An Evaluation of Critical Factors for the Cost-Effectiveness of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection: Sensitivity and Threshold Analyses Using a Microsimulation Model.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The use of computer-aided detection (CAD) increases the adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colorectal cancer (CRC) screening/surveillance. This study aimed to evaluate the requirements for CAD to be cost-effective and the impact of CAD on adenoma detection by endoscopists with different ADRs. METHODS: We developed a semi-Markov microsimulation model to compare the effectiveness of traditional colonoscopy (mean ADR, 26%) to colonoscopy with CAD (mean ADR, 37%). CAD was modeled as having a $75 per-procedure cost. Extensive 1-way sensitivity and threshold analysis were performed to vary cost and ADR of CAD. Multiple scenarios evaluated the potential effect of CAD on endoscopists' ADRs. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year. RESULTS: When modeling CAD improved ADR for all endoscopists, the CAD cohort had 79 and 34 fewer lifetime CRC cases and deaths, respectively, per 10,000 persons. This scenario was dominant with a cost savings of $143 and incremental effectiveness of 0.01 quality-adjusted life years. Threshold analysis demonstrated that CAD would be cost-effective up to an additional cost of $579 per colonoscopy, or if it increases ADR from 26% to at least 30%. CAD reduced CRC incidence and mortality when limited to improving ADRs for low-ADR endoscopists (ADR <25%), with 67 fewer CRC cases and 28 CRC deaths per 10,000 persons compared with traditional colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: As CAD is implemented clinically, it needs to improve mean ADR from 26% to at least 30% or cost less than $579 per colonoscopy to be cost-effective when compared with traditional colonoscopy. Further studies are needed to understand the impact of CAD when used in community practice.

Rise in First-Time ERCP for Benign Indications >1 Year After Cholecystectomy Is Associated With Worse Outcomes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Greater availability of less invasive biliary imaging to rule out choledocholithiasis should reduce the need for diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients who have a remote history of cholecystectomy. The primary aims were to determine the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of individuals who undergo first-time ERCP >1 year after cholecystectomy (late-ERCP). METHODS: Data from a commercial insurance claim database (Optum Clinformatics) identified 583,712 adults who underwent cholecystectomy, 4274 of whom underwent late-ERCP, defined as first-time ERCP for nonmalignant indications >1 year after cholecystectomy. Outcomes were exposure and temporal trends in late-ERCP, biliary imaging utilization, and post-ERCP outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine patient characteristics associated with undergoing late-ERCP. RESULTS: Despite a temporal increase in the use of noninvasive biliary imaging (35.9% in 2004 to 65.6% in 2021; P < .001), the rate of late-ERCP increased 8-fold (0.5-4.2/1000 person-years from 2005 to 2021; P < .001). Although only 44% of patients who underwent late-ERCP had gallstone removal, there were high rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis (7.1%), hospitalization (13.1%), and new chronic opioid use (9.7%). Factors associated with late-ERCP included concomitant disorder of gut-brain interaction (odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.88-6.91) and metabolic dysfunction steatotic liver disease (OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.79-3.55) along with use of anxiolytic (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 3.19-3.58), antispasmodic (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.72), and chronic opioids (OR, 6.24; 95% CI, 5.79-6.52). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of late-ERCP postcholecystectomy is increasing significantly, particularly in patients with comorbidities associated with disorder of gut-brain interaction and mimickers of choledocholithiasis. Late-ERCPs are associated with disproportionately higher rates of adverse events, including initiation of chronic opioid use.

The Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance of Incidentally Detected Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: A Microsimulation Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is associated with a higher risk of noncardia intestinal gastric adenocarcinoma (GA). The aim of this study was to estimate lifetime benefits, complications, and cost-effectiveness of GIM surveillance using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). METHODS: We developed a semi-Markov microsimulation model of patients with incidentally detected GIM, to compare the effectiveness of EGD surveillance with no surveillance at 10-year, 5-year, 3-year, 2-year, and 1-year intervals. We modeled a simulated cohort of 1,000,000 US individuals aged 50 with incidental GIM. Outcome measures were lifetime GA incidence, mortality, number of EGDs, complications, undiscounted life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: In the absence of surveillance, the model simulated 32.0 lifetime GA cases and 23.0 lifetime GA deaths per 1000 individuals with GIM, respectively. Among surveilled individuals, simulated lifetime GA incidence (per 1000) decreased with shorter surveillance intervals (10-year to 1-year, 11.2-6.1) as did GA mortality (7.4-3.6). Compared with no surveillance, all modeled surveillance intervals yielded greater life expectancy (87-190 undiscounted life-years gained per 1000); 5-year surveillance provided the greatest number of life-years gained per EGD performed and was the cost-effective strategy ($40,706/QALY). In individuals with risk factors of family history of GA or anatomically extensive, incomplete-type GIM intensified 3-year surveillance was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $28,156/QALY and $87,020/QALY, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Using microsimulation modeling, surveillance of incidentally detected GIM every 5 years is associated with reduced GA incidence/mortality and is cost-effective from a health care sector perspective. Real-world studies evaluating the impact of GIM surveillance on GA incidence and mortality in the United States are needed.

The Efficacy of Real-time Computer-aided Detection of Colonic Neoplasia in Community Practice: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The use of computer-aided detection (CADe) has increased the adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colorectal cancer (CRC) screening/surveillance in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but has not shown benefit in real-world implementation studies. We performed a single-center pragmatic RCT to evaluate the impact of real-time CADe on ADRs in colonoscopy performed by community gastroenterologists. METHODS: We enrolled 1100 patients undergoing colonoscopy for CRC screening, surveillance, positive fecal-immunohistochemical tests, and diagnostic indications at one community-based center from September 2022 to March 2023. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to traditional colonoscopy or real-time CADe. Blinded pathologists analyzed histopathologic findings. The primary outcome was ADR (the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC), sessile-serrated lesion detection rate, and non-neoplastic resection rate. RESULTS: The median age was 55.5 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years), 61% were female, 72.7% were of Hispanic ethnicity, and 9.1% had inadequate bowel preparation. The ADR for the CADe group was significantly higher than the traditional colonoscopy group (42.5% vs 34.4%; P = .005). The mean APC was significantly higher in the CADe group compared with the traditional colonoscopy group (0.89 ± 1.46 vs 0.60 ± 1.12; P < .001). The improvement in adenoma detection was driven by increased detection of <5 mm adenomas. CADe had a higher sessile-serrated lesion detection rate than traditional colonoscopy (4.7% vs 2.0%; P = .01). The improvement in ADR with CADe was significantly higher in the first half of the study (47.2% vs 33.7%; P = .002) compared with the second half (38.7% vs 34.9%; P = .33). CONCLUSIONS: In a single-center pragmatic RCT, real-time CADe modestly improved ADR and APC in average-detector community endoscopists. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05963724).

Cost-effectiveness of second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel in relapsed refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

The ZUMA-7 (Efficacy of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Compared to Standard of Care Therapy in Subjects With Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma) study showed that axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) improved event-free survival (EFS) compared with standard of care (SOC) salvage chemoimmunotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant in primary refractory/early relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL); this led to its recent US Food and Drug Administration approval in this setting. We modeled a hypothetical cohort of US adults (mean age, 65 years) with primary refractory/early relapsed DLBCL by developing a Markov model (lifetime horizon) to model the cost-effectiveness of second-line axi-cel compared with SOC using a range of plausible long-term outcomes. EFS and OS were estimated from ZUMA-7. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Assuming a 5-year EFS of 35% with second-line axi-cel and 10% with SOC, axi-cel was cost-effective at a WTP of $150 000 per QALY ($93 547 per QALY). axi-cel was no longer cost-effective if its 5-year EFS was ≤26.4% or if it cost more than $972 061 at a WTP of $150 000. Second-line axi-cel was the cost-effective strategy in 73% of the 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a WTP of $150 000. If the absolute benefit in EFS is maintained over time, second-line axi-cel for aggressive relapsed/refractory DLBCL is cost-effective compared with SOC at a WTP of $150 000 per QALY. However, its cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on long-term outcomes. Routine use of second-line chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy would add significantly to health care expenditures in the United States (more than $1 billion each year), even when used in a high-risk subpopulation. Further reductions in the cost of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy are needed to be affordable in many regions of the world.

Cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin combined with chemoimmunotherapy in untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

In patients with treatment-naive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the POLARIX study (A Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Polatuzumab Vedotin With Rituximab-Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Prednisone [R-CHP] Versus Rituximab-Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone [R-CHOP] in Participants With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma) reported a 6.5% improvement in the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS), with no difference in overall survival (OS) or safety using polatuzumab vedotin, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (pola-R-CHP) compared with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pola-R-CHP for DLBCL. We modeled a hypothetical cohort of US adults (mean age, 65 years) with treatment-naive DLBCL by developing a Markov model (lifetime horizon) to model the cost-effectiveness of pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP using a range of plausible long-term outcomes. Progression rates and OS were estimated from POLARIX. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Assuming a 5-year PFS of 69.6% with pola-R-CHP and 62.7% with R-CHOP, pola-R-CHP was cost-effective at a WTP of $150 000 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $84 308/QALY). pola-R-CHP was no longer cost-effective if its 5-year PFS was 66.1% or lower. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that pola-R-CHP is cost-effective up to a cost of $276 312 at a WTP of $150 000. pola-R-CHP was the cost-effective strategy in 56.6% of the 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a WTP of $150 000. If the absolute benefit in PFS is maintained over time, pola-R-CHP is cost-effective compared with R-CHOP at a WTP of $150 000/QALY. However, its cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on its long-term outcomes and costs of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Routine usage of pola-R-CHP would add significantly to health care expenditures. Price reductions or identification of subgroups that have maximal benefit would improve cost-effectiveness.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of solid pancreatic masses: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic masses. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses needle selection (fine-needle biopsy [FNB] needle vs FNA needle), needle caliber (22-gauge vs 25-gauge needles), FNB needle type (novel or contemporary [fork-tip and Franseen] vs alternative FNB needle designs), and sample processing (rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE] vs no ROSE). In addition, this guideline addresses stent selection (self-expandable metal stent [SEMS] vs plastic stent), SEMS type (covered [cSEMS] vs uncovered [uSEMS]), and pain management (celiac plexus neurolysis [CPN] vs medical analgesic therapy). In patients with solid pancreatic masses undergoing EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), the ASGE recommends FNB needles over FNA needles. With regard to needle caliber, the ASGE suggests 22-gauge over 25-gauge needles. When an FNB needle is used, the ASGE recommends using either a fork-tip or a Franseen needle over alternative FNB needle designs. After a sample has been obtained, the ASGE suggests against the routine use of ROSE in patients undergoing an initial EUS-TA of a solid pancreatic mass. In patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction undergoing drainage with ERCP, the ASGE suggests using SEMSs over plastic stents. In patients with proven malignancy undergoing SEMS placement, the ASGE suggests using cSEMSs over uSEMSs. If malignancy has not been histopathologically confirmed, the ASGE recommends against the use of uSEMSs. Finally, in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer and abdominal pain, the ASGE suggests the use of CPN as an adjunct for the treatment of abdominal pain. This document outlines the process, analyses, and decision approaches used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis (CP). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses effectiveness of endoscopic therapies for the management of pain in CP, including celiac plexus block, endoscopic management of pancreatic duct (PD) stones and strictures, and adverse events such as benign biliary strictures (BBSs) and pseudocysts. In patients with painful CP and an obstructed PD, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation in patients without contraindication to surgery before initiation of endoscopic management. In patients who have contraindications to surgery or who prefer a less-invasive approach, the ASGE suggests an endoscopic approach as the initial treatment over surgery, if complete ductal clearance is likely. When a decision is made to proceed with a celiac plexus block, the ASGE suggests an EUS-guided approach over a percutaneous approach. The ASGE suggests indications for when to consider ERCP alone or with pancreatoscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy alone or followed by ERCP for treating obstructing PD stones based on size, location, and radiopacity. For the initial management of PD strictures, the ASGE suggests using a single plastic stent of the largest caliber that is feasible. For symptomatic BBSs caused by CP, the ASGE suggests the use of covered metal stents over multiple plastic stents. For symptomatic pseudocysts, the ASGE suggests endoscopic therapy over surgery. This document clearly outlines the process, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the following: 1: The role of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients after failed ERCP. 2: The role of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy in resolving distal malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. 3: The role of EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) versus laparoscopic-assisted ERCP and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy. 4: The role of EUS-BD versus E-ERCP and PTBD in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with surgically altered anatomy other than RYGB. 5: The role of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) versus percutaneous gallbladder drainage and endoscopic transpapillary transcystic gallbladder drainage in resolving acute cholecystitis in patients who are not candidates for cholecystectomy.

Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic, surgical and pharmacological obesity therapies: a microsimulation and threshold analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Weight loss interventions to treat obesity include sleeve gastrectomy (SG), lifestyle intervention (LI), endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) and semaglutide. We aimed to identify which treatments are cost-effective and identify requirements for semaglutide to be cost-effective. DESIGN: We developed a semi-Markov microsimulation model to compare the effectiveness of SG, ESG, semaglutide and LI for weight loss in 40 years old with class I/II/III obesity. Extensive one-way sensitivity and threshold analysis were performed to vary cost of treatment strategies and semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: When strategies were compared with each other, ESG was cost-effective in class I obesity (US$4105/QALY). SG was cost-effective in class II obesity (US$5883/QALY) and class III obesity (US$7821/QALY). In class I/II/III, obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. However, semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I/II/III obesity (ICER US$508 414/QALY, US$420 483/QALY and US$350 637/QALY). For semaglutide to be cost-effective compared with LI, it would have to cost less than US$7462 (class III), US$5847 (class II) or US$5149 (class I) annually. For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US$1879 (class III), US$1204 (class II) or US$297 (class I) annually. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effective strategies were: ESG for class I obesity and SG for class II/III obesity. Semaglutide may be cost-effective with substantial cost reduction. Given potentially higher utilisation rates with pharmacotherapy, semaglutide may provide the largest reduction in obesity-related mortality.

Cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin in combination with chemoimmunotherapy (pola-R-CHP) in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in Germany.

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of frontline polatuzumab vedotin-R-CHP (pola-R-CHP) treatment for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in Germany by using a Markov model (lifetime horizon). Progression rates and survival outcomes were extrapolated from the POLARIX trial. Outcomes were measured in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERS) with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €80 000/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Assuming, 69.6% 5-year PFS with pola-R-CHP and 62.6% 5-year PFS with R-CHOP, the addition of polatuzumab vedotin resulted in an additional 0.52 life-years and an incremental 0.65 QALYs but €31 988 additional cost. Based on this, pola-R-CHP was cost-effective (€49 238/QALY) at a WTP of €80 000/QALY. The cost-effectiveness of pola-R-CHP is highly dependent on its long-term outcomes and cost. Our analysis is limited by the fact that the long-term outcomes of pola-R-CHP are unknown at this time.

A Combined DNA/RNA-based Next-Generation Sequencing Platform to Improve the Classification of Pancreatic Cysts and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer Arising From Pancreatic Cysts.

OBJECTIVE: We report the development and validation of a combined DNA/RNA next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform to improve the evaluation of pancreatic cysts. BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite a multidisciplinary approach, pancreatic cyst classification, such as a cystic precursor neoplasm, and the detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma (advanced neoplasia) can be challenging. NGS of preoperative pancreatic cyst fluid improves the clinical evaluation of pancreatic cysts, but the recent identification of novel genomic alterations necessitates the creation of a comprehensive panel and the development of a genomic classifier to integrate the complex molecular results. METHODS: An updated and unique 74-gene DNA/RNA-targeted NGS panel (PancreaSeq Genomic Classifier) was created to evaluate 5 classes of genomic alterations to include gene mutations (e.g., KRAS, GNAS, etc.), gene fusions and gene expression. Further, CEA mRNA ( CEACAM5 ) was integrated into the assay using RT-qPCR. Separate multi-institutional cohorts for training (n=108) and validation (n=77) were tested, and diagnostic performance was compared to clinical, imaging, cytopathologic, and guideline data. RESULTS: Upon creation of a genomic classifier system, PancreaSeq GC yielded a 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity for a cystic precursor neoplasm, and the sensitivity and specificity for advanced neoplasia were 82% and 100%, respectively. Associated symptoms, cyst size, duct dilatation, a mural nodule, increasing cyst size, and malignant cytopathology had lower sensitivities (41-59%) and lower specificities (56-96%) for advanced neoplasia. This test also increased the sensitivity of current pancreatic cyst guidelines (IAP/Fukuoka and AGA) by >10% and maintained their inherent specificity. CONCLUSIONS: PancreaSeq GC was not only accurate in predicting pancreatic cyst type and advanced neoplasia but also improved the sensitivity of current pancreatic cyst guidelines.

