A104 PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (PPIN) IN IBD RESEARCH - A SCOPING REVIEW

Background

Over the past 10 years, interest in patient and public involvement (PPIn) in research has grown. Several arguments support the engagement of patients as partners in the research process. Patients with lived experience of a condition can offer their knowledge to study design as experience-based experts, helping researchers incorporate patient-pertinent outcomes. PPIn has also been shown to boost patient enrolment and retention in clinical trials. Benefits, challenges, and best practices of PPIn have been examined in other fields. However, to date, no study has examined PPIn in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research. Many factors amenable to research involvement may impact IBD patients’ quality of life, including disease morbidity, complications, and efficacy/side effects of therapy.

Aims

This review aims to characterize methods of PPIn in IBD research and highlight themes relating to best practices, benefits, and challenges.

Methods

We ran a systematic search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane for all IBD research studies in which IBD patients were involved in the research process. PPIn included but was not limited to patient input in one of the following 3 stages: Study Design (prioritization of research topics, outcome selection, study tool development), Study Execution (recruitment, data collection & analysis), and Dissemination of Research. After abstract and full-text screening, 14 studies were selected.

Results

Patients were recruited for PPIn through IBD and patient organizations (7/14), outpatient clinics (4/14), tertiary care sites (2/14), and pre-existing patient advisory groups (1/14). The majority of studies (11/14) engaged patients in the development of study materials, which included a physical activity intervention for stoma patients, an IBD pregnancy decision aid, and a quality of life questionnaire. Two studies interviewed patients to determine comprehensibility of survey items and guide revisions. One study involved patients in data analysis and manuscript development. Most consultations were open-ended, including focus groups (8/14) and semi-structured interviews (3/14). According to study authors, PPIn helps guide IBD research priorities by focusing on patient-relevant issues. Authors also cited the role of PPIn in designing patient-friendly study tools. One challenge reported by 2 studies was that PPIn requires patients to have access to high-quality information and requires a significant time commitment, which may contribute to demographic biases.

Conclusions

The majority of IBD studies engaged patients in an open-ended format and were engaged in study design, particularly in developing study materials. Authors recommend continuous involvement of patients throughout the research process to address their research priorities.

Funding Agencies

None

A140 INTEROBSERVER RELIABILITY OF THE PARIS CLASSIFICATION FOR SUPERFICIAL GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT NEOPLASMS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Background

The Paris classification is an international classification system that characterizes the morphology of superficial gastrointestinal tract neoplasms. Given its ability to predict the risk of submucosal invasion, this tool plays an important role in the preliminary endoscopic assessment of early gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions. Despite its international prevalence, there are no pooled reliability analyses to assess agreement amongst endoscopists using this classification system.

Aims

To systematically review and meta-analyze the interobserver reliability (IOR) of the Paris classification system.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA recommendations. A comprehensive literature query was conducted on biomedical databases through December 2020. Studies were included if they quantitively evaluated the IOR of the Paris classification with at least 5 endoscopists participating in the study cohort. Two authors independently screened studies and abstracted data using an a priori designed data collection form. We pooled the results of studies which provided IOR with kappa statistics and confidence intervals using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two study authors using the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) tool.

Results

From an initial 1541 studies, 5 were included in the qualitative review and 3 reported data that allowed for a quantitative analysis of the primary outcome, representing a total of 28 endoscopists. All three of these studies were high quality. The IOR for the Paris classification amongst all endoscopists was 0.541 (95% CI, 0.466–0.617). There was no significant improvement (p=0.551) in the IOR of the Paris classification system following an educational training intervention (pre-education pooled kappa, 0.498; 95% CI, 0.429–0.567 compared to post-education pooled kappa, 0.530; 95% CI, 0.451–0.608).

Conclusions

Interobserver reliability of the Paris classification is moderate with no significant improvement following educational intervention.

Funding Agencies

None

A257 PANCREATIC CANCER TREATMENT AND END OF LIFE OUTCOMES: A POPULATION BASED COHORT STUDY

Background

Patients with pancreatic cancer face challenging decisions regarding treatment choices following their diagnosis and often lack data on end-of-life (EOL) outcomes. Without the available information, older patients may be undertreated, dying earlier than they would have with treatment, while others may be overtreated and exposed to aggressive measures with harmful side effects.

Aims

To describe survival and EOL outcomes among pancreatic cancer patients based on index cancer treatment, disease stage, and patient characteristics.

Methods

We conducted a population based cohort study in Ontario, Canada of patients who died from April 2010 to December 2017 and were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer prior to death. We used administrative databases to collect data on demographics, baseline health status, treatments, and outcomes. The primary exposure was index cancer treatment (no treatment, radiation, chemotherapy alone, surgery alone, and surgery with chemotherapy). The primary outcomes were mortality, health care encounters per 30 days in the last six months of life, and palliative care visits per 30 days within the last six months of life. Secondary outcomes were location of death (institution vs. community), hospitalization within the last 30 days of life, and receipt of chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life. We estimated the association between the exposure and outcomes using multivariable models, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and cancer stage. Hazard ratios, adjusted mean differences, and odds ratios were reported with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Our cohort included 9950 adults with a median age at diagnosis of 78. 56% received no index treatment, 5% underwent radiation, 27% underwent chemotherapy alone, 7% underwent surgery alone, and 6% underwent surgery and chemotherapy. In the multivariable regression (Table and Figure), radiation, chemotherapy alone, surgery alone, and surgery with chemotherapy were all associated with decreased mortality and fewer healthcare encounters. All groups except radiation were associated with fewer palliative care visits. All treatment groups were associated with lower odds of institutional death and hospitalization within the last 30 days of life, and higher odds of chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life.

Conclusions

Our data, the first to provide EOL outcome estimates based on index cancer treatment, can help patients make initial treatment decisions after a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Multivariable regression analyses predicting primary and secondary outcomes

Funding Agencies

CIHR

A32 DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE TORONTO UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL CLEANING SCORE

Background

High quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) depends on the ability to appropriately visualize upper gastrointestinal (GI) mucosa pathology. Evaluation can be limited by the presence of mucus, foam, bubbles and solid materials. Currently, there is no standardized method to assess mucosal visualization for use in clinical or research settings.

Aims

To develop and establish the content validity of the Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score (TUGCS) and evaluate its interrater reliability.

Methods

An international panel of endoscopy experts rated potential items and their associated anchors for importance as indicators of adequacy of mucosal visualization during EGD. The survey utilized a Likert scale (1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)). The Delphi process was repeated until consensus was reached. Consensus was defined priori as ≥80% of experts in a given round scoring ≥4 on all survey items. To assess content validity, 48 EGD procedures were evaluated in real-time by two endoscopist reviewers using the TUGCS at a single institution. The interrater agreement between assessments was calculated for TUGCS total scores using intraclass correlation coefficient, one-way random effects model (ICC 1,1).

Results

Fourteen experts agreed to be part of the Delphi panel. An anatomical framework representing the upper GI mucosa and anchors for each mucosal portion representing various levels of visibility was generated through systematic review. Three survey rounds, with response rates of 100%, 100% and 71% respectively, achieved consensus. The final TUGCS includes four anatomical areas (fundus, body, antrum, duodenum) and mucosal visualization anchors ranging from 0 to 3 (Figure 1). TUGCS was used to assess foregut cleaning in 48 procedures (Table 1). The mean TUGCS for staff and trainee were 8.1 (±2.4) and 8.1 (±2.6), respectively. The ICC was 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.62–0.88) indicating good reliability.

Conclusions

We developed and generated content validity evidence for the TUGCS through rigorous Delphi methodology, reflective of practice across different centres. Planned as future research is a video survey distributed to endoscopists internationally to further validate the TUGCS to create a tool that may be used to judge mucosal visualization for EGD in research and clinical settings.

