Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus.

BACKGROUND: The prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity. METHODS: We conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population. RESULTS: After searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity. CONCLUSIONS: This project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 2: Inactivated Vaccines.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations can be altered by immunosuppressive therapies, and perhaps by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on inactivated vaccines. METHODS: Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative online platform, and voted on by a multidisciplinary group. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 15 of 20 questions. Recommendations address the following vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type b, recombinant zoster, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumococcus, meningococcus, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis, and human papillomavirus. Most of the recommendations for patients with IBD are congruent with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations for the general population, with the following exceptions. In patients with IBD, the panel suggested Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine for patients older than 5 years of age, recombinant zoster vaccine for adults younger than 50 year of age, and hepatitis B vaccine for adults without a risk factor. Consensus was not reached, and recommendations were not made for 5 statements, due largely to lack of evidence, including double-dose hepatitis B vaccine, timing of influenza immunization in patients on biologics, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines in adult patients without risk factors, and human papillomavirus vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBD may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, maintaining appropriate vaccination status in these patients is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, IBD is not a contraindication to the use of inactivated vaccines, but immunosuppressive therapy may reduce vaccine responses.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 1: Live Vaccines.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations may be altered by immunosuppressive therapies or IBD itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on live vaccines. METHODS: Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative process and voted on by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients. RESULTS: Three good practice statements included reviewing a patient's vaccination status at diagnosis and at regular intervals, giving appropriate vaccinations as soon as possible, and not delaying urgently needed immunosuppressive therapy to provide vaccinations. There are 4 recommendations on the use of live vaccines. Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine is recommended for both adult and pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). Varicella vaccine is recommended for pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). For adults, recommendations are conditionally in favor of varicella vaccine for those not on immunosuppressive therapy, and against for those on therapy. No recommendation was made regarding the use of live vaccines in infants born to mothers using biologics because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence was insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining appropriate vaccination status in patients with IBD is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, live vaccines are recommended in patients not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive therapy.

Week 2 Adalimumab Levels Predict Short-term Clinical Remission in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND GOALS: The role of early proactive therapeutic drug level monitoring for anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies is unclear. We aimed to determine whether a week 2 serum trough level in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) using adalimumab may predict clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of consecutive IBD patients with a week 2 serum adalimumab level available. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was conducted to determine an optimal week 2 threshold level for adalimumab. Patients above the threshold were compared for the primary outcome of week 12 clinical remission (CR) and the secondary outcome of short-term endoscopic healing. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between week 2 adalimumab level and CR. RESULTS: Forty-six patients had a week 2 adalimumab level performed. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis suggested an optimal adalimumab level of 11.9 mcg/mL based on the area under the curve. Patients with week 2 adalimumab levels >11.9 mcg/mL had higher odds of week 12 CR than those with levels below or equal to this threshold (odds ratio=3.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-12.11, P =0.04). Other covariates were not found to have a significant association with the primary outcome. The rate of short-term endoscopic healing was numerically higher in patients with adalimumab week 2 levels above 11.9 mcg/mL; however, was not statistically significant (71.4% vs. 28.5%, P =0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Serum adalimumab levels at week 2 appears to be a predictor of short-term CR. Further research should explore whether patients with a week 2 adalimumab level equal to or below 11.9 mcg/mL benefit from early dose optimization.