Fully Covered Self-expanding Stents are Cost-effective at Remediating Biliary Strictures in Patients With Chronic Pancreatitis.

Benign biliary strictures (BBS) develop in up to 10% to 30% of patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP).1 Endoscopic endoprosthetics via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has become the standard of care for remediating these strictures. Seventy percent to eighty percent of these strictures resolve with sequential or concurrent placement of multiple plastic stents (MPS).1,2 More recently, placement of fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS) have been shown to have similar outcomes as MPS.3-6 FCSEMS provide a larger radial diameter and require fewer procedures, but may have drawbacks, including a higher risk of migration, cholecystitis, delamination, and tissue ingrowth. A recent study demonstrated that FCSEMS with a 12-month indwell had similar outcomes to MPS with fewer ERCP needed.7 However, the cost-effectiveness of either strategy for managing BBS has not been assessed previously nor has the impact of additional reimbursement to cover the cost of FCSEMS on the cost-effectiveness of FCSEMS utilization.

Association of Statin Usage and the Development of Diabetes Mellitus after Acute Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) have at least a 2-fold higher risk for developing postpancreatitis diabetes mellitus (PPDM). No therapies have prevented PPDM. Statins were demonstrated to possibly lower the incidence and severity of AP but have not been studied to prevent PPDM. METHODS: Data from a commercial insurance claim database (Optum Clinformatics) were used to assess the impact of statins on patients without pre-existing DM admitted for a first episode of AP in 118,479 patients. Regular statin usage was defined as filled statin prescriptions for at least 80% of the year prior to AP. The primary outcome was defined as PPDM. We constructed a propensity score and applied inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance baseline characteristics between groups. Using Cox proportional hazards regression modeling, we estimated the risk of PPDM, accounting for competing events. RESULTS: With a median of 3.5 years of follow-up, the 5-year cumulative incidence of PPDM was 7.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9% to 8.0%) among regular statin users and 12.7% (95% CI, 12.4% to 12.9%) among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing PPDM compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.65; P < .001). Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of PPDM (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.89; P < .001). Similar benefits were seen with low, moderate, and high statin doses. CONCLUSIONS: In a large database-based study, statin usage reduced the risk of developing DM after acute pancreatitis. Further prospective studies with long-term follow-up are needed to study the impact of statins on acute pancreatitis and prevention of PPDM.

A Prospective Cohort Study Evaluating PAN-PROMISE, a Patient-reported Outcome Measure to Detect Post-ERCP Morbidity.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Cotton Consensus (CC) criteria for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) may not capture post-ERCP morbidity. PAN-PROMISE, a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), was developed to quantify acute pancreatitis-related morbidity. This study aims to determine the value of PAN-PROMISE in independently defining ERCP-related morbidity. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing ERCP at 2 academic centers from September 2021 to August 2022. We administered PAN-PROMISE and assessed quality of life and work productivity at baseline, 48 to 72 hours, 7 days, and 30 days following ERCP. PEP was defined by a 3-physician committee using the CC criteria. We defined high morbidity following ERCP (elevated PROM) by an increase of PAN-PROMISE score of >7 at 7 days post-procedure. The McNemar test assessed discordance between PEP and elevated-PROM. RESULTS: A total of 679 patients were enrolled. Choledocholithiasis (30%) and malignant biliary obstruction (29%) were the main indications for ERCP. Thirty-two patients (4.7%) developed PEP. One hundred forty-seven patients (21.6%) had an elevated PROM, whereas only 20 of them (13.4%) had PEP by the CC criteria (P < .001 for discordance). An elevated PROM strongly correlated with lower physical quality of life and increased direct and indirect health care costs ($80 and $25 per point increase in PAN-PROMISE, respectively). Patients with pancreatic cancer (odds ratio, 4.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-10.74) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.45) had the highest odds of elevated PROM. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of patients experience significant morbidity after ERCP despite not developing PEP or other adverse events. Future studies are needed to characterize better the reasons behind this increase in symptoms and potential interventions to reduce the symptom burden post-ERCP. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number, NCT05310409.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of post-transplant strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent for extrahepatic strictures. In patients with unclear diagnoses or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be ensured.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: methodology and review of evidence.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent. In patients with unclear diagnosis or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be assured.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.