A Randomized Controlled Phase 2 Dose-Finding Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Camostat in the Treatment of Painful Chronic Pancreatitis: The TACTIC Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) causes an abdominal pain syndrome associated with poor quality of life. We conducted a clinical trial to further investigate the efficacy and safety of camostat, an oral serine protease inhibitor that has been used to alleviate pain in CP. METHODS: This was a double-blind randomized controlled trial that enrolled adults with CP with a baseline average daily worst pain score ≥4 on a numeric rating system. Participants were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive camostat at 100, 200, or 300 mg 3 times daily or placebo. The primary end point was a 4-week change from baseline in the mean daily worst pain intensity score (0-10 on a numeric rating system) using a mixed model repeated measure analysis. Secondary end points included changes in alternate pain end points, quality of life, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 264 participants with CP were randomized. Changes in pain from baseline were similar between the camostat groups and placebo, with differences of least squares means of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.90 to 0.68), -0.04 (95% CI, -0.85 to 0.78), and -0.11 (95% CI, -0.94 to 0.73) for the 100 mg, 200 mg, and 300 mg groups, respectively. Multiple subgroup analyses were similar for the primary end point, and no differences were observed in any of the secondary end points. Treatment-emergent adverse events attributed to the study drug were identified in 42 participants (16.0%). CONCLUSION: We were not able to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in improvements in pain or quality of life outcomes in participants with painful CP who received camostat compared with placebo. Studies are needed to further define mechanisms of pain in CP to guide future clinical trials, including minimizing placebo responses and selecting targeted therapies. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT02693093.

Prospective, Multi-Institutional, Real-Time Next-Generation Sequencing of Pancreatic Cyst Fluid Reveals Diverse Genomic Alterations That Improve the Clinical Management of Pancreatic Cysts.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of pancreatic cyst fluid is a useful adjunct in the assessment of patients with pancreatic cyst. However, previous studies have been retrospective or single institutional experiences. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate NGS on a multi-institutional cohort of patients with pancreatic cyst in real time. METHODS: The performance of a 22-gene NGS panel (PancreaSeq) was first retrospectively confirmed and then within a 2-year timeframe, PancreaSeq testing was prospectively used to evaluate endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration pancreatic cyst fluid from 31 institutions. PancreaSeq results were correlated with endoscopic ultrasound findings, ancillary studies, current pancreatic cyst guidelines, follow-up, and expanded testing (Oncomine) of postoperative specimens. RESULTS: Among 1933 PCs prospectively tested, 1887 (98%) specimens from 1832 patients were satisfactory for PancreaSeq testing. Follow-up was available for 1216 (66%) patients (median, 23 months). Based on 251 (21%) patients with surgical pathology, mitogen-activated protein kinase/GNAS mutations had 90% sensitivity and 100% specificity for a mucinous cyst (positive predictive value [PPV], 100%; negative predictive value [NPV], 77%). On exclusion of low-level variants, the combination of mitogen-activated protein kinase/GNAS and TP53/SMAD4/CTNNB1/mammalian target of rapamycin alterations had 88% sensitivity and 98% specificity for advanced neoplasia (PPV, 97%; NPV, 93%). Inclusion of cytopathologic evaluation to PancreaSeq testing improved the sensitivity to 93% and maintained a high specificity of 95% (PPV, 92%; NPV, 95%). In comparison, other modalities and current pancreatic cyst guidelines, such as the American Gastroenterology Association and International Association of Pancreatology/Fukuoka guidelines, show inferior diagnostic performance. The sensitivities and specificities of VHL and MEN1/loss of heterozygosity alterations were 71% and 100% for serous cystadenomas (PPV, 100%; NPV, 98%), and 68% and 98% for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PPV, 85%; NPV, 95%), respectively. On follow-up, serous cystadenomas with TP53/TERT mutations exhibited interval growth, whereas pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with loss of heterozygosity of ≥3 genes tended to have distant metastasis. None of the 965 patients who did not undergo surgery developed malignancy. Postoperative Oncomine testing identified mucinous cysts with BRAF fusions and ERBB2 amplification, and advanced neoplasia with CDKN2A alterations. CONCLUSIONS: PancreaSeq was not only sensitive and specific for various pancreatic cyst types and advanced neoplasia arising from mucinous cysts, but also reveals the diversity of genomic alterations seen in pancreatic cysts and their clinical significance.

