A new decade has arrived. Dramatic changes in health care are already occurring, and continued changes will inevitably involve the practice of gastroenterology and hepatology. Sometimes, we can become so focused on the present (or the future) that it can be easy to lose track of the past, so before embarking on the next decade of research and innovation, we believe it important to briefly pause and reflect on some of the major developments that occurred in gastroenterology and hepatology between 2010 and 2019.
This article represents a first for The American Journal of Gastroenterology. It is written by the Associate Editors of the Journal, acknowledged experts in their respective fields. The Editors have reviewed the scientific literature over the past decade to identify major trends, developments, innovations, and practice changing ideas in 8 major areas of interest (endoscopy, esophagus, colorectal, small intestine, disorders of gut-brain interaction, hepatology, pancreatology, and inflammatory bowel disease). Key articles from gastroenterology and hepatology journals around the world have been summarized and cited; this review does not focus exclusively on the articles published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. The following sections will briefly summarize these key trends. This article is not meant to serve as a comprehensive review of all of the important articles published in the past decade. In addition, this review will not discuss research on COVID-19, as this pandemic began in 2020. We know that you will benefit from this overview, and we hope that you enjoy reviewing the past decade of achievements as much as we enjoyed producing it.
Three major themes in the practice of endoscopy over the past decade include advances in the capabilities of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), the explosion of therapeutic procedures involving the submucosal or “third” space, and identification of the potential for infections to be transmitted by reprocessed duodenoscopes.
The practice of interventional EUS has evolved tremendously over the past decade. One of its major advances has been the use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), first reported in an ex vivo benchtop study. LAMS were initially designed to enable transluminal drainage of nonadherent extraintestinal fluid collections (1). It was US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2013 for pseudocyst drainage (2), and in 2017, the AXIOS Stent and Electrocautery Enhanced Delivery System was FDA approved to facilitate transgastric or transduodenal endoscopic drainage of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts ≥6 cm in size and symptomatic walled-off necrosis ≥6 cm (3). In the past few years, its clinical use has greatly expanded allowing true lumen apposition, thereby revolutionizing interventional EUS-guided procedures. Its clinical use, supported by clinical studies, has evolved from pancreatic pseudocyst drainage to gall bladder drainage (4), bile duct drainage (5), gastroenterostomy (6), and creation of a transgastric fistula to access the excluded stomach in Roux-en-Y anatomy (7). The latter technique enables the endoscopist to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and EUS on these anatomically challenging patients by advancing the endoscope through the LAMS.
Third space endoscopy/submucosal endoscopy
Routine luminal gastrointestinal endoscopy includes esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and small bowel endoscopy. The gastrointestinal lumen is considered the primary or first space. Improvements in devices and techniques have enabled endoscopists to gain access into the second space (peritoneal cavity) over the past 2 decades and into the third space (submucosal space) in the past decade.
A major concern with performing third space endoscopy is ensuring secure closure of the entry point into the submucosa. The introduction of the mucosal flap safety valve (SEMF) technique in 2007 allowed endoscopists to safely access the second and third space with successful defect closure using the mucosal flap (8). The efficacy of the SEMF technique was first demonstrated in an endoscopic myotomy animal study in 2007 (9). Since then, submucosal endoscopy has been used for a variety of gastrointestinal diseases, including per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia (10), submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection for submucosal tumors (11), gastric POEM for gastroparesis (12), and submucosal tunneling endoscopic septum division (Z-POEM) for Zenker diverticulum (13). Many studies have showed promising results for POEM (14–17), submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection (18–20), gastric POEM (21–23), and Z-POEM (24,25).
Endoscopic submucosal dissection was first described in 1988 as an endoscopic technique to resect early gastric neoplasia (26). It should be included as one of the submucosal endoscopy techniques because it resects both the mucosal and mucosal layers. However, it does not use the SEMF technique. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is worth mentioning as a notable advance because it has rapidly progressed from an uncommon experimental technique to a well-established, routinely performed procedure involving the endoscopic en bloc removal of gastrointestinal epithelial lesions (27).
Duodenoscope transmitted infections
The past decade bore witness to numerous reports of the transmission of multidrug-resistant bacteria, particularly carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae, via duodenoscopes during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures (28–31). In contrast to previous infectious outbreaks associated with endoscopic transmission, no breaches in the reprocessing protocol were identified in most of these outbreaks. These events led the FDA to mandate enhanced duodenoscope–reprocessing techniques, including double high-level disinfection, ethylene oxide sterilization, obtaining cultures postreprocessing, and the use of liquid chemical sterilization techniques (32). However, the utility of many of these techniques remains unclear (33,34). A subsequent FDA postmarket surveillance study found “high-concern” bacteria on up to 6.1% of the fully reprocessed duodenoscopes (35). These results led the FDA to recommend transitioning from fixed end-cap duodenoscopes to those with novel designs, involving disposable components that facilitate or eliminate the need for reprocessing (36). Recently, single-use duodenoscopes have been developed; their role is being actively evaluated (37,38). Future advances may include better mechanisms to validate adequate reprocessing and novel sterilization techniques, including low temperature reprocessing.
The 2010s witnessed major changes in the evaluation and management of esophageal disorders. Entering the decade, concerns over proton pump inhibitor (PPI) overuse challenged the dogma that chronic PPI use was safe. Throughout the 2010s, a near constant flow of publications reported weak associations between PPI use and an extensive list of potential adverse effects, including gastrointestinal cancer (39).
This prompted practitioners to discontinue PPIs in many patients, even those at high risk of acid-peptic complications and encouraged patients to self-discontinue PPIs without consulting their providers. These actions occurred despite publications released by gastroenterological societies designed to counter these potentially dangerous actions (40–42). At the close of the decade, the first large scale randomized trial did not confirm any of the purported PPIs adverse effects other than a small increase in enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% over 3 years of use) (42). The 2010s closed with information about a novel treatment option because potassium-competitive acid blockers were shown to have a faster onset of action, with dose-dependent and meal-independent acid suppression that is as efficacious if not better than PPIs in treating acid-peptic disorders (43).
Within the realm of acid-peptic disorders, pathologic esophageal acid exposure time was firmly established as the key metric from esophageal reflux monitoring that predicts the treatment outcome (44) and provides conclusive evidence for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (45). For pH-impedance monitoring, the baseline impedance value measured during the nocturnal period (mean nocturnal baseline impedance) and a measure of the frequency of a primary peristaltic wave that clears and neutralizes refluxed acid (postreflux swallow–induced peristaltic wave index) were introduced as objective assessments that may predict GERD outcomes (46–48). Baseline impedance measurements can now be made using a novel device developed for use during sedated endoscopy, with 2 arrays of impedance sensors mounted on an esophageal balloon (49,50). Objective consensus criteria for conclusive evidence, equivocal evidence, and absence of GERD were published (45). Nonreflux etiologies for esophageal symptoms were demonstrated to outnumber-proven GERD in PPI nonresponders with objective testing (51), and superior management outcomes were demonstrated when targeted reflux therapies were offered to patients with proven GERD (44,51–53). Therefore, the diagnostic armamentarium for the clinician grew through the decade, allowing better precision in making or refuting a GERD diagnosis. On the therapeutic front, alternatives to PPI therapy continued to be evaluated. Magnetic sphincter augmentation (54,55) and transoral incisionless fundoplication (56) rose in prominence, each demonstrating short- and intermediate-term evidence of efficacy in well-selected patients.
The advent of endoscopic therapy for Barrett's esophagus and early esophageal neoplasia that began in the 2000s led to a management revolution in the 2010s. Guidelines shifted from recommending surveillance for low grade dysplasia to considering endoscopic therapy, from surveillance or esophagectomy for high grade dysplasia to endoscopic therapy, and from esophagectomy to endoscopic therapy for T1a adenocarcinoma (57). The long-awaited Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's Metaplasia Trial was published in 2018, demonstrating decreased progression to the composite outcome of high grade dysplasia, cancer, or death among those randomized to taking full-dose aspirin and esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily compared with those taking no aspirin and esomeprazole 20 mg once daily (58).
During the past decade, we have seen a reduction in the prevalence of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori infection, primarily attributed to improved antibiotic and PPI regimens. A systematic review showed that concomitant therapy for 5 or 10 days was superior to PPI-amoxicillin-clarithromycin–based triple therapies administered for 5, 7, or 10 days but was not superior when triple therapy was administered for 14 days (59). The general prevalence of this infection declined from 11% to 9% by the end of the decade (60). Gastric intestinal metaplasia remains a significant issue in clinical practice, especially regarding concerns for the development of gastric cancer. Several risk factors have been identified, and these include advanced age, male sex, nonwhite race, ethnicity, and the use of cigarettes (61). Endoscopic grading of gastric mucosa remains an important determinant for identifying early gastric cancer. In patients who underwent eradication of H. pylori infection, mucosal atrophy was identified to be a critical risk factor for the development of gastric cancer (62).