Funding Agencies

None

A89 PERCEPTIONS OF NON-TECHNICAL SKILLS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY: A THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF FOUR FOCUS GROUPS

Background

Nontechnical skills (NTS), which involve an individual’s cognitive, attitudinal, and social skills that supplement task expertise, are an essential component in the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy. There is a growing body of literature that highlights the association between these skills and patient outcomes. To date, however, these skills have not been adequately defined within the context of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Aims

To define the domain and corresponding characteristics of NTS in GI endoscopy.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study at a tertiary-care academic center in Toronto, Ontario. Specifically, we held four focus groups with physician endoscopists, nurses who work in an endoscopy unit, and patients who have had previous endoscopies, in order to ascertain their input on the role of NTS in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The three groups were interviewed independently and there was one focus group of both physicians and nurses that was used for validation of our initial thematic framework. Data from the focus groups was collected using a combination of field notes and discussion transcriptions. Three authors independently generated codes from these data. Using these codes, a thematic network analysis was used to identify emerging themes. The primary outcome of this study was the development of a cohesive thematic network of NTS in endoscopy, including their characteristics and examples.

Results

The four focus groups included a total of 34 participants, including 15 physician endoscopists, 15 nurses, and 4 patients. Using thematic network analysis, we identified six dimensions of NTS using the first three focus groups: communication; professionalism; teamwork; leadership; decision-making; and situational awareness. Additional topics related to the practice and evaluation of NTS were identified. In particular, there is a degree of subjectivity in the appraisal of NTS due to the nuances among individual practice, aside from egregious errors of NTS (e.g. unprofessional behaviours). The use of video recordings was suggested as a way to capture signs of good NTS, such as appropriate levels of calmness during procedures and attention to patient comfort. Finally, patient involvement can be useful for evaluating communication and professionalism based on patient comprehension and the nature of the therapeutic relationship.

Conclusions

Our findings provide the first cohesive framework of NTS in gastrointestinal endoscopy that is anchored in real world experiences with relevant stakeholders – physicians, nurses, and patients. Future research should consolidate these findings into an assessment tool for NTS in order to evaluate and provide feedback to endoscopists who are both in training and in practice.

Funding Agencies

CAG

A25 CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GI ENDOSCOPY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Background

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are integral during a pandemic, offering guidance to clinicians through uncertainty. Existing literature has established that the need for rapid publication of CPGs during previous infectious disease outbreaks resulted in less rigorous guidelines. CPGs were rapidly developed since the onset of the pandemic in December 2019, providing guidance in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, an area where COVID-19 may pose risk of transmission.

Aims

To evaluate the quality of GI endoscopy guidelines developed during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare these with (a) endoscopy CPGs developed prior to the pandemic; (b) CPGs for other endoscopic topics unrelated to COVID-19; and, (c) non-endoscopic CPGs published during the pandemic.

Methods

We systematically searched Medline, Embase and Scopus for CPGs published by GI societies from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020. A grey literature search was conducted. Two authors screened full-texts. In this interim analysis, CPGs were grouped based on publication year: before 2020, or 2020. Endoscopy CPGs published in 2020 were categorized as COVID or non-COVID related. Two authors independently assessed the CPGs using the AGREE II tool, consisting of six domains for evaluating guidelines. A domain score of 60 was set as a threshold to indicate good quality.

Results

There were 70 endoscopy guidelines and 27 CPGs focused on other GI topics. The mean overall scores were 69% (±12%) for endoscopy CPGs published before 2020 (n=28), and 51% (±23%) for CPGs published in 2020 (n=42). For individual AGREE II domains, mean scores for pre-2020 CPGs ranged from 33.11 (±17.39) in Applicability to 81.55 (±10.37) in Clarity of Presentation. For CPGs published during COVID-19, mean domain scores ranged from 34.18 (±10.52) in Applicability to 75.26 (±13.85) in Clarity of Presentation. 21 of 42 CPGs published in 2020 were related to COVID. Mean overall scores were 35% (±20%) for COVID-related CPGs and 67% (±13%) for non-COVID-19 CPGs. For COVID-19 CPGs, scores ranged from 27.88 (±20.31) in Rigour of Development to 69.58 (±10.81) in Scope and Purpose. For non-COVID CPGs, the scores ranged from 37.30 (±8.93) in Applicability to 84.52 (±5.93) in Clarity of Presentation.

