Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

All endoscopic procedures are invasive and carry risk. Accordingly, all endoscopists should involve the patient in the decision-making process about the most appropriate endoscopic procedure for that individual, in keeping with a patient's right to self-determination and autonomy. Recognition of this has led to detailed guidelines on informed consent for endoscopy in some countries, but in many no such guidance exists; this may lead to variations in care and exposure to risk of litigation. In this document, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) sets out a series of statements that cover best practice in informed consent for endoscopy. These statements should be seen as a minimum standard of practice, but practitioners must be aware of and adhere to the law in their own country. 1: Patients should give informed consent for all gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures for which they have capacity to do so. 2: The healthcare professional seeking consent for an endoscopic procedure should ensure that the patient has the capacity to consent to that procedure. 3: For patients who lack capacity, healthcare personnel should at all times try to engage with people close to the patient, such as family, friends, or caregivers, to achieve consensus on the appropriateness of performing the procedure. 4: Where a patient lacks capacity to provide informed consent, the best interest decision should be clearly documented in the medical record. This should include information about the capacity assessment, reason(s) that the decision cannot be delayed for capacity recovery (or if recovery is not expected), who has been consulted, and where relevant the form of authority for the decision. 5: There should be a systematic and transparent disclosure of the expected benefits and harms that may reasonably affect patient choice on whether or not to undergo any diagnostic or interventional endoscopic procedure. Information about possible alternatives, as well as the consequences of doing nothing, should also be provided when relevant. 6: The information provided on the benefit and harms of an endoscopic procedure should be adapted to the procedure and patient-specific risk factors, and the preferences of the patient should be central to the consent process. 7: The consent discussion should be undertaken by an individual who is familiar with the procedure and its risks, and is able to discuss these in the context of the individual patient. 8: Patients should confirm consent to an endoscopic procedure in a private, unrushed, and non-coercive environment. 9: If a patient requests that an endoscopic procedure be discontinued, the procedure should be paused and the patient's capacity for decision making assessed. If a competent patient continues to object to the procedure, or if a conclusive determination of capacity is not feasible, the examination should be terminated as soon as it is safe to do so. 10: Informed consent should be sufficiently detailed to cover all findings that can be reasonably anticipated during an endoscopic examination. The scope of this consent should not be expanded, nor a patient's implicit consent for additional interventions assumed, unless failure to proceed with such interventions would result in immediate and predictable harm to the patient.

Individualised consent for endoscopy: update on the 2016 BSG guidelines.

In 2016, the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) published comprehensive guidelines for obtaining consent for endoscopic procedures. In November 2020, the General Medical Council (GMC) introduced updated guidelines on shared decision making and consent. These guidelines followed the Montgomery ruling in 2015, which changed the legal doctrine determining what information should be given to a patient before a medical intervention. The GMC guidance and Montgomery ruling expand on the role of shared decision making between the clinician and patient, explicitly highlighting the importance of understanding the values of the patient. In November 2021, the BSG President's Bulletin highlighted the 2020 GMC guidance and the need to incorporate patient -related factors into decision making. Here, we make formal recommendations in support of this communication, and update the 2016 BSG endoscopy consent guidelines. The BSG guideline refers to the Montgomery legislation, but this document expands on the findings and gives proposals for how to incorporate it into the consent process. The document is to accompany, not replace the recent GMC and BSG guidelines. The recommendations are made in the understanding that there is not a single solution to the consent process, but that medical practitioners and services must work together to ensure that the principles and recommendations laid out below are deliverable at a local level. The 2020 GMC and 2016 BSG guidance had patient representatives involved throughout the process. Further patient involvement was not sought here as this update is to give practical advice on how to incorporate these guidelines into clinical practice and the consent process. This document should be read by endoscopists and referrers from primary and secondary care.

Hepatic effects of tartrazine (E 102) after systemic exposure are independent of oestrogen receptor interactions in the mouse.

