Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, more commonly known as long COVID, has emerged as a major health problem. The pathogenesis of long COVID is unknown, but among the leading hypotheses is viral persistence. We aimed to investigate whether the use of the SARS-CoV-2 antiviral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir improved long COVID symptoms. METHODS:We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial involving adults who had developed persistent symptoms (≥12 weeks) associated with three major symptom phenotypes (cognitive, autonomic, or exercise) after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection at 69 US sites. Participants were eligible if they were 18 years or older and had a previous suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, as defined by the Pan American Health Organization. Eligible participants were also required to have either at least two moderate symptoms from the same phenotype or one severe phenotype-associated symptom, as identified with the Cluster Targeted COVID-19 Symptom Questions. Participants were randomly allocated in a double-blind manner in a 1:1:1 ratio using permuted blocks of size 30 to receive either 15 days of active intervention followed by 10 days of placebo (300 mg nirmatrelvir-100 mg ritonavir twice daily, then 100 mg ritonavir-placebo); 25 days of active intervention (300 mg nirmatrelvir-100 mg ritonavir twice daily); or 25 days of placebo-ritonavir (100 mg ritonavir-placebo). A clinically significant change in patient-reported outcomes at day 90 comprised the primary endpoint: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Cognitive Function Short Form 8a, Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire question 1, and a modified version of the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire Post-Exertional Malaise short form. Secondary outcomes were phenotype-specific performance measures. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05595369) and is complete. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Between July 27, 2023, and Sept 6, 2024, 1207 individuals were screened. Of these, 964 were randomly allocated and 959 participants, excluding four participants who were later found ineligible and one who did not initiate treatment, were enrolled in the three phenotypes: 332 to cognitive, 334 to autonomic, and 332 to exercise. In the 959 participants in the mITT population, 643 (67%) self-reported as female, 314 (33%) were male, and two participants had a sex of unknown or undifferentiated; 750 (78%) were White; and 108 (11%) were Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. The median age was 49 years (IQR 38-59). No statistically significant benefits were observed for any phenotype for primary endpoints. For the cognitive phenotype, adjusted differences compared to placebo were 3·2% (95% CI -10·4 to 16·8, p=0·65) for the 25-day regimen and -2·2% (-15·5 to 11·1, p=0·74) for the 15-day regimen. For the autonomic phenotype, adjusted differences were -6·4% (-18·5 to 5·7, p=0·30) for the 25-day regimen compared to placebo and -0·1% (-12·5 to 12·3, p=0·99) for the 15-day regimen compared to placebo. For exercise, adjusted differences were -7·8% (-19·5 to 3·8, p=0·19) for the 25-day regimen compared to placebo and 0·9% (-11·4 to 13·2, p=0·88) for the 15-day regimen compared to placebo. There were no differences in secondary endpoints, and no safety signals were observed; there were no deaths, and 52 serious adverse events occurred in 42 (4%) of 963 participants over the course of the study. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for 15 days or 25 days showed no evidence of benefit in long COVID in any of the three phenotypes studied. These findings suggest additional approaches to measuring the symptom burden and treating Long COVID are needed. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) AI Task Force along with experts in endoscopy, technology space, regulatory authorities, and other medical subspecialties initiated a consensus process that analyzed the current literature, highlighted potential areas, and outlined the necessary research in artificial intelligence (AI) to allow a clearer understanding of AI as it pertains to endoscopy currently. METHODS:A modified Delphi process was used to develop these consensus statements. RESULTS:Statement 1: Current advances in AI allow for the development of AI-based algorithms that can be applied to endoscopy to augment endoscopist performance in detection and characterization of endoscopic lesions. Statement 2: Computer vision-based algorithms provide opportunities to redefine quality metrics in endoscopy using AI, which can be standardized and can reduce subjectivity in reporting quality metrics. Natural language processing-based algorithms can help with the data abstraction needed for reporting current quality metrics in GI endoscopy effortlessly. Statement 3: AI technologies can support smart endoscopy suites, which may help optimize workflows in the endoscopy suite, including automated documentation. Statement 4: Using AI and machine learning helps in predictive modeling, diagnosis, and prognostication. High-quality data with multidimensionality are needed for risk prediction, prognostication of specific clinical conditions, and their outcomes when using machine learning methods. Statement 5: Big data and cloud-based tools can help advance clinical research in gastroenterology. Multimodal