Search

Liver cyst infections often necessitate long-term hospital admission and are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We conducted a modified Delphi study to reach expert consensus for a clinical decision framework. The expert panel consisted of 24 medical specialists, including 12 hepatologists, from nine countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. The Delphi had three rounds. The first round (response rate 21/24 [88%]) was an online survey with questions constructed from literature review and expert opinion, in which experts were asked about their management preferences and rated possible management strategies for seven clinical scenarios. Experts also rated 14 clinical decision-making items for relevancy and defined treatment outcomes. During the second round (response rate 13/24 [54%]), items that did not reach consensus and newly suggested themes were discussed in an online panel meeting. In the third round (response rate 16/24 [67%]), experts voted on definitions and management strategies using an online survey based on previous answers. Consensus was predefined as a vote threshold of at least 75%. We identified five subclassifications of liver cyst infection according to cyst phenotypes and patient immune status and consensus on episode definitions (new, persistent, and recurrent) and criteria for treatment success or failure was reached. The experts agreed that fever and elevated C-reactive protein are pivotal decision-making items for initiating and evaluating the management of liver cyst infections. Consensus was reached on 26 management statements for patients with liver cyst infections across multiple clinical scenarios, including two treatment algorithms, which were merged into one after comments. We provide a clinical decision framework for physicians managing patients with liver cyst infections. This framework will facilitate uniformity in the management of liver cyst infections and can constitute the basis for the development of future guidelines., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JH has received a grant from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft—German Research Foundation. JC has received support from Secretaria d'Universitats i Recerca del Departament d'Economia i Coneixement (Agency for Management of University and Research Grants 2021; SGR 01331), Instituto Carlos III (PI22/01234) co-funded by the EU; a research grant by Asociación Española Estudio del Hígado (2022–23); and consulting fees, honoraria, and support for travel or attending meetings from Astellas, Chiesi, and Novartis. MS has received a grant from the Dutch Kidney Foundation (19OK002 and 23OK1044). MCH received a research grant from Camarus Pharmaceuticals. Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy, France, received, on behalf of MR, consulting fees from Quantum Surgical. MR has received honoraria from Guerbet, Angiodynamics, AstraZeneca, General Electric, Terumo, and Servier. VV has received consulting fees from Guerbet; honoraria from Canon Medical, GE Healthcare, Roche, and Sirtex; payment for expert testimony from Bayer, Guerbet, Sirtex, Boston Scientific, and Quantum Surgical; support for attending meetings or travel from Canon Medical, GE Healthcare, Roche, and Sirtex; and is Scientific Director of European School of Radiology without financial compensation. PS has received grants from Arrowhead, Grifols, CSL Behring, Vertex, and Dicerna; consulting fees from Biomarin, Intellia, Dicerna, NovoNordisk, GSK, Ono, and Takeda; honoraria from Advanz, Sanofi, CSL Behring, Grifols, and Sobi; support for attending meetings or travel from CSL Behring, Takeda, and Biogen; participates on data and safety monitoring boards for Albireo, Dicerna, Takeda, Biomarin, Intellia, and Sobi; has a leadership role in Alpha1 Global and Alpha1-Deutschland; and received materials from Takeda. RTa received grants from Chronix Biomedical/Oncocyte; consulting fees from MSD (2022), Tiefenbacher AEG (2022), Chiesi (2023), Pierre Fabre (2023), and Chronix Biomedical/Oncocyte (2023); speaker fees from Orphalan, Biotest, Alexion, and Chiesi; is co-inventor of a patent of Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany (autoantibodies tests against HIP1R to diagnose autoimmunhepatitis in adults and children; European patent number 18789434.0); and has received provision of consumables from Innova and Euroimmun. RTo is President-elect of European Renal Association. TJGG received grants from the Dutch Digestive Foundation and Gilead for the development of mylivercoach and received travel support from AbbVie to attend International Liver Congress 2022. VC received honoraria from Ipseon and Albireo. On behalf of JPHD, Radboudumc received a research grant from AbbVie. JPHD acts as a board member of the European Reference Network RARE-Liver and principal investigator of the POSITANO study by Camarus. MAL received grants from the Dutch Digestive Foundation, Vaillant fonds, and NVGE Gastrostart. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