Guidewire-assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Cannulation techniques have been recognized as being important in causing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, considerable controversy exists about the usefulness of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique compared to the conventional contrast-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP in people undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP for biliary or pancreatic diseases. SEARCH METHODS: For the previous version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and major conference proceedings, up to February 2012, with no language restrictions. An updated search was performed on 26 February 2021 for the current version of this review. Two clinical trial registries, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, were also searched in this update. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique versus the contrast-assisted cannulation technique in people undergoing ERCP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors conducted study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment independently. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we combined dichotomous data to obtain risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi² test (P < 0.10) and I² statistic (> 50%). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses according to trial design, publication type, risk of bias, use of precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent guidewire insertion or contrast injection of the pancreatic duct (PD), use of a PD stent, cannulation device, and trainee involvement in cannulation. To assess the robustness of our results, we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR versus odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytic models (fixed-effect versus random-effects) and per-protocol analysis. MAIN RESULTS: 15 RCTs comprising 4426 participants were included. There was moderate heterogeneity among trials for the outcome of PEP (P = 0.08, I² = 36%). Meta-analyses suggest that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, 15 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12, 13 studies, low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the need for precut sphincterotomy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96, 10 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of post-sphincterotomy bleeding (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.54, 7 studies, low-certainty evidence) and perforation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.23, 8 studies, very low-certainty evidence). Procedure-related mortality was reported by eight studies, and there were no cases of deaths in both arms (moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses suggest that the heterogeneity for the outcome of PEP could be explained by differences in trial design. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique. There is low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success. There is low- and very low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding and perforation. No procedure-related deaths were reported. Therefore, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique appears to be superior to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique considering the certainty of evidence and the balance of benefits and harms. However, the routine use of guidewires in biliary cannulation will be dependent on local expertise, availability, and cost. Future research should assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique in the context of other pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions for the prevention of PEP.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for emergency hospital admission. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastric acid production and are used to manage upper GI bleeding. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors initiated before endoscopy in people with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in people with acute upper GI bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to October 2008, for the previous versions of this review, and in April 2018, October 2019, and 3 June 2021 for this update. We also contacted experts in the field and searched trial registries and references of trials for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) versus control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or no treatment, prior to endoscopy in hospitalised people with uninvestigated upper GI bleeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes assessed at 30 days were: mortality (our primary outcome), rebleeding, surgery, high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage (active bleeding, non-bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy, time to discharge, blood transfusion requirements and adverse effects. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs comprising 2223 participants. No new studies have been published after the literature search performed in 2008 for the previous version of this review. Of the included studies, we considered one to be at low risk of bias, two to be at unclear risk of bias, and three at high risk of bias. Our meta-analyses suggest that pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce mortality (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.70; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce rebleeding (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.06; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce the need for surgery (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the proportion of participants with high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pre-endoscopic PPI use likely reduces the need for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effect of pre-endoscopic PPI use on blood transfusions (2 studies; meta-analysis not possible; very low-certainty evidence) and time to discharge (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no substantial heterogeneity amongst trials in any analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper GI bleeding likely reduces the requirement for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether pre-endoscopic PPI treatment increases, reduces or has no effect on other clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding and need for surgery. Further well-designed RCTs that conform to current standards for endoscopic haemostatic treatment and appropriate co-interventions, and that ensure high-dose PPIs are only given to people who received endoscopic haemostatic treatment, regardless of initial randomisation, are warranted. However, as it may be unrealistic to achieve the optimal information size, pragmatic multicentre trials may provide valuable evidence on this topic.

Differences in Gut Microbiota in Patients With vs Without Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Altering the intestinal microbiota has been proposed as a treatment for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), but there are no established associations between specific microbes and IBD. We performed a systematic review to identify frequent associations. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, through April 2, 2018 for studies that compared intestinal microbiota (from fecal or colonic or ileal tissue samples) among patients (adult or pediatric) with IBD vs healthy individuals (controls). The primary outcome was difference in specific taxa in fecal or intestinal tissue samples from patients with IBD vs controls. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the quality of studies included in the review. RESULTS: We identified 2631 citations; 48 studies from 45 articles were included in the analysis. Most studies evaluated adults with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. All 3 studies of Christensenellaceae and Coriobacteriaceae and 6 of 11 studies of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii reported a decreased amount of those organisms compared with controls, whereas 2 studies each of Actinomyces, Veillonella, and Escherichia coli revealed an increased amount in patients with Crohn's disease. For patients with ulcerative colitis, Eubacterium rectale and Akkermansia were decreased in all 3 studies, whereas E coli was increased in 4 of 9 studies. The microbiota diversity was either decreased or not different in patients with IBD vs controls. Fewer than 50% of the studies stated comparable sexes and ages of cases and controls. CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review, we found evidence for differences in abundances of some bacteria in patients with IBD vs controls, but we cannot make conclusions due to inconsistent results and methods among studies. Further large-scale studies, with better methods of assessing microbe populations, are needed.

