Singh, Siddharth

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) but do not account for competing mortality unrelated to esophageal cancer (EC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate EC and non-EC mortality risk in BE patients. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies reporting mortality in BE. We included population-based studies providing standardized mortality ratio (SMR). The primary outcome was SMR from all causes and EC and non-EC etiologies. SMR was calculated by dividing the observed mortality over the expected mortality. Logarithmic form of SMRs was pooled using random-effects model. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,826 articles, of which 7 studies (n = 34,454) were included. All-cause mortality was elevated in BE patients compared with population controls (pooled SMR 1.24, 95% confident interval [CI] 1.01–1.53) driven in part by increased EC mortality risk (SMR 8.98, 95 CI 5.12–15.77). The mortality risk was still increased but attenuated after excluding EC mortality (SMR 1.21, 95% CI 1–1.46). There was no increased mortality risk of non-EC malignancies (SMR 1.22, 95% CI 0.82–1.82) or mortality due to noncancer etiologies (SMR 1.13, 95% CI 0.90–1.43). Death due to cardiovascular diseases was higher in BE (SMR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.33). BE patients were 10 times more likely to die from noncancer etiologies than EC (risk ratio 10.71, 95% CI 5.98–19.16). Subgroup analysis of studies that excluded prevalent EC at baseline (3 studies) also showed increased all-cause (SMR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07–1.18) and EC mortality (SMR 4.7, 95% CI 3.58–6.17) among BE patients. DISCUSSION: BE patients exhibit a higher all-cause mortality, driven in part by risk of EC mortality. A personalized approach to surveillance, mitigating risk of EC while recognizing the broader mortality risks, is warranted.

Abstract Background and Aims Over 10% of patients with Crohn’s disease require permanent ileostomy. We aimed to summarize the existing data on diagnosis, definitions of recurrence, and management of Crohn’s disease patients with permanent ileostomy. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to February 6, 2024. Randomized controlled trials, cohort and cross-sectional studies, and case series of more than 5 patients reporting on postoperative recurrence or the need for surgery in patients with Crohn’s disease and permanent ileostomy were included. Search results were independently screened, and full text of all titles meeting eligibility criteria was obtained. Outcomes of interest included diagnostic techniques, recurrence definitions, and management approaches. We estimated pooled rates (with 95% confidence interval [CI]) of recurrence. Results Thirty cohort studies including 2055 Crohn’s patients with permanent ileostomy were included (53% female, median age at the time of ileostomy creation 32 years, the most common reason for ileostomy was refractory disease). The postoperative recurrence rate was 27% (95% CI, 21.3–33.3, 26 studies, 451/1805 patients). Modalities for diagnosis of Crohn’s disease recurrence were symptoms (15 studies), endoscopy (4 studies), histology from endoscopic biopsies (2 studies), imaging (5 studies), and surgery (22 studies). The reported definitions of recurrence for each modality were heterogeneous. Conclusions There is a lack of standardized monitoring tools and criteria for diagnosing recurrence in patients with Crohn’s disease and permanent ileostomy. The results of this systematic review will form the basis of a global expert recommendation exercise focused on developing management standards and trial endpoints for this condition.

