Evaluation of Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses to negate the need for rapid on-site evaluation: A randomized control trial

Background and Objectives@#The benefits of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid masses have not been convincingly shown in large, randomized trials. New equipment using EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) allows for more material to be acquired that may obviate the need for ROSE. This study aimed to evaluate if EUS-FNB without ROSE was non-inferior to EUS-FNA with ROSE in solid pancreatic masses (SPMs). @*Methods@#Patients with SPMs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned to undergo either EUS-FNA with ROSE or EUS-FNB without ROSE. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy and secondary endpoints were specimen quality, complication rates, and procedure time. @*Results@#Seventy-eight patients were randomized and analyzed (39 EUS-FNA with ROSE and 39 EUS-FNB without ROSE). Non-significantly different diagnostic accuracies were noted in both groups (97% with ROSE and 100% without ROSE, P < 0.371). The bloodiness of histologic samples and complication rates were not significantly different between groups. A significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time was noted for EUS-FNB over EUS-FNA with ROSE (30.4 ± 10.4 vs 35.8 ± 9.8 minutes, P < .02). @*Conclusions@#EUS-FNB demonstrated equal diagnostic accuracy with shorter procedure times in evaluating SPMs compared to EUS-FNA with ROSE. These new-generation FNB needles may obviate the need for ROSE.

Intravenous tocilizumab versus standard of care in the treatment of severe and critical COVID-19-related pneumonia: A single center, double-blind, placebo controlled, phase 3 trial

Background@#Severe and critical COVID-19 disease is characterized by hyperinflammation involving pro-inflammatory cytokines, particularly IL-6. Tocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-6 receptors. @*Objectives@#This study evaluated the efficacy of tocilizumab in Filipino patients with severe to critical COVID-19 disease. @*Methods@#This phase 3 randomized double-blind trial, included patients hospitalized for severe or critical COVID-19 in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tocilizumab plus local standard of care or placebo plus standard of care. Patients were eligible for a repeat IV infusion within 24-48 hours if they deteriorated or did not improve. Treatment success or clinical improvement was defined as at least two categories of improvement from baseline in the WHO 7-point Ordinal Scale of patient status, in an intention-to-treat manner. @*Results@#Forty-nine (49) patients were randomized in the tocilizumab arm and 49 in the placebo arm. There was no significant difference in age, comorbidities, COVID-19 severity, need for mechanical ventilation, presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, or biomarker levels between groups. Use of adjunctive therapy was similar between groups, with corticosteroid used in 91.8% in tocilizumab group and 81.6% in the placebo group, while remdesivir was used in 98% of participants in both groups. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of treatment success in both the intention-to-treat analysis (relative risk=1.05, 95% CI: 0.85-1.30) and per-protocol analysis (relative risk=0.98, 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.21). There was no significant difference in time to improvement of at least two categories relative to baseline on the 7-point Ordinal Scale of clinical status. @*Conclusion@#The use of tocilizumab on top of standard of care in the management of patients with severe to critical COVID-19 did not result in significant improvement as defined by the WHO 7-point Ordinal Scale of patient status, nor in significant improvement in incidence of mechanical ventilation, incidence of ICU admission, length of ICU stay, and mortality rate.

Adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate among gastroenterology fellows and consultants in a tertiary hospital in the Philippines: A cross-sectional study

Background and Objective@#Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Likewise in the Philippines, the prevalence of CRC has shown to be increasing. Colonoscopy, a screening procedure for CRC, has parameters to gauge quality of detection. One of which is the Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR). Higher ADR has been linked to improved cancer detection. This study aimed to determine the ADR and Polyp Detection Rate (PDR) among Gastroenterology practitioners in a tertiary government university hospital in the Philippines, estimate ADR from PDR, and identify factors associated with ADR.@*Methods@#An analytical, cross-sectional study among patients who underwent colonoscopy for the years 2021 and the first half of 2022 at the Central Endoscopy Unit (CENDU) of the Philippine General Hospital. Demographic data of fellows and consultants were collected through an online form, while those from patients were obtained from electronic records. Colonoscopy details and histopathology results were accessed through the hospital’s Open Medical Record System (MRS). ADR, PDR, and estimated ADR were computed using established formulas. To evaluate the strength of the relationship between the estimated and actual ADR, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used. Chi-square analysis, Mann-Whitney U test, and Kruskal-Wallis H test were performed to identify the factors that might influence the ADR. A cut-off of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.@*Results@#The total computed ADR of consultants and fellows combined is 22%. The difference between the ADRs of Gastroenterology consultants and Fellows-in-Training is statistically significant at 31.6% and 18.7%, respectively (p= 0.017). The total Polyp Detection Rate is 57.6% while the weighted group average Adenoma to Polyp Detection Rate Quotient (APDRQ) is 0.4085 or 40.85%. The estimated ADR has a moderate degree of correlation with the actual ADR when an outlier was excluded (r=0.521 (95% CI, 0.072-0.795, p=0.0266). Significant factors related to ADR include endoscopists’ years of practice (p=0.020), number of colonoscopies done (p=0.031), and patient tobacco use (p=0.014).@*Conclusion@#The overall ADR among consultants and fellows is at par with the standard guidelines. A moderate degree of correlation exists between actual and estimated ADR when an outlier is excluded; however, more studies are needed to determine the APDRQ in the wider local setting. Longer years in practice, total number of colonoscopies performed, and patient tobacco use are associated with increased ADR.

Clostridioides difficile infection following procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy for COVID-19

@#We present a case of a 50-year-old man with chronic kidney disease (CKD) presenting with acute diarrhea and fever. He was admitted a month prior for COVID-19, where he received antibiotics for radiographic findings of pneumonia and elevated procalcitonin. In the emergency department, his stool sample tested positive for Clostridioides difficile antigen and toxin. He was given oral vancomycin and intravenous metronidazole for fulminant C. difficile infection and was discharged with resolution of symptoms. This case documents a potential risk associated with routine antibiotic use during the pandemic and the pitfalls in interpreting procalcitonin, especially in patients with COVID-19 and CKD.