data are key to understanding the maximal extent of the disease state and unlocking treatment options. Statement 6: Understanding how to evaluate AI algorithms in the gastroenterology literature and clinical trials is important for gastroenterologists, trainees, and researchers, and hence education efforts by GI societies are needed. Statement 7: Several challenges regarding integrating AI solutions into the clinical practice of endoscopy exist, including understanding the role of human-AI interaction. Transparency, interpretability, and explainability of AI algorithms play a key role in their clinical adoption in GI endoscopy. Developing appropriate AI governance, data procurement, and tools needed for the AI lifecycle are critical for the successful implementation of AI into clinical practice. Statement 8: For payment of AI in endoscopy, a thorough evaluation of the potential value proposition for AI systems may help guide purchasing decisions in endoscopy. Reliable cost-effectiveness studies to guide reimbursement are needed. Statement 9: Relevant clinical outcomes and performance metrics for AI in gastroenterology are currently not well defined. To improve the quality and interpretability of research in the field, steps need to be taken to define these evidence standards. Statement 10: A balanced view of AI technologies and active collaboration between the medical technology industry, computer scientists, gastroenterologists, and researchers are critical for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology. CONCLUSIONS:The consensus process led by the ASGE AI Task Force and experts from various disciplines has shed light on the potential of AI in endoscopy and gastroenterology. AI-based algorithms have shown promise in augmenting endoscopist performance, redefining quality metrics, optimizing workflows, and aiding in predictive modeling and diagnosis. However, challenges remain in evaluating AI algorithms, ensuring transparency and interpretability, addressing governance and data procurement, determining payment models, defining relevant clinical outcomes, and fostering collaboration between stakeholders. Addressing these challenges while maintaining a balanced perspective is crucial for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Training in interventional endoscopy is offered by nonaccredited advanced endoscopy fellowship programs (AEFPs). The number of these programs has increased dramatically with a concurrent increase in the breadth and complexity of interventional endoscopy procedures. Accreditation is governed by competency-based education, yet what constitutes a "high-quality" nonaccredited AEFP has not been defined. Using an evidence-based consensus process, we aimed to establish standards for AEFPs. METHODS:The RAND UCLA appropriateness method, a well-described modified Delphi process to develop quality indicators, was used. A task force established by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy drafted potential quality indicators (structure, process, and outcome) in 6 categories: activity preceding training; structure of AEFPs; training in ERCP, EUS, and EMR; and luminal stent placement. Three rounds of iterative feedback from 20 experts were conducted. Round 0 involved discussion of project details. In round 1, experts independently ranked proposed quality indicators on a 9-point interval scale ranging from highly inappropriate (1) to highly appropriate (9). Next, proposed quality indicators were discussed and reworded in a group meeting followed by round 2, in which experts independently reranked proposed quality indicators and provided benchmarks (when applicable). The median score for each quality indicator was calculated. Mean absolute deviation from the median was calculated, and appropriateness of potential quality indicators was assessed using the BIOMED concerted action on appropriateness definition, P value method, and interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry definition. A quality indicator was deemed appropriate if the median score was ≥7 and met criteria for appropriateness using all 3 defined statistical methods. RESULTS:Of 89 proposed quality indicators, 37 statements met criteria as appropriate for a quality indicator (activity preceding training, 2; structure of AEFPs, 10; training in ERCP, 7; training in EUS, 8; training in EMR, 7; luminal stent placement, 3). Minimum thresholds were defined for 19 relevant quality indicators for number of trainers, procedures during fellowship, and procedures before assessment of competence. Among the final appropriate quality indicators were that all trainees should undergo qualitative and quantitative competence assessments using validated tools at least quarterly with documented feedback throughout the training period and that trainees should track outcomes and relevant quality metrics for specific procedures. CONCLUSIONS:This consensus process using validated methodology established standards for an AEFP in an effort to ensure adequate training in the most commonly taught interventional endoscopic procedures (ERCP, EUS, EMR, and luminal stent placement) during fellowship. An important component of an AEFP is the use of competency-based assessments that are compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Next Accreditation System, with the goal of ensuring that trainees achieve specific milestones in their progression to achieving cognitive and technical competency.

