0.00) than PT-GBD. No difference in clinical success (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.65-2.79; p = 0.42), readmission rate (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.08-1.54; p = 0.16), or mortality rate (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.30-1.80; p = 0.50) was noted. There was low heterogeneity (I2 = 0) among the studies. Egger's test showed no significant publication bias (p = 0.595). Conclusion: EUS-GBD can be a safe and effective alternative to PT-GBD for treating acute cholecystitis in non-surgical patients and has fewer adverse events and a lower reintervention rate than PT-GBD.

Risk of Metachronous Neoplasia with High-Risk Adenoma and Synchronous Sessile Serrated Adenoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Sessile serrated adenomas are important precursors to colorectal cancers and account for 30% of colorectal cancers. The United States Multi-Society Task Force recommends that patients with sessile serrated adenomas undergo surveillance similar to tubular adenomas. However, the risk of metachronous neoplasia when the high-risk adenoma co-exists with sessile serrated adenomas is poorly defined. Objective: To examine the risk of metachronous neoplasia in the presence of high-risk adenoma and synchronous sessile serrated adenomas compared with isolated high-risk adenoma. Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library. Study selection: A literature search for studies evaluating the risk of metachronous neoplasia in patients with high-risk adenoma alone and those with synchronous high-risk adenoma and sessile serrated adenomas during surveillance colonoscopy was conducted on online databases. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of interest was the presence of metachronous neoplasia. Results: Of the 1164 records reviewed, six (four retrospective and two prospective) studies met inclusion criteria with 2490 patients (1607 males, mean age 59.98 ± 3.23 years). Average follow-up was 47.5 ± 12.5 months. There were 2068 patients with high-risk adenoma on index colonoscopy and 422 patients with high-risk adenoma and synchronous sessile serrated adenomas. Pooled estimates showed a significantly elevated risk for metachronous neoplasia in patients with high-risk adenoma and synchronous sessile serrated adenomas (pooled odds ratio 2.21; 95% confidence intervals 1.65-2.96; p < 0.01). There was low heterogeneity (I2 = 11%) among the studies. Sensitivity analysis of the prospective studies alone also showed elevated risk of metachronous neoplasm (pooled odds ratio 2.56; 95%, confidence intervals 1.05-6.23; p = 0.04). Limitations: Inclusion of a small number of retrospective studies. Conclusions: The presence of high-risk adenomas and synchronous sessile serrated adenomas is associated with an increased risk of metachronous neoplasia. Therefore, shorter surveillance intervals may be considered in patients with high-risk adenoma and synchronous sessile serrated adenomas compared to those with high-risk adenoma alone.

Pancreatic Stones and Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy: A Review of the Literature.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic stones are sequelae of chronic pancreatitis, resulting in poor quality of life, frequent hospitalizations, and a significant economic burden. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) can be used to treat pancreatic stones and is less invasive when compared to other modalities. In this review article, we have discussed the role of ESWL in the treatment of pancreatic stones and how it differs from other modalities. Databases were searched electronically for articles discussing the treatment of pancreatic ductal stones by ESWL or other modalities. Articles discussing or comparing treatment success rates were preferentially included. An inductive approach was used to identify articles related to the treatment of pancreatic stones with ESWL throughout the review process. Although laser lithotripsy and electrohydraulic lithotripsy appear to have higher success rates, the potential for ESWL to affect clinical outcomes is substantial, especially in individuals with a higher risk for invasive procedures. The decision to perform ESWL should be considered if the outcome will substantially alter the clinical management when performed by an experienced endoscopist. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to compare ESWL and peroral pancreatic lithotripsy methods.

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy. Monitoring endoscopists and providing feedback has shown to improve ADR. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to determine the effect of any form of feedback on ADR. METHODS: A literature search for comparative studies that employed any form of feedback to assess the impact on ADR before and after the feedback was done on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database. The primary outcome of interest was ADR. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and cecal intubation rate. Cochrane Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of primary outcomes. There were 78,355 subjects (45.42% male) with a mean age of 59.52 years. There was a significant improvement in ADR after any form of feedback compared to no feedback: 36.18% vs. 26.75%; pooled odds ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.37-1.66; P<0.001. There was a substantial heterogeneity (I2=82%). ADR improved in both active or passive feedback, irrespective of whether endoscopists knew about being monitored for their performance or not. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring and providing feedback to endoscopists in any form leads to improvement in ADR. Feedback is an easy and effective way of improving the ADR of endoscopists, especially in those not achieving the recommended benchmarks.