GASTROSWOT is a strategic analysis of the current and projected states of the different subspecialties in gastroenterology that aims to provide guidance for research, clinical, and financial planning in gastroenterology. We executed a consensus-based international strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. Four general coordinators, six field coordinators, and 12 experts participated in the study. SWOTs were provided for the following fields: neurogastroenterology, functional gastrointestinal disorders, and upper gastrointestinal diseases; inflammatory bowel disease; pancreatology and biliary diseases; endoscopy; gastrointestinal oncology; and hepatology. The GASTROSWOT analysis highlights the following in the current state of the field of gastroenterology: the incidence and complexity of several gastrointestinal diseases, including malignancies, are increasing; the COVID-19 pandemic has affected patient care on several levels; and with the advent of technical innovations in gastroenterology, a well trained workforce and strategic planning are required to optimise health-care utilisation. The analysis calls attention to the following in the future of gastroenterology: artificial intelligence and the use of big data will speed up discovery and smarter health-care provision in the field; the growth and diversification of gastroenterological specialties will improve specialised care for patients, but could promote fragmentation of care and health system inefficiencies; and furthermore, thoughtful planning is needed to reach an effective balance between the need for subspecialists and the value of general gastroenterology services., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EdM is a consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Abbott, and Mylan. WA received consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Dynacare, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Takeda. SL received speaker and advisor fees from Gilead and AbbVie, and grants from Gilead. RP is a consultant to HCL Technologies, and on the scientific advisory board at Nestlé. VKS is consultant to AbbVie and Nestlé Health Science and has received grant funding from Orgenesis and Theraly. JV is a consultant to Olympus America, and on the scientific advisory board at Aspero Medical. AC consults for, is on the advisory board of, and has received education grants from from AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, and Pfizer. The Radboud University Medical Center, on behalf of JPHD, received honoraria or research grants from Gilead and AbbVie. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Crown Copyright © 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gastrointestinal angiodysplasias are vascular malformations that often cause red blood cell transfusion-dependent anaemia. Several studies suggest that somatostatin analogues might decrease rebleeding rates, but the true effect size is unknown. We therefore aimed to investigate the efficacy of somatostatin analogues on red blood cell transfusion requirements of patients with gastrointestinal angiodysplasias and to identify subgroups that might benefit the most from somatostatin analogue therapy., Methods: We did a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane on Jan 15, 2016, with an updated search on April 25, 2021. All published randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that reported on somatostatin analogue therapy in patients with gastrointestinal angiodysplasias were eligible for screening. We excluded studies without original patient data, single case reports, small case series (ie, <10 participants), studies in which patients had a specific aetiology of gastrointestinal angiodysplasias, and studies in which somatostatin analogue therapy was initiated simultaneously with other treatment modalities. Authors of eligible studies were invited to share individual patient data. Aggregated data was used if individual patient data were not provided. The primary outcome was the mean reduction in the number of red blood cell transfusions during somatostatin analogue therapy, compared with baseline, expressed as the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and absolute mean decrease. We defined patients as either good responders (≥50% reduction in the number of red blood cell transfusions) or poor responders (<50% reduction). A mixed-effects negative binomial regression was used to account for clustering of patients and skewness in data. This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), number CRD42020213985., Findings: We identified 11 eligible studies (one randomised controlled trial and ten cohort studies) of moderate-to-high quality and obtained individual patient data from the authors of nine (82%) studies. The remaining two (18%) studies provided sufficient information in the published manuscript to extract individual patient data. In total, we analysed data from 212 patients. Somatostatin analogues reduced the number of red blood cell transfusions with an IRR of 0·18 (95% CI 0·14-0·24; p<0·0001) during a median treatment duration of 12 months (IQR 6·0-12·0) and follow-up period of 12 months (12·0-12·0), correlating with a mean absolute decrease in the number of red blood cell transfusions from 12·8 (95% CI 10·4-15·8) during baseline to 2·3 (1·9-2·9) during follow-up-ie, a reduction of 10·5 red blood cell transfusions (p<0·0001). 