JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy.

Introduction: In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification. Methods: Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway. Results: In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS. Conclusion: The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Introduction: Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). Methods: A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway. Results: In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS. Conclusion: The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in oesophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Introduction: Training and quality assurance in oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) is important to ensure competent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for OGD training and certification. Methods: Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from British Society of Gastroenterology, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, trainees and trainers. Recommendations on OGD training and certification were formulated following literature review and appraised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. These were subjected to electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were incorporated into the updated certification pathway. Results: In total, 32 recommendation statements were generated for the following domains: definition of competence (4 statements), acquisition of competence (12 statements), assessment of competence (10 statements) and post-certification support (6 statements). The consensus process led to following certification criteria: (1) performing ≥250 hands-on procedures; (2) attending a JAG-accredited basic skills course; (3) attainment of relevant minimal performance standards defined by British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, (4) achieving physically unassisted D2 intubation and J-manoeuvre in ≥95% of recent procedures, (5) satisfactory performance in formative and summative direct observation of procedural skills assessments. Conclusion: The JAG standards for diagnostic OGD have been updated following evidence-based consensus. These standards are intended to support training, improve competency assessment to uphold standards of practice and provide support to the newly-independent practitioner.

Endoscopy training in the UK pre-COVID-19 environment: a multidisciplinary survey of endoscopy training and the experience of reciprocal feedback.

OBJECTIVE: Training in gastrointestinal endoscopy in the UK occurs predominantly in a real world one-to-one trainer to trainee interaction. Previous surveys have shown surgical and gastroenterology trainees have had mixed experiences of supervision and training, and no surveys have explored specifically the role of trainee to trainer feedback. This study aimed to explore the experience of training and of providing trainer feedback for all disciplines of endoscopy trainees. DESIGN/METHOD: An online survey designed in collaboration with Joint Advisory Committee training committee and trainee representatives was distributed from January 2020 but was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and hence terminated early. RESULTS: There were 129 responses, including trainees from all disciplines and regions, of which 86/129 (66.7%) rated the culture in their endoscopy units favourably-either good or excellent. 65/129 (50.4%) trainees reported having one or more training lists allocated per week, with 41/129 (31.8%) reporting only ad hoc lists. 100/129 (77.5%) respondents were given feedback and 97/129 (75.2%) were provided with learning points from the list. 65/129 (50.4%) respondents reported their trainer completed a direct observation of procedure or direct observation of polypectomies. 73/129 (56.6%) respondents reported that they felt able to give feedback to their trainer, with 88/129 (68.2%) feeling they could do this accurately. Barriers to trainer feedback cited included time constraints, lack of anonymity and concerns about affecting the trainer-trainee relationship. CONCLUSION: Overall, the training environment has improved since previous surveys. There are still issues around interdisciplinary differences with some surgical trainees finding the training environment less welcoming, and trainee perceptions of hierarchical barriers and trainer responsiveness to feedback limiting the accuracy of their feedback.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the management of iron deficiency anaemia in adults.

Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is a major cause of morbidity and burden of disease worldwide. It can generally be diagnosed by blood testing and remedied by iron replacement therapy (IRT) using the oral or intravenous route. The many causes of iron deficiency include poor dietary intake and malabsorption of dietary iron, as well as a number of significant gastrointestinal (GI) pathologies. Because blood is iron-rich it can result from chronic blood loss, and this is a common mechanism underlying the development of IDA-for example, as a consequence of menstrual or GI blood loss.Approximately a third of men and postmenopausal women presenting with IDA have an underlying pathological abnormality, most commonly in the GI tract. Therefore optimal management of IDA requires IRT in combination with appropriate investigation to establish the underlying cause. Unexplained IDA in all at-risk individuals is an accepted indication for fast-track secondary care referral in the UK because GI malignancies can present in this way, often in the absence of specific symptoms. Bidirectional GI endoscopy is the standard diagnostic approach to examination of the upper and lower GI tract, though radiological scanning is an alternative in some situations for assessing the large bowel. In recurrent or refractory IDA, wireless capsule endoscopy plays an important role in assessment of the small bowel.IDA may present in primary care or across a range of specialties in secondary care, and because of this and the insidious nature of the condition it has not always been optimally managed despite the considerable burden of disease- with investigation sometimes being inappropriate, incorrectly timed or incomplete, and the role of IRT for symptom relief neglected. It is therefore important that contemporary guidelines for the management of IDA are available to all clinicians. This document is a revision of previous British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines, updated in the light of subsequent evidence and developments.

Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Iron Formulations for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anaemia in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) can impair quality of life and increase healthcare costs. Treatment options for IDA-associated IBD include oral iron and intravenous iron formulations (such as ferric carboxymaltose [FCM], ferric derisomaltose [FD, previously known as iron isomaltoside 1000], and iron sucrose [IS]). The present analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of FCM versus FD, IS, and oral iron sulfate in terms of additional cost per additional responder in the UK setting. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was calculated for FCM versus FD, IS, and oral iron individually in terms of the additional cost per additional responder, defined as haemoglobin normalisation or an increase of ≥2 g/dL in haemoglobin levels, in a model developed in Microsoft Excel. Relative efficacy inputs were taken from a previously published network meta-analysis, since there is currently no single head-to-head trial evidence comparing all therapy options. Costs were calculated in 2020 pounds sterling (GBP) capturing the costs of iron preparations, healthcare professional time, and consumables. RESULTS: The analysis suggested that FCM may be the most effective intervention, with 81% of patients achieving a response. Response rates with FD, IS, and oral iron were 74%, 75%, and 69%, respectively. Total costs with FCM, FD, IS, and oral iron were GBP 296, GBP 312, GBP 503, and GBP 56, respectively. FCM was found to be more effective and less costly than both FD and IS, and therefore was considered dominant. Compared with oral iron, FCM was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 2045 per additional responder. CONCLUSIONS: FCM is likely to be the least costly and most effective IV iron therapy in the UK setting. Compared with oral iron, healthcare payers must decide whether the superior treatment efficacy of FCM is worth the additional cost.

Filgotinib as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis (SELECTION): a phase 2b/3 double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The global prevalence of ulcerative colitis is increasing, and induction and maintenance of remission is a crucial therapeutic goal. We assessed the efficacy and safety of filgotinib, a once-daily, oral Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor, for treatment of ulcerative colitis. METHODS: This phase 2b/3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial including two induction studies and one maintenance study was done in 341 study centres in 40 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis for at least 6 months before enrolment (induction study A: inadequate clinical response, loss of response to or intolerance to corticosteroids or immunosuppressants, naive to tumour necrosis factor [TNF] antagonists and vedolizumab [biologic-naive]; induction study B: inadequate clinical response, loss of response to or intolerance to any TNF antagonist or vedolizumab, no TNF antagonist or vedolizumab use within 8 weeks before screening [biologic-experienced]). Patients were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to receive oral filgotinib 200 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, or placebo once per day for 11 weeks. Patients who had either clinical remission or a Mayo Clinic Score response at week 10 in either induction study entered the maintenance study. Patients who received induction filgotinib were rerandomised 2:1 to continue their induction filgotinib regimen or to placebo. Patients who received induction placebo continued receiving placebo. The primary endpoint was clinical remission by Mayo endoscopic, rectal bleeding, and stool frequency subscores at weeks 10 and 58. For the induction studies, efficacy was assessed in all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug or placebo within that study. For the maintenance study, efficacy was assessed in all patients randomised to any filgotinib treatment group in the induction studies who received at least one dose of study drug or placebo in the maintenance study. Patients who received placebo throughout the induction and maintenance study were not included in the full analysis set for the maintenance study. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug or placebo within each study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02914522. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2016, and March 31, 2020, we screened 2040 patients for eligibility. 659 patients enrolled in induction study A were randomly assigned to receive filgotinib 100 mg (n=277), filgotinib 200 mg (n=245), or placebo (n=137). 689 patients enrolled into induction study B were randomly assigned to receive filgotinib 100 mg (n=285), filgotinib 200 mg (n=262), or placebo (n=142). 34 patients in induction study A and 54 patients in induction study B discontinued the study drug before week 10. After efficacy assessment at week 10, 664 patients entered the maintenance study (391 from induction study A, 273 from induction study B). 93 patients continued to receive placebo. 270 patients who had received filgotinib 100 mg in the induction study were randomly assigned to receive filgotinib 100 mg (n=179) or placebo (n=91). 301 patients who had received filgotinib 200 mg in the induction study were randomly assigned to receive filgotinib 200 mg (n=202) or placebo (n=99). 263 patients discontinued treatment in the maintenance study. At week 10, a greater proportion of patients given filgotinib 200 mg had clinical remission than those given placebo (induction study A 26·1% vs 15·3%, difference 10·8%; 95% CI 2·1-19·5, p=0·0157; induction study B 11·5% vs 4·2%, 7·2%; 1·6-12·8, p=0·0103). At week 58, 37·2% of patients given filgotinib 200 mg had clinical remission versus 11·2% in the respective placebo group (difference 26·0%, 95% CI 16·0-35·9; p<0·0001). Clinical remission was not significantly different between filgotinib 100 mg and placebo at week 10, but was significant by week 58 (23·8% vs 13·5%, 10·4%; 0·0-20·7, p=0·0420). The incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of interest was similar between treatment groups. In the induction studies, serious adverse events occurred in 28 (5·0%) of 562 patients given filgotinib 100 mg, 22 (4·3%) of 507 patients given filgotinib 200 mg, and 13 (4·7%) of 279 patients given placebo. In the maintenance study, serious adverse events were reported in eight (4·5%) of 179 patients given filgotinib 100 mg, seven (7·7%) of 91 patients in the respective placebo group, nine (4·5%) of 202 patients in the filgotinib 200 mg group, and no patients in the respective placebo group. No deaths were reported during either induction study. Two patients died during the maintenance study; neither was related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Filgotinib 200 mg was well tolerated, and efficacious in inducing and maintaining clinical remission compared with placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Leptin activates Akt in oesophageal cancer cells via multiple atorvastatin-sensitive small GTPases.