A review of commonly performed bariatric surgeries: Imaging features and its complications.

Obesity is a disease that has achieved the level that can be considered an epidemic. According to the National Center for Health Statistics data, the prevalence of obesity has increased from 30.5% in 1999-2000 to 42.4% in 2017-2018. During the same period, severe obesity has increased from 4.7% to 9.2%. With the growing prevalence of obesity, related conditions such as coronary artery disease, diabetes, and strokes have also become more prevalent. In the past few years, the need for bariatric surgeries such as laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding has increased considerably. With an increasing number of bariatric surgeries, multiple postoperative complications have become common. In this review, we have attempted to describe normal postsurgical anatomical findings after bariatric surgeries and pictorial review of a few common postoperative complications.

Clostridium Difficile and COVID-19: Novel Risk Factors for Acute Portal Vein Thrombosis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented global health care crisis. COVID-19 patients are found to have increased thrombotic risk. Despite being on prophylactic anticoagulation, many develop serious arterial and venous thromboembolic events. Emerging reports indicate COVID-19 may be considered a novel risk factor for portal vein thrombosis. Although, intra-abdominal infections are identified as risk factors, clostridium difficile colitis has not been typically seen as a risk factor for PVT. We report a case of an elderly female with a recent diagnosis of COVID-19 and no prior history of cirrhosis or malignancy who presented with diarrhea due to clostridium difficile infection. She developed sudden onset severe abdominal pain during the course of hospitalization. Acute portal vein thrombosis was identified on CT imaging of the abdomen, and she improved well with therapeutic anticoagulation. Acute portal vein thrombosis usually results from a combination of local and systemic prothrombotic risk factors. The combination of local infection by clostridium difficile and COVID-19 coagulopathy led to development of portal vein thrombosis in our patient. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of portal vein thrombosis reported in a patient with clostridium difficile infection in the setting of COVID-19 coagulopathy. During the current pandemic, clinicians should strongly consider abdominal imaging in patients presenting with abdominal pain due to clostridium difficile infection in the setting of COVID-19 to rule out complications such as portal vein thrombosis. Early diagnosis and treatment of portal vein thrombosis prevent complications of portal hypertension and intestinal infarctions.

Endoscopic management of benign recalcitrant esophageal strictures.

Benign esophageal strictures are one of the common clinical conditions managed by endoscopists. Nearly 90% of the benign esophageal strictures respond to endoscopic dilation. However, a small percentage of patients progress to recalcitrant strictures. The benign recalcitrant esophageal strictures are difficult to manage both medically and endoscopically as they do not respond to conventional treatment with proton pump inhibitors and esophageal dilations. Patients with benign recalcitrant esophageal strictures are at a high risk of developing debilitating malnutrition and morbidity due to severe dysphagia. This condition is associated with psychological trauma to patients as treatments are usually prolonged with poor outcomes. Also, this can be a financial burden on the healthcare industry due to several sessions of treatment. In this article, we discuss the classification of benign esophageal strictures, evidence-based treatment strategies, endoscopic procedural techniques, and complications of endoscopic interventions. We aim to guide providers in managing benign esophageal strictures with a focus on endoscopic management of benign recalcitrant esophageal strictures.

Current advances in the management of chronic pancreatitis.

