Faculty Bibliography

The treatment armamentarium for inflammatory bowel disease has expanded rapidly in the past several years with new biologic and small molecule-agents approved for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. This has made treatment selection more challenging with limited but evolving guidance as to where to position each medication. In this review, we discuss the efficacy data for each agent approved in the United States by reviewing their phase 3 trial data and other comparative effectiveness studies. In addition, safety considerations and use in special populations are summarized with proposed algorithms for positioning therapies. The aim is to provide a synopsis of high-impact data and aid in outpatient treatment decision-making for patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Ulcerative colitis is one of the two main subtypes of inflammatory bowel disease, along with Crohn's disease. Understanding the clinical and endoscopic features of ulcerative colitis is critical in achieving a timely diagnosis. An initial evaluation includes assessing clinical symptoms, inflammatory markers, endoscopic findings, and determination of the presence or absence of extraintestinal manifestations. Initial disease management should consider disease severity at the time of diagnosis as well as prognostication, or the determination of risk factors present with a high likelihood of severe disease in the future. Once appropriate therapy has been initiated, ongoing monitoring is crucial, which may include repeated clinical assessments over time, measuring noninvasive markers of inflammation, and endoscopic and histologic reevaluation. An important aspect of disease monitoring in ulcerative colitis is dysplasia surveillance; there are many patient-specific risk factors which influence surveillance strategies. Utilizing appropriate surveillance techniques is necessary for early detection of dysplasia and colorectal neoplasia.

BACKGROUND:To compare fully covered bi-flanged metal stents (BFMS) and lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage/debridement of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). METHODS:Patients with WON managed by EUS-guided therapy were divided into those who underwent: 1) drainage using BFMS; and 2) drainage using LAMS and scheduled direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN). Clinical success (resolution of the WON), technical success (successful stent placement), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. RESULTS:387 patients underwent WON endoscopic drainage, 205 using BFMS and 182 using LAMS. The clinical success in the BFMS or LAMS groups were similar (197 [96.1%] vs. 174 [95.6%]; P=0.81). Median number of procedures required for WON resolution was significantly lower in BFMS compared to LAMS (2 vs. 3, P<0.001). Technical success for stent placement was similar in BFMS and LAMS groups (203 [99%] vs. 180 [99%], P=0.90). Procedure-related AEs were similar in the BFMS and LAMS groups (19 [9.3%] vs. 20 [10.9%], P=0.61). Stent dysfunction with occluding debris was higher in the BFMS group compared to LAMS group (21 [10.2 %] vs. 11 [5.9%], P=0.04). The migration rate was higher in the BFMS group than in the LAMS group (15 [7.3%] vs. 3 [1.6%]; P<0.001). DEN was required in 23 [11.2%] patients in the BFMS group after lack of WON resolution by conservative means. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:BFMS with a "step-up approach" and LAMS with scheduled DEN are both safe and effective for EUS-guided drainage/debridement of WON.