Tartrazine is a food colour that activates the transcriptional function of the human oestrogen receptor alpha in an in vitro cell model. Since oestrogens are cholestatic, we hypothesised tartrazine will cause periportal injury to the liver in vivo. To test this hypothesis, tartrazine was initially administered systemically to mice resulting in a periportal recruitment of inflammatory cells, increased serum alkaline phosphatase activity and mild periportal fibrosis. To determine whether an oestrogenic effect may be a key event in this response, tartrazine, sulphonated metabolites and a food additive contaminant were screened for their ability to interact with murine oestrogen receptors. In all cases, there were no interactions as agonists or antagonists and further, no oestrogenicity was observed with tartrazine in an in vivo uterine growth assay. To examine the relevance of the hepatic effects of tartrazine to its use as a food additive, tartrazine was orally administered to transgenic NF-κB-Luc mice. Pre- and concurrent oral treatment with alcohol was incorporated given its potential to promote gut permeability and hepatic inflammation. Tartrazine alone induced NF- κB activities in the colon and liver but there was no periportal recruitment of inflammatory cells or fibrosis. Tartrazine, its sulphonated metabolites and the contaminant inhibited sulphotransferase activities in murine hepatic S9 extracts. Given the role of sulfotransferases in bile acid excretion, the initiating event giving rise to periportal inflammation and subsequent hepatic pathology through systemic tartrazine exposure is therefore potentially associated an inhibition of bile acid sulphation and excretion and not on oestrogen receptor-mediated transcriptional function. However, these effects were restricted to systemic exposures to tartrazine and did not occur to any significant effect after oral exposure.

Tartrazine and sunset yellow are xenoestrogens in a new screening assay to identify modulators of human oestrogen receptor transcriptional activity.

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a cholestatic liver disease of unknown cause that occurs most frequently in post-menopausal women. Since the female sex hormone oestrogen can be cholestatic, we hypothesised that PBC may be triggered in part by chronic exposure to xenoestrogens (which may be more active on a background of low endogenous oestrogen levels seen in post-menopausal women). A reporter gene construct employing a synthetic oestrogen response element predicted to specifically interact with oestrogen receptors (ER) was constructed. Co-transfection of this reporter into an ER null cell line with a variety of nuclear receptor expression constructs indicated that the reporter gene was trans-activated by ERα and ERß, but not by the androgen, thyroid, progesterone, glucocorticoid or vitamin D receptors. Chemicals linked to PBC were then screened for xenoestrogen activity in the human ERα-positive MCF-7 breast cancer cell line. Using this assay, the coal-derived food and cosmetic colourings--sunset yellow and tartrazine--were identified as novel human ERα activators, activating the human ER with an EC(50%) concentration of 220 and 160 nM, respectively.

The use of propofol by gastroenterologists: medico-legal issues.

The increasing use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy has both clinical and legal consequences. As medical practices develop, the law of clinical negligence will be applied in the context of such developments. While the law will recognize the desirability of advanced techniques and methods, in circumstances where an injury or adverse outcome occurs, the facts of a particular case will be scrutinized to determine whether or not the duty of care between patient and clinician has been breached. This paper considers a number of specific matters likely to arise in the context of a clinical negligence/malpractice claim resulting from the use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol, in particular the role and standard of care expected of gastroenterologist and/or anesthetic provider, the relevance of FDA labeling, the implementation and use of protocols, the importance of patient selection and informed consent.

The PXR is a drug target for chronic inflammatory liver disease.

UNLABELLED: PXR activators are used to treat pruritus in chronic inflammatory liver diseases such as primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). The aims of this study were to determine whether PXR activators could have an additional benefit of inhibiting inflammation in the liver, and determine whether cyclosporin A - which more effectively prevents PBC recurrence in transplanted patients than FK506 - is a PXR activator. In SJL/J mice (which have constitutively high levels of hepatic portal tract inflammatory cell recruitment), feeding a PXR activator inhibited inflammation, TNFalpha and Il-1alpha mRNA expression in SJL/J-PXR(+/+), but not SJL/J-PXR(-/-). Monocytic cells - a major source of inflammatory mediators such as TNFalpha - expressed the PXR and PXR activators inhibited endotoxin-induced NF-kappaB activation and TNFalpha expression. PXR activation also inhibited endotoxin-stimulated TNFalpha secretion from liver monocytes/macrophages isolated from PXR(+/+) mice, but not from cells isolated from PXR(-/-) mice. To confirm that PXR activation inhibits NF-kappaB in vivo, 3x-kappaB-luc fibrotic mice (which express a luciferase gene regulated by NF-kappaB) were imaged after treatment with the hepatotoxin CCl(4). PXR activator inhibited the induction of hepatic NF-kappaB activity without affecting CCl(4) toxicity/hepatic damage. Using a PXR reporter gene assay, cyclosporin A - but not FK506 - was shown to be a direct PXR activator, and also to induce expression of the classic PXR-regulated CYP3A4 gene in human hepatocytes and in a cell line null for the FXR, a nuclear receptor with similar properties to the PXR. CONCLUSION: PXR activation is anti-inflammatory in the liver and the effects of cyclosporin A in PBC disease recurrence may be mediated in part via the PXR. Since PXR activation promotes hepatocyte growth and is also anti-fibrogenic, the PXR may be an excellent drug target for the treatment of chronic inflammatory liver disease.