Conclusions

The difference in overall scores between COVID-19 endoscopy CPGs and non-COVID endoscopy CPGs may suggest that the urgency to disseminate COVID-19 information decreased CPG quality or completeness of reporting. This interim analysis is limited by the lack of distinction between peer-reviewed CPGs and non-peer reviewed recommendations. Given the importance of CPGs in clinical decision making, it is important to ensure that the rapid development of guidelines does not compromise quality and rigour.

Funding Agencies

None

A99 PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY FUNDING TO GASTROINTESTINAL PATIENT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS

Background

Patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) are not-for-profit organizations that aim to support families and individuals afflicted by illnesses. PAOs play a significant role in guiding health policy, providing education to patients, lobbying, and supporting research. Previous studies have demonstrated that PAOs may receive financial payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers. This may create a risk of conflict of interest.

Aims

To assess the prevalence and transparency of financial donations from industry to gastrointestinal patient advocacy groups based in the United States (US).

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of industry donations to PAOs. Data was extracted from the Kaiser Health News (KHN) Database, a database that tracked payments from pharmaceutical companies to PAOs in 2015. After an initial list of 1215 PAOs was obtained from the database, authors extracted the annual revenues, websites and mission statements for each PAO. Authors individually screened each organization’s mission statement and website to determine whether their primary scope of focus included gastroenterology. A final list of 11 PAOs with annual revenues surpassing $500,000 USD was included for descriptive analysis. From this list, the annual reports and websites of each group were reviewed to determine the extent of transparency of PAOs disclosing financial relationships with industry sponsors. The primary outcome of our study was the total amount of funding that each PAO received from pharmaceutical companies. The secondary outcome was the self-reported amount of funding stated on each PAO’s website and annual report.

Results

From our analysis of 11 PAOs, 9 (81%) organizations received payments from pharmaceutical companies. The median dollar value of donations received was $31,052 USD (IQR=$25 to $302,550). The total dollar value of donations received was $4,059,433 USD. Across the 9 PAOs that received donations, 5 (56%) organizations disclosed a financial relationship with a pharmaceutical company on their website and 2 (22%) disclosed the value of industry donations within a range. No group specified an exact amount of funding received.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate that a majority of US based gastrointestinal PAOs receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, our results show that many PAOs that receive industry funding do not disclose this amount on their website or annual reports. Given their role in providing patient centered support, it is important for PAOs to disclose financial relationships with industry so as to not produce a conflict of interest.

Funding Agencies

None

Massive perinatal left ventricle infarction treated with tissue plasminogen activator: No ECMO - A case report

Neonatal myocardial infarction due to coronary thrombus is a rare cause of acute heart failure and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. We present a rare case of a full-term newborn who developed coronary artery thrombus treated with intracoronary recombinant tissue plasminogen activator infusion while undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. Also, we describe a unique treatment strategy to support systemic circulation sparing the patient from neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and its complications. Neonatal myocardial infarction should be suspected and ruled out in sick newborns.

Prevalence of cestodes infection among school children of urban parts of Lower Dir district, Pakistan

Tapeworms of zoonotic importance have been described as a leading public health problem. Current research was aim to assess the prevalence of tapeworms among 5-12years school children residing in district Lower Dir, Pakistan from January 2019-December 2019. The wet mount preparation in saline/iodine/methods were used for stool examination. Data was analyzed using appropriate descriptive, static methods. Of the 400 children studied 71.7% were infected with one or more species of intestinal parasites. Single infection of cestode species was found in 69 individuals with 17.2% prevalence and multiple parasitic infections were identified in 19.7% (n=79/400) individuals. The multiple infection were comprised as 10% (n=40) double, 6.75% (n=27) triple and 3% (n=12) quadruple. A total of 9 species of helminths and one species of protozoan infection. Among the helminths Ascaris lumbricoides was the most prevalent 33.1% (n=95), Taenia saginata 22.6% (n=65), hookworm 19.8% (n=57), Hymenolepis nana 18.8% (n=54), Enterobius vermicularis and Hymenolepis diminuta 1.39% (n=4each), Trichuris trichura 1.04% (n=3), Toxocara spp 0.69% (n=2) and Schistosoma japonicum 0.34% (n=1) were reported. One protozoan species was Cryptosporidium spp 0.69% (n=2) in current study. In case of A.lumbricoides, hookworm, E.vermicularis, T.trichura, T.saginata, H.nana and H.diminuta the male children of below 8 years of age were highly infected. Other infections are reported in the same prevalence with slight difference if any. We conclude that there is a need for mass scale campaigns to create awareness regarding health and hygiene in children and the need for development of effective poverty control programs because deworming alone is not adequate to control parasitic infections.