Meta-analysis of underwater vs conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Effect of underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection (UESD) on clinical outcomes as compared with conventional ESD (CESD) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis of the available data. METHODS: Online databases were searched for studies comparing UESD to CESD for colorectal lesions. The outcomes of interest were en bloc resection, R0 resection, procedure time (min), dissection speed (mm2/min), and adverse events. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD), along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies with 1,401 patients (n=452 UESD, n=949 CESD) were included. The mean age was 69 years and 57% patients were males. UESD had both lesser procedure time (SMD -1.33, 95% CI -2.34 to -0.32, p = 0.010) and greater dissection speed (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.68, p = 0.003) when compared with CESD. No significant differences were observed between the two groups with respect to en bloc resection (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.41), R0 resection (OR 2.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 7.05), delayed bleeding (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.74), perforation (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.00) and post resection electrocoagulation syndrome (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.42). DISCUSSION: UESD was faster in patients with colorectal lesions, but had comparable rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection and adverse events when compared with CESD.

Effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on endoscopy outcomes: A systematic review & meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are known to cause delayed gastric emptying, however the effect on clinical outcomes during upper endoscopy/colonoscopy remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to reconcile the data. METHODS: Online databases were searched for studies evaluating GLP-1RAs vs control group (no GLP-1RAs) in patients undergoing endoscopy. The outcomes of interest were rate of retained gastric contents (RGC), aborted procedures, aspiration events and subjective bowel preparation quality. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies with 77,271 patients (4,449 in the GLP-1 RA arm and 72,703 in the control arm) were included. The mean age ranged from 47.6 to 72 years and 58.4% were females. As compared to the control group, the GLP-1 RA group had higher odds of RGC (OR 15.39, 95% CI 4.65-50.99, p < 0.01) and aborted procedures (OR 13.86, 95% CI 4.42-43.43, p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of aspiration events (OR 21.06, 95% CI 0.13-3379.01, p=0.24) and subjective bowel preparation quality (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67-1.31, p=0.83). CONCLUSION: While statistical significance was reached in terms of visible RGC and early termination of endoscopies in patients on GLP-1RAs, these events were overall rare. GLP-1RAs do not appear to pose significant risk, as the odds of developing aspiration were comparable in the two groups.

Indirect comparison of various lumen-apposing metal stents for EUS-guided biliary and gallbladder drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies assessing EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) or gallbladder drainage (EUS-GB) using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) have shown variable results based on the type of LAMS. We performed a meta-analysis of the available data. METHODS: Multiple online databases were searched for studies using LAMSs (Axios [Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Mass, USA] or Spaxus [Taewoong Medical Co, Gimpo, Korea]) for EUS-BD and EUS-GB. The outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Pooled proportions along with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 18 observational studies were included: 11 for the Axios stent (433 patients; mean age, 72 years; 54% male) and 7 for the Spaxus stent (242 patients; mean age, 74 years; 50% male). The respective pooled outcomes for the Axios stent (EUS-BD and EUS-GB, respectively) were technical success, 96.2% and 96.2%; clinical success, 92.8% and 92.7%; total adverse events, 10.1% and 23.6%; and bleeding, 3.7% and 4.8%. The respective pooled outcomes for the Spaxus stent (EUS-BD and EUS-GB, respectively) were technical success, 93.8% and 95.9%; clinical success, 90.1% and 94.2%; total adverse events, 12.6% and 9.5%; and bleeding, 3.1% and 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Axios and Spaxus stents demonstrate similar pooled technical and clinical success rates. Adverse events occurred in 23.6% of patients (Axios stent) and 9.5% of patients (Spaxus stent) during EUS-GB.