INTRODUCTION: Pouchitis and Crohn's-like disease of the pouch (CLDP) are common in patients who undergo ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. We conducted separate systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of available interventions to prevent and treat pouchitis and CLDP. METHODS: Through systematic literature reviews, we identified studies that evaluated the effectiveness of probiotics, antibiotics, 5-aminosalicylates, nonsystemic oral corticosteroids, and advanced therapies for prevention and treatment of pouchitis and CLDP for meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were occurrence of pouchitis for pouchitis prevention and clinical response for pouchitis and CLDP treatment. We estimated the relative effectiveness of these interventions using the existing placebo response rates or hypothetical spontaneous improvement rates derived from clinical trials of pouchitis, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's disease. RESULTS: Probiotics were effective for primary (relative risk [RR] 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05–0.62) and secondary prevention (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.09–0.34) of pouchitis. Antibiotics were effective for treatment of acute and chronic pouchitis (12 cohorts; RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.34–2.01; response rate 65%; 95% CI 52–75) with ciprofloxacin and metronidazole-based regimens being more effective than rifaximin. Advanced therapies were effective for treatment of chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis (31 cohorts; RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.28–2.56; response rate 50%; 95% CI 43–57) and CLDP (10 cohorts; RR 2.49; 95% CI 1.87–3.73; response rate 74%; 95% CI 68–79) without significant difference between classes. DISCUSSION: Multiple medical interventions are effective for prevention and treatment of pouchitis and CLDP. Given the overall low quality of data, further research is needed to confirm these findings.

SummaryBackgroundThe optimal ulcerative colitis biopsy protocol is unclear.AimTo evaluate the number of biopsies required to accurately assess microscopic disease activity in ulcerative colitisMethodsBiopsies from patients with ≥4 rectosigmoid samples, and clinical and endoscopic data, were retrospectively obtained from a prospective biobank. Histology and endoscopic videos were read blindly. A 4‐biopsy Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI) reference score, consisting of the worst item‐level ratings from four biopsies, was compared to 1‐, 2‐ and 3‐biopsy estimates. Agreement was determined using bivariate errors‐in‐variable regression analysis (acceptance interval: ±8.25). Endoscopic activity and disease location subgroup analyses were also performed.ResultsForty‐six patients had ≥4 rectosigmoid biopsies available (N = 287). The 2‐biopsy (tolerance interval: −7.66, 4.79) and 3‐biopsy (tolerance interval: −4.86, 3.46) RHI scores demonstrated acceptable agreement with 4‐biopsy scores. One‐biopsy scores demonstrated unacceptable agreement (tolerance interval: −13.99, 7.78). Mean RHI scores using the 2‐, 3‐ and 4‐biopsy approaches were similar (6.1 ± 9.6 P = 0.36; 6.8 ± 10.5, P = 0.7; 7.5 ± 11.2), whereas the 1‐biopsy estimate was lower (4.4 ± 8.1, P = 0.06). Histological remission rates were identical for the 2‐, 3‐ and 4‐biopsy methods (65.2%, P = 1.0). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that three biopsies were required in patients with endoscopically active disease. Sampling additional colonic locations yielded lower histological remission rates compared to rectosigmoid sampling alone (33.3% vs 61.9%, P = 0.1).ConclusionsA minimum of two — conservatively, three — biopsies are required to reliably assess disease activity in a single colonic segment using the RHI. Further studies are needed of endoscopically active patients and sampling locations. These results have implications for biopsy strategies in clinical trials and practice.

INTRODUCTION: Rapidity of symptom resolution informs treatment choice in patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing early symptomatic remission with approved therapies. METHODS: Through a systematic literature review to December 31, 2022, we identified randomized trials in adult outpatients with moderate-severe UC treated with approved therapies (tumor necrosis factor α antagonists, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, janus kinase inhibitors, or ozanimod), compared with each other or placebo, reporting rates of symptomatic remission (based on partial Mayo score, with resolution of rectal bleeding and near-normalization of stool frequency) at weeks 2, 4, and/or 6. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach and estimated relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval values. RESULTS: On network meta-analysis, upadacitinib was more effective than all agents in achieving symptomatic remission at weeks 2 (range of RR, 2.85–6.27), 4 (range of RR, 1.78–2.37), and 6 (range of RR, 1.84–2.79). Tumor necrosis factor α antagonists and filgotinib, but not ustekinumab and vedolizumab, were more effective than ozanimod in achieving symptomatic remission at week 2, but not at weeks 4 and 6. With approximately 10% placebo-treated patients achieving symptomatic remission at 2 weeks, we estimated 68%, 22%, 23.7%, 23.9%, 22.2%, 18.4%, 15.7%, and 10.9% of upadacitinib-, filgotinib-, infliximab-, adalimumab-, golimumab-, ustekinumab-, vedolizumab-, and ozanimod-treated patients would achieve early symptomatic remission, ustekinumab and vedolizumab achieving rapid remission only in biologic-naïve patients. DISCUSSION: In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, upadacitinib was most effective in achieving early symptomatic remission, whereas ozanimod was relatively slower acting.

