Search

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. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The evaluation of patients with chronic watery diarrhea represents a diagnostic challenge for clinicians because organic causes, including inflammatory bowel disease, microscopic colitis, and chronic infection, must be differentiated from functional diarrhea and diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the usefulness of diagnostic tests in such patients. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID, from 1978 until April 2017. We included diagnostic test accuracy studies reporting on the use of fecal and blood tests for the evaluation of adult patients with functional diarrhea, including irritable bowel syndrome. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies II, and the certainty in the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. We calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity, and the proportion of patients with true and false positive and negative results. We evaluated the following tests: erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, fecal lactoferrin, fecal calprotectin, serologic tests for celiac disease, tests for bile acid diarrhea, the commercially available version of anti–cytolethal distending toxin B and anti-vinculin antibodies, and tests for Giardia infection. We did not evaluate breath tests for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, as they are not part of a standard diarrhea workup. Thirty-eight studies proved eligible to evaluate 1 or more of these tests. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were similar at discriminating organic from functional disease, with sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of 0.54–0.78 and 0.46–0.95 for erythrocyte sedimentation rate and 0.73 and 0.78 for C-reactive protein. Among fecal tests, fecal calprotectin in a range of 50–60 μg/g (pooled sensitivity 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–0.86; pooled specificity 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78–0.92) and fecal lactoferrin in a range of 4.0–7.25 μg/g (pooled sensitivity 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73–0.84; pooled specificity 0.93; 95%CI 0.63–0.99) presented the lowest proportion of false-negative results (low certainty in the evidence). Among tests for celiac disease, IgA tissue transglutaminase presented the best diagnostic test accuracy (sensitivity range, 0.79–0.99; specificity range, 0.90–0.99) with moderate certainty in the evidence. Among tests for bile acid diarrhea, the 75selenium homotaurocholic acid test performed better than serum fibroblast growth factor 19 and 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one, but is not available in the United States. There was insufficient evidence to recommend serologic tests for irritable bowel syndrome at this time. There are several good diagnostic tests for Giardia infection. Moderate to low certainty in the evidence indicates that available fecal and blood tests may play a role in the diagnostic workup of adult patients with functional diarrhea. At the moment, no tests are available to reliably rule in irritable bowel syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic liver diseases (CLDs), due to chronic hepatitis C; hepatitis B; nonalcoholic fatty liver diseases (NAFLD); and alcoholic liver disease, are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Early identification of patients with cirrhosis at high risk of progression to liver-related complications may facilitate timely care and improve outcomes. With risks and misclassification associated with invasive tests, such as liver biopsy, noninvasive imaging modalities for liver fibrosis assessment have gained popularity. Therefore, the American Gastroenterological Association prioritized clinical guidelines on the role of elastography in CLDs, focusing on vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE). To inform these clinical guidelines, the current technical review was developed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for diagnostic accuracy studies. This technical review addresses focused questions related to: (1) comparative diagnostic performance of VCTE and MRE relative to nonproprietary, serum-based fibrosis markers for detection of cirrhosis in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), NAFLD, and alcoholic liver diseases; (2) performance of specific VCTE-defined liver stiffness cutoffs as a test replacement strategy (to replace liver biopsy) in making key decisions in the management of patients with CLDs; and (3) performance of specific VCTE-defined liver stiffness cutoffs as a triage test to identify patients with low likelihood of harboring high-risk esophageal varices (EVs) or having clinically significant portal hypertension (for presurgical risk stratification). This technical review does not address performance of other noninvasive modalities for assessing fibrosis (eg, acoustic radiation force pulse imaging or shear wave elastography) or steatosis (controlled attenuation parameter or magnetic resonance imaging−estimated proton density fat fraction). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims Causes of inflammatory bowel diseases are not well understood and the most prominent forms, Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), are sometimes hard to distinguish. Glycosylation of IgG has been associated with CD and UC. IgG Fc-glycosylation affects IgG effector functions. We evaluated changes in IgG Fc-glycosylation associated with UC and CD, as well as with disease characteristics in different patient groups. Methods We analyzed 3441 plasma samples obtained from 2 independent cohorts of patients with CD (874 patients from Italy and 391 from the United States) or UC (1056 from Italy and 253 from the US and healthy individuals [controls]; 427 in Italy and 440 from the United States). IgG Fc-glycosylation (tryptic glycopeptides) was analyzed by liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. We analyzed associations between disease status (UC vs controls, CD vs controls, and UC vs CD) and glycopeptide traits, and associations between clinical characteristics and glycopeptide traits, using a logistic regression model with age and sex included as covariates. Results Patients with CD or UC had lower levels of IgG galactosylation than controls. For example, the odds ratio (OR) for IgG1 galactosylation in patients with CD was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.69) and for patients with UC was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71–0.92). Fucosylation of IgG was increased in patients with CD vs controls (for IgG1: OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12–1.44), but decreased in patients with UC vs controls (for IgG23: OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63–0.82). Decreased galactosylation associated with more severe CD or UC, including the need for surgery in patients with UC vs controls (for IgG1: OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54–0.89) and in patients with CD vs controls (for IgG23: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66–0.91). Conclusions In a retrospective analysis of plasma samples from patients with CD or UC, we associated levels of IgG Fc-glycosylation with disease (compared to controls) and its clinical features. These findings could increase our understanding of mechanisms of CD and UC pathogenesis and be used to develop diagnostics or guide treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), which involves measurement of drug or active metabolite levels and anti-drug antibodies, is a promising strategy that can be used to optimize inflammatory bowel disease therapeutics. It is based on the premise that there is a relationship between drug exposure and outcomes, and that considerable inter-individual variability exists in how patients metabolize the drug (pharmacokinetics) and the magnitude and duration of response to therapy (pharmacodynamics). Therefore, the American Gastroenterological Association has prioritized clinical guidelines on the role of TDM in the management of inflammatory bowel disease. To inform these clinical guidelines, this technical review was developed in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework for interventional and prognostic studies, and focused on the application of TDM for biologic therapy, specifically anti-tumor necrosis factor−α agents, and for thiopurines. Focused questions address the benefits and risks of a strategy of reactive TDM (in patients with active inflammatory bowel disease) to guide treatment changes compared with empiric treatment changes, and the benefits and risks of a strategy of routine proactive TDM (during routine clinical care in patients with quiescent disease) compared with no routine TDM. Additionally, the review addresses the benefits and risks of routine measurement of thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme activity or genotype before starting thiopurine therapy compared with empiric weight-based dosing and explores the performance of different trough drug concentrations for anti−tumor necrosis factor agents and thiopurines to inform clinical decision making when applying TDM in a reactive setting. Due to a paucity of data, this review does not address the role of TDM for more recently approved biologic agents, such as vedolizumab or ustekinumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]