Placental Swab in Supporting Diagnosis of Vertical Transmission in SARS-CoV-2 Positive Mothers

Aims To review the evidence regarding the possibility of fetal vertical transmission in COVID-19 positive pregnant mothers by diagnosing through placental swabs. Methods The search terms 'pregnant COVID-19 positive mothers', 'fetal vertical transmission' and 'placental swabs' were used. 20 papers were selected. Results 183 COVID-19 positive pregnant women were identified whose 184 placentas and 185 neonates were also analysed by RT-PCR or immunohistochemistry and/or in situ hybridization for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 (one case of monochorionic diamniotic twins and one case of dichorionic diamniotic twins). 183 liveborn neonates were successfully delivered primarily via caesarean section (99%). 2 mothers did not deliver liveborn infants due to severe preeclampsia resulting in a termination of pregnancy and a miscarriage, both occurring in the second trimester. 9 neonates tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (5%). We report no neonatal mortality after live birth and no maternal mortality. 17 placentas tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 out of a total of 184 tested (9%). Of these 17, 7 cases of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in the maternal, neonatal and placental tissue. Conclusion There is no concrete evidence of vertical transmission occurring between mother and infant. We propose further research investigating the effects of COVID-19 on pregnant women by using RT-PCR to test the mother, placenta, vaginal fluid, breast milk and infant for SARS-CoV-2 at various stages of transmission.

Morphology of the entering and exiting nerve as a differentiating feature of benign from malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours of the brachial plexus

OBJECTIVE

To identify if morphology of the entering and exiting nerve involved by a nerve sheath tumour in the brachial plexus can help differentiate between benign (B) and malignant (M) peripheral nerve sheath tumours (PNSTs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of 85 patients with histologically confirmed primary PNSTs of the brachial plexus over a 12.5-year period. Clinical data and all available MRI studies were independently evaluated by 2 consultant musculoskeletal radiologists blinded to the final histopathological diagnosis assessing for maximal lesion dimension, visibility and morphology of the entering and exiting nerve, and other well-documented features of PNSTs.

RESULTS

The study included 47 males and 38 females with mean age 46.7 years (range, 8-81 years). There were 73 BPNSTs and 12 MPNSTs. The entering nerve was not identified in 5 (7%), was normal in 17 (23%), was tapered in 38 (52%) and showed lobular enlargement in 13 (18%) BPNSTs compared with 0 (0%), 0 (0%), 2 (17%) and 10 (83%) MPNSTs respectively. The exiting nerve was not identified in 5 (7%), was normal in 20 (27%), was tapered in 42 (58%) and showed lobular enlargement in 6 (8%) BPNSTs compared with 4 (33%), 0 (0%), 2 (17%) and 6 (50%) MPNSTs respectively. Increasing tumour size, entering and exiting nerve morphology and suspected MRI diagnosis were statistically significant differentiators between BPNST and MPNST (p < 0.001). IOC for nerve status was poor to fair but improved to good if normal/tapered appearance were considered together with improved specificity of 81-91% for BPNST and sensitivity of 75-83%.

CONCLUSIONS

Morphology of the adjacent nerve is a useful additional MRI feature for distinguishing BPNST from MPNST of the brachial plexus.