Over the past decade, we have seen an increase in the recognition that eosinophilic gut disease is a significant clinical issue. Many factors have been investigated to account for this rise including the role of diet, the microbiome, and other lifestyle factors (63). Within the field of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), PPI responders were demonstrated to have similar demographic, clinical, and molecular characteristics as PPI nonresponders, prompting guidelines against requiring PPI nonresponse as a criterion for EoE diagnosis (64–67). Allergy testing (skin prick, patch, or serum) was determined to be inaccurate for identifying causative foods (67). Multicenter, randomized, controlled trials assessed clinical outcomes from topical steroids formulated specifically for EoE and biologics, positioning both of these options as medical therapies for EoE treatment in the next decade (68–72).
Updated versions of the Chicago Classification further enhanced characterization of esophageal motor disorders on high resolution manometry (HRM) (73). The role of adjunctive HRM-provocative maneuvers (multiple rapid swallows, rapid drink challenge, and standardized test meal) and adjunctive tests (functional lumen imaging probe) have been further established to avoid both over- and under-diagnosis of esophageal motor disorders using the existing HRM protocols (74). Targeted endoscopic myotomy (POEM) of aberrantly contracting esophageal smooth muscle and of a nonrelaxing lower esophageal sphincter was introduced as a niche procedure with excellent symptom outcomes, albeit with the risk of development of significant acid reflux in approximately half of the patients (75).
Advances in the field of colorectal disorders over the past decade have covered a range of topics, from the more modest and routine (increasing the efficiency of bowel preps) to the more advanced and less common (evaluating microsatellite instability). The following section briefly highlights some of these key advances.
Effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy is essential for optimizing the detection of colon polyps and colorectal neoplasia. It has also become an important quality metric for colonoscopy (76,77). Noncompliance to dosing instructions has been shown to be a strong predictor of suboptimal bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 6.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2–14.2) (78). An analysis of average-risk patients who underwent routine screening colonoscopy showed that 86.7% of patients with poor bowel preparation had either failed to complete the preparation or failed to follow the written instructions on the timing of preparation or dietary restrictions (79). Split-dosing, with at least 50% of the bowel preparation consumed on the day of the examination, is recognized as superior in both efficacy and tolerability to the day-before dosing (80,81). A meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials reported that split-dosing of 4 L of a polyethylene glycol solution, compared with the day-before dosing, increased the number of adequate bowel preparations (OR 3.7; 95% CI, 2.8–4.9) and patient willingness to repeat the preparation for a subsequent colonoscopy (OR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1–2.9) while decreasing the incidence of nausea (OR 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4–0.8) (82). The efficacy of the same-day bowel preparation is supported by a meta-analysis of 15 randomized studies, which noted similar bowel preparation quality (relative risk [RR], 0.95, 95% CI, 0.90–1.00), adenoma detection rate (ADR; RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79–1.20), and patient willingness to repeat the process (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.96–1.36) for the same day compared with split-dosing (83).
In addition, the likelihood of suboptimal preparation is increased for colonoscopies scheduled later in the day (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.7–2.1) (84), which may be a function of the longer time between consumption of the bowel preparation and the procedure (runway time). A prospective analysis of 378 consecutive outpatients from a single practice found that every hour a patient waited between the last preparation dose and the start of colonoscopy translated to a nearly 10% decline in the likelihood of receiving a good or excellent bowel preparation quality rating (85). Thus, a shorter runway time may increase the chance of a good or excellent bowel preparation, which may, in turn, improve the detection of colorectal neoplasia. Recent guidelines strongly recommend split-dose bowel preparation, with the same-day preparation as an alternative to split-dosing, particularly for patients who schedule an afternoon colonoscopy, with the last bowel preparation dose beginning 4–6 hours before and completed ≥2 hours before the procedure time (80).
Updates in colon and colon cancer prevention
The past decade has witnessed significant advances in our understanding of familial predisposition to colorectal cancer (CRC) and hereditary syndromes (86). Individuals with a family history of CRC are at increased risk for developing CRC. The magnitude of that increased risk depends on the number of relatives with CRC, the degree of biological relationship (first degree vs second degree relative), and the age at which the relatives were diagnosed with CRC (87–89). Recent studies now report pathogenic cancer susceptibility genes that involve both high and moderate penetrance genes in approximately 10%–15% of individuals with CRC (90–92). To diagnose these high-risk patients, healthcare institutions have begun to widely adopt “universal” tumor screening using microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemistry showing deficient expression of the mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) to identify patients with colorectal or endometrial cancers most likely to have Lynch syndrome. Advances in technology (modern next generation sequencing), combined with an increase in the number of testing laboratories, have made testing affordable (less than $500). Multigene panels can now test for dozens of genes in parallel, thereby offering comprehensive testing of genetic predisposition across multiple cancer types. In addition, precision therapy options linked to the genomic basis of CRC are on the rise. For example, treatment options for patients with CRC and pathogenic mutations in the Lynch syndrome mismatch repair genes are the best characterized and tailored therapy includes immune checkpoint inhibitors (93).
In the past decade, the terminology for carcinoid tumors has changed, and they have been renamed neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Increased recognition of NETs has occurred in the past decade in part because of improved imaging techniques such as the DOTA-octreotate, oxodotreotide, DOTA-(Tyr3)-octreotate, and DOTA-0-Tyr3-Octreotate Gallium 68 Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography. The overall incidence increased from 0.27 per 100,000 to 1.32 per 100,000 per year in England (94). Improvements in the management of NETs include the use of lanreotide, which has been shown to have a potent antitumor effect (95), and the recent approval of telotristat (96) and the use of a somatostatin receptor-based peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with 177Lut-DOTA-octreotate, oxodotreotide, DOTA-(Tyr3)-octreotate, and DOTA-0-Tyr3-Octreotate (97). The rectum is the third most common site for NETs and approximately 80% are small (<1 cm) and can be managed endoscopically (98).
Another key advance has been an increased emphasis on high quality colonoscopy, including monitoring key quality metrics such as the ADR and improved bowel preparation (99). The ADR goal has been increased to 30% for screening colonoscopy (99). Improved colonoscopy performance may be achieved through enhanced techniques (change in patient position, water exchange, and second look in the proximal colon), technology (high magnification scopes, accessory devices such as Endocuff, Endocap and Endorings, and use of artificial intelligence software), educational initiatives, and regular performance reviews (100,101).
SMALL INTESTINAL DISORDERS: CELIAC DISEASE AND SHORT BOWEL SYNDROME
Our understanding of celiac disease epidemiology has evolved in the past decade. Previous studies found that fewer than 20% of patients with celiac disease in the United States had the diagnosis established (102). However, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013–2014) found that more than 50% of people with celiac disease now have an established diagnosis, suggesting improved disease awareness and testing (103). Interestingly, although the prevalence of celiac disease in the US population is 0.7% (104), the adoption of the gluten-free diet (GFD) by people without celiac disease (whether because of nonceliac gluten sensitivity, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), or as an albeit-unproven wellness strategy) has grown more rapidly and is now reported by nearly 2% of the US population (101). This had occurred despite a lack of strong evidence that empiric GFD improves clinical outcomes for many patients without gluten-related enteropathy.
Strategies for the prevention of celiac disease have focused on the timing of gluten introduction during infancy, and in 2014, 2 randomized trials tested the strategies of early (4 months) or delayed (12 months) gluten introduction, using 6 months as the comparator. Neither strategy resulted in a reduced risk of developing celiac disease (105,106). Subsequent to these negative trials, cohort and case-control studies found that a higher quantity of gluten consumed during the first 2 years of life was associated with a modest increase in the risk of celiac disease, suggesting that the quantity of gluten intake (as opposed to the timing of its introduction) may be the key factor, thus deserving of future studies (107).
The burden of the GFD has been documented in recent years, with self-reported treatment for celiac disease rated as more burdensome than that reported by individuals with diabetes mellitus or congestive heart failure (108). This difficulty is, in part, because of uncertainties surrounding the gluten-free status (and thus safety of) of the prepared foods. A crowd-sourced analysis of a portable gluten detection device found that pizza and pasta dishes at restaurants were particularly prone to gluten contamination (109). This treatment burden has spurred efforts to develop nondietary therapies for celiac disease. In addition to repurposing existing medications (such as open-capsule budesonide for refractory celiac disease) (110), drugs in various phases of clinical development include tight junction modulators (111), gluten degradation therapy (112), and tolerance-inducing peptide therapy (113).