Development of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy standards for training in advanced endoscopy within dedicated advanced endoscopy fellowship programs.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Training in interventional endoscopy is offered by nonaccredited advanced endoscopy fellowship programs (AEFPs). The number of these programs has increased dramatically with a concurrent increase in the breadth and complexity of interventional endoscopy procedures. Accreditation is governed by competency-based education, yet what constitutes a "high-quality" nonaccredited AEFP has not been defined. Using an evidence-based consensus process, we aimed to establish standards for AEFPs. METHODS: The RAND UCLA appropriateness method, a well-described modified Delphi process to develop quality indicators, was used. A task force established by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy drafted potential quality indicators (structure, process, and outcome) in 6 categories: activity preceding training; structure of AEFPs; training in ERCP, EUS, and EMR; and luminal stent placement. Three rounds of iterative feedback from 20 experts were conducted. Round 0 involved discussion of project details. In round 1, experts independently ranked proposed quality indicators on a 9-point interval scale ranging from highly inappropriate (1) to highly appropriate (9). Next, proposed quality indicators were discussed and reworded in a group meeting followed by round 2, in which experts independently reranked proposed quality indicators and provided benchmarks (when applicable). The median score for each quality indicator was calculated. Mean absolute deviation from the median was calculated, and appropriateness of potential quality indicators was assessed using the BIOMED concerted action on appropriateness definition, P value method, and interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry definition. A quality indicator was deemed appropriate if the median score was ≥7 and met criteria for appropriateness using all 3 defined statistical methods. RESULTS: Of 89 proposed quality indicators, 37 statements met criteria as appropriate for a quality indicator (activity preceding training, 2; structure of AEFPs, 10; training in ERCP, 7; training in EUS, 8; training in EMR, 7; luminal stent placement, 3). Minimum thresholds were defined for 19 relevant quality indicators for number of trainers, procedures during fellowship, and procedures before assessment of competence. Among the final appropriate quality indicators were that all trainees should undergo qualitative and quantitative competence assessments using validated tools at least quarterly with documented feedback throughout the training period and that trainees should track outcomes and relevant quality metrics for specific procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus process using validated methodology established standards for an AEFP in an effort to ensure adequate training in the most commonly taught interventional endoscopic procedures (ERCP, EUS, EMR, and luminal stent placement) during fellowship. An important component of an AEFP is the use of competency-based assessments that are compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Next Accreditation System, with the goal of ensuring that trainees achieve specific milestones in their progression to achieving cognitive and technical competency.

Comparing EUS-directed Transgastric ERCP (EDGE) Versus Laparoscopic-Assisted ERCP Versus Enteroscopic ERCP: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management of choledocholithiasis in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery is challenging. This study aims to compare technical success rates, adverse events, and procedural time between 3 current approaches: endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (EDGE), enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP), and laparoscopic-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP). METHODS: A systematic search of 5 databases was conducted. Direct and network meta-analyses were performed to compare interventions using the random effects model. A significance threshold of P < 0.05 was applied. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. On direct meta-analysis, technical success rates were comparable between EDGE and LA-ERCP (odds ratio: 0.768, CI: 0.196-3.006, P = 0.704, I2 = 14.13%). However, EDGE and LA-ERCP showed significantly higher success rates than E-ERCP. No significant differences in adverse events were found between EDGE versus LA-ERCP, EDGE versus E-ERCP, and LA-ERCP versus E-ERCP on direct meta-analysis. In terms of procedural time, EDGE was significantly shorter than E-ERCP [mean difference (MD): -31 minutes, 95% CI: -40.748 to -21.217, P < 0.001, I2 = 19.89%), and E-ERCP was shorter than LA-ERCP (MD: -44.567 minutes, 95% CI: -76.018 to -13.116, P = 0.005, I2 = 0%). EDGE also demonstrated a significant time advantage over LA-ERCP (MD: -78.145 minutes, 95% CI: -104.882 to -51.407, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). All findings were consistent with network meta-analysis on random effects model. The heterogeneity of the model was low. CONCLUSIONS: EDGE and LA-ERCP showed superior technical success rates compared with E-ERCP. Adverse events did not significantly differ among the three approaches. Furthermore, EDGE demonstrated the shortest procedural duration. We recommend considering EDGE as a first-choice procedure.