Gut Microbiota in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome-A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is common but difficult to treat. Altering the gut microbiota has been proposed as a strategy for treatment of IBS, but the association between the gut microbiome and IBS symptoms has not been well established. We performed a systematic review to explore evidence for this association. METHODS: We searched databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CDSR, and CENTRAL, through April 2, 2018 for case-control studies comparing the fecal or colon microbiomes of adult or pediatric patients with IBS with microbiomes of healthy individuals (controls). The primary outcome was differences in specific gut microbes between patients with IBS and controls. RESULTS: The search identified 2631 citations; 24 studies from 22 articles were included. Most studies evaluated adults presenting with various IBS subtypes. Family Enterobacteriaceae (phylum Proteobacteria), family Lactobacillaceae, and genus Bacteroides were increased in patients with IBS compared with controls, whereas uncultured Clostridiales I, genus Faecalibacterium (including Faecalibacterium prausnitzii), and genus Bifidobacterium were decreased in patients with IBS. The diversity of the microbiota was either decreased or not different in IBS patients compared with controls. More than 40% of included studies did not state whether cases and controls were comparable (did not describe sex and/or age characteristics). CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review, we identified specific bacteria associated with microbiomes of patients with IBS vs controls. Studies are needed to determine whether these microbes are a product or cause of IBS.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline on the Management of Bile Acid Diarrhea.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic diarrhea affects about 5% of the population overall. Altered bile acid metabolism is a common but frequently undiagnosed cause. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of publication databases for studies of assessment and management of bile acid diarrhea (BAD). The certainty (quality) of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Patient population, intervention, comparator, and outcome questions were developed through an iterative process and were voted on by a group of specialists. RESULTS: The certainty of evidence was generally rated as very low. Therefore, 16 of 17 recommendations are conditional. In patients with chronic diarrhea, consideration of risk factors (terminal ileal resection, cholecystectomy, or abdominal radiotherapy), but not additional symptoms, was recommended for identification of patients with possible BAD. The group suggested testing using 75selenium homocholic acid taurine (where available) or 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one, including patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea, functional diarrhea, and Crohn's disease without inflammation. Testing was suggested over empiric bile acid sequestrant therapy (BAST). Once remediable causes are managed, the group suggested cholestyramine as initial therapy, with alternate BAST when tolerability is an issue. The group suggested against BAST for patients with extensive ileal Crohn's disease or resection and suggested alternative antidiarrheal agents if BAST is not tolerated. Maintenance BAST should be given at the lowest effective dose, with a trial of intermittent, on-demand administration, concurrent medication review, and reinvestigation for patients whose symptoms persist despite BAST. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a systematic review, BAD should be considered for patients with chronic diarrhea. For patients with positive results from tests for BAD, a trial of BAST, initially with cholestyramine, is suggested.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Medical Management of Pediatric Luminal Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We aim to provide guidance for medical treatment of luminal Crohn's disease in children. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of publication databases to identify studies of medical management of pediatric Crohn's disease. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. We developed statements through an iterative online platform and then finalized and voted on them. RESULTS: The consensus includes 25 statements focused on medical treatment options. Consensus was not reached, and no recommendations were made, for 14 additional statements, largely due to lack of evidence. The group suggested corticosteroid therapies (including budesonide for mild to moderate disease). The group suggested exclusive enteral nutrition for induction therapy and biologic tumor necrosis factor antagonists for induction and maintenance therapy at diagnosis or at early stages of severe disease, and for patients failed by steroid and immunosuppressant induction therapies. The group recommended against the use of oral 5-aminosalicylate for induction or maintenance therapy in patients with moderate disease, and recommended against thiopurines for induction therapy, corticosteroids for maintenance therapy, and cannabis in any role. The group was unable to clearly define the role of concomitant immunosuppressants during initiation therapy with a biologic agent, although thiopurine combinations are not recommended for male patients. No consensus was reached on the role of aminosalicylates in treatment of patients with mild disease, antibiotics or vedolizumab for induction or maintenance therapy, or methotrexate for induction therapy. Patients in clinical remission who are receiving immunomodulators should be assessed for mucosal healing within 1 year of treatment initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based medical treatment of Crohn's disease in children is recommended, with thorough ongoing assessments to define treatment success.

