Critical Issues on Diverticular Disease

In this session diverse critical issues in diverticular disease were considered, including 'In or outpatient management of uncomplicated diverticulitis?', 'Segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis: what is it?'and 'Diverticular inflammation is a risk factor for colorectal cancer?'. The conclusions drawn are outlined in the statements but in summary, outpatient management is safe in selected patients, as long as correct diagnosis and stage are assured, and this can allow a cost effective treatment. Non-antibiotic management is also safe but should be confined as an outpatient treatment in carefully selected patients. Segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis (SCAD) is a defined pathological entity (only diagnosed on biopsy) characterized by an inflammatory bowel disease-like pathology, occurring principally in the sigmoid colon, with rectal and right colon sparing. The pathogenesis is unclear but may include a genetic predisposition, microbiome alteration and ischaemia. Treatment can last months, and depends on severity, options include antibiotics, 5 ASA and probiotics for mild cases. Severe disease needs systemic steroids or even anti TNFα treatment. Whether diverticular inflammation is a risk factor for colorectal cancer was debated and the conclusion that within the first eighteen months of diagnosis of diverticular disease associations with cancer are found, likely due to similar symptoms and misclassification of disease. After that time, diverticular disease does not increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Therefore, this is recommended to exclude cancer with imaging and colonoscopy after healing of the first episode of diverticulitis

The DICA Endoscopic Classification for Diverticular Disease of the Colon Shows a Significant Interobserver Agreement among Community Endoscopists: an International Study

Background & Aims: The Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment (DICA) endoscopic classification of diverticulosis and diverticular disease (DD) is currently available. It scores severity of the disease as DICA 1, DICA 2 and DICA 3. Our aim was to assess the agreement on this classification in an international endoscopists community setting. Methods: A total of 96 doctors (82.9% endoscopists) independently scored a set of DD endoscopic videos. The percentages of overall agreement on DICA score and a free-marginal multirater kappa (kappa) coefficient were reported as statistical measures of interrater agreement. Results: Overall agreement in using DICA was 91.8% with a free-marginal kappa of 88% (95% CI 80-95). The overall agreement levels were: DICA 1, 85.2%; DICA 2, 96.5%; DICA 3, 99.5%. The free marginal. was: DICA 1 = 0.753, DICA 2 = 0.958, DICA 3 = 0.919. The agreement about the main endoscopic items was 83.4% (k 67%) for diverticular extension, 62.6% (k 65%) for number of diverticula for each district, 86.8% (k 82%) for presence of inflammation, and 98.5 (k 98%) for presence of complications. Conclusions: The overall interrater agreement in this study ranges from good to very good. DICA score is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system for diverticulosis and DD

International Consensus on Diverticulosis and Diverticular Disease. Statements from the 3rd International Symposium on Diverticular Disease

The statements produced by the Chairmen and Speakers of the 3rd International Symposium on Diverticular Disease, held in Madrid on April 11th-13th 2019, are reported. Topics such as current and evolving concepts on the pathogenesis, the course of the disease, the news in diagnosing, hot topics in medical and surgical treatments, and finally, critical issues on the disease were reviewed by the Chairmen who proposed 39 statements graded according to level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Each topic was explored focusing on the more relevant clinical questions. The vote was conducted on a 6-point scale and consensus was defined a priori as 67% agreement of the participants. The voting group consisted of 124 physicians from 18 countries, and agreement with all statements was provided. Comments were added explaining some controversial areas

Accuracy of Capsule Colonoscopy in Detecting Colorectal Polyps in a Screening Population

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Capsule colonoscopy is a minimally invasive imaging method. We measured the accuracy of this technology in detecting polyps 6 mm or larger in an average-risk screening population. METHODS: In a prospective study, asymptomatic subjects (n = 884) underwent capsule colonoscopy followed by conventional colonoscopy (the reference) several weeks later, with an endoscopist blinded to capsule results, at 10 centers in the United States and 6 centers in Israel from June 2011 through April 2012. An unblinded colonoscopy was performed on subjects found to have lesions 6 mm or larger by capsule but not conventional colonoscopy. RESULTS: Among the 884 subjects enrolled, 695 (79%) were included in the analysis of capsule performance for all polyps. There were 77 exclusions (9%) for inadequate cleansing and whole-colon capsule transit time fewer than 40 minutes, 45 exclusions (5%) before capsule ingestion, 15 exclusions (2%) after ingestion and before colonoscopy, and 15 exclusions (2%) for site termination. Capsule colonoscopy identified subjects with 1 or more polyps 6 mm or larger with 81% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 77%-84%) and 93% specificity (95% CI, 91%-95%), and polyps 10 mm or larger with 80% sensitivity (95% CI, 74%-86%) and 97% specificity (95% CI, 96%-98%). Capsule colonoscopy identified subjects with 1 or more conventional adenomas 6 mm or larger with 88% sensitivity (95% CI, 82%-93) and 82% specificity (95% CI, 80%-83%), and 10 mm or larger with 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 82%-97%) and 95% specificity (95% CI, 94%-95%). Sessile serrated polyps and hyperplastic polyps accounted for 26% and 37%, respectively, of false-negative findings from capsule analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk screening population, technically adequate capsule colonoscopy identified individuals with 1 or more conventional adenomas 6 mm or larger with 88% sensitivity and 82% specificity. Capsule performance seems adequate for patients who cannot undergo colonoscopy or who had incomplete colonoscopies. Additional studies are needed to improve capsule detection of serrated lesions. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01372878