A104 PREVALENCE OF GHOST-AUTHORSHIP IN INDUSTRY-SPONSORED CLINICAL TRIALS

Background

Ghost-authorship involves the exclusion of individuals who have made substantial contributions to the article from the author byline. Previous studies have found that ghost-authorship is highly prevalent in industry-sponsored clinical trials. Its prevalence, however, has yet to be investigated in trials of biologics in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Aims

To determine the prevalence of ghost-authorship in IBD biologic industry-sponsored clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

Biologic medications indicated for ulcerative colitis (UC) or for Crohn’s disease (CD) were identified using the Food and Drug Agency (FDA) database. We identified the clinical trials on clinicaltrials.gov corresponding to the data presented at the time of FDA approval. Specifically, we included the first publication for each trial to report study results for our analysis. Two authors independently identified the presence of ghost-authorship, which we defined as the exclusion on the author byline of the included RCT publication of any individuals who assisted in the writing of the trial manuscript and/or performed the data analyses.

Results

We identified a total of 28 relevant RCTs on biologic medications (10 for UC and 18 for CD), which were matched to 20 publications. We found ghost-authorship in 70% of publications (n=14); 40% (n=8) involved manuscript and protocol writing assistance from sponsor staff; 35% (n=7) involved medical writers from external companies; 15% (n=3) involved both sponsor staff and medical writers assisting in manuscript writing; and 20% (n=4) involved individuals performing data analysis or interpretation.

Conclusions

We found that ghost-authorship in industry-sponsored IBD biologic clinical trials has a moderately high prevalence, with the most common being manuscript or protocol writing assistance. A lack of transparency regarding sponsor-affiliated and/or external contributors may negatively affect the trust placed in medical research. One limitation is that data was only extracted from publications. Further evidence on ghost-authorship may be found in study protocols and registrations, which will be investigated in the future.

Funding Agencies

None

A97 TOOLS FOR DIRECT OBSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT OF COLONOSCOPY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF VALIDITY EVIDENCE

Background

An increasing focus on quality and safety in colonoscopy has led to broader implementation of competency-based educational systems that enable documentation of trainees’ achievement of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for independent practice. The meaningful assessment of competence in colonoscopy is critical to this process. While there are many published tools that assess competence in performing colonoscopy, there is a wide range of underlying validity evidence. Tools with strong evidence of validity are required to support feedback provision, optimize learner capabilities, and document competence.

Aims

We aimed to evaluate the strength of validity evidence that supports available colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools using the unified framework of validity.

Methods

We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools from inception until April 8, 2020. We extracted data outlining validity evidence from the five sources (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences) and graded the degree of evidence, with a maximum score of 15. We assessed educational utility using an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

Results

From 10,841 records, we identified 27 studies representing 13 assessment tools (10 adult, 2 pediatric, 1 both). All tools assessed technical skills, while 10 assessed cognitive and integrative skills. Validity evidence scores ranged from 1–15. The Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool, the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) tool, and the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT) had the strongest validity evidence, with scores of 13, 15, and 14, respectively. Most tools were easy to use and interpret and required minimal resources. MERSQI scores ranged from 9.5–11.5 (maximum score 14.5).

Conclusions

The ACE, DOPS, and GiECAT have strong validity evidence compared to other assessments. Future studies should identify barriers to widespread implementation and report on use of these tools in credentialing purposes.

Funding Agencies

None

A160 PREVALENCE OF OUTCOME SWITCHING AMONG PUBLISHED PHASE 3 INTERVENTIONAL TRIALS FOR INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE THERAPEUTICS

Background

Outcome switching is a well-described form of inconsistent reporting in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), wherein pre-specified primary and/or secondary outcomes are changed between trial registration and the publication of results without explanation. This is of particular concern, as the selective publication of results that are favorable will insert bias into the trial’s results and may cast doubt on the veracity of its findings. While it has been investigated in other disciplines, the prevalence of outcome switching has yet to be described among RCTs for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Aims

To determine the prevalence of correctly reported pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes in published phase 3 interventional RCTs for IBD.

Methods

We identified all phase 3 interventional trials for IBD with published results using clinicaltrials.gov. We included all results with an associated publication that detailed the results of the trial. We excluded registrations if: only an abstract of the results was available; trial results were only published as a pooled analysis; multiple trial segments were reported collectively; or a publication of the results could not be identified through clinicaltrials.gov or a custom search.

