Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus.

BACKGROUND: The prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity. METHODS: We conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population. RESULTS: After searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity. CONCLUSIONS: This project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

Guidewire-assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Cannulation techniques have been recognized as being important in causing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, considerable controversy exists about the usefulness of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique compared to the conventional contrast-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP in people undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP for biliary or pancreatic diseases. SEARCH METHODS: For the previous version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and major conference proceedings, up to February 2012, with no language restrictions. An updated search was performed on 26 February 2021 for the current version of this review. Two clinical trial registries, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, were also searched in this update. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique versus the contrast-assisted cannulation technique in people undergoing ERCP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors conducted study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment independently. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we combined dichotomous data to obtain risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi² test (P < 0.10) and I² statistic (> 50%). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses according to trial design, publication type, risk of bias, use of precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent guidewire insertion or contrast injection of the pancreatic duct (PD), use of a PD stent, cannulation device, and trainee involvement in cannulation. To assess the robustness of our results, we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR versus odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytic models (fixed-effect versus random-effects) and per-protocol analysis. MAIN RESULTS: 15 RCTs comprising 4426 participants were included. There was moderate heterogeneity among trials for the outcome of PEP (P = 0.08, I² = 36%). Meta-analyses suggest that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, 15 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12, 13 studies, low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the need for precut sphincterotomy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96, 10 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of post-sphincterotomy bleeding (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.54, 7 studies, low-certainty evidence) and perforation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.23, 8 studies, very low-certainty evidence). Procedure-related mortality was reported by eight studies, and there were no cases of deaths in both arms (moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses suggest that the heterogeneity for the outcome of PEP could be explained by differences in trial design. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique. There is low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success. There is low- and very low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding and perforation. No procedure-related deaths were reported. Therefore, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique appears to be superior to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique considering the certainty of evidence and the balance of benefits and harms. However, the routine use of guidewires in biliary cannulation will be dependent on local expertise, availability, and cost. Future research should assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique in the context of other pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions for the prevention of PEP.

Reduction in Anxiety and Depression Scores Associated with Improvement in Quality of Life in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the associations among depression, anxiety and health-related quality of life and predictors of improvement of quality of life in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study conducted in the gastroenterology clinic at McMaster University Medical Center in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada from May 2014 to March 2015. We included 60 adult patients above the age of 18 years old with a diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. We assessed anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) using the Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease questionnaire (SIBDQ) at baseline and after 6 months. Linear regression was performed to estimate the associations among depression, anxiety and predictors of improvement in health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The anxiety scores decreased over the span of 6 months (median HADS-A baseline 9.00 [interquartile range {IQR} 6 to 12], and median HADS-A 6 months 7.00 [IQR 3.75 to 7.00]). There was a moderate negative correlation between anxiety (baseline r = -0.510, and 6-month r = -0.620; P < 0.001), depression (baseline r = -0.630, and 6-month r = -0.670; P < 0.001) and HRQoL scores. Using a multivariate linear regression model, elevated HADS score were associated with lower SIBDQ scores at baseline (Beta coefficient -0.696 [95% confidence interval {CI} -1.51 to -0.842]; P < 0.001). Lower SIBDQ score at baseline predicted decreased SIBDQ at 6 months (Beta coefficient 0.712 [95% CI 0.486 to 1.02]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Anxiety and depression are frequently seen in inflammatory bowel disease patients and lead to poor HRQoL. Psychological comorbidities may contribute to maladaptive behaviours and difficult disease management.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for emergency hospital admission. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastric acid production and are used to manage upper GI bleeding. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors initiated before endoscopy in people with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in people with acute upper GI bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to October 2008, for the previous versions of this review, and in April 2018, October 2019, and 3 June 2021 for this update. We also contacted experts in the field and searched trial registries and references of trials for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) versus control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or no treatment, prior to endoscopy in hospitalised people with uninvestigated upper GI bleeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes assessed at 30 days were: mortality (our primary outcome), rebleeding, surgery, high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage (active bleeding, non-bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy, time to discharge, blood transfusion requirements and adverse effects. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs comprising 2223 participants. No new studies have been published after the literature search performed in 2008 for the previous version of this review. Of the included studies, we considered one to be at low risk of bias, two to be at unclear risk of bias, and three at high risk of bias. Our meta-analyses suggest that pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce mortality (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.70; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce rebleeding (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.06; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce the need for surgery (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the proportion of participants with high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pre-endoscopic PPI use likely reduces the need for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effect of pre-endoscopic PPI use on blood transfusions (2 studies; meta-analysis not possible; very low-certainty evidence) and time to discharge (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no substantial heterogeneity amongst trials in any analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper GI bleeding likely reduces the requirement for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether pre-endoscopic PPI treatment increases, reduces or has no effect on other clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding and need for surgery. Further well-designed RCTs that conform to current standards for endoscopic haemostatic treatment and appropriate co-interventions, and that ensure high-dose PPIs are only given to people who received endoscopic haemostatic treatment, regardless of initial randomisation, are warranted. However, as it may be unrealistic to achieve the optimal information size, pragmatic multicentre trials may provide valuable evidence on this topic.