Obesity is a risk factor for Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Adipose tissue secretes the hormone leptin. Leptin is a growth factor for several cell types, including Barrett's cells and oesophageal adenocarcinoma cells. Statins are associated with reduced rates of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal cancer and exhibit anti-cancer effects in vitro. The mechanisms of these effects are not fully established. We have examined the effects of leptin and the lipid-soluble statin, atorvastatin, on signalling via monomeric GTP-binding proteins and Akt. Proliferation and apoptosis were assessed in OE33 cells. Akt activity was quantified by cell-based ELISA and in vitro kinase assay. Specific small-molecule inhibitors and a dominant-negative construct were used to reduce Akt activity. Small GTPases were inhibited using transfection of dominant-negative plasmids, prenylation inhibitors and pretreatment with atorvastatin. Leptin stimulated Akt activity and cell proliferation and inhibited camptothecin-induced apoptosis in an Akt-sensitive manner. Leptin induced phosphorylation of Bad and FOXO1 in an Akt-sensitive manner. Leptin activated Ras, Rac, RhoA and cdc42. Transfection of dominant-negative plasmids confirmed that leptin-induced Akt activation required Ras, RhoA cdc42 but not Rac. Atorvastatin inhibited leptin-induced activation of Ras, RhoA, cdc42 and Akt. Co-treatment with mevalonate prevented these effects of atorvastatin. The protein kinase Akt is essential to the growth-promoting and anti-apoptotic effects of leptin in oesophageal adenocarcinoma cells. Akt is activated via Ras-, Rho- and cdc42-dependant pathways. Atorvastatin reduces leptin-induced Akt activation by inhibiting prenylation of small GTPases. This may explain the reduced incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in statin-users.

Correction to: Direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) assessment in diagnostic gastroscopy: nationwide evidence of validity and competency development during training.

The citation for Reference 22 should be replaced with: Kumar NL, Kugener G, Perencevich ML, et al (2018) The SAFE-T assessment tool: derivation and validation of a web-based application for point-of-care evaluation of gastroenterology fellow performance in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 87(1):262-269.

Direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) assessment in diagnostic gastroscopy: nationwide evidence of validity and competency development during training.