Higher vedolizumab serum levels do not increase the risk of adverse events in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Background: Although its mechanism of action may confer a safety benefit, vedolizumab has still been associated with adverse events (AE). We investigated whether inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with higher trough vedolizumab serum levels experienced an increased risk of AEs.Methods: This was a retrospective study of 76 IBD patients with at least one measurement of serum vedolizumab available. Vedolizumab levels ranged from <3.5 mcg/mL to 87.2 mcg/mL (median = 15.8 mcg/mL). The primary outcome was the rate of overall AEs. Secondary outcomes included the rates of infections, dermatologic reactions, infusion reactions, and other AEs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between serum vedolizumab levels and AEs.Results: 19 patients out of 76 reported AEs. In patients with higher vedolizumab levels, there were 10 AEs reported out of 38 patients, which was not significantly different from the 9 AEs reported in 38 patients with lower vedolizumab levels (26.3% vs. 23.7%, p = .79). After adjustment for potential covariates, IBD patients with higher vedolizumab levels did not have higher odds of an AE than patients with lower levels (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.30-2.81). Longer duration of therapy had higher odds of AEs, (OR of 1.04 at 95% CI 1.00-1.09, p = .0494 per additional month). None of the other variables were associated with a greater risk of AEs.Conclusions: There does not appear to be an increased risk of adverse events in IBD patients with higher vedolizumab levels, but duration of therapy may increase the risk of AEs.

Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group.

Description: This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations. Methods: An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional. Recommendations: Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

Clinical Practice Guideline on Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals With a Family History of Nonhereditary Colorectal Cancer or Adenoma: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Banff Consensus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) increases the risk of developing CRC. These consensus recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on screening these high-risk individuals. METHODS: Multiple parallel systematic review streams, informed by 10 literature searches, assembled evidence on 5 principal questions around the effect of an FH of CRC or adenomas on the risk of CRC, the age to initiate screening, and the optimal tests and testing intervals. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to develop the recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the evidence, the Consensus Group was able to strongly recommend CRC screening for all individuals with an FH of CRC or documented adenoma. However, because most of the evidence was very-low quality, the majority of the remaining statements were conditional ("we suggest"). Colonoscopy is suggested (recommended in individuals with ≥2 first-degree relatives [FDRs]), with fecal immunochemical test as an alternative. The elevated risk associated with an FH of ≥1 FDRs with CRC or documented advanced adenoma suggests initiating screening at a younger age (eg, 40-50 years or 10 years younger than age of diagnosis of FDR). In addition, a shorter interval of every 5 years between screening tests was suggested for individuals with ≥2 FDRs, and every 5-10 years for those with FH of 1 FDR with CRC or documented advanced adenoma compared to average-risk individuals. Choosing screening parameters for an individual patient should consider the age of the affected FDR and local resources. It is suggested that individuals with an FH of ≥1 second-degree relatives only, or of nonadvanced adenoma or polyp of unknown histology, be screened according to average-risk guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of CRC associated with an FH of CRC or advanced adenoma warrants more intense screening for CRC. Well-designed prospective studies are needed in order to make definitive evidence-based recommendations about the age to commence screening and appropriate interval between screening tests.

Colorectal cancer screening for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer or adenomas.

