Biopsy Sampling in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy : A Survey from 10 Tertiary Referral Centres across Europe

Funding Information: A. Link reports grants from European Commission “Eu-ropäischer Fond für regionale Entwicklung” (EFRE), outside the submitted work. In Lithuania the work was partly supported by Lithuanian Research Council Grant no APP-2/2016. In Latvia, the methodological support was made available from the project lzp-2018/1-0135. This work was also supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care). In Barcelona, we thank the CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya for the support. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.Background: Guidelines give robust recommendations on which biopsies should be taken when there is endoscopic suggestion of gastric inflammation. Adherence to these guidelines often seems arbitrary. This study aimed to give an overview on current practice in tertiary referral centres across Europe. Methods: Data were collected at 10 tertiary referral centres. Demographic data, the indication for each procedure, endoscopic findings, and the number and sampling site of biopsies were recorded. Findings were compared between centres, and factors influencing the decision to take biopsies were explored. Results: Biopsies were taken in 56.6% of 9,425 procedures, with significant variation between centres (p < 0.001). Gastric biopsies were taken in 43.8% of all procedures. Sampling location varied with the procedure indication (p < 0.001) without consistent pattern across the centres. Fewer biopsies were taken in centres which routinely applied the updated Sydney classification for gastritis assessment (46.0%), compared to centres where this was done only upon request (75.3%, p < 0.001). This was the same for centres stratifying patients according to the OLGA system (51.8 vs. 73.0%, p < 0.001). More biopsies were taken in centres following the MAPS guidelines on stomach surveillance (68.1 vs. 37.1%, p < 0.001). Biopsy sampling was more likely in younger patients in 8 centres (p < 0.05), but this was not true for the whole cohort (p = 0.537). The percentage of procedures with biopsies correlated directly with additional costs charged in case of biopsies (r = 0.709, p = 0.022). Conclusion: Adherence to guideline recommendations for biopsy sampling at gastroscopy was inconsistent across the participating centres. Our data suggest that centre-specific policies are applied instead.publishersversionPeer reviewe

MACVIA Clinical Decision Algorithm in Allergic Rhinitis in adolescents and adults

International audienceThe selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis depends on several factors, including age, prominent symptoms, symptom severity, control of allergic rhinitis, patient preferences and cost. Allergen exposure and resulting symptoms vary and treatment adjustment is required. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) may be beneficial for the assessment of disease control. Clinical decision support systems should be based on the best evidence and algorithms to aid patients and health care professionals to jointly determine the treatment and its step-up or step-down strategy depending on AR control. MACVIA-LR (Fighting chronic diseases for active and healthy ageing) one of the reference sites of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, has initiated an allergy sentinel network (MASK: MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel networK). A clinical decision support system is currently being developed to optimize allergic rhinitis control. An algorithm developed by consensus is presented in this paper. This algorithm should be confirmed by appropriate trials

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present