Search

Purpose of review Diverticulosis leads to significant morbidity and mortality and is increasing in prevalence worldwide. In this paper, we review the clinical features, diagnosis, and management of diverticular disorders, followed by a discussion of recent updates and changes in the clinical approach to diverticular disease. Recent findings Recent literature suggests that antibiotics are likely not necessary for low-risk patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis, and not all patients with recurrent diverticulitis require colectomy. Dietary restrictions do not prevent recurrent diverticulitis. Visceral hypersensitivity is increasingly being recognized as a cause of persistent abdominal pain after acute diverticulitis and should be considered along with chronic smoldering diverticulitis, segmental colitis associated with diverticula, and symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease. Summary Clinicians should be aware that traditionally held assumptions regarding the prevention and management of diverticular disorders have recently been called into question and should adjust their clinical practice accordingly.

Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis have demonstrated improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colonoscopy with artificial intelligence (AI) compared with high-definition (HD) colonoscopy without AI. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all RCTs to assess the impact of AI compared with other endoscopic interventions aimed at increasing ADR such as distal attachment devices, dye-based/virtual chromoendoscopy, water-based techniques, and balloon-assisted devices.A comprehensive literature search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was performed through May 6, 2022, to include RCTs comparing ADR for any endoscopic intervention mentioned above. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach and random effects model. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated for proportional outcome.A total of 94 RCTs with 61,172 patients (mean age 59.1±5.2 y, females 45.8%) and 20 discrete study interventions were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated significantly improved ADR for AI compared with autofluorescence imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.06 to 1.66), dye-based chromoendoscopy (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.40), endocap (RR: 1.32, CI: 1.17 to 1.50), endocuff (RR: 1.19, CI: 1.04 to 1.35), endocuff vision (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.13 to 1.41), endoring (RR: 1.30, CI: 1.10 to 1.52), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.09 to 1.46), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR: 1.40, CI: 1.19 to 1.65), HD (RR: 1.41, CI: 1.28 to 1.54), linked color imaging (RR: 1.21, CI: 1.08 to 1.36), narrow band imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.18 to 1.48), water exchange (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.42), and water immersion (RR: 1.47, CI: 1.19 to 1.82).AI demonstrated significantly improved ADR when compared with most endoscopic interventions. Future RCTs directly assessing these associations are encouraged.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women in the United States. CRC screening efforts are directed toward removal of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions and detection of early-stage CRC. The purpose of this article is to update the 2009 American College of Gastroenterology CRC screening guidelines. The guideline is framed around several key questions. We conducted a comprehensive literature search to include studies through October 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies of any design with men and women age 40 years and older. Detailed recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals and those with a family history of CRC are discussed. We also provide recommendations on the role of aspirin for chemoprevention, quality indicators for colonoscopy, approaches to organized CRC screening and improving adherence to CRC screening. CRC screening must be optimized to allow effective and sustained reduction of CRC incidence and mortality. This can be accomplished by achieving high rates of adherence, quality monitoring and improvement, following evidence-based guidelines, and removing barriers through the spectrum of care from noninvasive screening tests to screening and diagnostic colonoscopy. The development of cost-effective, highly accurate, noninvasive modalities associated with improved overall adherence to the screening process is also a desirable goal.

Many gastrointestinal disorders, autoimmune diseases, and pregnancy-related conditions preferentially impact women. This issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology focuses on women's health in the context of gastrointestinal and liver disease. This editorial highlights the current issue's contents and seeks to spark the conversations to bring awareness to the many issues faced by women as both patients and practitioners.

Introduction: Clinical trials often have low enrollment of minorities, particularly African-Americans (AAs), which may limit the generalizability of research findings. Previously identified barriers to AAs recruitment include historical abuses leading to mistrust, communication issues with providers, socio-economic factors, and a lack of access to clinical trials. In a Historically Black College and University (HBCU) serving a primarily AA population at a large safe-net hospital, we evaluated the enrollment of eligible AA patients for a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical trial. This was compared to the enrollment rates across other study sites. Methods: A large, prospective, multi-centered clinical trial to validate a blood-based test for early detection of CRC (PREEMPT-CRC) was initiated at a HBCU, where 84% of patients are AAs. To maximize study recruitment, culturally sensitive methods were employed including racially congruent recruitment staff as well as synchronized timing of consent/study procedures with preendoscopy COVID testing/clinic visits. Detailed information for all eligible subjects was recorded. Demographic and socio-economic data including census information for enrolled and not enrolled subjects were compared. The enrollment rate (defined as enrolled/eligible patients) over the first 6 weeks at the HBCU and that of the other study sites providing screening logs was analyzed. Results: The enrollment rate at the HBCU was 55% (44 out of 80 eligible patients;95% CI 43.5- 66.2%), compared to 49.8% (258 out of 518 eligible patients;95% CI 45.4- 54.2%) at the other 26 study sites. While age and gender of enrolled patients at the HBCU were comparable to other sites, the main difference was race: at the HBCU the study participants were 79.5% AAs and 9.1% whites, while at the other sites the participants were 11.5% AAs and 82.8% whites (p< 0.001). At the HBCU, the demographic characteristics and socio-demographic data including income, marital status insurance status/type, and census tract median household income of the 44 enrolled and 36 notenrolled subjects were similar (Table 1). Conclusion: Contrary to conventional belief that AAs do not want to be involved in clinical trials, we find their enrollment is similar to a predominant white study population when offered the opportunity in a culturally sensitive setting. Future trials should consider including HBCU sites in order to attain adequate AA enrollment to improve the generalizability of research findings. (Table Presented).

Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM): Rationale for Study Design

The majority of the world's adult population and an estimated 80 million Americans are hypolactasic and hence malabsorb ingested lactose. Although lactose malabsorption is easily identified, less readily assessed is the clinically important question of how often does this malabsorption induce symptoms. This review summarizes: (1) knowledge concerning the etiology and diagnosis of hypolactasia and the pathophysiology of the symptoms of lactose malabsorption and (2) the results of well-controlled trials of the symptomatic response of lactose malabsorbers to varying dosages of lactose and the efficacy of therapeutic interventions to alleviate these symptoms. We conclude that the clinical significance of lactose malabsorption has been overestimated by both the lay public and physicians in that commonly ingested doses of lactose (ie, the quantity in a cup of milk) usually do not cause perceptible symptoms when ingested with a meal. Symptoms occur when the lactose dosage exceeds that in a cup of milk or when lactose is ingested without other nutrients. Simple dietary instruction, rather than the use of commercial products to reduce lactose intake, is recommended for the vast majority of lactose-malabsorbing subjects.