OBJECTIVE: To review and summarize the recently developed Canadian Association of Gastroenterology screening recommendations for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenoma from a family medicine perspective. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to synthesize knowledge regarding family history and CRC. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched with the following MeSH terms: colorectal cancers or neoplasms, screen or screening or surveillance, and family or family history. Known hereditary syndromes were excluded. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to establish certainty in reviewed evidence. Most recommendations are conditional recommendations with very low-quality evidence. MAIN MESSAGE: Individuals who have 1 first-degree relative (FDR) with CRC or an advanced adenoma diagnosed at any age are recommended to undergo colonoscopy every 5 to 10 years starting at age 40 to 50 years or 10 years younger than the age at diagnosis of the FDR, although fecal immunochemical testing at an interval of every 1 to 2 years can be used. Individuals with FDRs with non-advanced adenomas or a history of CRC in second-degree relatives should be screened according to average-risk guidelines. Lifestyle modification can statistically significantly decrease risk of CRC and should be considered in all patients. CONCLUSION: These guidelines acknowledge the many factors that can increase an individual's risk of developing CRC and allow for judgment to be employed depending on the clinical scenario. Lifestyle advice already given to patients for weight, blood pressure, and heart disease management will reduce the risk of CRC if implemented, and this combined with more targeted screening for higher-risk individuals will hopefully be successful in decreasing CRC mortality in Canada.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of Video Capsule Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Video capsule endoscopy (CE) provides a noninvasive option to assess the small intestine, but its use with respect to endoscopic procedures and cross-sectional imaging varies widely. The aim of this consensus was to provide guidance on the appropriate use of CE in clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified studies on the use of CE in patients with Crohn's disease, celiac disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, and anemia. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The consensus includes 21 statements focused on the use of small-bowel CE and colon capsule endoscopy. CE was recommended for patients with suspected, known, or relapsed Crohn's disease when ileocolonoscopy and imaging studies were negative if it was imperative to know whether active Crohn's disease was present in the small bowel. It was not recommended in patients with chronic abdominal pain or diarrhea, in whom there was no evidence of abnormal biomarkers typically associated with Crohn's disease. CE was recommended to assess patients with celiac disease who have unexplained symptoms despite appropriate treatment, but not to make the diagnosis. In patients with overt gastrointestinal bleeding, and negative findings on esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, CE should be performed as soon as possible. CE was recommended only in selected patients with unexplained, mild, chronic iron-deficiency anemia. CE was suggested for surveillance in patients with polyposis syndromes or other small-bowel cancers, who required small-bowel studies. Colon capsule endoscopy should not be substituted routinely for colonoscopy. Patients should be made aware of the potential risks of CE including a failed procedure, capsule retention, or a missed lesion. Finally, standardized criteria for training and reporting in CE should be defined. CONCLUSIONS: CE generally should be considered a complementary test in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, Crohn's disease, or celiac disease, who have had negative or inconclusive endoscopic or imaging studies.

A Comparison of the Prevalence of Anxiety and Depression Between Uncomplicated and Complex IBD Patient Groups.

Our study aimed to assess the physical and mental health aspects and quality of life of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We were interested in determining whether IBD patients with complex disease states had higher rates of anxiety and depression than those without complications. Complex and uncomplicated IBD patients were assessed using a demographic questionnaire, Short Form-12 (SF-12), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Complex IBD patients are defined as those specifically having active inflammation, nutritional, and/or surgical issues. All other IBD patients are defined as those with uncomplicated IBD. Analysis of SF-12 scores indicated that Physical Component Summary scores were below average in 71.9% and 56.0% of the complex and uncomplicated patients, respectively (p < .001), whereas Mental Component Summary scores were below average in 65.6% and 45.3% of the complex and uncomplicated patients, respectively (p < .001). HADS scores in the complex and uncomplicated IBD patients indicated that 29.2% and 18.5%, respectively, were anxiety cases (p < .1) and that 32.3% and 15.9%, respectively, were depression cases (p < .001). Efforts should be focused on the identification and management of anxiety and depression in complex IBD patients, as they may have higher likelihoods of anxiety and depression and lower quality of life.