Week 2 Adalimumab Levels Predict Short-term Clinical Remission in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND GOALS: The role of early proactive therapeutic drug level monitoring for anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies is unclear. We aimed to determine whether a week 2 serum trough level in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) using adalimumab may predict clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of consecutive IBD patients with a week 2 serum adalimumab level available. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was conducted to determine an optimal week 2 threshold level for adalimumab. Patients above the threshold were compared for the primary outcome of week 12 clinical remission (CR) and the secondary outcome of short-term endoscopic healing. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between week 2 adalimumab level and CR. RESULTS: Forty-six patients had a week 2 adalimumab level performed. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis suggested an optimal adalimumab level of 11.9 mcg/mL based on the area under the curve. Patients with week 2 adalimumab levels >11.9 mcg/mL had higher odds of week 12 CR than those with levels below or equal to this threshold (odds ratio=3.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-12.11, P =0.04). Other covariates were not found to have a significant association with the primary outcome. The rate of short-term endoscopic healing was numerically higher in patients with adalimumab week 2 levels above 11.9 mcg/mL; however, was not statistically significant (71.4% vs. 28.5%, P =0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Serum adalimumab levels at week 2 appears to be a predictor of short-term CR. Further research should explore whether patients with a week 2 adalimumab level equal to or below 11.9 mcg/mL benefit from early dose optimization.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Position Statement on the Use of Hyoscine-n-butylbromide (Buscopan) During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Hyoscine butylbromide, also known as hyoscyamine or scopolamine, and sold under the trade name Buscopan, is an antimuscarinic agent commonly used to induce smooth muscle relaxation and reduce spasmodic activity of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract during endoscopic procedures. However, the balance between desirable and undesirable (adverse) effects is not clear when used during GI endoscopy. The Clinical Affairs Committee of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) conducted systematic reviews and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations for the use of Buscopan during GI endoscopy. To summarize, we recommend against the use of Buscopan before or during colonoscopy (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). We suggest against the use of Buscopan before or during gastroscopy (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). We suggest the use of Buscopan before or during ERCP (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). More research is needed to determine whether patients undergoing advanced procedures such as endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection benefit from its use. Buscopan should be used with caution in patients with cardiac comorbidities. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is contraindicated in patients with tachycardia, angina, and cardiac failure. Thus, Buscopan should be used very cautiously in patients with these conditions, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Such patients require careful cardiac monitoring in an environment where resuscitation equipment and appropriately trained staff to use it are readily available. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is also contraindicated in patients with prostatic hypertrophy with urinary retention, and therefore, should be used very cautiously in such patients as well, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Obtaining a preprocedural history of glaucoma is unlikely to be of value when considering Buscopan use. However, in cases where Buscopan has been used, patients should be counselled postprocedurally and told to present to an emergency facility should they experience eye pain, redness, decreased vision, nausea and vomiting or headache.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) position statement on the use of hyoscine-n-butylbromide (Buscopan) during gastrointestinal endoscopy

