AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Fecal Microbiota-Based Therapies for Select Gastrointestinal Diseases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Fecal microbiota-based therapies include conventional fecal microbiota transplant and US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies, fecal microbiota live-jslm and fecal microbiota spores live-brpk. The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) developed this guideline to provide recommendations on the use of fecal microbiota-based therapies in adults with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection; severe to fulminant C difficile infection; inflammatory bowel diseases, including pouchitis; and irritable bowel syndrome. METHODS: The guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework to prioritize clinical questions, identify patient-centered outcomes, and conduct an evidence synthesis. The guideline panel used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for the use of fecal microbiota-based therapies in the specified gastrointestinal conditions and provided implementation considerations for clinical practice. RESULTS: The guideline panel made 7 recommendations. In immunocompetent adults with recurrent C difficile infection, the AGA suggests select use of fecal microbiota-based therapies on completion of standard of care antibiotics to prevent recurrence. In mildly or moderately immunocompromised adults with recurrent C difficile infection, the AGA suggests select use of conventional fecal microbiota transplant. In severely immunocompromised adults, the AGA suggests against the use of any fecal microbiota-based therapies to prevent recurrent C difficile. In adults hospitalized with severe or fulminant C difficile not responding to standard of care antibiotics, the AGA suggests select use of conventional fecal microbiota transplant. The AGA suggests against the use of conventional fecal microbiota transplant as treatment for inflammatory bowel diseases or irritable bowel syndrome, except in the context of clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal microbiota-based therapies are effective therapy to prevent recurrent C difficile in select patients. Conventional fecal microbiota transplant is an adjuvant treatment for select adults hospitalized with severe or fulminant C difficile infection not responding to standard of care antibiotics. Fecal microbiota transplant cannot yet be recommended in other gastrointestinal conditions.

Clinical predictors of significant findings on EUS for the evaluation of incidental common bile duct dilation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although EUS is highly accurate for the evaluation of common bile duct (CBD) dilation, the yield of EUS in patients with incidental CBD dilation is unclear. METHODS: Serial patients undergoing EUS for incidental, dilated CBD (per radiologist, minimum of >6 mm objectively) from 2 academic medical centers without active pancreaticobiliary disease or significantly elevated liver function test results were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of EUS with significant findings and a novel prediction model was derived from one center, internally validated with bootstrapping, and externally validated at the second center. RESULTS: Of 375 patients evaluated, 31 (8.3%) had significant findings, including 26 choledocholithiasis, 1 ampullary adenoma, and 1 pancreatic mass. Predictors of significant findings with EUS included age of ≥70 years (odds ratio [OR], 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-10.0), non-biliary-type abdominal pain without chronic pain (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 2.3-17.3), CBD diameter of ≥15 mm or ≥17 mm with cholecystectomy (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.7-18.7), and prior ERCP (OR, 6.8; 95% CI, 2.1-22.5). A point-based novel clinical prediction model was created: age of ≥70 years = 1, non-biliary-type abdominal pain without chronic pain = 2, prior ERCP = 2, and CBD dilation = 2. A score of <1 had 93% (development) and 100% (validation) sensitivity and predicted a <2% chance of having a significant finding in both cohorts while excluding the need for EUS in ∼30% of both cohorts. Conversely, a score of ≥4 was >90% specific for the presence of significant pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 10% of patients undergoing EUS for incidental CBD dilation had pathologic findings. This novel, externally validated, clinical prediction model may reduce low-yield, invasive evaluation in nearly one-third of patients.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common primary liver cancer, remains a deadly cancer, with an incidence that has tripled in the United States since 1980. In recent years, new systemic therapies for HCC have been approved and a critical assessment of the existing data is necessary to balance benefits and harms and inform the development of evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association formed a multidisciplinary group consisting of a Technical Review Panel and a Guideline Panel. The Technical Review Panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients and conducted an evidence review of systemic therapies in patients with advanced-stage HCC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence. The Guideline Panel reviewed the evidence and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The Panel reviewed the evidence, summarized in the Technical Review, for the following medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for HCC: first-line therapies: bevacizumab+atezolizumab, sorafenib, and lenvatinib; second-line therapies: cabozantinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and regorafenib; and other agents: bevacizumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab+ipilimumab. CONCLUSIONS: The Panel agreed on 11 recommendations focused on systemic therapy for HCC in patients who are not eligible for locoregional therapy or resection, those with metastatic disease and preserved liver function, those with poor liver function, and those on systemic therapy as adjuvant therapy.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of the FDA-approved Intragastric Balloon Systems in a Clinical Setting.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The gas-filled intragastric balloon (IGB) system (Obalon) and the fluid-filled IGB system (Orbera) are the current FDA-approved IGB systems to treat obesity; however, they have not been previously compared in clinical practice. The aims of this study were to compare their efficacy, tolerance, and safety in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients treated with the gas-filled IGB or fluid-filled IGB between October 2015 and May 2020 at 2 academic centers. The primary endpoints included percent total body weight loss at balloon removal in patients who completed at least 20 weeks of therapy, the difference in adverse events that required urgent evaluation or hospitalization, and early removal in the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients underwent successful IGB placement (gas-filled IGB n=57, age 48.9±8.8, body mass index 35.5±5 kg/m 2 ; fluid-filled IGB n=30, age 49.2±14.3, body mass index 38.8±6 kg/m 2 ). Eleven patients underwent early device removal. There were no differences in percent total body weight loss at balloon removal and 12 months between the balloon systems ( P =0.39). Patients who received the fluid-filled IGB were more likely to require urgent evaluation or treatment, require hospital stay >24 hours, and need early balloon system removal compared with patients treated with the gas-filled IGB. CONCLUSION: In this 2-center cohort, both FDA-approved gastric balloon systems had the same effectiveness, but the gas-filled IGB had fewer serious adverse events and better tolerability than the fluid-filled IGB.