Meta-Analysis of Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Complex Colorectal Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for complex colorectal lesions have shown variable results. We conducted a meta-analysis of the available data. METHODS: Online databases were searched for studies comparing EFTR versus ESD for complex colorectal lesions. The outcomes of interest were resection rates, procedure time (min), and complications. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) along with 95% CI were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 4 studies with 530 patients (n=215 EFTR, n=315 ESD) were included. The mean follow-up duration was 5 months. The mean age of the patients was 68 years and 64% were men. The EFTR and ESD groups had similar rates of en bloc resection (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 0.60-4.97, P=0.31) and R0 resection (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.55-4.14, P=0.42). The EFTR group had significantly reduced procedure time (SMD -1.87, 95% CI: -3.13 to -0.61, P=0.004), total complications (OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.13-0.44, P<0.00001), perforation (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03-0.39, P=0.0005) and postresection electrocoagulation syndrome (OR: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01-0.48, P=0.008). Delayed bleeding was similar in the 2 groups (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.30-2.12, P=0.66). Residual/recurrent lesions were significantly higher in the EFTR group (OR: 4.67, 95% CI: 1.39-15.66, P=0.01). DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis of small studies with high heterogeneity showed that EFTR and ESD have comparable resection rates for complex colorectal lesions. EFTR is faster and has fewer complications, but it increases residual or recurrent lesions.

Comparing Endoscopic Treatment Modalities for Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia: Efficacy, Safety, and Outcomes in a Network Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is characterized by vascular ectasias accounting for 4% of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeds, which can range from occult bleeds to severe acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. In turn, GAVE can lead to severe morbidity and recurrent hospitalization. Current endoscopic treatments for GAVE include argon plasma coagulation (APC), endoscopic band ligation (EBL), and radiofrequency ablation. With this significant burden in mind, a systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of various modalities in the treatment of GAVE. METHODS: All studies that involved adults and children with endoscopic characteristics of GAVE undergoing treatment with APC, EBL, radiofrequency ablation, or a combination of 2 treatment modalities were included. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the rate of adverse events and the number of red blood cell transfusions across all 3 groups (APC, EBL, and APC + EBL). However, statistical differences were noted for outcomes of bleeding recurrence, length of hospitalization, and change in hemoglobin status. EBL exhibited a significant decrease in bleeding recurrence when compared with APC. Moreover, shorter hospitalization stays were seen in APC + EBL and EBL groups compared with APC, and a beneficial change in hemoglobin status was also more often seen in APC + EBL and EBL groups compared with APC. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, EBL was found to have superior efficacy when compared with APC for the treatment of GAVE; however, there was no significant difference in rates of adverse events between APC, EBL, and combination therapy.

The impact of COVID-19 on hospitalizations that underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the United States.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 impacts technical success of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this study, we aimed to assess the influence of COVID-19 on hospitalizations that underwent ERCP. METHODS: We identified all adult COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 hospitalizations that underwent ERCP in the United States using the National Inpatient Sample for 2020. Hospitalization characteristics, clinical outcomes, and complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In 2020, 2015 COVID-19 and 203,094 non-COVID-19 hospitalizations underwent ERCP. The COVID-19 cohort had a higher mean age (60.3 vs 55.6 years, p < 0.001) and a higher proportion of Blacks and Hispanics compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort. After adjusting for confounders, the COVID-19 cohort had higher all-cause inpatient mortality (4.77 vs 1.45%, aOR 4.09, 95% CI 2.50-6.69, p < 0.001), mean length of stay (LOS) [10.19 vs 5.94 days, mean difference: 3.88, 95% CI 2.68-5.07, p < 0.001] and mean total hospital charges (THC) [$152,933 vs $96,398, mean difference: 46,367, 95% CI 21,776-70,957, p < 0.001] compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort. Increasing age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, and post-ERCP pancreatitis were identified to be independent predictors of inpatient mortality for COVID-19 hospitalizations that underwent ERCP. Furthermore, the COVID-19 cohort had higher odds of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) (11.55 vs 7.05%, aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19-2.25, p = 0.002) compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort, after adjusting for confounders. However, there was no statistical difference in the rates of bowel perforations and post-ERCP hemorrhage between the two groups. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 hospitalizations that underwent ERCP had higher inpatient mortality, mean LOS, mean THC, and odds of developing PEP compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is not a part of a clinical trial.