Short bowel syndrome
There is great interest in the use of intestinal growth factors in patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS) who have been unable to achieve enteral independence despite optimization of diet and medical management. Teduglutide—a recombinant, degradation-resistant, longer-acting glucagon-like peptide-2 (GLP-2) analogue—was found to be safe and well-tolerated, with a doubling of the response rate in those receiving teduglutide compared with those on placebo (63% vs 30%, P = 0.002). In addition, 54% of those receiving teduglutide were able to reduce at least one parenteral nutrition (PN) infusion day/week compared with 23% for placebo (114). Longer-term data from an open-label extension study suggest continued improvement in PN weaning with continued use of teduglutide (115). More recently, a 24-week, phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of teduglutide in pediatric patients with SBS demonstrated significant reduction in parenteral support (116). Teduglutide is now approved for both adult and pediatric patients with SBS as an aid to PN weaning. Longer-acting GLP-2 analoges with the potential advantage of less frequent administration are in development. The long-term benefits and risks, timing of administration in relation to the onset of SBS, optimal patient selection for use, duration of treatment, and cost effectiveness of teduglutide require further study.
There has also been recent interest in GLP-1 analoges in SBS. In an open-label pilot study, liraglutide was subcutaneously administered daily to 8 SBS patients with an end-jejunostomy and was found to reduce ostomy wet weight output and increase both intestinal wet weight and energy absorption (117). The use of a combined GLP-1 and GLP-2 agonist in SBS is being explored. In a study involving lean and diabetic mice, a GLP-1/GLP-2 agonist showed increased gut epithelial volume and mucosal surface area and beneficial glycemic effects (118).
DISORDERS OF THE GUT-BRAIN INTERACTION (PREVIOUSLY CALLED FUNCTIONAL GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS)
New definition and psychogastroenterology
Over the years, there have been many different terms to describe the functional gastrointestinal disorders. An important advance in the past decade is to rename functional gastrointestinal disorders as disorders of the gut-brain interaction (119), which replaces the less specific and potentially stigmatizing term “functional” and reflects concepts of pathogenesis derived from brain imaging (120) and other studies showing that gut and brain factors cumulatively influence symptom severity in IBS (121). This reconceptualization strengthens the rationale for practitioners to routinely incorporate psychotherapeutic best practices and to expand their knowledge of effective psychotherapies, qualified and accessible mental health practitioners, and neuromodulator therapies (122).
Accumulated data now indicate that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can provide one-year improvement for IBS without psychopathology, yet this treatment can be difficult to obtain because of a limited number of therapists trained in gut-focused CBT paradigms. However, therapist-delivered telephone CBT and web-based CBT can increase availability with proven effectiveness in children, adolescents, and adults (123–125). Individual gut-directed hypnotherapy also improves symptoms, which is paralleled by normalization of abnormal central processing of visceral stimuli, further supporting the relevance of gut-brain interactions in these patients (126). Symptoms of IBS can improve for one year when administered to groups (127). Systematic review and network meta-analysis of traditional therapies for IBS revealed that low-to-modest dose tricyclic antidepressants are the most supported of central neuromodulators for intermediate-term chronic pain reduction and, compared with the benefits of compared therapies, rank first for decreasing pain and second for improving global symptoms (128).
A surge in new pharmacological treatments over the past decade now offers physicians and patients far more options than ever before.
The return of prokinetics.
Data collected over 10 years have mitigated claims of increased cardiovascular events associated with 5-HT4 agonists. Therefore, this past year witnessed the FDA reapproval of tegaserod for the treatment of IBS with predominant constipation in adult women younger than 65 years (129). Prucalopride was approved for adults with chronic idiopathic constipation (130), and it can improve symptoms in patients with gastroparesis (131).
Secretagogues have evolved with the advent of the guanylate cyclase C agonists, linaclotide (132) and plecanatide (133), and the sodium/hydrogen exchange 3 inhibitor tenapanor (134). All are FDA approved for treating IBS with predominant constipation, and the former 2 drugs are also approved for chronic idiopathic constipation. Improvements in global and individual IBS symptoms have been identified across a spectrum of clinical studies. The mechanisms of action for these agents have been well documented, and each offers advantage beyond its predecessors, mainly over-the-counter agents.
Eluxadoline, an FDA-approved combination μ−k opioid receptor agonist δ-receptor antagonist reduces global, pain, and bowel symptoms in individuals with IBS with predominant diarrhea. Prospective studies have also shown that it is effective in individuals failing to respond to over-the-counter loperamide (135,136). Small-intestinal release peppermint oil reduces the pain of IBS (137) and ranked first in reducing global symptoms in a systematic review and network meta-analysis (128), although it should be noted that the quality of studies varied from treatment to treatment, making direct comparisons challenging. More than 25% of patients with IBS with predominant diarrhea have bile acid malabsorption (138), and practitioners can employ cholestyramine, although there is only very-low certainty evidence (139).
The microbiome and therapy
Alteration in the intestinal microbiome has been suggested to play a role in the pathogenesis of disorders of the gut-brain interaction, and research has increased markedly in the past decade. Persistent symptoms meeting the diagnostic criteria of IBS (140) and functional dyspepsia (141) each manifest in about 10% of patients after an acute gastrointestinal infection. The link between IBS and chronic alterations of the small intestinal microbiome, referred to as small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, continues to generate interest (142). Alterations in the stool microbial composition in patients with IBS have been demonstrated, although the findings vary between studies, possibly because of the heterogeneous nature of IBS. Although stool samples are simple to obtain, microbiome sampling from other sites, including the small bowel mucosa, could provide more clinically relevant insights.
Targeting the gut microbiome with the nonabsorbable antibiotic, rifaximin, significantly improves IBS symptoms (143) and also seems to benefit functional dyspepsia (144). However, only modest, transient changes in fecal microbiota occur with therapy, suggesting nonantibiotic contributions to its action (145). Probiotics can benefit IBS, but the individual species and strains that are the most beneficial remains unclear (146,147). Associations of brain structure and function have been associated with the gut microbiome (148,149), and brain activation changes accompany improved depression and quality of life with probiotic administration (150). Fecal microbiota transplantation has been studied in IBS, but the results have not met expectations to date (151). Although some data suggest a possible benefit (152), it is premature to routinely recommend this therapy for IBS outside of clinical trials despite attempts for the do-it-yourself fecal microbiota transplant programs (153).
Diet is an important extrinsic factor affecting the gut microbiome and seems to play a key role in symptom generation. Over the past decade, diet research has mainly focused on the role of a diet low in fermentable oligo-, di-, and mono-saccharides and polyols (FODMAPs) and a GFD for the relief of symptoms in IBS. A number of small randomized controlled trials suggest benefit of both the low FODMAP and GFD in IBS; however, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend a GFD to reduce IBS symptoms and very low quality evidence that a low FODMAP diet is effective in reducing symptoms in patients with IBS (154).
Who could have foreseen that less than 30 years after the identification of the hepatitis C virus in 1989, well-tolerated therapies with virologic cure rates as high as 100% would be available? Initially labeled non-A non-B hepatitis, therapy consisted of interferon, followed by interferon and ribavirin and then pegylated interferon and ribavirin for up to 48 weeks. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of 30% were achieved in patients infected with genotype 1, the most common genotype. However, these successes came with considerable costs and side effects, including flu-like symptoms, depression, and occasional suicide. Initial excitement about one of the first direct acting antiviral agents, BILN2061, a protease inhibitor, was tempered by cardiac toxicity in animal studies and further development was abandoned (155).
It was not until the late 2000s that randomized clinical trials of the first protease inhibitors, telaprevir, and boceprevir were published, demonstrating the highest SVR rates yet to be seen, ∼70% (156,157). However, these proteases were used in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin, and discontinuation rates were double in the protease arms compared with pegylated interferon and ribavirin.
The next major advance was eliminating interferon from the treatment regimen. In 2013, a study that included an interferon-free regimen using the NS5B- polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir demonstrated that high SVR rates could be achieved without interferon (158). The first interferon-free regimen with drugs from different classes, a polymerase and a protease, included sofosbuvir and simeprevir. This combination, frequently referred to as the COmbination of SiMeprevir and sOfoSbuvir in HCV-infected patients (COSMOS) study regimen, demonstrated extraordinary SVR rates of 90% in genotype 1 patients (159). Despite the success of this regimen, it was later replaced by other regimens, in part, because the drugs were made by 2 different pharmaceutical companies.
Subsequent advances focused on developing pangenotypic regimens that did not include ribavirin (160–163). Velpatasvir-sofosbuvir and glecaprevir-pibrentasvir are 2 pangenotypic regimens without ribavirin that have virologic cure rates as high as 100% and discontinuation rates of <1% (161,163). Velpatasvir-sofosbuvir can be prescribed to patients with decompensated cirrhosis, an especially challenging population. Duration of therapy can be as short as 8 weeks with glecaprevir-pibrentasvir in patients who meet the criteria. Importantly, virologic cure is associated with lower liver-related and all-cause mortality (164).