AGA Rapid Review and Guideline for SARS-CoV2 Testing and Endoscopy Post-Vaccination: 2021 Update.

This guideline provides updated recommendations on the role of preprocedure testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) in individuals undergoing endoscopy in the post-vaccination period and replaces the prior guideline from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) (released July 29, 2020). Since the start of the pandemic, our increased understanding of transmission has facilitated the implementation of practices to promote patient and health care worker (HCW) safety. Simultaneously, there has been increasing recognition of the potential harm associated with delays in patient care, as well as inefficiency of endoscopy units. With widespread vaccination of HCWs and the general population, a re-evaluation of AGA's prior recommendations was warranted. In order to update the role of preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2, the AGA guideline panel reviewed the evidence on prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infections in individuals undergoing endoscopy; patient and HCW risk of infections that may be acquired immediately before, during, or after endoscopy; effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in reducing risk of infections and transmission; patient and HCW anxiety; patient delays in care and potential impact on cancer burden; and endoscopy volumes. The panel considered the certainty of the evidence, weighed the benefits and harms of routine preprocedure testing, and considered burden, equity, and cost using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Based on very low certainty evidence, the panel made a conditional recommendation against routine preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2 in patients scheduled to undergo endoscopy. The panel placed a high value on minimizing additional delays in patient care, acknowledging the reduced endoscopy volumes, downstream impact on delayed cancer diagnoses, and burden of testing on patients.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing.

BACKGROUND: Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on five diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Data on the clinical performance of U.S. Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization is mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared to reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared to asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing.

BACKGROUND: Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance. OBJECTIVE: The IDSA's goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space. METHODS: IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

AGA Institute Rapid Review of the Gastrointestinal and Liver Manifestations of COVID-19, Meta-Analysis of International Data, and Recommendations for the Consultative Management of Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Multiple gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, including diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as liver enzyme abnormalities, have been variably reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This document provides best practice statements and recommendations for consultative management based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of international data on GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search to identify published and unpublished studies using OVID Medline and preprint servers (medRxiv, LitCovid, and SSRN) up until April 5, 2020; major journal sites were monitored for US publications until April 19, 2020. We pooled the prevalence of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as liver function tests abnormalities, using a fixed-effect model and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. RESULTS: We identified 118 studies and used a hierarchal study selection process to identify unique cohorts. We performed a meta-analysis of 47 studies including 10,890 unique patients. Pooled prevalence estimates of GI symptoms were as follows: diarrhea 7.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2%-8.2%), nausea/vomiting 7.8% (95% CI, 7.1%-8.5%), and abdominal pain 2.7% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.4%). Most studies reported on hospitalized patients. The pooled prevalence estimates of elevated liver abnormalities were as follows: aspartate transaminase 15.0% (95% CI, 13.6%-16.5%) and alanine transaminase 15.0% (95% CI, 13.6%-16.4%). When we compared studies from China to studies from other countries in subgroup analyses, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and liver abnormalities were more prevalent outside of China, with diarrhea reported in 18.3% (95% CI, 16.6%-20.1%). Isolated GI symptoms were reported rarely. We also summarized the Gl and liver adverse effects of the most commonly utilized medications for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: GI symptoms are associated with COVID-19 in <10% of patients. In studies outside of China, estimates are higher. Further studies are needed with standardized GI symptoms questionnaires and liver function test checks on admission to better quantify and qualify the association of these symptoms with COVID-19. Based on findings from our meta-analysis, we provide several Best Practice Statements for the consultative management of COVID-19.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19:Serologic Testing.

BACKGROUND: The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well-defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development and the selection of convalescent plasma donors. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on eight diagnostic recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests are rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified three potential indications for serologic testing including: 1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and at least two weeks have passed since symptom onset; 2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children; and 3) for conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate.