EUS and ERCP are widely used for the evaluation and management of various pancreatobiliary conditions. They are generally regarded as safe procedures. Perforation is a rare but life-threatening adverse event of EUS and ERCP. Here we present 3 cases of ERCP- and EUS-related perforations that were successfully managed with over-the-scope clips (OTSCs). This work highlights the importance of early recognition and management of post-ERCP and -EUS perforations to ensure the best outcome possible. OTSCs have expanded the ability to close larger perforations and fistulas and could be considered a first-line tool for endoscopic closure of ERCP- and EUS-related perforations.

BACKGROUND: Delayed bleeding is among the most common adverse events associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of nonampullary duodenal polyps. We evaluated the rate of delayed bleeding and complete defect closure using a novel through-the-scope (TTS) suturing system for the closure of duodenal EMR defects. METHODS: We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent EMR for nonampullary duodenal polyps of ≥ 10 mm and prophylactic defect closure with TTS suturing between March 2021 and May 2022 at centers in the USA. We evaluated the rates of delayed bleeding and complete defect closure. RESULTS: 36 nonconsecutive patients (61 % women; mean [SD] age, 65 [12] years) underwent EMR of ≥ 10-mm duodenal polyps followed by attempted defect closure with TTS suturing. The mean (SD) lesion size was 29 (19) mm, defect size was 37 (25) mm; eight polyps (22 %) involved > 50 % of the lumen circumference. Complete closure was achieved in all cases (78 % with TTS suturing alone), using a median of one TTS suturing kit. There were no cases of delayed bleeding and no adverse events attributed to application of the TTS suturing device. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic closure of nonampullary duodenal EMR defects using TTS suturing resulted in a high rate of complete closure and no delayed bleeding events.

Background and study aims  The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and measures taken to mitigate its impact, have profoundly affected the clinical care of gastroenterology patients and the work of endoscopy units. We aimed to describe the clinical care delivered by gastroenterologists and the type of procedures performed during the early to peak period of the pandemic. Methods  Endoscopy leaders in the New York region were invited to participate in an electronic survey describing operations and clinical service. Surveys were distributed on April 7, 2020 and responses were collected over the following week. A follow-up survey was distributed on April 20, 2020. Participants were asked to report procedure volumes and patient characteristics, as well protocols for staffing and testing for COVID-19. Results  Eleven large academic endoscopy units in the New York City region responded to the survey, representing every major hospital system. COVID patients occupied an average of 54.5 % (18 - 84 %) of hospital beds at the time of survey completion, with 14.5 % (2 %-23 %) of COVID patients requiring intensive care. Endoscopy procedure volume and the number of physicians performing procedures declined by 90 % (66 %-98 %) and 84.5 % (50 %-97 %) respectively following introduction of restricted practice. During this period the most common procedures were EGDs (7.9/unit/week; 88 % for bleeding; the remainder for foreign body and feeding tube placement); ERCPs (5/unit/week; for cholangitis in 67 % and obstructive jaundice in 20 %); Colonoscopies (4/unit/week for bleeding in 77 % or colitis in 23 %) and least common were EUS (3/unit/week for tumor biopsies). Of the sites, 44 % performed pre-procedure COVID testing and the proportion of COVID-positive patients undergoing procedures was 4.6 % in the first 2 weeks and up to 19.6 % in the subsequent 2 weeks. The majority of COVID-positive patients undergoing procedures underwent EGD (30.6 % COVID +) and ERCP (10.2 % COVID +). Conclusions  COVID-19 has profoundly impacted the operation of endoscopy units in the New York region. Our data show the impact of a restricted emergency practice on endoscopy volumes and the proportion of expected COVID positive cases during the peak time of the pandemic.