Alcoholic hepatitis and liver transplantation
There is a burgeoning epidemic of alcohol-related liver disease that is now being increasingly recognized in younger individuals (165). The specter of alcoholic hepatitis looms large over the mortality statistics in alcohol-related liver disease. Patients with alcoholic hepatitis are prone to infections, complications of portal hypertension, and liver synthetic failure, and they have a poor prognosis (166). Although medical therapies such as corticosteroids and N-acetylcysteine can help in the short term, liver transplant remains the only curative option (166). Liver transplant in alcoholic hepatitis represents a unique comingling of ethical, medical, and psychosocial questions, and it was hardly ever performed until recently. A game-changing, small study from Europe showed that in <2% of patients evaluated for alcoholic hepatitis, there was satisfactory post-transplant survival, which was significantly better than historical controls (167). This was then replicated in a US-based study and then across multiple centers (168). Additional studies showed that the rate of significant alcohol relapse post-transplant remained similar to those who had alcoholic cirrhosis but had followed the 6-month pretransplant abstinence rule (168). With donated livers being a precious resource, this topic has ignited debate and has led several transplant centers to formulate policies that focus on patients who fulfill medical and ethical priorities for liver transplant while also reducing the potential for alcohol relapse in patients who have not been abstinent for 6 months.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
With the ever-expanding national obesity epidemic, it has become apparent that approximately half of the adult population in the United States will be obese by 2030 (169). Obesity directly correlates to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and has now become the most common cause of chronic liver disease in the world, affecting ∼30% of adults (170). It is estimated that there will be 100,000 million people with NAFLD by 2030 in the United States, including 25 million with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and 2.5 million with cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver transplant (171). Patients with NASH and fibrosis have an increased rate of liver-related and all-cause mortality, with cardiovascular disease as the most common cause of death in patients with NAFLD (172). With ongoing chronic liver damage in NASH, it has also been recognized that hepatocellular carcinoma occurs at an increased rate in patients with NASH even without cirrhosis (173). In fact, NASH has become the fastest-growing indication for liver transplantation in the United States and has replaced cirrhosis from hepatitis C (174). It has been shown that 7%–10% of body weight loss improves NASH, including fibrosis; however, this is often difficult for patients to sustain. There is no FDA-approved therapy for NASH, although current guidance from American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases recommends vitamin E and pioglitazone in select patients with biopsy-proven NASH (175). Over the past decade, there has been significant growth in our understanding of the pathophysiology of NAFLD, which has fueled the search for new pharmacologic options. Because the pathogenesis of NAFLD is complex, multiple targets are available and most likely we will need to address several targets simultaneously to arrest the progression of liver disease. Although there is a long list of agents undergoing preclinical and early clinical research, only 3—obeticholic acid, elafibranor, and cenicriviroc—are in advanced phase 3 clinical trials (176). In a recent interim analysis, obeticholic acid achieved improvement in liver fibrosis among patients with NASH and stage 2–3 fibrosis compared with placebo (177). It is very likely that there will be approved therapies for NASH and fibrosis within the next 5 years. Clearly, pharmacotherapy alone will not be the solution; we will need to continue preventative efforts to curtail the obesity epidemic and reduce its metabolic complications. We will also need to develop reliable, accessible, and noninvasive tools to diagnose and risk-stratify patients with NAFLD.
The 2 major developments of the past decade in clinical pancreatology have been the refinement of the diagnosis and management of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and the explosion of minimally invasive techniques to manage pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), particularly walled off pancreatic necrosis.
Recent observations have clarified the immunologic basis of type I AIP and suggested potential therapeutic targets. Humoral immunity is certainly a critical factor, based on patients' responses to B-cell depletion therapy. However, recent studies have suggested an equal or even greater role for T-cells, as evidenced by TH1/TH2 imbalance (178), abnormal T-regulatory cell expression (179), and increased lymphotoxin expression (180). Further experimental evidence suggests a potential role for T-cell directed therapy (e.g., cyclosporine) (181).
Clinically, the classification of AIP has been further refined. Type 2 AIP (idiopathic duct-centric) is now acknowledged as a disease process distinct from type I AIP. Comparative studies have led to a consensus highlighting the differences (182,183). Patients with type 2 AIP are younger, lack other organ involvement, and have normal serum IgG4 levels as compared to those with type 1. Unfortunately, the pathogenesis of type 2 remains unclear, hampering the development of diagnostic markers and targeted treatments.
Consensus criteria for the diagnosis of AIP are now available, and these unify clinical, serologic, and pathologic features. In select patients lacking serum IgG4 elevations or typical imaging findings, pancreatic biopsies are sometimes required. A randomized trial of 110 patients with suspected type 1 AIP showed that EUS-guided core-biopsy needles are superior to standard cytology needles, providing adequate tissue in 78% of patients with AIP.
Owing to its rarity, AIP treatment is based on small observational studies and clinical experience; helpful treatment algorithms have been proposed in recent years (184–186). Corticosteroids remain the mainstay for the induction of remission. Rituximab has also shown success in steroid-refractory disease and for steroid-intolerant patients (187). Strategies for maintenance therapy to prevent relapse need further study. A randomized trial showed significantly fewer relapses in patients treated with maintenance corticosteroids compared with those who discontinued steroids (188).
Management of pancreatic fluid collections
The revised 2013 Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis defined PFCs into 4 distinct entities based on etiology, duration, presence of solid debris, and development of an encapsulated wall (189). This more refined definition enables clinicians to more accurately diagnose, manage, and predict the outcomes of each type of PFC, including acute fluid collection, acute necrotic collection, pancreatic pseudocyst, and walled-off necrosis.
The overriding principle for the management of acute fluid and acute necrotic collections is to delay intervention to allow for either resolution or encapsulation. Acute fluid collections will sometimes develop into pseudocysts that typically resolve spontaneously. Acute necrotic collections will usually develop into walled-off necrosis, which are much less likely to resolve.
Minimally invasive endoscopic techniques to drain or debride pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis were refined throughout the decade, with a major advance being the use of lumen-opposing metal stents to facilitate the easy creation of a cystenterotomy (190). A multicenter trial demonstrated the superiority of minimally invasive approaches to manage necrosis and pseudocysts compared with surgery (191).
INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE
Over the past decade, epidemiological data have revealed changing trends that have transformed IBD into a global disease (192,193). Newly industrialized countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have reported a rapidly increasing incidence of IBD that mirrors the incidence of IBD in the Western world during the latter half of 20th century (192,194,195). By contrast, the incidence of IBD in North America, Europe, and Oceania has begun to stabilize and, in some regions, decline (192). However, countries of the Western world are experiencing compounding prevalence, whereby the total number of patients living with IBD has climbed steadily (193,196). Prevalence data from Canada and Scotland suggest that the prevalence of IBD is 0.7% in 2020 and is forecasted to climb to 1% of the population by 2030 (196–198). Moreover, the IBD population is aging; gastroenterology clinics over the next decade will need to contend with caring for aging IBD population with comorbidities of the elderly (198,199). The global burden of IBD will stress healthcare systems worldwide, necessitating innovations in the delivery of healthcare and personalized approaches to monitoring and managing IBD (200).
One of the most important changes within the past decade has been the shift away from using primarily clinical symptoms to assess treatment response and the shift toward endpoints of mucosal healing. Clinical trial outcome measures have been adapted to include coprimary endpoints of patient-reported outcomes and objective assessments including fecal calprotectin, serum inflammatory markers, and endoscopy (201). This strategy has demonstrated efficacy as the Effect of tight control management on Crohn's disease (CALM) trial showed that early treatment optimization using biomarkers (C-reactive protein or calprotectin) resulted in superior clinical outcomes, mucosal healing, and cost-effectiveness over clinical assessments alone (202). However, even with early optimization of treatment based on risk stratification, many patients still do not respond or lose response to treatment. The burgeoning field of biomarkers, genetics, and precision medicine in IBD holds potential for personalizing strategies based on factors beyond the generic assessments currently available with the goal to increase the likelihood of early and sustained remission (203).
Over the past decade, we have gained a better understanding of the complex, intricate pathophysiological pathways that underlie the inflammatory cascade present in patients afflicted with IBD. Our currently approved biologic agents and small molecules inhibit tumor necrosis factor (Infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab pegol), integrin (vedolizumab), interleukin-12/23 (ustekinumab), and Janus Kinase (JAK) kinase (tofacitinib) and are effective for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe active IBD when other options have failed (204,205). However, these agents heal the mucosa in less than half of patients with IBD (206).