Single Versus Second Observer vs Artificial Intelligence to Increase the ADENOMA Detection Rate of Colonoscopy-A Network Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Screening colonoscopy has significantly contributed to the reduction of the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its associated mortality, with adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the quality marker. To increase the ADR, various solutions have been proposed including the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and employing second observers during colonoscopies. In the interest of AI improving ADR independently, without a second observer, and the operational similarity between AI and second observer, this network meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of AI, second observer, and a single observer in improving ADR. METHODS: We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science Core Collection, Korean Citation Index, SciELO, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane. A direct head-to-head comparator analysis and network meta-analysis were performed using the random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We analyzed 26 studies, involving 22,560 subjects. In the direct comparative analysis, AI demonstrated higher ADR (OR: 0.668, 95% CI 0.595-0.749, p < 0.001) than single observer. Dual observer demonstrated a higher ADR (OR: 0.771, 95% CI 0.688-0.865, p < 0.001) than single operator. In network meta-analysis, results were consistent on the network meta-analysis, maintaining consistency. No statistical difference was noted when comparing AI to second observer. (RR 1.1 (0.9-1.2, p = 0.3). Results were consistent when evaluating only RCTs. Net ranking provided higher score to AI followed by second observer followed by single observer. CONCLUSION: Artificial Intelligence and second-observer colonoscopy showed superior success in Adenoma Detection Rate when compared to single-observer colonoscopy. Although not statistically significant, net ranking model favors the superiority of AI to the second observer.

Pancreatic Cancer Screening for At-Risk Individuals (Pancreas Scan Study): Yield, Harms, and Outcomes From a Prospective Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines endorse pancreatic cancer screening in genetically susceptible individuals. We conducted a prospective, multicenter study to determine yield, harms, and outcomes of pancreatic cancer screening. METHODS: All high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening at 5 centers from 2020 to 2022 were prospectively enrolled. Pancreas findings were designated as low-risk (fatty or chronic pancreatitis-like changes), intermediate-risk (neuroendocrine tumor [NET] <2 cm or branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm [IPMN]), or high-risk lesions (high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia/dysplasia, main-duct IPMN, NET >2 cm, or pancreatic cancer). Harms from screening included adverse events during screening or undergoing low-yield pancreatic surgery. Annual screening was performed using endoscopic ultrasound and or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Annual screening for new-onset diabetes using fasting blood sugar was also performed ( ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT05006131). RESULTS: During the study period, 252 patients underwent pancreatic cancer screening. Mean age was 59.9 years, 69% were female, and 79.4% were White. Common indications were BRCA 1/2 (36.9%), familial pancreatic cancer syndrome kindred (31.7%), ataxia telangiectasia mutated (3.5%), Lynch syndrome (6.7%), Peutz-Jeghers (4.3%), and familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (3.5%). Low-risk lesions were noted in 23.4% and intermediate-risk lesions in 31.7%, almost all of which were branch-duct IPMN without worrisome features. High-risk lesions were noted in 2 patients (0.8%), who were diagnosed with pancreas cancer at stages T2N1M0 and T2N1M1. Prediabetes was noted in 18.2% and new-onset diabetes in 1.7%. Abnormal fasting blood sugar was not associated with pancreatic lesions. There were no adverse events from screening tests, and no patient underwent low-yield pancreatic surgery. DISCUSSION: Pancreatic cancer screening detected high-risk lesions with lower frequency than previously reported. No harms from screening were noted.

Clinical trial transparency in gastrointestinal endoscopy research.