177 (83%) of 212 patients had a good response to somatostatin analogue therapy (defined as at least a 50% reduction in the number of red blood cell transfusions). Heterogeneity across studies was moderate (I 2 =53%; p=0·02). Location of gastrointestinal angiodysplasias in the stomach compared with angiodysplasias in the small bowel and colon (IRR interaction 1·92 [95% CI 1·13-3·26]; p=0·02) was associated with worse treatment response. Octreotide was associated with a better treatment response than lanreotide therapy (IRR interaction 2·13 [95% CI 1·12-4·04]; p=0·02). The certainty of evidence was high for the randomised controlled trial and low for the ten cohort studies. Adverse events occurred in 38 (18%) of 212 patients receiving somatostatin analogue therapy, with ten (5%) discontinuing this therapy because of adverse events. The most common adverse events were loose stools (seven [3%] of 212), cholelithiasis (five [2%]), flatulence (four [2%]), and administration site reactions (erythema, five [2%])., Interpretation: Somatostatin analogue therapy is safe and effective in most patients with red blood cell transfusion-dependent bleeding due to gastrointestinal angiodysplasias. Somatostatin analogue therapy is more effective in patients with angiodysplasias located in the small bowel and colon, and octreotide therapy seems to be more effective than lanreotide therapy., Funding: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and the Radboud University Medical Center., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GH has received research funding from Health Research Board Ireland. JPHD has received research funding from Gilead to support hepatitis C elimination in the Netherlands. EJMvG has received research funding from Mylan, Boston Scientific, and Olympus; and served as a consultant for MTW-Endoskopie. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous fluid, pancreatic stents, or combinations of these have been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, but the comparative efficacy of these treatments remains unclear. Our aim was to do an exploratory network meta-analysis of previous RCTs to systematically compare the direct and indirect evidence and rank NSAIDs, intravenous fluids, pancreatic stents, or combinations of these to determine the most efficacious method of prophylaxis for post-ERCP pancreatitis., Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register from inception to Nov 15, 2020, for full-text RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of NSAIDs, pancreatic stents, intravenous fluids, or combinations of these for post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention in adult (aged ≥18 years) patients undergoing ERCP. Summary data from intention-to-treat analyses were extracted from published reports. We analysed incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis across studies using network meta-analysis under the frequentist framework, obtaining pairwise odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for the confidence rating. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020172606., Findings: We identified 1503 studies, of which 55 RCTs evaluating 20 interventions in 17 062 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The mean incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the placebo or active control group was 12·2% (95% CI 11·4-13·0). Normal saline plus rectal indometacin (OR 0·02, 95% CI 0·00-0·40), intramuscular diclofenac 75 mg (0·24, 0·09-0·69), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate plus rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·30, 0·16-0·55), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate (0·31, 0·12-0·78), 5-7 Fr pancreatic stents (0·35, 0·26-0·48), rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·36, 0·25-0·52), 3 Fr pancreatic stents (0·47, 0·26-0·87), and rectal indometacin 100 mg (0·60, 0·50-0·73) were all more efficacious than placebo for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in pairwise comparisons. 5-7 Fr pancreatic stents (0·59, 0·41-0·84), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate plus rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·49, 0·26-0·94), intravenous standard-volume normal saline plus rectal indometacin 100 mg (0·04, 0·00-0·66), and rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·59, 0·40-0·89) were more efficacious than rectal indometacin 100 mg. The GRADE confidence rating was low to moderate for 98·3% of the pairwise comparisons., Interpretation: This systematic review and network meta-analysis summarises the available literature on NSAIDs, pancreatic stents, intravenous fluids, or combinations of these for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Rectal diclofenac 100 mg is the best performing rectal NSAID in this network meta-analysis. Combinations of prophylaxis might be more effective, but there is little evidence. These findings help to establish prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis for future research and practice, and could reduce costs and increase adoption of prophylaxis., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JPHD reports grants from Gilead, outside the submitted work. BJE reports personal fees from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. MK is an advisory board member and consultant for Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. ANK is an equity holder for Apollo Endosurgery, outside the submitted work. EJMvG reports grants from Mylan and Olympus and personal fees from MTW-Endoskopie, outside the submitted work. VKS reports personal