Given the unmet need that exists, numerous novel therapeutics are being targeted for future therapy to treat patients with IBD. Different promising mechanisms have been identified and are undergoing evaluation in various phases in clinical trials. Several of these agents with novel mechanisms include the following:
- Blockade of the downstream signalling pathways—such as JAK Kinase inhibitors—including filgotinib [JAK 1], upadacitinib [JAK 1], baricitinib [JAK 1,2], TD-1473 [JAK 1,2,3], peficitinib [JAK 1,2,3], PF-06651600 [JAK 3 and TEC Kinase], itacitinib [JAK 1], PF-06700841 [JAK 1 and Tyk-2], and BMS-986165 [Tyk-2];
- blockade of proinflammatory cytokines—such as anti-interleukin-23 agents—including brazikumab (MEDI2070), risankizumab (BI 655066), guselkumab (Tremfya), mirikizumab (LY3074828), and tildrakizumab (MK-3222);
- antiadhesion molecules—such as leukocyte trafficking inhibitors—including etrolizumab, anti-mucosal vascular addressin cell adhesion molecule ontamalimab (SHP 647, PF00547659), abrilumab, and AJM 300—as well as spingosine-1-phosphate modulators, including ozanimod and etrasimod (207).
The emergence of new biological agents targeting specific pathways in IBD has led to a variety of novel treatments and opportunities for more individualized therapy for patients with IBD. The careful evaluation and testing of the aforementioned, and other, novel agents will expand our medical armamentarium, thus enabling us to provide further treatment options for patients with IBD.
1. Binmoeller KF. Shah J A novel lumen-apposing stent for transluminal drainage of nonadherent extraintestinal fluid collections. Endoscopy 2011;43:337–42.
2. US Food and Drug Administration. De novo classification request for Xlumena axios stent and delivery system. (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/K123250.pdf
). Accessed June 17, 2020.
3. US Department of Health & Human Services. (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf16/K163272.pdf
). Accessed February 28, 2020.
4. Itoi T, Binmoeller KF, Shah J, et al. Clinical evaluation of a novel lumen-apposing metal stent for endosonography-guided pancreatic pseudocyst and gallbladder drainage (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:870–6.
5. Itoi T, Binmoeller KF. EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a biflanged lumen-apposing metal stent (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:715.
6. Barthet M, Binmoeller KF, Vanbiervliet G, et al. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery gastroenterostomy with a biflanged lumen-apposing stent: First clinical experience (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:215–8.
7. Kedia P, Kumta N, Sharaiha R, et al. Bypassing the bypass: Endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) for Roux-en-Y anatomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;81:223–4.
8. Sumiyama K, Gostout CJ, Rajan E, et al. Submucosal endoscopy with mucosal flap safety valve. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:688–94.
9. Pasricha PJ, Hawari R, Ahmed I, et al. Submucosal endoscopic esophageal myotomy: A novel experimental approach for the treatment of achalasia. Endoscopy 2007;39:761–4.
10. Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y, et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 2010;42:265–71.
11. Xu MD, Cai MY, Zhou PH, et al. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection: A new technique for treating upper GI submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:195–9.
12. Khashab MA, Stein E, Clarke JO, et al. Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy for refractory gastroparesis: First human endoscopic pyloromyotomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2013;78:764–8.
13. Li QL, Chen WF, Zhang XC, et al. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic septum division: A novel technique for treating Zenker's diverticulum. Gastroenterology 2016;151:1071–4.
14. Inoue H, Sato H, Ikeda H, et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy: A series of 500 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2015;221:256–64.
15. Teitelbaum EN, Dunst CM, Reavis KM, et al. Clinical outcomes five years after POEM for treatment of primary esophageal motility disorders. Surg Endosc 2018;32:421–7.
16. Li QL, Wu QN, Zhang XC, et al. Outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for treatment of esophageal achalasia with a median follow-up of 49 months. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:1405–12.
17. Dacha S, Wang L, Xiaoyu L, et al. Outcomes and quality of life assessment after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) performed in the endoscopy unit with trainees. Surg Endosc 2018;32:3046–54.
18. Chen T, Zhang C, Yao LQ, et al. Management of the complications of submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. Endoscopy 2016;48:149–55.
19. Ye LP, Zhang Y, Mao XL, et al. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for small upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer. Surg Endosc 2014;28:524–30.
20. Chen HM, Li BW, Li LY, et al. Current status of endoscopic resection of gastric subepithelial tumors. Amer J Gastroenterol 2019;114:718–25.
21. Khashab MA, Ngamruengphong S, Carr-Locke D, et al. Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy for refractory gastroparesis: Results from the first multicenter study on endoscopic pyloromyotomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:123–8.
22. Gonzalez JM, Lestelle V, Benezech A, et al. Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy with antropyloromyotomy in the treatment of refractory gastroparesis: Clinical experience with follow-up and scintigraphic evaluation (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:132–9.
23. Dacha S, Mekaroonkamol P, Li L, et al. Outcomes and quality-of-life assessment after gastric peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2017;86:282–9.
24. Albers DV, Kondo A, Bernardo WM, et al. Endoscopic versus surgical approach in the treatment of Zenker's diverticulum: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2016;4:E678–86.
25. Ishaq S, Hassan C, Antonello A, et al. Flexible endoscopic treatment for Zenker's diverticulum: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:1076–89.
26. Hirao M, Masuda K, Asanuma T, et al. Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer and other tumors with local injection of hypertonic saline-epinephrine. Gastrointest Endosc 1988;34:264–9.
27. Chen H, Li B, Li L, et al. Current status of endoscopic resection of gastric subepithelial tumors. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:718–25.
28. Verfaillie CJ, Bruno MJ, Voor in 't Holt AF, et al. Withdrawal of a novel-design duodenoscope ends outbreak of a VIM-2-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa [published correction appears in Endoscopy. 2015 Jun;47(6):502]. Endoscopy 2015;47:493–502.
29. Epstein L, Hunter JC, Arwady MA, et al. New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes. JAMA 2014;312:1447–55.
30. Humphries RM, Yang S, Kim S, et al. Duodenoscope-related outbreak of a carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae identified using advanced molecular diagnostics. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65:1159–66.
31. Rubin ZA, Kim S, Thaker AM, et al. Safely reprocessing duodenoscopes: Current evidence and future directions. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;3:499–508.
33. Snyder GM, Wright SB, Smithey A, et al. Randomized comparison of 3 high-level disinfection and sterilization procedures for duodenoscopes. Gastroenterology 2017;153:1018–25.
34. Bartles RL, Leggett JE, Hove S, et al. A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;88:306–13.e2.
37. Ross AS, Bruno MJ, Kozarek RA, et al. Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP: A randomized bench-model comparison. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:396–403.
38. Muthusamy VR, Bruno MJ, Kozarek RA, et al. Clinical evaluation of a single-use duodenoscope for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [published online ahead of print, 2019 Nov 6]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;S1542–3565(19):31261–3.
39. Lee JK, Merchant SA, Schneider JL, et al. Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of gastric, colorectal, liver, and pancreatic cancers in a community-based population. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:706–15.
40. Kurlander JE, Kennedy JK, Rubenstein JH, et al. Patients' perceptions of proton pump inhibitor risks and attempts at discontinuation: A national Survey. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:244–9.
41. Freedberg DE, Kim LS, Yang YX. The risks and benefits of long-term use of proton pump inhibitors: Expert review and best practice advice from the American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology 2017;152:706–15.
42. Moayyedi P, Eikelboom JW, Bosch J, et al. Safety of proton pump inhibitors based on a large, multi-year, randomized trial of patients receiving rivaroxaban or aspirin. Gastroenterology 2019;157:682–91.e2.
43. Kinoshita Y, Ishimura N, Ishihara S. Management of GERD: Are potassium-competitive acid blockers superior to proton pump inhibitors? Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:1417–9.
44. Patel A, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Parameters on esophageal pH-impedance monitoring that predict outcomes of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;13:884–91.
45. Gyawali CP, Kahrilas PJ, Savarino E, et al. Modern diagnosis of GERD: The Lyon consensus. Gut 2018;67:1351–62.
46. Frazzoni M, de Bortoli N, Frazzoni L, et al. The added diagnostic value of postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and nocturnal baseline impedance in refractory reflux disease studied with on-therapy impedance-pH monitoring. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2017;29; (doi:10.1111/nmo.12947)
47. Frazzoni M, Savarino E, de Bortoli N, et al. Analyses of the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and nocturnal baseline impedance parameters increase the diagnostic yield of impedance-pH monitoring of patients with reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14:40–6.
48. Martinucci I, de Bortoli N, Savarino E, et al. Esophageal baseline impedance levels in patients with pathophysiological characteristics of functional heartburn. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014;26:546–55.
49. Ates F, Yuksel ES, Higginbotham T, et al. Mucosal impedance discriminates GERD from non-GERD conditions. Gastroenterology 2015;148:334–43.
50. Patel DA, Higginbotham T, Slaughter JC, et al. Development and validation of a mucosal impedance contour analysis system to distinguish esophageal disorders. Gastroenterology 2019;156:1617–26.e1.
