BACKGROUND & AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with submucosal injection is the current standard for the resection of large, nonmalignant colorectal polyps. We investigated whether underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is superior to CEMR for large (20-40mm) sessile or flat colorectal polyps. METHODS: In this prospective randomized controlled study, patients with sessile or flat colorectal polyps between 20 and 40 mm in size were randomly assigned to UEMR or CEMR. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included en bloc and R0 resection rates, number of resected pieces, procedure time, and adverse events. RESULTS: En bloc resection rates were 33.3% in the UEMR group and 18.4% in the CEMR group (P ¼ .045); R0 resection rates were 32.1% and 15.8% for UEMR vs CEMR, respectively (P ¼ .025). UEMR was performed with significantly fewer pieces compared to CEMR (2 pieces: 45.5% UEMR vs 17.7% CEMR; P ¼ .001). The overall recurrence rate did not differ between both groups (P ¼ .253); however, subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in favor of UEMR for lesions of >30 mm to 40 mm in size (P ¼ .031). The resection time was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 vs 14 minutes; P < .001). Adverse events did not differ between both groups (P ¼ .611). CONCLUSIONS: UEMR is superior to CEMR regarding en bloc resection, R0 resection, and procedure time for large colorectal lesions and shows significantly lower recurrence rates for lesions >30 mm to 40 mm in size. UEMR should be considered for the endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps.

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 crisis has impacted on all aspects of health care including medical education and training. We describe the disruption of endoscopy training in a tertiary care center in Germany.Design/MethodThe reorganization of a high-volume endoscopy unit during the German COVID-19 outbreak is described with special focus on endoscopy trainees. Changes in case volume of gastroenterology fellows were evaluated and compared to a year prior to the outbreak.ResultsReallocation of resources led to the transfer of gastroenterology fellows to intensive care and infectious disease units. Case volume of fellows declined between January and April 2020 by up to 63%. When compared with data from the year prior to the outbreak, endoscopy performed by fellows reduced by up to 56%. Educational meetings and skill evaluation were cancelled indefinitely.ConclusionThe COVID-19 outbreak has had a negative impact on endoscopy training of gastroenterology fellows in a high-volume center in Germany. This must be taken into consideration when planning “return-strategies” after the pandemic.

Healthcare workers (HCW) who perform aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data on infection rates and vaccination are limited. A nationwide, cross-sectional study focusing on AGP-related specialties was conducted between 3 May 2021 and 14 June 2021. Vaccination rates among HCW, perception of infection risk, and infection rates were analyzed, focusing on the comparison of gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) and other AGP-related specialties (NON-GIE), from the beginning of the pandemic until the time point of the study. Infections rates among HCW developed similarly to the general population during the course of the pandemic, however, with significantly higher infections rates among the GIE specialty. The perceived risk of infection was distributed similarly among HCW in GIE and NON-GIE (91.7%, CI: 88.6–94.4 vs. 85.8%, CI: 82.4–89.0; p < 0.01) with strongest perceived threats posed by AGPs (90.8%) and close patient contact (70.1%). The very high vaccination rate (100–80%) among physicians was reported at 83.5%, being significantly more frequently reported than among nurses (56.4%, p < 0.01). GIE had more often stated very high vaccination rate compared with NON-GIE (76.1% vs. 65.3%, p < 0.01). A significantly higher rate of GIE was reported to have fewer concerns regarding infection risk after vaccination than NON-GIE (92.0% vs. 80.3%, p < 0.01).

Despite available vaccinations COVID-19 case numbers around the world are still growing, and effective medications against severe cases are lacking. In this work, we developed a machine learning model which predicts mortality for COVID-19 patients using data from the multi-center ‘Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2-infected patients’ (LEOSS) observational study (>100 active sites in Europe, primarily in Germany), resulting into an AUC of almost 80%. We showed that molecular mechanisms related to dementia, one of the relevant predictors in our model, intersect with those associated to COVID-19. Most notably, among these molecules was tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2), a protein that has been patented as drug target in Alzheimer's Disease but also genetically associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes. We experimentally verified that anti-cancer drugs Sorafenib and Regorafenib showed a clear anti-cytopathic effect in Caco2 and VERO-E6 cells and can thus be regarded as potential treatments against COVID-19. Altogether, our work demonstrates that interpretation of machine learning based risk models can point towards drug targets and new treatment options, which are strongly needed for COVID-19.

Purpose Reported antibiotic use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is far higher than the actual rate of reported bacterial co- and superinfection. A better understanding of antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 is necessary. Methods 6457 SARS-CoV-2-infected cases, documented from March 18, 2020, until February 16, 2021, in the LEOSS cohort were analyzed. As primary endpoint, the correlation between any antibiotic treatment and all-cause mortality/progression to the next more advanced phase of disease was calculated for adult patients in the complicated phase of disease and procalcitonin (PCT) ≤ 0.5 ng/ml. The analysis took the confounders gender, age, and comorbidities into account. Results Three thousand, six hundred twenty-seven cases matched all inclusion criteria for analyses. For the primary endpoint, antibiotic treatment was not correlated with lower all-cause mortality or progression to the next more advanced (critical) phase (n = 996) (both p > 0.05). For the secondary endpoints, patients in the uncomplicated phase (n = 1195), regardless of PCT level, had no lower all-cause mortality and did not progress less to the next more advanced (complicated) phase when treated with antibiotics (p > 0.05). Patients in the complicated phase with PCT > 0.5 ng/ml and antibiotic treatment (n = 286) had a significantly increased all-cause mortality (p = 0.029) but no significantly different probability of progression to the critical phase (p > 0.05). Conclusion In this cohort, antibiotics in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were not associated with positive effects on all-cause mortality or disease progression. Additional studies are needed. Advice of local antibiotic stewardship- (ABS-) teams and local educational campaigns should be sought to improve rational antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients.