Kassab, Lena L.

Abstract Background and study aims Despite the clinical efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), postoperative symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains a major concern. While it is known that length of the gastric myotomy affects postoperative GERD, the clinical relevance of variation in esophageal myotomy length is not well known. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes of short versus standard myotomy length in patients with achalasia. Patients and methods We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2020 to identify studies that reported on outcomes of achalasia patients who underwent short compared with standard esophageal myotomy. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratio (OR) of clinical success, GERD outcomes, and adverse events with the two techniques. Results 5 studies with 474 patients were included in the final analysis (short myotomy group 214, standard myotomy group 260). There was no difference in clinical success (OR 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.54–2.52; I2 0 %; P = 0.69), postoperative symptomatic GERD (OR 0.87, 95 %CI 0.44–1.74; I2 29 %; P = 0.70), and overall adverse events (OR 0.52, 95 %CI 0.19–1.38; I2 40 %; P = 0.19), between the two groups. Incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis as determined by endoscopy was lower in the short myotomy group (OR 0.50, 95 %CI 0.24–1.03; I2 0 %; P = 0.06). Conclusion Our analysis showed that performing POEM with short esophageal myotomy in achalasia was as safe and effective as standard myotomy, with lower incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis.

Background: Pouchitis is the most common long-term complication after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with ulcerative colitis. Those with ≥3 episodes of pouchitis/year and symptoms despite antibiotics are considered to have chronic antibiotic refractory pouchitis (CARP). While several agents including probiotics, steroids and immunomodulators have been used, treatment of CARP remains challenging. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the safety and efficacy of various biological agents in treatment of CARP. Methods: Multiple databases were searched through June 2020 for studies that reported the efficacy and safety of biological therapy including antitumor necrosis factor-alpha agents [infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA)], vedolizumab (VDZ), and ustekinumab in CARP. We excluded studies on Crohn’s like and/or other inflammatory complications of the pouch. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled rates of clinical as well as endoscopic improvement and remission. Results: We included 15 studies with 311 patients in our final analysis. Ninety-two patients were treated with IFX, 42 with ADA, 144 with VDZ and 33 with ustekinumab. Pooled rate of clinical improvement was 71.4%, 58.2%, 47.9% and clinical remission was 65.7%, 31%, 47.4% with IFX, ADA, and VDZ, respectively. Pooled rate of endoscopic improvement was achieved in 61.2% patients treated with VDZ while endoscopic remission was achieved in 70.3% patients treated with IFX. Adverse events were reported in 3.9% patients. Conclusion: Biologic therapy is safe and effective in the treatment of CARP.

Abstract Background and study aims Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are effective medical therapy options for gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, 20 % to 40 % of patients report symptoms despite taking daily PPI. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF2) and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) are less invasive options for the treatment of refractory GERD and are increasingly gaining popularity. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases to identify relevant studies. Our primary aim was to compare the efficacy of both interventions reported as improvement in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) score, overall patient satisfaction, improvement in post-procedure regurgitation, and fraction of patients completely off PPI therapy at follow up. Results Twenty-four studies with 1942 patients were included in the final analysis. Both MSA and TIF2 had comparable technical success and clinical success based on improvement in GERD-HRQL scores i. e. 98.8 % (CI 95.6,99.7) vs 98.5 % (CI 95.7,99.5) and 80.4 % (CI 66,89.6) vs 77.7 % (CI 64.1,87.2), respectively. A significantly greater proportion of patients reported improvement in regurgitation, i. e. 91.1 % (CI 83.8,95.3) vs 73.1 % (CI 62.5,81.7) and were able to completely discontinue PPI therapy with MSA compared to TIF2 i. e. 91.3 % (CI 81.5,96.2) vs 63.8 % (CI 51.6,74.4). Patients’ BMI and presence of a hiatal hernia did not have any effect on procedural outcomes. Conclusion Both procedures performed at par when comparing clinical success in terms of improvement in GERD-HRQL scores. In terms of overall patient satisfaction, post procedure regurgitation and cumulative number of patients off PPI therapy, MSA outperforms TIF2.

Abtract Background and study aims Endoscopic and surgical techniques have been utilized for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Enteral stenting (ES) is an established technique with high clinical success and low morbidity rate. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel approach that aims to provide sustained palliation of GOO. We conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness in terms of clinical and technical success, as well as the safety profile of EUS-GE and ES. Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2020 to identify studies that reported on safety and effectiveness of EUS-GE in comparison to ES. Pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AEs) were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I2% and 95 % confidence interval. Results Five studies including 659 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled rate of technical and clinical success for EUS-GE was 95.2 % (CI 87.2-.98.3, I2 = 42) and 93.3 % (CI 84.4–97.3, I2 = 59) while for ES it was 96.9 % (CI 90.9–99, I2 = 64) and 85.6 % (CI 73–92.9, I2 = 85), respectively. Pooled rate of re-intervention was significantly lower with EUS-GE i. e. 4 % (CI 1.8–8.7, I2 = 35) compared to ES, where it was 23.6 % (CI 17.5–31, I2 = 35), p = 0.001. Pooled rates of overall and major AEs were comparable between the two techniques. Conclusion EUS-GE is comparable in terms of technical and clinical effectiveness and has a similar safety profile when compared to ES for palliation of GOO.

Abstract Background Data on efficacy of hepatitis-B vaccine (HBV) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is limited. Our aim was to review the literature and perform meta-analysis of available studies to quantify efficacy of HBV in patients with IBD. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (inception to July 2020) to identify studies evaluating efficacy of HBV in patients with IBD. Random effects model was used to calculate the pooled rates and I2 percentage values were used to assess the heterogeneity. Results A total of 14 studies (2375 patients) were included. Four data sets were available from 2 studies that compared HBV response in patients with IBD against healthy controls. The pooled odds ratio of HBV response in IBD patients was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.05–0.33, P = 0.001). The pooled proportion of adequate immune response (AIR) was 64% (95% CI, 55–72.1, P = 0.003) from 13 data sets, and effective immune response (EIR) was 39.7% (95% CI, 30.7–49.5, P = 0.04) from 10 data sets. Conclusion Patients with IBD on immunosuppression demonstrated significantly reduced HBV response as compared with general population.