"It ain't over till it's over!" Risk-mitigation strategies for patients with gastrointestinal diseases in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The available COVID-19 literature has focused on specific disease manifestations, infection control, and delivery or prioritization of services for specific patient groups in the setting of the acute COVID-19 pandemic. Local health systems aim to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and hospitals and health-care providers rush to provide the capacity for a surge of COVID-19 patients. However, the short, medium-term, and long-term outcomes of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) diseases without COVID-19 will be affected by the ability to develop locally adapted strategies to meet their service needs in the COVID-19 setting. To mitigate risks for patients with GI diseases, it is useful to differentiate three phases: (i) the acute phase, (ii) the adaptation phase, and (iii) the consolidation phase. During the acute phase, service delivery for patients with GI disease will be curtailed to meet competing health-care needs of COVID-19 patients. During the adaptation phase, GI services are calibrated towards a "new normal," and the consolidation phase is characterized by rapid introduction and ongoing refinement of services. Proactive planning with engagement of relevant stakeholders including consumer representatives is required to be prepared for a variety of scenarios that are dictated by thus far undefined long-term economic and societal impacts of the pandemic. Because substantial changes to the delivery of services are likely to occur, it is important that these changes are embedded into quality and research frameworks to ensure that data are generated that support evidence-based decision-making during the adaptation and consolidation phases.

Survey of clinical practice for irritable bowel syndrome in East asian countries.

AIM: Sociocultural factors are important because their different effects on the features of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) between countries will provide clues towards solving this problem. The aims of this study were to depict the clinical realities of IBS in East Asian countries and test the hypothesis that the diagnosis and treatment of IBS differ between countries. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Study participants were 251 physicians involved in the clinical practice of IBS at major institutions in Japan, South Korea, China, the Philippines, Indonesia and Singapore. The questionnaire contained 45 questions focused on the clinical practice of IBS. RESULTS: Subjects in Japan, South Korea, China, Indonesia, the Philippines and Singapore accounted for 55.4, 17.9, 8.8, 8.0, 6.4 and 3.6% of the study cohort, respectively. Amongst East Asian physicians, the most important symptom was considered to be abdominal pain by 33.4%, whilst 24.3% regarded alternating diarrhea and constipation to be the most important symptoms. Total colonoscopy and histopathology use showed no difference among countries. Prescriptions given for mild (p < 0.0001), moderate (p < 0.0001), severe (p < 0.0001), intractable (p = 0.002), diarrheal (p < 0.0001) and constipating (p < 0.0001) patients with IBS significantly differed between the countries. Except for several minor points, IBS specialists showed no significant difference in their diagnosis and treatment of IBS when compared to nonspecialists. CONCLUSION: This survey provided data on the clinical treatment of IBS among East Asian countries. The results supported the hypothesis that the diagnosis and treatment of IBS differs between countries.

Safety, tolerability and satisfaction with tegaserod therapy in Asia-Pacific patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The 5-HT(4) receptor agonist tegaserod (6 mg b.i.d.) provides significantly better overall multiple symptom relief compared with placebo in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). The clinical benefit and safety of tegaserod in IBS-C patients has been demonstrated worldwide in several studies. The aim of this study was to obtain further safety and tolerability data in patients with IBS in the Asia-Pacific region, and to assess patients' satisfaction and compliance with treatment and willingness to re-use tegaserod in a post-marketing setting. METHODS: A multicenter, single-arm, open-label trial was conducted at 869 outpatient centers in 10 countries. Men and women with IBS, whose predominant bowel symptom was not diarrhea (non-D-IBS), received tegaserod for 4-12 weeks. Safety and tolerability were assessed by recording adverse events (AE). Patients were questioned about compliance, satisfaction with treatment and willingness to use tegaserod in future. RESULTS: Data were available from 14 537 patients (18% men, 82% women). Four percent of patients reported at least one AE. The most common AE were diarrhea (2%) and abdominal pain (1%), and most treatment-related AE occurred in the first week of treatment. Serious AE (SAE) were observed in eight patients, and no deaths were reported. Most patients (79%) reported to be satisfied or very satisfied with treatment, and 76% stated they would use tegaserod in the future. Compliance was 97%. CONCLUSIONS: Tegaserod has a favorable safety and tolerability profile for treating non-D-IBS and IBS-C in men and women in the Asia-Pacific region. Satisfaction with tegaserod treatment can be expected in the majority of patients.

GERD 2003 -- a consensus on the way ahead.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has in recent times become an important public health issue owing to the considerable health care resources utilized in its management, its deleterious effect on quality of life and the increasing prevalence of a relatively rare complication of reflux disease - esophageal adenocarcinoma. We review here the major current challenges in the field of reflux disease and its complications, and provide some approaches that may be useful in management. The issues to be faced include the very limited comprehension of the reasons behind the increasing prevalence of the disease, difficulties in correlating symptoms with objective data of pathological gastroesophageal reflux and the relatively unsophisticated tools we are employing to investigate the underlying pathophysiology. It is certain that the lack of well-defined and characterized methodologies to compare the effects of therapy require the development of more effective questionnaire-type analytic tools. In regard to treatment, there is little doubt that the widely prescribed proton pump inhibitors have dose-equivalent efficacy and are the most highly effective agents capable of suppressing acid, controlling many of the symptoms of GERD and healing erosions. Nevertheless, many patients continue to experience symptoms on withdrawal or at night. Pharmacological agents that can effectively increase lower esophageal sphincter pressure or promote motility are as yet unavailable. Although the introduction of laparoscopic techniques has resulted in a modest revival in surgical intervention using a variety of 'wrap-type' operations, the indications are few and the procedure is associated with a significant morbidity and even mortality especially if the expertise of the surgeon is an issue. Endoscopic techniques of regulating reflux are at this time experimental and not applicable to the general population. Intestinal metaplasia in the lower esophagus is probably very common. Whether and how to, first, screen for, and then, perform surveillance in Barrett's esophagus remains highly problematic and contentious.