Digestive Manifestations in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence and significance of digestive manifestations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. We aimed to assess the prevalence, spectrum, severity, and significance of digestive manifestations in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were identified across a geographically diverse alliance of medical centers in North America. Data pertaining to baseline characteristics, symptomatology, laboratory assessment, imaging, and endoscopic findings from the time of symptom onset until discharge or death were abstracted manually from electronic health records to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and severity of digestive manifestations. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between digestive manifestations and severe outcomes related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 1992 patients across 36 centers met eligibility criteria and were included. Overall, 53% of patients experienced at least 1 gastrointestinal symptom at any time during their illness, most commonly diarrhea (34%), nausea (27%), vomiting (16%), and abdominal pain (11%). In 74% of cases, gastrointestinal symptoms were judged to be mild. In total, 35% of patients developed an abnormal alanine aminotransferase or total bilirubin level; these were increased to less than 5 times the upper limit of normal in 77% of cases. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at any time (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.15) or liver test abnormalities on admission (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80-2.12) were not associated independently with mechanical ventilation or death. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, gastrointestinal symptoms and liver test abnormalities were common, but the majority were mild and their presence was not associated with a more severe clinical course.

Management of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer During a Pandemic: Impact of Treatment Delay on Survival Outcomes for Patients Treated With Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, providers and patients must engage in shared decision making to ensure that the benefit of early intervention for muscle-invasive bladder cancer exceeds the risk of contracting COVID-19 in the clinical setting. It is unknown whether treatment delays for patients eligible for curative chemoradiation (CRT) compromise long-term outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the National Cancer Data Base to investigate whether there is an association between a ≥ 90-day delay from transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) in initiating CRT and overall survival. We included patients with cT2-4N0M0 muscle-invasive bladder cancer from 2004 to 2015 who underwent TURBT and curative-intent concurrent CRT. Patients were grouped on the basis of timing of CRT: ≤ 89 days after TURBT (earlier) vs. ≥ 90 and < 180 days after TURBT (delayed). RESULTS: A total of 1387 (87.5%) received earlier CRT (median, 45 days after TURBT; interquartile range, 34-59 days), and 197 (12.5%) received delayed CRT (median, 111 days after TURBT; interquartile range, 98-130 days). Median overall survival was 29.0 months (95% CI, 26.0-32.0) versus 27.0 months (95% CI, 19.75-34.24) for earlier and delayed CRT (P = .94). On multivariable analysis, delayed CRT was not associated with an overall survival difference (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P = .60). CONCLUSION: Although these results are limited and require validation, short, strategic treatment delays during a pandemic can be considered on the basis of clinician judgment.

Plans to Reactivate Gastroenterology Practices Following the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of North American Centers.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Practices dramatically reduced endoscopy services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because practices now are considering reintroduction of elective endoscopy, we conducted a survey of North American practices to identify reactivation barriers and strategies. METHODS: We designed and electronically distributed a web-based survey to North American gastroenterologists consisting of 7 domains: institutional demographics, impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy practice, elective endoscopy resumption plans, anesthesia modifications, personal protective equipment policies, fellowship training, and telemedicine use. Responses were stratified by practice type: ambulatory surgery center (ASC) or hospital-based. RESULTS: In total, 123 practices (55% ASC-based and 45% hospital-based) responded. At the pandemic's peak (as reported by the respondents), practices saw a 90% decrease in endoscopy volume, with most centers planning to resume elective endoscopy a median of 55 days after initial restrictions. Declining community prevalence of COVID-19, personal protective equipment availability, and preprocedure severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing availability were ranked as the 3 primary factors influencing reactivation timing. ASC-based practices were more likely to identify preprocedure testing availability as a major factor limiting elective endoscopy resumption (P = .001). Preprocedure SARS-CoV-2 testing was planned by only 49.2% of practices overall; when testing is performed and negative, 52.9% of practices will continue to use N95 masks. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights barriers and variable strategies for reactivation of elective endoscopy services after the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results suggest that more widespread access to preprocedure SARS-CoV-2 tests with superior performance characteristics is needed to increase provider and patient comfort in proceeding with elective endoscopy.

What constitutes urgent endoscopy? A social media snapshot of gastroenterologists' views during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background and study aims There is a consensus among gastroenterology organizations that elective endoscopic procedures should be deferred during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the decision to perform urgent procedures and to defer entirely elective procedures is mostly evident, there is a wide "middle ground" of time-sensitive but not technically urgent or emergent endoscopic interventions. We aimed to survey gastroenterologists worldwide using Twitter to help elucidate these definitions using commonly encountered clinical scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A 16-question survey was designed by the authors to include common clinical scenarios that do not have clear guidelines regarding the timing or urgency of endoscopic evaluation. This survey was posted on Twitter. The survey remained open to polling for 48 hours. During this time, multiple gastroenterologists and fellows with prominent social media presence were tagged to disseminate the survey. Results The initial tweet had 38,795 impressions with a total of 2855 engagements. There was significant variation in responses from gastroenterologists regarding timing of endoscopy in these semi-urgent scenarios. There were only three of 16 scenarios for which more than 70 % of gastroenterologists agreed on procedure-timing . For example, significant variation was noted in regard to timing of upper endoscopy in patients with melena, with 44.5 % of respondents believing that everyone with melena should undergo endoscopic evaluation at this time. Similarly, about 35 % of respondents thought that endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography should only be performed in patients with choledocholithiasis with abdominal pain or jaundice. Conclusion Our analysis shows that there is currently lack of consensus among gastroenterologists in regards to timing of semi-urgent or non-life-threatening procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. These results support the need for the ongoing development of societal guidance for these "semi-urgent" scenarios to help gastroenterologists in making difficult triage decisions.