Gut
-
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on provision of endoscopy services globally as staff and real estate were repurposed. As we begin to recover from the pandemic, a cohesive international approach is needed, and guidance on how to resume endoscopy services safely to avoid unintended harm from diagnostic delays. The aim of these guidelines is to provide consensus recommendations that clinicians can use to facilitate the swift and safe resumption of endoscopy services. ⋯ The statements were categorised as pre-endoscopy, during endoscopy and postendoscopy addressing relevant areas of practice, such as screening, personal protective equipment, appropriate environments for endoscopy and infection control precautions, particularly in areas of high disease prevalence. Recommendations for testing of patients and for healthcare workers, appropriate locations of donning and doffing areas and social distancing measures before endoscopy are unique and not dealt with by any other guidelines. This international consensus using a modified Delphi method to produce a series of best practice recommendations to aid the safe resumption of endoscopy services globally in the era of COVID-19.
-
The current coronavirus pandemic is an ongoing global health crisis due to COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Although COVID-19 leads to little or mild flu-like symptoms in the majority of affected patients, the disease may cause severe, frequently lethal complications such as progressive pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome and organ failure driven by hyperinflammation and a cytokine storm syndrome. This situation causes various major challenges for gastroenterology. ⋯ Another highly relevant question is how to deal with immunosuppression and immunomodulation during the current pandemic in patients with IBD and whether immunosuppression affects the progress of COVID-19. Here, the current understanding of the pathophysiology of COVID-19 is reviewed with special reference to immune cell activation. Moreover, the potential implications of these new insights for immunomodulation and biological therapy in IBD are discussed.
-
Over half of patients with IBS have either diarrhoea (IBS-D) or a mixed stool pattern (IBS-M). The relative efficacy of licenced pharmacological therapies is unclear in the absence of head-to-head trials. We conducted a network meta-analysis to resolve this uncertainty. ⋯ In a network meta-analysis of RCTs of pharmacological therapies for IBS-D and IBS-M, we found all drugs to be superior to placebo, but alosetron and ramosetron appeared to be the most effective.
-
Opioids are increasingly prescribed in the West and have deleterious GI consequences. Pharmacological therapies to treat opioid-induced constipation (OIC) are available, but their relative efficacy is unclear. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to address this deficit in current knowledge. ⋯ In network meta-analysis, naloxone and naldemedine appear to be the most efficacious treatments for OIC. Naloxone was the safest of these agents.
-
Colorectal cancer (CRC), although a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, has seen a declining incidence and mortality in countries with programmatic screening. Faecal occult blood testing and endoscopic approaches are the predominant screening methods currently. The discovery of the adenoma-carcinoma sequence and a greater understanding of the genetic and epigenetic changes that drive the formation of CRC have contributed to innovative research to identify molecular markers for highly accurate, non-invasive screening tests for CRC. ⋯ The development of a clinically useful stool DNA test has required numerous technical advances, including optimisation in DNA stabilisation, the development of assays with high analytical sensitivity, and the identification of specific and broadly informative molecular markers. A multitarget stool DNA test, which combines mutant and methylated DNA markers and a faecal immunochemical test, recently performed favourably in a large cross-sectional validation study and has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the screening of asymptomatic, average-risk individuals. The ultimate way in which molecular marker screening assays will be used in clinical practice will require additional studies to determine optimal screening intervals, factors affecting compliance, management of false-positive results, and the use of these assays in high-risk populations, as well as other considerations.