IBS vs controls Bifidobacterium Faecalibacterium Lactobacillaceae Bacteroides Enterobacteriaceae See Covering the Cover synopsis on 1. BACKGROUND & AIMS: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is common but difficult to treat. Altering the gut microbiota has been proposed as a strategy for treatment of IBS, but the association between the gut microbiome and IBS symptoms has not been well established. We performed a systematic review to explore evidence for this association. METHODS: We searched databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CDSR, and CENTRAL, through April 2, 2018 for case-control studies comparing the fecal or colon microbiomes of adult or pediatric patients with IBS with microbiomes of healthy individuals (controls). The primary outcome was differences in specific gut microbes between patients with IBS and controls. RESULTS: The search identified 2631 citations; 24 studies from 22 articles were included. Most studies evaluated adults presenting with various IBS subtypes. Family Enterobacteriaceae (phylum Proteobacteria), family Lactobacillaceae, and genus Bacteroides were increased in patients with IBS compared with controls, whereas uncultured Clostridiales I, genus Faecalibacterium (including Faecalibacterium prausnitzii), and genus Bifidobacterium were decreased in patients with IBS. The diversity of the microbiota was either decreased or not different in IBS patients compared with controls. More than 40% of included studies did not state whether cases and controls were comparable (did not describe sex and/or age characteristics). CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review, we identified specific bacteria associated with microbiomes of patients with IBS vs controls. Studies are needed to determine whether these microbes are a product or cause of IBS.

No abstract

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection remains to be the major cause of important upper gastrointestinal diseases such as chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer, gastric adenocarcinoma, and mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma. H. pylori management in ASEAN: the Bangkok consensus report gathered key opinion leaders for the region to review and evaluate clinical aspects of H. pylori infection and to develop consensus statements, rationales, and grades of recommendation for the management of H. pylori infection in clinical practice in ASEAN countries. This ASEAN Consensus consisted of 34 international experts from 10 ASEAN countries, Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. The meeting mainly focused on four issues: (i) epidemiology and disease association; (ii) diagnostic tests; (iii) management; and (iv) follow-up after eradication. The final results of each workshop were presented for consensus voting by all participants. Statements, rationale, and recommendations were developed from the available current evidence to help clinicians in the diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori and its clinical diseases.

BackgroundThis is a consensus developed by a group of expert endoscopists aiming to standardise the preparation, process and endoscopic procedural steps for diagnosis of early upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.MethodThe Delphi method was used to develop consensus statements through identification of clinical questions on diagnostic endoscopy. Three consensus meetings were conducted to consolidate the statements and voting. We conducted a systematic literature search on evidence for each statement. The statements were presented in the second consensus meeting and revised according to comments. The final voting was conducted at the third consensus meeting on the level of evidence and agreement.ResultsRisk stratification should be conducted before endoscopy and high risk endoscopic findings should raise an index of suspicion. The presence of premalignant mucosal changes should be documented and use of sedation is recommended to enhance detection of superficial upper GI neoplasms. The use of antispasmodics and mucolytics enhanced visualisation of the upper GI tract, and systematic endoscopic mapping should be conducted to improve detection. Sufficient examination time and structured training on diagnosis improves detection. Image enhanced endoscopy in addition to white light imaging improves detection of superficial upper GI cancer. Magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging is recommended for characterisation of upper GI superficial neoplasms. Endoscopic characterisation can avoid unnecessary biopsy.ConclusionThis consensus provides guidance for the performance of endoscopic diagnosis and characterisation for early gastric and oesophageal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early upper GI cancers.

Among high-ADR endoscopists, AMRs still varied. APP may be a promising secondary indicator for distinguishing between the one-and-done polyp endoscopist and the meticulous endoscopist. The evaluation of influence of new metrics on colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention requires a larger population-based study.

NCT01142180.

NBI increased the detection rate of IM compared with HD-WLE.

OBJECTIVES: Prokinetics are recommended for the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD) but systematic reviews give conflicting results on the efficacy of these agents. We have therefore conducted an updated systematic review to support the 2017 joint ACG/CAG dyspepsia guidelines. METHODS: Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, were searched until September 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either prokinetics and placebo or two types of prokinetics to improve FD symptoms. The primary outcome was absence or improvement of dyspeptic symptoms at the end of treatment. Double-blind eligibility assessment and data extraction was performed. Pooled risk ratios of symptoms persisting or adverse events occurring, and standardized mean difference of quality-of-life (QoL) scores with 95% CI, using a random effects model, were calculated. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: The search identified 1388 citations; 38 studies in 35 papers were included. Of these, 29 trials comparing prokinetics with placebo were found. There was a statistically significant effect of prokinetic treatment in reducing global symptoms of FD (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89; I2 91%; NNT 7), regardless of FD subtype or ethnicity. When comparing two types of prokinetic, the most commonly used comparator was domperidone. There was no difference in reducing global symptoms (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07). QoL was not improved with prokinetic treatment. The adverse events with individual prokinetics were not different from placebo, except for cisapride. The GRADE assessment rated the quality of the evidence in each outcome as very low. CONCLUSIONS: From the current evidence, prokinetics may be effective for the treatment in all subtypes of FD, with very low quality of evidence. There was no difference between prokinetics for dyspeptic symptom improvement. High-quality RCTs with large sample sizes of FD patients are needed to verify the efficacy of prokinetics.