The Toronto Consensus Statements for the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) poses a particular challenge during pregnancy because the health of both the mother and the fetus must be considered. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified studies on the management of IBD during pregnancy. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 29 of the 30 recommendations considered. Preconception counseling and access to specialist care are paramount in optimizing disease management. In general, women on 5-ASA, thiopurine, or anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monotherapy for maintenance should continue therapy throughout pregnancy. Discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy or switching from combination therapy to monotherapy may be considered in very select low-risk patients. Women who have a mild to moderate disease flare while on optimized 5-ASA or thiopurine therapy should be managed with systemic corticosteroid or anti-TNF therapy, and those with a corticosteroid-resistant flare should start anti-TNF therapy. Endoscopy or urgent surgery should not be delayed during pregnancy if indicated. Decisions regarding cesarean delivery should be based on obstetric considerations and not the diagnosis of IBD alone, with the exception of women with active perianal Crohn's disease. With the exception of methotrexate, the use of medications for IBD should not influence the decision to breast-feed and vice versa. Live vaccinations are not recommended within the first 6 months of life in the offspring of women who were on anti-TNF therapy during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal management of IBD before and during pregnancy is essential to achieving favorable maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Double-guidewire technique in difficult biliary cannulation for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Difficult cannulation is a risk factor for pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The double-guidewire technique (DGT) may improve cannulation success and reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with difficult cannulation. This systematic review compared the DGT with persistent conventional cannulation or other advanced techniques in patients with difficult cannulation. Patients and Methods CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and DDW and UEGW abstracts up to March 2016 were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DGT with persistent conventional cannulation or other advanced techniques (precut, pancreatic duct [PD] stenting). The primary outcome was PEP. Secondary outcomes included severity of PEP, successful cannulation of the common bile duct (CBD) with the randomized technique, overall CBD cannulation success, and ERCP-related complications. Results 7 RCTs (577 patients) were included. Use of the DGT significantly increased PEP compared to other endoscopic techniques (risk ratio [RR] 1.98, 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 1.14 - 3.42). There was no significant difference in CBD cannulation success with the randomized technique (RR 1.04, 95 %CI 0.87 - 1.24) or in overall cannulation success (RR 1.04, 95 %CI 0.91 - 1.18) between DGT and other techniques. There was also no significant difference in the risk of other ERCP-related complications (bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, and mortality). The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions In patients with difficult cannulation, sole use of the DGT appears to increase the risk of PEP without any superiority in achieving biliary cannulation compared to other techniques. PD stenting may reduce the risk of PEP when the DGT is used. The influence of co-intervention in the form of per-procedural nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administration is unclear.

Pancreatic duct guidewire placement for biliary cannulation for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Difficult cannulation is a risk factor for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). It has been postulated that the pancreatic duct guidewire (PGW) technique may improve biliary cannulation success and reduce the risk of PEP in people with difficult cannulation. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and safety of the PGW technique compared to persistent conventional cannulation (CC) (contrast- or guidewire-assisted cannulation) or other advanced techniques in people with difficult biliary cannulation for the prevention of PEP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases, major conference proceedings, and for ongoing trials on the ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to March 2016, using the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing the PGW technique versus persistent CC or other advanced techniques in people undergoing ERCP with difficult biliary cannulation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we combined dichotomous data to obtain risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test (P < 0.15) and I(2) test (> 25%). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses according to trial design, use of pancreatic duct (PD) stent, involvement of trainees in cannulation, publication type, and risk of bias. To assess the robustness of our results, we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR versus odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytic models (fixed-effect versus random-effects). MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs comprising 577 participants. There was no significant heterogeneity among trials for the outcome of PEP (P = 0.32; I(2) = 15%). The PGW technique significantly increased PEP compared to other endoscopic techniques (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.42; low-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 13 (95% CI 5 to 89). Among the three studies that compared the PGW technique with persistent CC, the incidence of PEP was 13.5% for the PGW technique and 8.7% for persistent CC (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.01; low-quality evidence). Among the two studies that compared the PGW technique with precut sphincterotomy, the incidence of PEP was 29.8% in the PGW group versus 10.3% in the precut group (RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.88; low-quality evidence). Among the two studies that compared the PGW technique with PD stent placement, the incidence of PEP was 11.7% for the PGW technique and 5.0% for PD stent placement (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.08 to 37.50; very low-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in common bile duct (CBD) cannulation success with the randomised technique (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24; low-quality evidence) or overall CBD cannulation success (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; low-quality evidence) between the PGW technique and other endoscopic techniques. There was also no statistically significant difference in the risk of other ERCP-related complications (bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, and mortality). The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. The overall quality of evidence for the outcome of PEP was low or very low because of study limitations and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with difficult CBD cannulation, sole use of the PGW technique appears to be associated with an increased risk of PEP. Prophylactic PD stenting after use of the PGW technique may reduce the risk of PEP. However, the PGW technique is not superior to persistent attempts with CC, precut sphincterotomy, or PD stent in achieving CBD cannulation. The influence of co-intervention in the form of rectal peri-procedural nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration is unclear.