fees from AbbVie, grants from Orgenesis and Theraly, and is an advisory board participant for Cook Medical, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is considered as standard of care to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. It has been suggested that aggressive hydration might further reduce this risk. Guidelines already recommend aggressive hydration in patients who are unable to receive rectal NSAIDs, although it is laborious and time consuming. We aimed to evaluate the added value of aggressive hydration in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs., Methods: FLUYT, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial done across 22 Dutch hospitals, included patients aged between 18 and 85 years with moderate to high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based module with varying block sizes to a combination of aggressive hydration and rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin; aggressive hydration group) or rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin) alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified according to treatment centre. Aggressive hydration comprised 20 mL/kg intravenous Ringer's lactate solution within 60 min from the start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg per h for 8 h. The control group received normal intravenous saline with a maximum of 1·5 mL/kg per h and 3 L per 24 h. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis and was analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (including all patients who underwent randomisation and an ERCP and for whom data regarding the primary outcome were available). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13659155., Findings: Between June 5, 2015, and June 6, 2019, 826 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 388 in the aggressive hydration group and 425 in the control group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 30 (8%) patients in the aggressive hydration group and in 39 (9%) patients in the control group (relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·53-1·33, p=0·53). There were no differences in serious adverse events, including hydration-related complications (relative risk 0·99, 95% CI 0·59-1·64; p=1·00), ERCP-related complications (0·90, 0·62-1·31; p=0·62), intensive care unit admission (0·37, 0·07-1·80; p=0·22), and 30-day mortality (0·95, 0·50-1·83; p=1·00)., Interpretation: Aggressive periprocedural hydration did not reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with moderate to high risk of developing this complication who routinely received prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. Therefore, the burden of laborious and time-consuming aggressive periprocedural hydration to further reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis is not justified., Funding: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Radboud University Medical Center., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of obeticholic acid for patients with primary biliary cholangitis using 3-year interim data from the 5-year open-label extension of the pivotal phase 3 POISE trial., Methods: In the double-blind phase of POISE, 217 patients with primary biliary cholangitis with inadequate response to or intolerance to ursodeoxycholic acid were randomised to receive placebo, obeticholic acid 5 to 10 mg, or obeticholic acid 10 mg once daily for 12 months. During the open-label extension phase, patients received variable, adjusted doses of obeticholic acid. Markers of cholestasis and liver injury, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and total and direct bilirubin were evaluated, and safety was assessed for up to 48 months of treatment with obeticholic acid. All analyses in the open-label extension were done in the safety population, defined as any patient randomised in the double-blind phase who received at least one dose of obeticholic acid during the open-label extension. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01473524) and with EudraCT (2011-004728-36)., Findings: 193 patients were treated during the open-label extension. In this 3-year interim analysis, ALP concentrations were significantly reduced compared with baseline at 12 months (mean change -105·2 U/L [SD 87·6]), 24 months (-101·0 U/L [98·5]), 36 months (-108·6 U/L [95·7]), and 48 months (-95·6 U/L [121·1]; p<0·0001 for all yearly time points). Total bilirubin concentrations were stabilised, with significant reductions versus baseline at 12 months (mean change -0·9 μmol/L [SD 4·1]; p=0·0042) and 48 months (-0·8 μmol/L [3·8]; p=0·016). Stabilisation was also noted for direct bilirubin, with a significant change from baseline at 12 months (mean change -0·5 μmol/L [SD 3·0]; p=0·021). However, changes in total and direct bilirubin were not significant at other time points. Obeticholic acid was generally well tolerated, with pruritus (149 [77%] patients) and fatigue (63 [33%]) being the most common adverse events. No serious adverse events were considered related to obeticholic acid., Interpretation: Interim analyses suggest long-term efficacy and safety of obeticholic acid in patients with primary biliary cholangitis who are intolerant to or inadequately responsive to ursodeoxycholic acid., Funding: Intercept Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)