Selective Interaction of Syntaxin 1A with KCNQ2: Possible Implications for Specific Modulation of Presynaptic Activity

KCNQ2/KCNQ3 channels are the molecular correlates of the neuronal M-channels, which play a major role in the control of neuronal excitability. Notably, they differ from homomeric KCNQ2 channels in their distribution pattern within neurons, with unique expression of KCNQ2 in axons and nerve terminals. Here, combined reciprocal coimmunoprecipitation and two-electrode voltage clamp analyses in Xenopus oocytes revealed a strong association of syntaxin 1A, a major component of the exocytotic SNARE complex, with KCNQ2 homomeric channels resulting in a ∼2-fold reduction in macroscopic conductance and ∼2-fold slower activation kinetics. Remarkably, the interaction of KCNQ2/Q3 heteromeric channels with syntaxin 1A was significantly weaker and KCNQ3 homomeric channels were practically resistant to syntaxin 1A. Analysis of different KCNQ2 and KCNQ3 chimeras and deletion mutants combined with in-vitro binding analysis pinpointed a crucial C-terminal syntaxin 1A-association domain in KCNQ2. Pull-down and coimmunoprecipitation analyses in hippocampal and cortical synaptosomes demonstrated a physical interaction of brain KCNQ2 with syntaxin 1A, and confocal immunofluorescence microscopy showed high colocalization of KCNQ2 and syntaxin 1A at presynaptic varicosities. The selective interaction of syntaxin 1A with KCNQ2, combined with a numerical simulation of syntaxin 1A's impact in a firing-neuron model, suggest that syntaxin 1A's interaction is targeted at regulating KCNQ2 channels to fine-tune presynaptic transmitter release, without interfering with the function of KCNQ2/3 channels in neuronal firing frequency adaptation

Fundamental social motives measured across forty-two cultures in two waves

How does psychology vary across human societies? The fundamental social motives framework adopts an evolutionary approach to capture the broad range of human social goals within a taxonomy of ancestrally recurring threats and opportunities. These motives—self-protection, disease avoidance, affiliation, status, mate acquisition, mate retention, and kin care—are high in fitness relevance and everyday salience, yet understudied cross-culturally. Here, we gathered data on these motives in 42 countries (N = 15,915) in two cross-sectional waves, including 19 countries (N = 10,907) for which datawere gathered in both waves. Wave 1 was collected from mid-2016 through late 2019 (32 countries, N = 8,998; 3,302 male, 5,585 female; Mage = 24.43, SD = 7.91). Wave 2 was collected from April through November 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic (29 countries, N = 6,917; 2,249 male, 4,218 female; Mage = 28.59, SD = 11.31). These data can be used to assess differences and similarities in people’s fundamental social motives both across and within cultures, at different time points, and in relation to other commonly studied cultural indicators and outcomes

Trends in inflammatory bowel disease infections and vaccinations in the past four decades: A high-level text mining analysis of PubMed publications

Aim We aimed at assessing the published literature on different prophylactic screening and vaccination options in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients between 1980 and 2020. Special attention was attributed to latest data assessing covid-19 vaccinations. Methods We have queried PubMed for all available IBD-related entries published during 1980–2020. The following data were extracted for each entry: PubMed unique article ID (PMID), title, publishing journal, abstract text, keywords (if any), and authors’ affiliations. Two gastrointestinal specialists decided by consensus on a list of terms to classify entries. The terms belonged to four treatment groups: opportunistic infections, prophylactic screening, prophylactic vaccinations/treatment, and routine vaccines. Annual trends of publications for the years 1980–2020 were plotted for different screening, vaccinations and infection types. Slopes of publication trends were calculated by fitting regression lines to the annual number of publications. Results Overall, 98,339 IBD entries were published between 1980 and 2020. Of those, 7773 entries belonged to the investigated groups. Entries concerning opportunistic infections showed the sharpest rise, with 19 entries and 1980 to 423 entries in 2020 (slope 11.3, p < .001). Entries concerning prophylactic screening rose from 10 entries in 1980 to 204 entries in 2020 (slope 5.4, p < .001). Both entries concerning prophylactic vaccinations/treatments and routine vaccines did not show a significant rise (slope 0.33 and slope 0.92, respectively). During the COVID 19 pandemic, a total of 44 publications were identified. Of them, 37 were relevant to vaccines and immune reaction. Nineteen publications (51%) were guidelines/recommendations, and 14 (38%) assessed immune reaction to vaccination, most of them (11, 61%) to mRNA vaccines. Conclusions During the past two decades, along with a rapid increase in biologic therapy, publications regarding opportunistic infections and prophylactic screening increased in a steep slope compared to the two decades in the pre-biologic area. During the COVID-19 pandemic, most publications included vaccination recommendations and guidelines and only 38% included real-world data assessing reaction to vaccinations. More research is needed