Ishaq, Sauid

Background: Histological changes induced by gluten in the duodenal mucosa of patients with non-coeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) are poorly defined. Objectives: To evaluate the structural and inflammatory features of NCGS compared to controls and coeliac disease (CeD) with milder enteropathy (Marsh I-II). Methods: Well-oriented biopsies of 262 control cases with normal gastroscopy and histologic findings, 261 CeD, and 175 NCGS biopsies from 9 contributing countries were examined. Villus height (VH, in μm), crypt depth (CrD, in μm), villus-to-crypt ratios (VCR), IELs (intraepithelial lymphocytes/100 enterocytes), and other relevant histological, serologic, and demographic parameters were quantified. Results: The median VH in NCGS was significantly shorter (600, IQR: 400–705) than controls (900, IQR: 667–1112) (p < 0.001). NCGS patients with Marsh I-II had similar VH and VCR to CeD [465 µm (IQR: 390–620) vs. 427 µm (IQR: 348–569, p = 0·176)]. The VCR in NCGS with Marsh 0 was lower than controls (p < 0.001). The median IEL in NCGS with Marsh 0 was higher than controls (23.0 vs. 13.7, p < 0.001). To distinguish Marsh 0 NCGS from controls, an IEL cut-off of 14 showed 79% sensitivity and 55% specificity. IEL densities in Marsh I-II NCGS and CeD groups were similar. Conclusion: NCGS duodenal mucosa exhibits distinctive changes consistent with an intestinal response to luminal antigens, even at the Marsh 0 stage of villus architecture.

AbstractBackground and AimEndoscopy featured water‐aided colonoscopy (WAC) as novel in the Innovation Forum in 2011. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published a modified Delphi consensus review (MDCR) that supports WAC for clinical practice in 2021. We tested the hypothesis that experience was an important predictor of WAC use, either as water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), or a combination of WI and WE.MethodsA questionnaire was sent by email to the MDCR authors with an in‐depth knowledge of WAC. They responded and also invited colleagues and trainees without in‐depth knowledge to respond. Logistic regression analysis was used with the reasons for WAC use treated as the primary outcome. Reports related to WAC post MDCR were identified.ResultsOf 100 respondents, > 80% indicated willingness to adopt and modify practice to accommodate WAC. Higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) incentivized WE use. Procedure time slots ≤ 30 and > 30 min significantly predicted WI and WE use, respectively. Co‐authors of the MDCR were significantly more likely to perform WAC (odds ratio [OR] = 7.5, P = 0.037). Unfamiliarity with (OR = 0.11, P = 0.02) and absence of good experience (OR = 0.019, P = 0.002) were associated with colonoscopists less likely to perform WAC. Reports related to WAC post MDCR revealed overall and right colon WE outcomes continued to improve. Network meta‐analyses showed that WE was superior to Cap and Endocuff. On‐demand sedation with WE shortened nursing recovery time.ConclusionsAn important predictor of WAC use was experience. Superior outcomes continued to be reported with WE.