Proximal lesion location is a highly significant risk for clinically significant delayed bleeding following colonic EMR, and this knowledge could form the basis of a targeted therapeutic trial. Recent aspirin use also increases bleeding risk--specific consensus guidelines in this area are required for colonic EMR.
Consistent differences in DNA methylation between IBD cases and controls at regulatory sites within these genes suggest that their altered transcription contributes to IBD pathogenesis.
BACKGROUND
The Islet Autoantibody Standardization Program (IASP) aims to improve the performance of immunoassays measuring type 1 diabetes (T1D)-associated autoantibodies and the concordance of results among laboratories. IASP organizes international interlaboratory assay comparison studies in which blinded serum samples are distributed to participating laboratories, followed by centralized collection and analysis of results, providing participants with an unbiased comparative assessment. In this report, we describe the results of glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibody (GADA) assays presented in the IASP 2018 workshop.
METHODS
In May 2018, IASP distributed to participants uniquely coded sera from 43 new-onset T1D patients, 7 multiple autoantibody-positive nondiabetic individuals, and 90 blood donors. Results were analyzed for the following metrics: sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, area under the ROC curve (ROC-AUC), partial ROC-AUC at 95% specificity (pAUC95), and concordance of qualitative and quantitative results.
RESULTS
Thirty-seven laboratories submitted results from a total of 48 different GADA assays adopting 9 different formats. The median ROC-AUC and pAUC95 of all assays were 0.87 [interquartile range (IQR), 0.83–0.89] and 0.036 (IQR, 0.032–0.039), respectively. Large differences in pAUC95 (range, 0.001–0.0411) were observed across assays. Of formats widely adopted, bridge ELISAs showed the best median pAUC95 (0.039; range, 0.036–0.041).
CONCLUSIONS
Several novel assay formats submitted to this study showed heterogeneous performance. In 2018, the majority of the best performing GADA immunoassays consisted of novel or established nonradioactive tests that proved on a par or superior to the radiobinding assay, the previous gold standard assay format for GADA measurement.
Background and Aim
Cold snare polypectomy is safe and efficacious for removing polyps <10 mm with reduced rates of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding and postpolypectomy syndrome. This technique can also be used for sessile polyps ≥10 mm; however, further evidence is required to establish its safety. The aim of this study was to compare intraprocedure and postprocedure adverse events in patients who underwent cold (CSP) versus hot snare polypectomy (HSP) of 10–20 mm sessile colonic polyps.
Methods
Electronic medical records and endoscopy reports of all patients who underwent polypectomy for Paris 0‐IIa, Is, or 0‐IIa + Is 10–20 mm colonic polyps between January 2015 and June 2017 at three tertiary academic hospitals and one private hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Data on patient demographics, polyp characteristics, method of polypectomy, and intraprocedural and postpolypectomy adverse events were collected.
Results
A total of 408 patients (median age 67, 50% male) had 604 polyps, 10–20 mm in size, removed. Of these, 258 polyps were removed by HSP, with a median size of 15 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 12–20), compared to 346 polyps that were removed by CSP, with median size of 12 mm (IQR 10–15), P < 0.001. In the HSP group, 15 patients presented with postprocedure complications, including 11 with clinically significant bleeding, 2 with postpolypectomy syndrome, and 2 with abdominal pain. This compares with no postpolypectomy complications in the CSP group, P < 0.001.
Conclusion
In this study, CSP was not associated with any postpolypectomy adverse events. CSP appears to be safer than HSP for removing 10–20 mm‐sized sessile polyps. A prospective multicenter study has been commenced to verify these findings and to assess the efficacy of CSP for the complete resection of polyps of this size.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.