BACKGROUND: Validated competency assessment tools and the data supporting milestone development during gastroscopy training are lacking. We aimed to assess the validity of the formative direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) assessment tool in diagnostic gastroscopy and study competency development using DOPS. METHODS: This was a prospective multicentre (N = 275) analysis of formative gastroscopy DOPS assessments. Internal structure validity was tested using exploratory factor analysis and reliability estimated using generalisability theory. Item and global DOPS scores were stratified by lifetime procedure count to define learning curves, using a threshold determined from receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of DOPS competence. RESULTS: In total, 10086 DOPS were submitted for 987 trainees. Exploratory factor analysis identified three distinct item groupings, representing 'pre-procedure', 'technical', and 'post-procedure non-technical' skills. From generalisability analyses, sources of variance in overall DOPS scores included trainee ability (31%), assessor stringency (8%), assessor subjectivity (18%), and trainee case-to-case variation (43%). The combination of three assessments from three assessors was sufficient to achieve the reliability threshold of 0.70. On ROC analysis, a mean score of 3.9 provided optimal sensitivity and specificity for determining competency. This threshold was attained in the order of 'pre-procedure' (100-124 procedures), 'technical' (150-174 procedures), 'post-procedure non-technical' skills (200-224 procedures), and global competency (225-249 procedures). Higher lifetime procedure count, DOPS count, surgical trainees and assessors, higher trainee seniority, and lower case difficulty were significant multivariable predictors of DOPS competence. CONCLUSION: This study establishes milestones for competency acquisition during gastroscopy training and provides validity and reliability evidence to support gastroscopy DOPS as a competency assessment tool.

Isolated caecal necrosis-a case study.

A patient with right iliac fossa pain underwent CT angiography which demonstrated isolated caecal necrosis with associated superior mesenteric artery (SMA) stenosis. This was supported by colonoscopic findings and histopathological analysis. Isolated caecal necrosis is a rare presentation of ischaemic colitis.. Clinical and imaging findings of ischaemic colitis may mimic other pathologies. To improve diagnostic accuracy both referrers and radiologists should be aware of risk factors associated with ischaemic colitis. Isolated bowel wall thickening and pneumatosis of a colonic segment on CT are suggestive of focal bowel ischaemia, in the right clinical context.

Certification of UK gastrointestinal endoscopists and variations between trainee specialties: results from the JETS e-portfolio.

Introduction In the UK, endoscopy certification is administered by the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG). Since 2011, certification for upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy has been awarded via a national (JETS) e-portfolio to the main training specialties of: gastroenterology, gastrointestinal surgeons (GS) and non-medical endoscopists (NME). Trends in endoscopy certification and differences between trainee specialties were analyzed. Methods This prospective UK-wide observational study identified trainees awarded gastroscopy, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy (provisional and full) certification between June 2011 - 2017. Trends in certification, procedures and time-to-certification, and key performance indicators (KPIs) in the 3-month pre- and post-certification period were compared between the three main training specialties. Results Three thousand one hundred fifty-seven endoscopy-related certifications were awarded to 1928 trainees from gastroenterology (52.3 %), GS (28.4 %) and NME (16.5 â€Š%) specialties. During the study period, certification numbers increased for all modalities and specialties, particularly NME trainees. For gastroscopy and colonoscopy, procedures-to-certification were lowest for GS ( P  < 0.001), whereas time-to-certification was consistently shortest in NMEs ( P  < 0.001). A post-certification reduction in mean cecal intubation rate (95.2 % to 93.8 %, P  < 0.001) was observed in colonoscopy, and D2 intubation (97.6 % to 96.2 %, P  < 0.001) and J-maneuver (97.3 % to 95.8 %, P  < 0.001) in gastroscopy. Overall, average pre- and post-certification KPIs still exceeded national minimum standards. There was an increase in PDR for NMEs after provisional colonoscopy certification but a decrease in PDR for GS trainees after sigmoidoscopy and full colonoscopy certification. Conclusion Despite variations among trainee specialties, average pre- and post-certification KPIs for certified trainees met national standards, suggesting that JAG certification is a transparent benchmark which adequately safeguards competency in endoscopy training.