Background: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is associated with poor outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Objectives: We conducted a nationally representative cohort study to evaluate the impact of recurrent CDI (rCDI)-related hospitalization on longitudinal unplanned healthcare utilization in patients with IBD. Design: This was a retrospective cohort study that utilized the 2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). Methods: We identified 13,446 patients with IBD, hospitalized at least twice from January to June 2017 and followed through December 2017; of these, 1,148 had CDI-related hospitalizations. We compared the annual burden of hospitalization and IBD-related surgery in IBD patients with rCDI-related admission versus single CDI-related admission (primary reference), and those with one or more CDI-related admission versus no CDI-related admission (secondary reference). Results: There were no significant differences in risk and burden of unplanned healthcare utilization (time spent in-hospital, 27 days versus 27 days, p = 0.62), 6-month readmission (63% versus 64.3%, p = 0.8) or IBD-related surgery in patients with recurrent (two or more) CDI-related hospitalizations versus single CDI-related admission. However, patients with ⩾1 CDI-related admission versus no CDI admissions experienced higher rate of 6-month readmission (61.1% versus 55.7%, p<.001), total days spent in the hospital per year (median: 26 days versus 21 days, p<.001), total cost across all hospitalizations per year ($212,524 versus $184,384, p < 0.01), and inpatient mortality (3.28% versus 1.81%, p = 0.01), without an increase in risk of IBD-related surgery (6.7% versus 6.4%, p = 0.79). Conclusion: While patients with IBD hospitalized for CDI have poor longitudinal inpatient outcomes, recurrent admissions for CDI may not increase risk of adverse outcomes compared to one-time admission.

Background: Prolonged symptoms after COVID-19 are an important concern due to the large numbers affected by the pandemic. Objectives: To ascertain the frequency of gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations as part of long GI COVID. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting GI manifestations in long COVID was performed. Data Sources and Methods: Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science) were searched till 21 December 2021 to identify studies reporting frequency of GI symptoms in long COVID. We included studies reporting overall GI manifestations or individual GI symptoms as part of long COVID. We excluded pediatric studies and those not providing relevant information. We calculated the pooled frequency of various symptoms in all patients with COVID-19 and also in those with long COVID using the inverse variance approach. All analysis was done using R version 4.1.1 using packages ‘meta’ and ‘metafor’. Results: A total of 50 studies were included. The frequencies of GI symptoms were 0.12 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.06–0.22, I 2 = 99%] and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.10–0.41, I 2 = 97%) in patients with COVID-19 and those with long COVID, respectively. The frequencies of abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, loss of appetite, and loss of taste were 0.14 (95% CI, 0.04–0.38, I 2 = 96%), 0.06 (95% CI, 0.03–0.11, I 2 = 98%), 0.20 (95% CI, 0.08–0.43, I 2 = 98%), and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.10–0.27, I 2 = 95%), respectively, after COVID-19. The frequencies of diarrhea, dyspepsia, and irritable bowel syndrome were 0.10 (95% CI, 0.04–0.23, I 2 = 98%), 0.20 (95% CI, 0.06–0.50, I 2 = 97%), and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.06–0.37, I 2 = 96%), respectively. Conclusion: GI symptoms in patients were seen in 12% after COVID-19 and 22% as part of long COVID. Loss of appetite, dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, loss of taste, and abdominal pain were the five most common GI symptoms of long COVID. Significant heterogeneity and small number of studies for some of the analyses are limitations of the systematic review.