Prolonged Wireless pH Monitoring in Patients With Persistent Reflux Symptoms Despite Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Wireless pH monitoring measures esophageal acid exposure time (AET) for up to 96 hours. We evaluated competing methods of analysis of wireless pH data. METHODS: Adult patients with persisting reflux symptoms despite acid suppression (n = 322, 48.5 ± 0.9 years, 61.7% women) from 2 tertiary centers were evaluated using symptom questionnaires and wireless pH monitoring off therapy, from November 2013 through September 2017; 30 healthy adults (control subjects; 26.9 ± 1.5 years; 60.0% women) were similarly evaluated. Concordance of daily AET (physiologic <4%, borderline 4%-6%, pathologic>6%) for 2 or more days constituted the predominant AET pattern. Each predominant pattern (physiologic, borderline, or pathologic) in relation to data from the first day, and total averaged AET, were compared with other interpretation paradigms (first 2 days, best day, or worst day) and with symptoms. RESULTS: At least 2 days of AET data were available from 96.9% of patients, 3 days from 90.7%, and 4 days from 72.7%. A higher proportion of patients had a predominant pathologic pattern (31.4%) than control subjects (11.1%; P = .03). When 3 or more days of data were available, 90.4% of patients had a predominant AET pattern; when 2 days of data were available, 64.1% had a predominant AET pattern (P < .001). Day 1 AET was discordant with the predominant pattern in 22.4% of patients and was less strongly associated with the predominant pattern compared with 48 hour AET (P = .059) or total averaged AET (P = .02). Baseline symptom burden was higher in patients with a predominant pathologic pattern compared with a predominant physiologic pattern (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The predominant AET pattern on prolonged wireless pH monitoring can identify patients at risk for reflux symptoms and provides gains over 24 hours and 48 hours recording, especially when results from the first 2 days are discordant or borderline.

Rates of and Factors Associated With Placebo Response in Trials of Pharmacotherapies for Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is important to know the extent of the placebo effect in designing randomized controlled trials for patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), to accurately calculate sample size and define treatment endpoints. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the placebo groups from randomized controlled trials of adults with NASH that provided histologic and/or magnetic resonance image-based assessments. We identified trials through a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus, from each database's inception through January 2, 2018. RESULTS: We identified 39 randomized controlled trials, comprising 1463 patients who received placebo. Histologic assessment data (the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores, NAS) were available from 956 patients; magnetic resonance spectroscopy data were available from 295 patients and magnetic resonance proton density fat fraction measurements from 61 patients. Overall, 25% of patients given placebo had an improvement in NAS by 2 or more points (95% CI, 21%-29%) with a small amount of heterogeneity (I2 = 27%). There were improvements by at least 1 point in steatosis scores of 33% ± 3% of patients, in hepatocyte ballooning scores of 30% ± 3% of patients, in lobular inflammation scores of 32% ± 3% of patients, and in fibrosis scores of 21% ± 3% of patients, with a moderate amount of heterogeneity among trials (I2 range, 51%-63%). Patients given placebo had a statistically significant improvement in NAS (by 0.72 ± 0.19), with a large amount of heterogeneity (I2 = 96%). Univariate and multivariate meta-regression showed that trials with a higher baseline NAS, those conducted in South America, and those in which patients had a decrease in body mass index, were associated with greater improvements in NAS among patients given placebo. Patients given placebo had significant reductions in intrahepatic triglyceride, measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy (by 1.45% ± 0.54%) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 40%), and in magnetic resonance proton density fat fraction (by 2.43 ± 0.89), without heterogeneity (I2 = 0). Mean serum levels of alanine and aspartate aminotransferases decreased significantly (by 11.7 ± 3.8 U/L and 5.9 ± 2.1 U/L, respectively; P < .01 for both). CONCLUSIONS: In a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of NASH, patients given placebo have significant histologic, radiologic, and biochemical responses. The placebo response should be considered in designing trials of agents for treatment of NASH.

Biomarkers for bile acid diarrhoea in functional bowel disorder with diarrhoea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is no universally available laboratory test to diagnose bile acid diarrhoea (BAD). OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify a biomarker for idiopathic BAD in patients with functional bowel disorder (FBD) with diarrhoea. DESIGN: We searched multiple databases through 15 May 2015. Data were only available to estimate the diagnostic yield of each test (the prevalence of a positive test). Estimates were pooled across studies using the random effects model. RESULTS: We included 36 studies, enrolling 5028 patients (24 using 75selenium homotaurocholic acid test (75SeHCAT) retention of <10%, 6 using fasting serum C4, 3 using fasting serum fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19) and 2 based on total faecal bile acid (BA) excretion over 48 h). The diagnostic yields (and 95% CI) of abnormal tests were: 0.308 (0.247 to 0.377) for 75SeHCAT retention (<10%), 0.171 (0.134 to 0.217) for serum C4, 0.248 (0.147 to 0.385) for serum FGF19 and 0.255 (0.071 to 0.606) for total faecal BA excretion over 48 h. The majority of the analyses were associated with substantial heterogeneity. Performance characteristics relative to a gold standard test could not be estimated. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the test with the highest diagnostic yield conducted in the largest number of studies was 75SeHCAT retention, which is not widely available in many countries outside Europe and Canada. Using different diagnostic tests, 25% (average) of patients with lower FBD with diarrhoea has evidence of idiopathic BAD. These tests serve to identify idiopathic BAD among patients with FBD with diarrhoea. Further studies are required to appraise the performance characteristics of tests for idiopathic BAD.