BACKGROUND: Under-reporting of clinical trial results can lead to negative consequences that include inhibiting propagation of knowledge, limiting the understanding of how devices work, affecting conclusions of meta-analyses, and failing to acknowledge patient participation. Therefore clinical trial transparency, through publication of trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov or in manuscript form, is important. We aimed to examine clinical trial transparency in endoscopic clinical trials. METHODS: The ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched for endoscopy trials up to October 2019. Adherence to the reporting of results to the database or in publication form was recorded for each trial. RESULTS: The final analysis included 923 trials, of which 801 were completed and 122 were either terminated or suspended. Results were available either on ClinicalTrials.gov or in publication for 751/923 trials (81.4 %). Other fields have reported a publication rate of 40 %-63 %. Results were available on ClinicalTrials.gov for 168 trials (18.2 %) and in the form of a publication for 720 trails (78.0 %). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other fields in medicine, endoscopy clinical trials have a high rate of clinical trial transparency. However, there is room for improvements as close to one-fifth of trials fail to report results and 81.8 % do not report results to ClinicalTrials.gov.

Comparable Efficacy for Push Versus Pull Technique in Esophageal Food Impaction: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal food impaction (EFI) is a common GI emergency. Push and pull methods are used currently for EFI retrieval. We aim to review current available literature to compare success rates and evaluate adverse event rates of the two techniques. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Collection, KCI-Korean Journal Index, SciELO and Global Index Medicus. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated when comparing the dichotomous variables. We aimed to evaluate technical success and adverse events for EFI comparing push and pull technique on single arm and comparator analysis. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded a total of 126 articles. 18 studies with 3528 participants were included. The technical success rate was 97.5% (CI 96.6-99.2%) in the push and 88.4% (CI 72.8-98.7%) in the pull technique with no statistical difference on comparator analysis. Overall rate of adverse events was 4.03% (CI 0.9-5.0%) in the push technique and 2.22% (CI 0-2.9%) in the pull technique with no statistical difference on comparator analysis (OR 95% CI 0.464-2.782, p = 0.78, I2 = 31.54%). There was no statistical difference between rate of lacerations and perforations either between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: Both techniques have acceptable clinical outcomes which appear within standard of care. Operator experience and individual clinical scenarios should guide decision-making regarding technique selection.

Racial disparities in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) utilization in the United States: are we getting better?

BACKGROUND: We identified trends of inpatient therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the United States (US), focusing on outcomes related to specific patient demographics. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was utilized to identify all adult inpatient ERCP in the US between 2007-2018. Trends of utilization and adverse outcomes were highlighted. P-values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We noted a rising trend for total inpatient ERCP in the US from 126,921 in 2007 to 165,555 in 2018 (p = 0.0004), with a significant increase in utilization for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Despite an increasing comorbidity burden [Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score ≥ 2], the overall inpatient mortality declined from 1.56% [2007] to 1.46% [2018] without a statistically significant trend (p = 0.14). Moreover, there was a rising trend of inpatient mortality for Black and Hispanic populations, while a decline was noted for Asians. After a comparative analysis, we noted higher rates of inpatient mortality for Blacks (2.4% vs 1.82%, p = 0.0112) and Hispanics (1.17% vs 0.83%, p = 0.0052) at urban teaching hospitals between July toand September compared to the October to June study period; however, we did not find a statistically significant difference for the Asian cohort (1.9% vs 2.10%, p = 0.56). The mean length of stay (LOS) decreased from 7 days in 2007 to 6 days in 2018 (p < 0.0001), while the mean total hospital charge (THC) increased from $48,883 in 2007 to $85,909 in 2018 (p < 0.0001) for inpatient ERCPs. Compared to the 2015-2018 study period, we noted higher rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis (27.76% vs 17.25%, p < 0.0001) from 2007-2014. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic ERCP utilization and inpatient mortality were on the rise for a subset of the American minority population, including Black and Hispanics.

Continuing Medical Education Questions: May 2022.

Article Title: Evolutionary medicine perspectives: Helicobacter pylori lactose intolerance, and three hypotheses for functional and inflammatory gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders.

Gastroenterology Clinical Trials Transparency: An Analysis of Publication Rates From the ClinicalTrials.gov Database.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited information on the transparency of gastroenterology clinical trials. METHODS: The ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched for trials focused on most common gastrointestinal diseases up to August 2018. Adherence to reporting of results to the database or in publication form was recorded for each trial along with trial characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 2,429 trials included in the final analysis, 1824 (75%, 95% confidence interval: 73.4%-76.8%) had results on ClinicalTrials.gov or in the form of a publication. However, only 534 (29%) had results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. DISCUSSION: Improvement of clinical trial transparency is needed in gastroenterology.