OBJECTIVE:People who use drugs (PWUD) face increased risk of exposure to COVID-19, but also elevated risk associated from injection drug use. We describe factors underlying their increased risk and identify mechanisms for reducing or minimizing rates of COVID-19 transmission and other health outcomes. METHODS:Our commentary draws upon empirical data, governmental and other reports, and field-based unpublished data from our own studies to inform our conclusion and recommendations. RESULTS:Co-morbid health conditions (eg, diabetes), structural challenges (eg, homelessness, criminal justice involvement), stigma (eg, social devaluation, discrediting), and syndemic clustering of of overdose, HCV, and HIV among PWUD are exacerbated by COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS:Beyond the many challenges all people face to remain safe and healthy during the COVID-19 pandemic, PWUD face additional barriers to remaining safe not only from COVID-19 but from negative health outcomes associated with their living environments, socioeconomic positions, and injection drug use. Collaborative efforts among governmental agencies, health providers, SSPs, CBOs, and other agencies providing services to PWUD is essential to the development of programs and services to meet the many needs of PWUD, which have been particularly accentuated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND:Endoscopic placement of hilar stents is an accepted palliative therapy for patients with advanced, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma. However, whether unilateral versus bilateral stent placement provides optimal relief continues to be a subject of debate. The aim of this study was to compare the technical and clinical outcomes in patients with inoperable cholangiocarcinoma who received unilateral or bilateral self-expanding metal stents (SEMS). METHODS:We conducted a multicenter, international retrospective study of 187 patients with cholangiocarcinoma who received unilateral or bilateral SEMS. Outcomes included, but were not limited to, technical success, clinical success, adverse events, stent occlusion, and survival time. Results were further stratified based on the Bismuth classification. RESULTS:Fifty patients received unilateral stents and 137 patients received bilateral stents. All patients achieved technical success. The clinical success rates were 86% for unilateral stents and 82.5% for bilateral stents (P>0.99). Clinical success was not statistically different for either group when stratified by the Bismuth classification (P=0.62 and P=0.72 respectively). There were significantly more adverse events in the bilateral stents group (11.7% vs. 0%, P=0.007). There was no greater risk of stent occlusion when bilateral stents were used (unadjusted P=0.71, adjusted P=0.81). There was a greater risk of death for patients who received bilateral SEMS (hazard ratio 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.09-2.89; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Unilateral and bilateral drainage had similar technical and clinical success rates. However, bilateral stents had a higher risk of death and more adverse events. Therefore, unilateral SEMS placement is sufficient for relief of biliary obstruction secondary to cholangiocarcinoma.

Background:The significance of a family history of esophageal adenocarcinoma in the progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's esophagus has not been thoroughly evaluated. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the presence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in a first-degree relative in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients with Barrett's esophagus at a tertiary care center undergoing radiofrequency ablation. Family history, demographics, and pathology and endoscopy reports were assessed in all patients. Findings:Three hundred and one patients with Barrett's esophagus were assessed. Nineteen patients who had a diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma on index endoscopy were excluded. Nineteen (6.7%) patients had a first-degree relative with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Four (21.1%) of these patients progressed to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Of patients without first-degree relative with esophageal adenocarcinoma 22/263 (8.7%) progressed to esophageal adenocarcinoma. In a logistic regression model adjusted for sex and the number of radiofrequency ablation treatments, we found that family history of esophageal adenocarcinoma was a significant independent predictor of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (odds ratio = 5.55, 95% confidence interval: 1.47-20.0). Conclusion:Our study indicates that Barrett's esophagus patients with a first-degree family member with esophageal adenocarcinoma are at 5.5-fold higher risk for disease progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Family history of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus patients should be considered in patient surveillance and radiofrequency ablation treatment, beyond recommended guidelines.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Per-oral pancreatoscopy can be used for both evaluation and treatment of pancreatic duct stones during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, evaluating and treating pancreatic duct strictures of indeterminate etiology, and visual inspection and direct biopsy of pancreatic duct mucosa for diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). We aim to describe the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of pancreatoscopy in a large, multicenter series of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A multicenter retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent per-oral pancreatoscopy at 2 large tertiary-care medical centers. Review of relevant medical records, laboratory data, imaging studies, endoscopic procedure notes, telephone follow-up notes, and progress notes was performed. RESULTS:Thirty-three patients underwent 41 pancreatoscopy procedures. Indications included: 20 (48.8%) for diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct stones, 16 (39%) for investigation of IPMN, and 5 (12.2%) for evaluation of pancreatic duct strictures.In 20 procedures performed for stone disease, complete pancreatic duct clearance was achieved in 17 of 20 (85%) cases. Strictures were successfully dilated in 5 of 5 (100%) procedures. Direct visualization and biopsy demonstrated IPMN in 11 of 11 (100%) cases. Adverse events occurred in 3 of 41 (7.3%) of procedures, all of which were mild. CONCLUSIONS:In this large series, we demonstrate that in patients with difficult to manage stone disease, strictures and possible malignant ductal pathology, pancreatoscopy is an effective and safe tool that can facilitate both diagnosis and effective therapy. Adverse events in our study were mild and within acceptable limits, further demonstrating that this is a safe procedure that should be offered to appropriate patients.