Hyoscine butylbromide, also known as hyoscyamine or scopolamine, and sold under the trade name Buscopan, is an antimuscarinic agent commonly used to induce smooth muscle relaxation and reduce spasmodic activity of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract during endoscopic procedures. However, the balance between desirable and undesirable (adverse) effects is not clear when used during GI endoscopy. The Clinical Affairs Committee of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) conducted systematic reviews and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations for the use of Buscopan during GI endoscopy. To summarize, we recommend against the use of Buscopan before or during colonoscopy (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). We suggest against the use of Buscopan before or during gastroscopy (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). We suggest the use of Buscopan before or during ERCP (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). More research is needed to determine whether patients undergoing advanced procedures such as endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection benefit from its use. Buscopan should be used with caution in patients with cardiac comorbidities. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is contraindicated in patients with tachycardia, angina, and cardiac failure. Thus, Buscopan should be used very cautiously in patients with these conditions, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Such patients require careful cardiac monitoring in an environment where resuscitation equipment and appropriately trained staff to use it are readily available. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is also contraindicated in patients with prostatic hypertrophy with urinary retention, and therefore, should be used very cautiously in such patients as well, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Obtaining a preprocedural history of glaucoma is unlikely to be of value when considering Buscopan use. However, in cases where Buscopan has been used, patients should be counselled postprocedurally and told to present to an emergency facility should they experience eye pain, redness, decreased vision, nausea and vomiting or headache.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 1: Live Vaccines.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations may be altered by immunosuppressive therapies or IBD itself. These recommendations, developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. This publication focused on live vaccines. METHODS: Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative process and voted on by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients. RESULTS: Three good practice statements included reviewing a patient's vaccination status at diagnosis and at regular intervals, giving appropriate vaccinations as soon as possible, and not delaying urgently needed immunosuppressive therapy to provide vaccinations. There are 4 recommendations on the use of live vaccines. Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine is recommended for both adult and pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). Varicella vaccine is recommended for pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). For adults, recommendations are conditionally in favor of varicella vaccine for those not on immunosuppressive therapy, and against for those on therapy. No recommendation was made regarding the use of live vaccines in infants born to mothers using biologics because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence was insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining appropriate vaccination status in patients with IBD is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, live vaccines are recommended in patients not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive therapy.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 2: Inactivated Vaccines.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations can be altered by immunosuppressive therapies, and perhaps by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on inactivated vaccines. METHODS: Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative online platform, and voted on by a multidisciplinary group. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 15 of 20 questions. Recommendations address the following vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type b, recombinant zoster, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumococcus, meningococcus, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis, and human papillomavirus. Most of the recommendations for patients with IBD are congruent with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations for the general population, with the following exceptions. In patients with IBD, the panel suggested Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine for patients older than 5 years of age, recombinant zoster vaccine for adults younger than 50 year of age, and hepatitis B vaccine for adults without a risk factor. Consensus was not reached, and recommendations were not made for 5 statements, due largely to lack of evidence, including double-dose hepatitis B vaccine, timing of influenza immunization in patients on biologics, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines in adult patients without risk factors, and human papillomavirus vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBD may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, maintaining appropriate vaccination status in these patients is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, IBD is not a contraindication to the use of inactivated vaccines, but immunosuppressive therapy may reduce vaccine responses.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 2: Inactivated Vaccines.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations can be altered by immunosuppressive therapies, and perhaps by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on inactivated vaccines. METHODS: Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative online platform, and voted on by a multidisciplinary group. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 15 of 20 questions. Recommendations address the following vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type b, recombinant zoster, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumococcus, meningococcus, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis, and human papillomavirus. Most of the recommendations for patients with IBD are congruent with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations for the general population, with the following exceptions. In patients with IBD, the panel suggested Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine for patients older than 5 years of age, recombinant zoster vaccine for adults younger than 50 year of age, and hepatitis B vaccine for adults without a risk factor. Consensus was not reached, and recommendations were not made for 5 statements, due largely to lack of evidence, including double-dose hepatitis B vaccine, timing of influenza immunization in patients on biologics, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines in adult patients without risk factors, and human papillomavirus vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBD may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, maintaining appropriate vaccination status in these patients is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, IBD is not a contraindication to the use of inactivated vaccines, but immunosuppressive therapy may reduce vaccine responses.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology clinical practice guideline for immunizations in patients with inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 2: inactivated vaccines