51. Spechler SJ, Hunter JG, Jones KM, et al. Randomized trial of medical versus surgical treatment for refractory heartburn. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1513–23.
52. Patel A, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Acid-based parameters on pH-impedance testing predict symptom improvement with medical management better than impedance parameters. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:836–44.
53. Patel A, Sayuk GS, Kushnir VM, et al. GERD phenotypes from pH-impedance monitoring predict symptomatic outcomes on prospective evaluation. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2016;28:513–21.
54. Bell R, Lipham J, Louie B, et al. Laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation versus double-dose proton pump inhibitors for management of moderate-to-severe regurgitation in GERD: A randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89:14–22.e1.
55. Bell R, Lipham J, Louie BE, et al. Magnetic sphincter augmentation superior to proton pump inhibitors for regurgitation in a 1-year randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;10:S1542–3565; (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.056)
56. Hunter JG, Kahrilas PJ, Bell RC, et al. Efficacy of transoral fundoplication vs omeprazole for treatment of regurgitation in a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2015;148:324–33.e5.
57. Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, et al. American College of Gastroenterology clinical guideline: Diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111:30–50.
58. Jankowski JAZ, de Caestecker J, Love SB, et al. Esomeprazole and aspirin in Barrett's oesophagus (AspECT): A randomised factorial trial. The Lancet 2018;392:400–8.
59. Chen MJ, Chen CC, Chen YN, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Concomitant therapy vs. triple therapy for the first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol 2018; 113:1444–14576.
60. Sonnenberg A, Turner KO, Genta RM. Low prevalence of Helicobacter pylori-positive peptic ulcers in private outpatient endoscopy centers in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:244–50.
61. Tan MC, Mallepally N, Liu Y, et al. Demographic and lifestyle risk factors for gastric intestinal metaplasia among US Veterans. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:381–7.
62. Kaji K, Hashiba A, Uotani C, et al. Grading of atrophic gastritis is useful for risk stratification in endoscopic screening for gastric cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:71–9.
63. Talley NJ, Walker MM. The rise and rise of eosinophilic gut diseases including eosinophilic esophagitis is probably not explained by the disappearance of Helicobacter pylori, so who or what's to blame? Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:941–4.
64. Dellon ES, Speck O, Woodward K, et al. Clinical and endoscopic characteristics do not reliably differentiate PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia and eosinophilic esophagitis in patients undergoing upper endoscopy: A prospective cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:1854–60.
65. Moawad FJ, Veerappan GR, Dias JA, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing aerosolized swallowed fluticasone to esomeprazole for esophageal eosinophilia. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:366–72.
66. Molina-Infante J, Lucendo AJ. Proton pump inhibitor therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis: A paradigm shift. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:1770–3.
67. Lucendo AJ, Molina-Infante J, Arias A, et al. Guidelines on eosinophilic esophagitis: Evidence-based statements and recommendations for diagnosis and management in children and adults. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2017;5:335–58.
68. Straumann A, Hoesli S, Bussmann C, et al. Anti-eosinophil activity and clinical efficacy of the CRTH2 antagonist OC000459 in eosinophilic esophagitis. Allergy 2013;68:375–85.
69. Dellon ES, Katzka DA, Collins MH, et al. Budesonide oral suspension improves symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic parameters compared with placebo in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology 2017;152:776–86.e5.
70. Hirano I, Collins MH, Assouline-Dayan Y, et al. RPC4046, a monoclonal antibody against IL13, reduces histologic and endoscopic activity in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology 2019;156:592–603.e10.
71. Lucendo AJ, Miehlke S, Schlag C, et al. Efficacy of budesonide orodispersible tablets as induction therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis in a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2019;157:74–86.e15.
72. Miehlke S, Hruz P, Vieth M, et al. A randomised, double-blind trial comparing budesonide formulations and dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis. Gut 2016;65:390–9.
73. Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2015;27:160–74.
74. Penagini R, Gyawali CP. Evaluation of esophageal contraction reserve using HRM in symptomatic esophageal disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 2019;53:322–30.
75. Ponds FA, Fockens P, Lei A, et al. Effect of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs pneumatic dilation on symptom severity and treatment outcomes among treatment-naive patients with achalasia: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;322:134–44.
76. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Endosc 2015;81:31–53.
77. Jang JY, Chun HJ. Bowel preparations as quality indicators for colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:2746–50.
78. Menees SB, Kim HM, Wren P, et al. Patient compliance and suboptimal bowel preparation with split-dose bowel regimen in average-risk screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:811–20.
79. Nguyen DL, Wieland M. Risk factors predictive of poor quality preparation during average risk colonoscopy screening: The importance of health literacy. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2010;19:369–72.
80. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: Recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2014;147:903–24.
81. Bucci C, Rotondano G, Hassan C, et al. Optimal bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: Split the dose! A series of meta-analyses of controlled studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;80:566–76.e562.
82. Kilgore TW, Abdinoor AA, Szary NM, et al. Bowel preparation with split-dose polyethylene glycol before colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:1240–5.
83. Avalos DJ, Castro FJ, Zuckerman MJ, et al. Bowel preparations administered the morning of colonoscopy provide similar efficacy to a split-dose regimen: A meta analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2017;52:859–68.
84. Lebwohl B, Wang TC, Neugut AI. Socioeconomic and other predictors of colonoscopy preparation quality. Dig Dis Sci 2010;55:2014–20.
85. Siddiqui AA, Yang K, Spechler SJ, et al. Duration of the interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy predicts bowel-preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:700–6.
86. Kanth P, Grimmett J, Champine M, et al. Hereditary colorectal polyposis and cancer syndromes: A primer on diagnosis and management. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:1509–25.
87. Samadder NJ, Curtin K, Tuohy TM, et al. Increased risk of colorectal neoplasia among family members of patients with colorectal cancer: A population-based study in Utah. Gastroenterology 2014;147:814–21.
88. Samadder NJ, Smith KR, Hanson H, et al. Increased risk of colorectal cancer among family members of all ages, regardless of age of index case at diagnosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;13:2305–11.
89. Leddin D, Lieberman DA, Tse F, et al. Clinical practice guideline on screening for colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history of nonhereditary colorectal cancer or adenoma: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Banff Consensus. Gastroenterology 2018;155:1325–47.
90. Yurgelun MB, Kulke MH, Fuchs CS, et al. Cancer susceptibility gene mutations in individuals with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:1086–95.
91. Valle L, Vilar E, Tavtigian SV, et al. Genetic predisposition to colorectal cancer: Syndromes, genes, classification of genetic variants and implications for precision medicine. J Pathol 2019;247:574–88.
92. AlDubayan SH, Giannakis M, Moore ND, et al. Inherited DNA-repair defects in colorectal cancer. Am J Hum Genet 2018;102:401–14.
93. Ribas A, Wolchok JD. Cancer immunotherapy using checkpoint blockade. Science 2018;359:1350–5.
94. Ellis L, Shale MJ, Coleman MP. Carcinoid tumors of the gastrointestinal tract: Trends in incidence in England since 1971. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:2563–9.
95. Ducreux M, Ruszniewski P, Chayvialle JA, et al. The antitumoral effect of the long-acting somatostatin analog lanreotide in neuroendocrine tumors. A
m J Gastroenterol 2000;95:3276–81.
96. Dillon JS, Kulke MH, Hörsch D, et al. Time to sustained improvement in bowel movement frequency with telotristat ethyl: Analyses of phase III studies in carcinoid syndrome. J Gastrointest Cancer 2020 (doi:10.1007/s12029-020-00375-2)
97. Hope TA, Abbott A, Colucci K, et al. NANETS/SNMMI procedure standard for somatostatin receptor-based peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with DOTATATE. J Nucl Med 2019;60:937–43.
98. Moon CM, Huh KC, Jung SA, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of rectal neuroendocrine tumors according to the pathologic status after initial endoscopic resection: A kasid multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111:1276–85.
99. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:72–90.
100. Lund M, Trads M, Njor SH, et al. Quality indicators for screening colonoscopy and colonoscopist performance and the subsequent risk of interval colorectal cancer: A systematic review. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep 2019;17:2265–300.
101. ASGE Technology Committee; Trindade AJ, Lichtenstein DR, Aslanian HR, et al. Devices and methods to improve colonoscopy completion (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:625–34.
102. Murray JA, Van Dyke C, Plevak MF, et al. Trends in the identification and clinical features of celiac disease in a North American Community, 1950–2001. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;1:19–27.
103. Choung RS, Unalp-Arida A, Ruhl CE, et al. Less hidden celiac disease but increased gluten avoidance without a diagnosis in the United States: Findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 2009 to 2014. Mayo Clin Proc;S0025-6196(16)30634-6 (doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.10.012)
104. Rubio-Tapia A, Ludvigsson JF, Brantner TL, et al. The prevalence of celiac disease in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1538–44.