Chronic pancreatitis is characterized by irreversible destruction of pancreatic parenchyma and its ductal system resulting from longstanding inflammation, leading to fibrosis and scarring due to genetic, environmental, and other risk factors. The diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis is made based on a combination of clinical features and characteristic findings on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Abdominal pain is the most common symptom of chronic pancreatitis. The main aim of treatment is to relieve symptoms, prevent disease progression, and manage complications related to chronic pancreatitis. Patients who do not respond to medical treatment or not a candidate for surgical treatment are usually managed with endoscopic therapies. Endoscopic therapies help with symptoms such as abdominal pain and jaundice by decompression of pancreatic and biliary ducts. This review summarizes the risk factors, pathophysiology, diagnostic evaluation, endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis, and complications. We have also reviewed recent advances in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapies for pancreatic duct obstruction due to stones, strictures, pancreatic divisum, and biliary strictures.

Direct-acting oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in relation to risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used, with studies showing a lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), but overall data for GIB risk remains debatable. The objective was to assess non-fatal and fatal GIB risk in patients on DOACs compared with warfarin from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS: RCTs comparing warfarin and DOACs for various indications (atrial fibrillation, thromboembolism, insertion of mechanical heart valves) were included. The primary endpoint was any GIB event. Other clinical events, such as fatal GIB, and effects of age (≤60 years or older), time in therapeutic range for warfarin, and choice of individual DOACs on GIB risk, were also assessed. RESULTS: 14 RCTs were included, comprising 87,407 participants (DOACs n=46,223, warfarin control n=41,184). The risk of GIB with DOACs was similar to that of warfarin (relative risk [RR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.27). Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban (RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.03-1.48) and dabigatran (RR 1.38, 95%CI 1.12-1.71) had a higher risk of any GIB, whereas fatal GIB risk was lower in the DOACs group (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.15-0.82). The risk of DOAC-related fatal GIB was lower in patients aged ≤60 years and in those with poor coagulation control (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.15-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: DOACs compared with warfarin have a lower risk of fatal GIB, especially in those aged <60 years and those with poor coagulation control. However, the risk of GIB was comparable with warfarin and DOACs, except for rivaroxaban and dabigatran.

Comprehensive Literature Review and Evidence evaluation of Experimental Treatment in COVID 19 Contagion.

IMPORTANCE: Coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID 19) is caused by the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) virus. The pandemic is affecting the livelihood of millions of people all over the world. At the time of preparing this report, the pandemic has affected 1 827 284 patients, with 113 031 deaths in 185 countries as per Johns Hopkins University. With no proven treatment for the disease, prevention of the disease in the community and healthcare setting is need of the hour. OBJECTIVE: To perform a comprehensive literature search for preventive measures and experimental treatment options. In this review, we have focused our discussion on the risk of disease transmission, supportive treatment, and possible treatment options based on available evidence. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We performed a literature search on google scholar, PubMed, and society guidelines for literature related to COVID 19 and previous coronavirus pandemics. We included data review articles, observational studies, and controlled trials to synthesize the treatment options for COVID 19. FINDINGS: In this article, we have extensively reviewed and discussed recommendations from various world organizations for the public and healthcare workers. We have also discussed currently available experimental treatments since there is no proven treatment for COVID 19. The best method of dealing with the current outbreak is to reduce the community spread and thus "flatten the curve." Although Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, and Azithromycin have been tried, passive immunity through convalescent serum and vaccine is still at an experimental stage. Patients with severe COVID 19 infections could be considered for this experimental treatment through various national randomized control trials, which may eventually lead to an evidence-based treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Awareness of currently available experimental treatment among healthcare providers and exploration of possible treatment options through evidence is need of the hour. We have discussed the most recently available literature and evidence behind experimental treatment in this article.

Serum Activity of Liver Enzymes Is Associated With Higher Mortality in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Abnormal liver chemistries are common findings in patients with COVID-19. It is unclear whether abnormal liver chemistries can predict the severity of COVID-19. Therefore, we compared the serum liver chemistries such as hepatic transaminases, total bilirubin, albumin, and prothrombin time to evaluate whether they can predict severity and mortality in COVID-19. Methods: An electronic search was performed on PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for studies comparing liver chemistries in severe and mild COVID-19. The literature search was performed using keywords "COVID-19," "Liver," Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST)," and "Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT)," "AST," and "ALT," in various combinations of "AND/OR" from December 1, 2019, till May 8, 2020. The pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each component of liver chemistries. Results: Twenty-two studies were eligible, with 3,256 patients (54.57% males). Seventeen studies compared liver chemistries for severe vs. mild COVID-19, whereas five studies compared liver chemistries in survival vs. non-survival groups. The pooled WMD of AST and ALT in severe vs. mild COVID-19 were 12.23 (95% CI; 8.07, 16.39; p < 0.01) and 8.07 (95% CI 2.55, 11.91; p < 0.01), respectively. The pooled WMD for AST in survivors vs. non-survivors analysis was 8.82 (n = 789; 95% CI; 2.27, 15.37; p < 0.01) and that of ALT was 4.70 (n = 340; 95% CI 0.04,9.35; p = 0.05). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis shows that deranged liver chemistries may indicate severe COVID-19 and could also predict mortality. Larger studies are needed to evaluate the relationship between derangement in liver chemistries and mortality in COVID-19.

Addition of Tocilizumab to the Standard of Care Reduces Mortality in Severe COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Tocilizumab (TCZ) is an anti-interleukin-6 antibody that has been used for the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, concrete evidence of its benefit in reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 is lacking. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies that compared the efficacy of TCZ in severe COVID-19 vs. standard of care (SOC) alone. Methods: A literature search for studies that compared "tocilizumab" and "standard of care" in the treatment of COVID-19 was done using major online databases from December 2019 to June 14, 2020. Search words "Tocilizumab," "anti-interleukin-6 antibody," and "COVID-19" or "coronavirus 2019" in various combinations were used. Articles in the form of abstracts, letters without original data, case reports, and reviews were excluded. Data were gathered on an Excel sheet, and statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Sixteen studies were eligible from 693 initial studies, including 3,641 patients (64% males). There were 13 retrospective studies and three prospective studies. There were 2,488 patients in the SOC group (61.7%) and 1,153 patients (68.7%) in the TCZ group. The death rate in the TCZ group, 22.4% (258/1,153), was lower than in the SOC group, 26.21% (652/2,488) [pooled odds ratio 0.57 (95% CI 0.36-0.92), p = 0.02]. There was a significant heterogeneity (inconsistency index = 80%) among the included studies. Conclusion: The addition of TCZ to the SOC might reduce mortality in severe COVID-19. More extensive randomized clinical trials are needed to validate these findings.

Prevalence, Mechanisms, and Implications of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The infection started as an outbreak of pneumonia-like symptoms in Wuhan, China. Within a few weeks, it spread across the entire globe resulting in millions of cases and thousands of deaths. While respiratory symptoms and complications are well-defined and can be severe, non-respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 are increasingly being recognized. Gastrointestinal manifestations such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain have been added to the list of common COVID-19 symptoms. Their prevalence has been increasing, probably due to increased recognition and experience with the pandemic. Furthermore, diarrhea and stool testing may change prevalence and transmission rates due to suspicion for fecal-oral transmission of the COVID-19. Due to this risk, various countries have started testing wastewater and sewage systems to examine its role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 among communities. In this review article, we describe the common gastrointestinal manifestations in COVID-19, their prevalence based upon the current literature, and highlight the importance of early recognition and prompt attention. We also note the role of fecal-oral transmission. Furthermore, the mechanisms of these symptoms, the role of medications, and potential contributing factors are also elaborated.

Pancreatic fluid collections: Clinical manifestations, diagnostic evaluation and management.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFC), including pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis, are a known complication of severe acute pancreatitis. A majority of the PFCs remain asymptomatic and resolve spontaneously. However, some PFCs persist and can become symptomatic. Persistent PFCs can also cause further complications such as the gastric outlet, intestinal, or biliary obstruction and infection. Surgical interventions are indicated for the drainage of symptomatic sterile and infected PFCs. Management of PFCs has evolved from a primarily surgical or percutaneous approach to a less invasive endoscopic approach. Endoscopic interventions are associated with improved outcomes with lesser chances of complications, faster recovery time, and lower healthcare utilization. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFCs using lumen-apposing metal stents has become the preferred approach for the management of symptomatic and complicated PFCs.