Decreasing length of stay and inpatient mortality associated with pancreatic cancer hospitalizations: A United States national survey from 2008 to 2017.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States (US). However, there is paucity of data on pancreatic cancer hospitalizations in the US. METHODS: We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to identify all hospitalizations of pancreatic cancer from 2008 to 2017. Hospitalization characteristics, adverse outcomes, and the disease burden on the US healthcare system was highlighted and further analyzed with respect to the US population. P-values ≤0.05 were statistically significant. RESULTS: We noted an increase in the total number of pancreatic cancer hospitalizations from 37,123 in 2008 to 37,635 in 2017 (p < 0.0001), but a decline was noted for per million US population from 122 in 2008 to 116 in 2017. The 65-79 age group had the highest hospitalizations with an increasing trend from 41.6% in 2008 to 45.9% in 2017 (p < 0.0001). In 2008, a slight female predominance was noted (51.9 vs 48.1%, p < 0.0001); however, in 2017, a slight male predominance was observed (50.9 vs 49.1%, p < 0.0001). Whites made up a majority of the study population. Furthermore, emergent/urgent hospitalizations (50.7 vs 49.3%, p < 0.0001) were slightly more frequent than elective hospitalizations in 2017. The mean length of stay (LOS) decreased from 8.4 days in 2008 to 7 days in 2017 (p < 0.0001) and the all-cause inpatient mortality decreased from 10.1% in 2008 to 7.6% in 2017 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Although the total number of pancreatic cancer hospitalizations increased, there was a decline for per million US population. Additionally, mean LOS and inpatient mortality decreased between 2008 and 2017.

Safety and efficacy of a novel resection system for direct endoscopic necrosectomy of walled-off pancreas necrosis: a prospective, international, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) lacks dedicated instruments and requires repetitive and cumbersome procedures. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a new powered endoscopic debridement (PED) system designed to simultaneously resect and remove solid debris within WOPN. METHODS: This was a single-arm, prospective, multicenter, international device trial conducted from November 2018 to August 2019 at 10 sites. Patients with WOPN ≥6 cm and ≤22 cm and with >30% solid debris were enrolled. The primary endpoint was safety through 21 days after the last DEN procedure. Efficacy outcomes included clearance of necrosis, procedural time, adequacy of debridement, number of procedures until resolution, hospital stay duration, and quality of life. RESULTS: Thirty patients (mean age, 55 years; 60% men) underwent DEN with no device-related adverse events. Of 30 patients, 15 (50%) achieved complete debridement in 1 session and 20 (67%) achieved complete debridement within 2 or fewer sessions. A median of 1.5 interventions (range, 1-7) were required. Median hospital stay was 10 days (interquartile range, 22). There was an overall reduction of 91% in percent necrosis within WOPN from baseline to follow-up and 85% in collection volume. Baseline WOPN volume was positively correlated with the total number of interventions (ρ = .363, P = .049). CONCLUSIONS: The new PED system seems to be a safe and effective treatment tool for WOPN, resulting in fewer interventions and lower hospital duration when compared with published data on using conventional instruments. Randomized controlled trials comparing the PED system with conventional DEN are needed. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03694210.).

Comparison of Biliary Drainage Techniques for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage are all established techniques for drainage of malignant biliary obstruction. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was aimed at comparing all 3 modalities to each other. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple databases were searched from inception to October 2019 to identify relevant studies. All the patients were eligible to receive any one of the 3 interventions. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed using standardized tools. Outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and reintervention. Direct meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. NMA was conducted using a multivariate, consistency model with random-effects meta-regression. The GRADE approach was followed to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: The final analysis included 17 studies with 1566 patients. Direct meta-analysis suggested that EUS-guided biliary drainage had a lower reintervention rate than ERCP. NMA did not show statistically significant differences to favor any one intervention with certainty across all the outcomes. The overall certainty of evidence was found to be low to very low for all the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence did not favor any intervention for drainage of malignant biliary obstruction across all the outcomes assessed. ERCP with or without EUS should be considered first to allow simultaneous tissue acquisition and biliary drainage.