Background and Aims: Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected endoscopy services globally, the impact on trainees has not been evaluated. We aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on procedural volumes and on the emotional well-being of endoscopy trainees worldwide. Methods: An international survey was disseminated over a 3-week period in April 2020. The primary outcome was the percentage reduction in monthly procedure volume before and during COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included potential variation of COVID-19 impact between different continents and rates and predictors of anxiety and burnout among trainees. Results: Across 770 trainees from 63 countries, 93.8% reported a reduction in endoscopy case volume. The median percentage reduction in total procedures was 99% (interquartile range, 85%-100%), which varied internationally (P < .001) and was greatest for colonoscopy procedures. Restrictions in case volume and trainee activity were common barriers. A total of 71.9% were concerned that the COVID-19 pandemic could prolonged training. Anxiety was reported in 52.4% of respondents and burnout in 18.8%. Anxiety was independently associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR], 2.15; P < .001), adequacy of personal protective equipment (OR, 1.75; P Z .005), lack of institutional support for emotional health (OR, 1.67; P Z .008), and concerns regarding prolongation of training (OR, 1.60; P Z .013). Modifying existing national guidelines to support adequate endoscopy training during the pandemic was supported by 68.9%. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to restrictions in endoscopic volumes and endoscopy training, with high rates of anxiety and burnout among endoscopy trainees worldwide. Targeted measures by training programs to address these key issues are warranted to improve trainee well-being and support trainee education.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo determine how self-reported level of exposure to patients with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) affected the perceived safety, training and well-being of residents and fellows.MethodsWe administered an anonymous, voluntary, web-based survey to a convenience sample of trainees worldwide. The survey was distributed by email and social media posts from April 20th to May 11th, 2020. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for in March and April 2020 (0, 1–30, 31–60, >60). Survey questions addressed (1) safety and access to personal protective equipment (PPE), (2) training and professional development and (3) well-being and burnout.ResultsSurveys were completed by 1420 trainees (73% residents, 27% fellows), most commonly from the USA (n=670), China (n=150), Saudi Arabia (n=76) and Taiwan (n=75). Trainees who cared for a greater number of patients with COVID-19 were more likely to report limited access to PPE and COVID-19 testing and more likely to test positive for COVID-19. Compared with trainees who did not take care of patients with COVID-19 , those who took care of 1–30 patients (adjusted OR [AOR] 1.80, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.51), 31–60 patients (AOR 3.30, 95% CI 1.86 to 5.88) and >60 patients (AOR 4.03, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.63) were increasingly more likely to report burnout. Trainees were very concerned about the negative effects on training opportunities and professional development irrespective of the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for.ConclusionExposure to patients with COVID-19 is significantly associated with higher burnout rates in physician trainees.

Background/Aim:Due to epidemic levels of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and resulting nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) will be driving factors in liver disease burden in the coming years in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE).Materials and Methods:Models were used to estimate NAFLD and NASH disease progression, primarily based on changes in adult prevalence rates of adult obesity and DM. The published estimates and expert interviews were used to build and validate the model projections.Results:In both countries, the prevalence of NAFLD increased through 2030 parallel to projected increases in the prevalence of obesity and DM. By 2030, there were an estimated 12,534,000 NAFLD cases in Saudi Arabia and 372,000 cases in UAE. Increases in NASH cases were relatively greater than the NAFLD cases due to aging of the population and disease progression. Likewise, prevalent cases of compensated cirrhosis and advanced liver disease are projected to at least double by 2030, while annual incident liver deaths increase in both countries to 4800 deaths in Saudi Arabia and 140 deaths in UAE.Conclusions:Continued high rates of adult obesity and DM, in combination with aging populations, suggest that advanced liver disease and mortality attributable to NAFLD/NASH will increase across both countries. Reducing the growth of the NAFLD population, along with potential therapeutic options, will be needed to reduce liver disease burden.

Debates are inevitable in science and could be a powerful tool for addressing controversial topics as it promotes critical thinking and inspires individuals to consider alternate viewpoints. However, debates can help only to identify the issues that need to be clarified to address this question, but it can never help resolve the controversy itself. In the era of evidence‐based medicine, the need for an evidence‐based debate is mandatory. Polarising opinions and major debate have recently arisen in hepatology on the nomenclature and diagnostic criteria for fatty liver disease associated with metabolic dysfunction (non alcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD]‐metabolic (dysfunction) associated fatty liver disease [MAFLD] debate). The aim of this viewpoint is to suggest a way to settle the debate through evidence. Descriptive review using PubMed to identify literature on the evidence and eminence‐based medicine and studies comparing MAFLD and NAFLD criteria. The emerging studies comparing the performance of diagnostic criteria of NAFLD and MAFLD represent the dawn of a new era for reframing the ongoing debate by acquisition of the mandatory evidence that will both resolve the debate and lead to novel avenues of research. In conclusion, the time has come to hold debate and focus on gathering and building the evidence to settle it. It does not matter who wins the debate and once there is robust evidence, we should all follow it wherever it leads.