105. Vriezinga SL, Auricchio R, Bravi E, et al. Randomized feeding intervention in infants at high risk for celiac disease. N Engl J Med 2014;371(14):1304–15.
106. Lionetti E, Castellaneta S, Francavilla R, et al. Introduction of gluten, HLA status, and the risk of celiac disease in children. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1295–303.
107. Ludvigsson JF, Lebwohl B. Three papers indicate that amount of gluten play a role for celiac disease—But only a minor role. Acta Paediatr 2020;109:8–10.
108. Shah S, Akbari M, Vanga R, et al. Patient perception of treatment burden is high in celiac disease compared with other common conditions. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:1304–11.
109. Lerner BA, Phan Vo LT, Yates S, et al. Detection of gluten in gluten-free labeled restaurant food: Analysis of crowd-sourced data. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:792–7.
110. Mukewar SS, Sharma A, Rubio-Tapia A, et al. Open-capsule budesonide for refractory celiac disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:959–67.
111. Leffler DA, Kelly CP, Green PHR, et al. Larazotide acetate for persistent symptoms of celiac disease despite a gluten-free diet: A randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2015;148:1311–9.
112. Murray JA, Kelly CP, Green PHR, et al. No difference between latiglutenase and placebo in reducing villous atrophy or improving symptoms in patients with symptomatic celiac disease. Gastroenterology 2017;152:787–98.
113. Truitt KE, Daveson AJM, Ee HC, et al. Randomised clinical trial: A placebo-controlled study of subcutaneous or intradermal NEXVAX2, an investigational immunomodulatory peptide therapy for coeliac disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2019;50:547–55.
114. Jeppesen PB, Pertkiewicz M, Messing B, et al. Teduglutide reduces need for parenteral support among patients with short bowel syndrome with intestinal failure. Gastroenterology 2012;143:1473.
115. Seidner DL, Fujioka K, Boullata JI, et al. Reduction of parenteral nutrition and hydration support and safety with long-term teduglutide treatment in patient with short bowel syndrome-associated intestinal failure: STEPS-3 study. Nutr Clin Pract 2018;33:520–7.
116. Kocoshis SA, Merritt RJ, Hill S, et al. Safety and efficacy of teduglutide in pediatric patients with intestinal failure due to short bowel syndrome: A 24-week, phase III study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2020;44:621–31.
117. Hvistendahl M, Brandt CF, Tribler S, et al. Effect of liraglutide treatment on jejunostomy output in patients with short bowel syndrome: An open-label pilot study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2018;42:112–21.
118. Wismann P, Pedersen Sl, Hansen G, et al. Novel GLP-1/GLP-2 co-agonists display marked effects on gut volume and improved glycemic control in mice. Physiol Behav 2018;192:72–81.
119. Drossman DA, Tack J, Ford AC, et al. Neuromodulators for functional gastrointestinal disorders (disorders of gut-brain interaction): A rome foundation working team report. Gastroenterology 2018;154:1140–71.
120. Mayer EA, Labus J, Aziz Q, et al. Role of brain imaging in disorders of brain-gut interaction: A rome working team report. Gut 2019;68:1701–15.
121. Simren M, Tornblom H, Palsson OS, et al. Cumulative effects of psychologic distress, visceral hypersensitivity, and abnormal transit on patient-reported outcomes in irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2019;157:391–402.e2.
122. Keefer L, Palsson OS, Pandolfino JE. Best practice update: Incorporating psychogastroenterology into management of digestive disorders. Gastroenterology 2018;154:1249–57.
123. Everitt HA, Landau S, O'Reilly G, et al. Assessing telephone-delivered cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and web-delivered CBT versus treatment as usual in irritable bowel syndrome (ACTIB): A multicentre randomized trial. Gut 2019;68:1613–23.
124. Bonnert M, Olen O, Lalouni M, et al. Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for adolescents with irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:152–62.
125. Lalouni M, Ljotsson B, Bonnert M, et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of online cognitive behavioral therapy in children with functional abdominal pain disorders. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:2236–44.e11.
126. Lowen MB, Mayer EA, Sjoberg M, et al. Effect of hypnotherapy and educational intervention on brain response to visceral stimulus in the irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013;37:1184–97.
127. Flik CE, Laan W, Zuithoff NPA, et al. Efficacy of individual and group hypnotherapy in irritable bowel syndrome (IMAGINE): A multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4:20–31.
128. Black CJ, Yuan Y, Selinger CP, et al. Efficacy of soluble fibre, anti-spasmodic drugs, and gut-brain neuromodulators in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic network meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;5:117–31.
129. Muller-Lissner SA, Fumagalli I, Bardhan KD, et al. Tegaserod, a 5-HT(4) receptor partial agonist, relieves symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome patients with abdominal pain, bloating and constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001;15:1655–66.
130. Camilleri M, Kerstens R, Rykx A, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of prucalopride for severe chronic constipation. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2344–54.
131. Carbone F, Van den Houte K, Clevers E, et al. Prucalopride in gastroparesis: A randomized placebo-controlled crossover study. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:1265–74.
132. Chey WD, Lembo AJ, Lavins BJ, et al. Linaclotide for irritable bowel syndrome with constipation: A 26-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate efficacy and safety. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1702–12.
133. Brenner DM, Fogel R, Dorn SD, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of plecanatide in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation: Results of two phase 3 randomized clinical trials. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:735–45.
134. Chey WD, Lembo A, Rosenbaum DP. Efficacy of tenapanor in treating patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation: A 12-week placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (T3MPO). Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:281–93.
135. Lembo AJ, Lacy BE, Zuckerman M, et al. Eluxadoline for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. NEJM 2016;374:242–53.
136. Brenner DM, Sayuk GS, Gutman CR, et al. Efficacy and safety of eluxadoline in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea who report inadequate symptom control with loperamide: RELIEF phase 4 study. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:1502–11.
137. Weerts ZZRM, Masclee AAM, Witteman BJM, et al. Efficacy and safety of peppermint oil in a randomized double-blind trial of patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2020;158:123–36.
138. Slattery SA, Niaz O, Aziz Q, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: The prevalence of bile acid malabsorption in the irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;42:3–11.
139. Sadowski DC, Camilleri M, Chey WD, et al. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology clinical practice guideline on the management of bile acid diarrhea. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18:24–41.
140. Klem F, Wadhwa A, Prokop LJ, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of irritable bowel syndrome after infectious enteritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2017;152:1042–54.e1.
141. Futagami S, Itoh T, Sakamoto C. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Post-infectious functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;41:177–88.
142. Shah A, Talley NJ, Jones M, et al. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:190–201.
143. Pimentel M, Lembo A, Chey WD, et al. Rifaximin therapy for patients with irritable bowel syndrome without constipation. N Engl J Med 2011;364:22–32.
144. Tan VP, Liu KS, Lam FY, et al. Randomised clinical trial: Rifaximin versus placebo for the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2017;45:767–76.
145. Fodor AA, Pimentel M, Chey WD, et al. Rifaximin is associated with modest, transient decreases in multiple taxa in the gut microbiota of patients with diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Gut Microbes 2019;10:22–33.
146. Ford AC, Harris LA, Lacy BE, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: The efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics and antibiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2018;48:1044–60.
147. Ford AC, Quigley EM, Lacy BE, et al. Efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics in irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:1547–61.
148. Osadchiy V, Martin CR, Mayer EA. The gut-brain axis and the microbiome: Mechanisms and clinical implications. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:322–32.
149. Labus JS, Osadchiy V, Hsiao EY, et al. Evidence for an association of gut microbial Clostridia with brain functional connectivity and gastrointestinal sensorimotor function in patients with irritable bowel syndrome, based on tripartite network analysis. Microbiome 2019;7:45.
150. Pinto-Sanchez MI, Hall GB, Ghajar K, et al. Probiotic bifidobacterium longum NCC3001 reduces depression scores and alters brain activity: A pilot study in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2017;153:448–59.
151. Xu D, Chen VL, Steiner CA, et al. Efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:1043–50.
152. El-Salhy M, Hatlebakk JG, Gilja OH, et al. Efficacy of faecal microbiota transplantation for patients with irritable bowel syndrome in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Gut 2020;69:859–67.
153. Ekekezie C, Perler BK, Wexler A, et al. Understanding the scope of do-it-yourself fecal microbiota transplant. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:603–7.
154. Dionne J, Ford AC, Yuan Y, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of a gluten-free diet and a low FODMAPs diet in treating symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:1290–300.
155. Hinrichsen H, Benhamou Y, Wedemeyer H, et al. Short-term antiviral efficacy of BILIN 2-61, a hepatitis C virus serine protease inhibitor, in hepatitis C genotype 1 patients. Gastroenterology 2004;127:1347–55.