The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations can be altered by immunosuppressive therapies, and perhaps by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on inactivated vaccines. Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative online platform, and voted on by a multidisciplinary group. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients. Consensus was reached on 15 of 20 questions. Recommendations address the following vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type b, recombinant zoster, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumococcus, meningococcus, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis, and human papillomavirus. Most of the recommendations for patients with IBD are congruent with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations for the general population, with the following exceptions. In patients with IBD, the panel suggested Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine for patients older than 5 years of age, recombinant zoster vaccine for adults younger than 50 year of age, and hepatitis B vaccine for adults without a risk factor. Consensus was not reached, and recommendations were not made for 5 statements, due largely to lack of evidence, including double-dose hepatitis B vaccine, timing of influenza immunization in patients on biologics, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines in adult patients without risk factors, and human papillomavirus vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years. Patients with IBD may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, maintaining appropriate vaccination status in these patients is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, IBD is not a contraindication to the use of inactivated vaccines, but immunosuppressive therapy may reduce vaccine responses.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for Immunizations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Part 1: Live Vaccines.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations may be altered by immunosuppressive therapies or IBD itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on live vaccines. METHODS: Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative process and voted on by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients. RESULTS: Three good practice statements included reviewing a patient's vaccination status at diagnosis and at regular intervals, giving appropriate vaccinations as soon as possible, and not delaying urgently needed immunosuppressive therapy to provide vaccinations. There are 4 recommendations on the use of live vaccines. Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine is recommended for both adult and pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). Varicella vaccine is recommended for pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). For adults, recommendations are conditionally in favor of varicella vaccine for those not on immunosuppressive therapy, and against for those on therapy. No recommendation was made regarding the use of live vaccines in infants born to mothers using biologics because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence was insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining appropriate vaccination status in patients with IBD is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, live vaccines are recommended in patients not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive therapy.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Communique: After-Hours Endoscopy Cart.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic procedures performed after-hours often require therapeutic interventions that are technically demanding for the endoscopist. The aim of this position paper is to provide guidance on the minimum standard of equipment that should be available on a mobile endoscopy cart for provision of a safe and effective after-hours emergency endoscopy service. The guidance is based on consensus among academic and community gastroenterologists in Canada. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to establish consensus among 9 participants. A list of statements was prepared by an expert panel of endoscopists. The statements were divided into three broad sections for what should be on an after-hours endoscopy cart including medications, nonendoscopic tools and therapeutic/diagnostic equipment. Consensus for being on the endoscopy cart was achieved when 75% or more of voting members indicated 'agree'. RESULTS: For nonendoscopic tools, there was agreement for having sterile saline, sterile water, endoscope lubricant, various syringes, bite blocks (paediatric and adult size), a water pump with foot peddle, formalin jars for biopsy specimens, digital photo and printing capability and an overtube. For medications, there was agreement for having hyoscine butylbromide and epinephrine on the cart. For therapeutic/diagnostic tools, there was agreement for having biopsy forceps (standard and jumbo), polypectomy snares, sclerotherapy needles and agent (for a variceal bleed), band ligation kit, multipolar electrocautery probes, heater probe catheter, endoscopic clips, hemostatic powder and retrieval devices. INTERPRETATION: This position paper provides guidance on the minimum standard of items that should be on an after-hours endoscopy cart. Standardization of equipment may help improve safety and quality of after-hours endoscopic procedures.

Optical Biopsy of the Upper GI Tract Using Fluorescence Lifetime and Spectra.

Screening and surveillance for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers by endoscope guided biopsy is invasive, time consuming, and has the potential for sampling error. Tissue endogenous fluorescence spectra contain biochemical and physiological information, which may enable real-time, objective diagnosis. We first briefly reviewed optical biopsy modalities for GI cancer diagnosis with a focus on fluorescence-based techniques. In an ex vivo pilot clinical study, we measured fluorescence spectra and lifetime on fresh biopsy specimens obtained during routine upper GI screening procedures. Our results demonstrated the feasibility of rapid acquisition of time-resolved fluorescence (TRF) spectra from fresh GI mucosal specimens. We also identified spectroscopic signatures that can differentiate between normal mucosal samples obtained from the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum.

Higher vedolizumab serum levels do not increase the risk of adverse events in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Background: Although its mechanism of action may confer a safety benefit, vedolizumab has still been associated with adverse events (AE). We investigated whether inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with higher trough vedolizumab serum levels experienced an increased risk of AEs.Methods: This was a retrospective study of 76 IBD patients with at least one measurement of serum vedolizumab available. Vedolizumab levels ranged from <3.5 mcg/mL to 87.2 mcg/mL (median = 15.8 mcg/mL). The primary outcome was the rate of overall AEs. Secondary outcomes included the rates of infections, dermatologic reactions, infusion reactions, and other AEs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between serum vedolizumab levels and AEs.Results: 19 patients out of 76 reported AEs. In patients with higher vedolizumab levels, there were 10 AEs reported out of 38 patients, which was not significantly different from the 9 AEs reported in 38 patients with lower vedolizumab levels (26.3% vs. 23.7%, p = .79). After adjustment for potential covariates, IBD patients with higher vedolizumab levels did not have higher odds of an AE than patients with lower levels (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.30-2.81). Longer duration of therapy had higher odds of AEs, (OR of 1.04 at 95% CI 1.00-1.09, p = .0494 per additional month). None of the other variables were associated with a greater risk of AEs.Conclusions: There does not appear to be an increased risk of adverse events in IBD patients with higher vedolizumab levels, but duration of therapy may increase the risk of AEs.