Background Our understanding of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its implications for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is rapidly evolving. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in IBD patients with COVID-19. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science, MedRxiv, and Google Scholar from inception through October 2020. We included studies with IBD patients and confirmed COVID-19. Data were collected on the prevalence, patient characteristics, pre-infection treatments for IBD, comorbidities, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU), admission, and death. Results Twenty-three studies with 51,643 IBD patients and 1449 with COVID-19 met our inclusion criteria. In 14 studies (n = 50,706) that included IBD patients with and without COVID-19, the prevalence of infection was 1.01% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.10). Of IBD patients with COVID-19, 52.7% had Crohn’s disease, 42.2% had ulcerative colitis, and 5.1% had indeterminate colitis. Nine studies (n = 687) reported outcomes according to IBD therapy received. Compared with patients on corticosteroids, those on antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy had a lower risk of hospitalization (risk ratio [RR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.35; P < .01; I2 = 0%) and ICU admission (RR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.37; P < .01) but not death (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02-1.71; P = .13; I2 = 39%). Compared with patients on mesalamine, those on antitumor necrosis factor therapy had a lower risk of hospitalizations (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25-0.54), ICU admissions (RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.58), and death (0.21; 95% CI, 0.04-1.00). Comparing patients on immunomodulators vs mesalamine or anti-TNF therapy, there was no difference in these outcomes. Conclusions The prevalence of COVID-19 in IBD patients was low. Use of corticosteroids or mesalamine was significantly associated with worse outcomes, whereas use of anti-TNFs was associated with more favorable outcomes. Further investigation clarifying the mechanisms of these disparate observations could help identify risk and adverse outcome-mitigating strategies for patients with IBD.

Background and study aims Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) allows for treatment of epithelial and sub-epithelial lesions (SELs) unsuitable to conventional resection techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of clip-assisted method for non-exposed EFTR using FTRD or over-the-scope clip of gastrointestinal tumors. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of histologic complete resection (R0). Secondary outcomes of interest were the rate of enbloc resection, FTR, adverse events, and post-EFTR surgery. Random-effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates and generate forest plots. Results Eighteen studies with 730 patients and 733 lesions were included in the analyses. Indications for EFTR were difficult/residual colorectal adenoma, adenoma at a diverticulum or appendiceal orifice and early cancer (n = 634), colorectal SELs (n = 42), and upper gastrointestinal lesions (n = 51), other colonic lesions (n = 6). Median size of lesions was 13.5 mm. There were 22 failed EFTR attempts. Pooled overall R0 resection rate was 82 % (95 % CI: 75, 89). The pooled overall FTR rate was 83 % (95 % CI: 77, 89). The pooled overall enbloc resection rate was 95 (95 % CI: 92, 96). The pooled estimates for perforation and bleeding were < 0.1 % and 2 %, respectively. Following EFTR, a total of 110 patients underwent surgery for any reason [pooled rate 7 % (95 % 2, 14). The pooled rates for post-EFTR surgery due to invasive cancer, for non-curative endoscopic resection and for adverse events were 4 %, < 0.1 % and < 0.1 %, respectively. No mortality related to EFTR was noted. Conclusions EFTR appears to be safe and effective for gastrointestinal lesions that are not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection. This technique should be considered as an alternative to surgery in selected cases.

Background Patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis (UC) are at an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Risk stratification is important to identify patients who require more frequent endoscopic surveillance. Serrated epithelial change (SEC) found in patients with long-standing colitis may be associated with neoplasia and serve as a marker to stratify patients at higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods A case-control study was performed to compare the rates of neoplasia between UC patients with SEC and UC patients without SEC who were matched for age, disease duration, and disease extent. Paired tests, conditional logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to compare groups. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed, combining our local data with previously published data. Results This study included 196 UC patients without prior neoplasia, 98 with SEC and 98 without SEC. Ulcerative colitis patients with SEC had a significantly higher rate of synchronous or metachronous neoplasia than UC patients without SEC (26.5% vs 3.1%; P &lt; 0.001). Synchronous or metachronous high-grade dysplasia and CRC were found more frequently in UC patients with SEC than UC patients without SEC (11.2% vs 2.0%; P = 0.02). A meta-analysis was consistent with these findings, showing a higher rate of neoplasia in patients with SEC compared with those without SEC (16.4% vs 3.9%; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Serrated epithelial change is associated with a significantly increased risk of synchronous and metachronous neoplasia including high-grade dysplasia and CRC in patients with UC. Histopathological findings of SEC should warrant closer endoscopic surveillance for CRC.

Background: The use of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia has a high incidence of post-procedural gastroesophageal reflux (GER). Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) may be an ideal endoscopic treatment. We report our experience with the use of post-POEM TIF. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, post-POEM patients with GER who underwent TIF were included. The study end points were: (i) technical success; (ii) safety; (iii) effectiveness (changes in symptoms, scores, proton pump inhibitor [PPI] use, pH studies). Results: 12 patients underwent TIF after POEM, nine of whom had daily symptoms, with 91.7% requiring twice daily (BID) PPIs. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Two adverse events occurred. There were significant decreases in the percentage of patients on BID PPIs (P = 0.03), frequency of daily symptoms (P = 0.03), Reflux Severity Index questionnaire, and GERD Health-related Quality of Life scores (P = 0.03 and P = 0.003; n = 6). pH studies performed in seven of the patients showed a significant reduction in the mean DeMeester score (P = 0.05) and mean percentage acid exposure time (P = 0.04). Conclusion: Our experience suggests that TIF may be effective and safe in treating GER after POEM. Larger prospective trials are needed.