156. Kwo PY, Lawitz EJ, McCone J, et al. Efficacy of boceprevir, an NS3 protease inhibitor, in combination with peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin in treatment -naïve patients with genotype 1 hepatits C infection (SPRINT-1): An open label randomized, multicenter phase 2 trial. Lancet 2010;376:705–16.
157. McHutchison JG, Everson GT, Gordon SC, et al. Telaprevir with peginterferon and ribavirin for chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1827–38.
158. Lawitz E, Mangia A, Wyles D, et al. Sofobuvir for previously untreated chronic hepatitis C infection. N Engl J Med 2014;368:1878–87.
159. Lawitz E, Sulkowski MS, Ghalib R, et al. Simeprevir plus sofosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, to treat chronic infection with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 in non-responders to pegylated interferon and ribavirin and treatment-naïve patients: The COSMOS Randomised study. Lancet 2014;384:1756–65.
160. Feld JJ, Jacobson IM, Hezode C, et al. Sofosbuvir and velpatasvir for HCV genotype 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 infection. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2599–607.
161. Foster GR, Afdhal N, Roberts SK. Sofosbuvir and velpatasivr for HCV genotype 2 and 3 infection. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2608–17.
162. Asselah T, Hezode C, Zadeikis N, et al. ENDURANCE-4: Efficacy and safety of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (formerly ABT-493/ABT-530) treatment in patients with chronic HCV genotype 4, 5, or 6 infection. Hepatology 2016;64(Suppl 1):114.
163. Zeuzem S, Foster GR, Wang S, et al. Glecaprevir-pibrentasvir for 8 or 12 weeks in HCV genotype 1 or 3 infection. N Engl J Med 2018;378:354–69.
164. Backus LI, Belperio PS, Shahoumian TA, et al. Direct-acting antiviral sustained virologic response: Impact on mortality in patients without advanced liver disease. Hepatology 2018;68:827–38.
165. Tapper EB, Parikh ND. Mortality due to cirrhosis and liver cancer in the United States, 1999-2016: Observational study. BMJ 2018;362:k2817.
166. Singhal AK, Louvet A, Shah VH, et al. Grand rounds: Alcoholic hepatitis. J Hepatol 2018;69:534–43.
167. Mathurin P, Moreno C, Samuel D, et al. Early liver transplantation for severe alcoholic hepatitis. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1790–800.
168. Lee BP, Mehta N, Platt L, et al. Outcomes of early liver transplantation for patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. Gastroenterology 2018;155:422–30.
169. Ward ZJ, Bleich SN, Cradock AL, et al. Projected U.S. State-level prevalence of adult obesity and severe obesity. N Engl J Med 2019;381:2440–50.
170. Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, et al. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology 2016;64:73–84.
171. Estes C, Razavi H, Loomba R, et al. Modeling the epidemic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease demonstrates an exponential increase in burden of disease. Hepatology 2018;67:123–33.
172. Dulai PS, Singh S, Patel J, et al. Increased risk of mortality by fibrosis stage in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology 2017;65:1557–65.
173. Younossi ZM, Otgonsuren M, Henry L, et al. Association of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the United States from 2004 to 2009. Hepatology 2015;62:1723–30.
174. Kwong A, Kim WR, Lake JR, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2018 annual data report: Liver. Am J Transpl 2020;20(Suppl s1):193–299.
175. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2018;67:328–57.
176. Friedman SL, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Rinella M, et al. Mechanisms of NAFLD development and therapeutic strategies. Nat Med 2018;24:908–22.
177. Younossi ZM, Ratziu V, Loomba R, et al. Obeticholic acid for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: Interim analysis from a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2019;394:2184–96.
178. Muller T, Beutler C, Pico AH, et al. Increased T help 2 cytokines in bile from patients with IgG4 related cholangitis disrupt the tight junction associated biliary epithelial cell barrier. Gastroenterology 2013;144:1116–28.
179. Zen Y, Fujii T, Harada K, et al. Th2 and regulatory immune reactions are increased in immunoglobin G4 related sclerosing pancreatitis and cholangitis. Hepatology 2007;45:1538–46.
180. Sleznik GM, Reding T, Romrig F, et al. Lymphotoxin beta receptor signaling promotes development of autoimmune pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2012;143:1361–74.
181. Schwaiger T, van den Brandt C, Fitzner B, et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis in MRL/Mp mice is a T cell-mediated disease responsive to cyclosporine A and rapamycin treatment. Gut 2014;63:494–505.
182. Sah RP, Chari ST, Pannala R, et al. Differences in clinical profile and relapse rate of type 1 versus type 2 autoimmune pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2010;139:140–8.
183. Chari ST, Kloppen G, Zhang L, et al. Histologic and clinical subtypes of autoimmune pancreatitis: The Honolulu Consensus Document. Pancreas 2010;39:549–54.
184. Shimosegawa T, Chari ST, Frulloni L, et al. International consensus diagnostic criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis: Guidelines of the International Association of Pancreatology. Pancreas 2011;40:352–8.
185. Kurita A, Yasukawa S, Zen Y, et al. Comparison of a 22-gauge franseen-tip needle with a 20-gauge forward-bevel for the diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis: A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study (COMPAS study). Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:373–81.
186. Kazaki K, Chari ST, Frulloni, et al. International consensus for treatment of autoimmune pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2017;17:1–6.
187. Hart PA, Topazian MD, Witzig TE, et al. Treatment of refractory autoimmune pancreatitis with immunomodulators and Rituximab. The Mayo Clinic experience. Gut 2013;62:1607–15.
188. Masamune A, Nishimori I, Kikuta K, et al. Randomized controlled trial of long-term maintenance corticosteroid therapy in patients with autoimmune pancreatitis. Gut 2017;66:489–92.
189. Banks BA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis—2012: Revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 2013;62:102–11.
190. Siddiqui AA, Adler DG, Nieto J, et al. EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections and necrosis by using a novel lumen-apposing stent: A large retrospective, multicenter U.S. Experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:699–707.
191. van Brunschot S, van Grinsven J, van Santvoort HC, et al. Endoscopic or surgical step-up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: A multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2018;391:51–8.
192. Ng SC, Shi HY, Hamidi N, et al. Worldwide incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in the 21st century: A systematic review of population-based studies. Lancet 2018;390(10114):2769–78.
193. Kaplan GG. The global burden of IBD: From 2015 to 2025. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;12:720–7.
194. Kotze PG, Underwood FE, Damiao A, et al. Progression of inflammatory bowel diseases throughout Latin America and the Caribbean: A systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18:304–12.
195. Molodecky NA, Soon IS, Rabi DM, et al. Increasing incidence and prevalence of the inflammatory bowel diseases with time, based on systematic review. Gastroenterology 2012;142:46–54.
196. Kaplan GG, Ng SC. Understanding and preventing the global increase of inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2017;152:313–21.e312.
197. Coward S, Clement F, Benchimol EI, et al. Past and future burden of inflammatory bowel diseases based on modeling of population-based data. Gastroenterology 2019;156:1345–53.e1344.
198. Jones GR, Lyons M, Plevris N, et al. IBD prevalence in Lothian, Scotland, derived by capture-recapture methodology. Gut 2019;68(11):1953–60.
199. Nguyen GC, Targownik LE, Singh H, et al. The impact of inflammatory bowel disease in Canada 2018: IBD in seniors. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2019;2(Suppl 1):S68–S72.
200. Ananthakrishnan AN, Kaplan GG, Ng SC. Changing global epidemiology of inflammatory bowel diseases: Sustaining health care delivery into the 21st century. Clin GastroenterolHepatol 2020;18(6):1252–60.
201. Williet N, Sandborn WJ, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Patient-reported outcomes as primary end points in clinical trials of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12:1246–56.e1246.
202. Colombel JF, Panaccione R, Bossuyt P, et al. Effect of tight control management on crohn's disease (CALM): A multicentre, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2018;390:2779–89.
203. Borg-Bartolo SP, Boyapati RK, Satsangi J, et al. Precision medicine in inflammatory bowel disease: Concept, progress and challenges. F1000Res 2020;9:F1000 Faculty Rev-54. Published online 2020 Jan 28 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.20928.1).
204. Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV, Isaacs KL, et al. ACG clinical guideline: Management of crohn's disease in adults. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:481–517.
205. Rubin DT, Ananthakrishnan AN, Siegel CA, et al. ACG clinical guideline: Ulcerative colitis in adults. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:384–413.
206. Wong U, Cross RK. Primary and secondary nonresponse to infliximab: Mechanisms and countermeasures. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2017;13:1039–46.
207. Na SY, Moon W. Perspectives on current and novel treatments for inflammatory bowel disease. Gut Liver 2019;13:604–16.