Two reviewers extracted all pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes for each trial using the clinical trial registration page that was dated before the commencement of the trial. These outcomes were compared to the outcomes reported in the corresponding journal articles. Any discrepancies were noted, and additional outcomes were extracted.

Results

We identified a total of 88 phase 3 interventional RCTs for IBD, of which 57 were matched to independent publications of their results. All trials pre-specified a primary outcome, and 50 (87.7%) pre-specified secondary outcomes. 10 (17.5%) of trials did not report some or all primary outcomes, and 19 (33.3%) trials had a change or alteration to the primary outcome. Of the trials that pre-specified secondary outcomes, 16 (28.1%) did not report all pre-specified secondary outcomes. 49 (86.0%) trials added 6 (IQR: 2–8) unspecified secondary outcomes on average.

Conclusions

Many phase 3 interventional RCTs in IBD either did not report some or all primary outcomes, or altered the primary outcome. Trials routinely reported additional outcomes that were not pre-specified and failed to note that they were added post hoc. Based on these results, we recommend improvements in the reporting of pre-specified outcomes and higher fidelity in order to maintain confidence in trial results.

Funding Agencies

None

A70 PREVALENCE OF SELF-PUBLICATION AMONG EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS OF GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNALS

Background

Editorial self-publication refers to the practice wherein editors publish research in journals to which they serve as editorial board members. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has detailed recommendations against the practice of self-publication. There is evidence to suggest that editorial board membership may influence the decision to publish academic papers, which may contribute to publication bias. Despite this, there have been few attempts to characterize this practice in gastroenterology journals.

Aims

To determine the prevalence of original gastroenterology research articles published by editorial board members in their own journal.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of editorial board members publishing within their own journals. A list of the top 25 highest impact factor gastroenterology journals was created through InCites Journal reports. Journals were screened to determine eligibility based on whether their primary focus included gastroenterology research and whether archives with the names and affiliations of editorial board members were available. 10 journals were selected based on these criteria. For each journal, we extracted all original research articles published in 2019 using Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics ©). Articles classified as editorial material, meeting abstracts, reviews, and clinical practice guidelines were excluded. We cross-referenced the affiliations of all authors found in each publication with affiliations of editors disclosed on the journal website. For each editorial board member, we determined the number of publications within their own journal.

Results

We identified 844 editorial board members in the 10 journals included. Overall, 337 (39.9%) of the editors had a publication in their own journal, of which, 152 (18.0%) had more than one publication. Across all journals, the median number of editors with self-publication is 27 (IQR=20.3–49.8). The median number of editors with more than one self-publication is 16 (IQR=10.0–25.3). In total, 507 (60.1%) of all editors had no publications within their respective journals.

Conclusions

Despite recommendations against this practice, our results show a high number of research publications authored by editorial board members. These results demonstrate a potential risk for publication bias. However, this study was limited by the inability to investigate beyond the prevalence of self-publication. Furthermore, the explicit implications of our results remain unclear. Further research is required to evaluate factors such as disclosures and the review process associated with increased rates of self-publication as well as its impact on publication bias.

Funding Agencies

None

A89 CHARACTERISTICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AT FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION GASTROINTESTINAL DRUG ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Background

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee (GIDAC) is involved in gastrointestinal drug application reviews. Characteristics and conflicts of interest (COI) in GIDAC meetings are not well described.

Aims

To analyze FDA GIDAC meetings and characteristics that predict recommendations.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study of all publicly available GIDAC meetings where proposed medications were voted on from 1998–2018. Data were collected on individual meetings and individual voting members at meetings. Predefined predictor variables included type of medication, medication sponsor, primary efficacy studies, and voting member characteristics (e.g. committee membership, COI). Univariate analyses were conducted at per-meeting and per-vote levels to assess for predictors of committee recommendation and individual votes respectively.

Results

Thirty-four meetings with 476 individual votes from 1998–2018 were included. Twenty-three (68%) proposals were recommended for approval and 25 (74%) received FDA approval. Most proposals involved &gt;1 primary study (n=27, 79%). At least one voting member had a COI in 24 (71%) of 34 meetings. Twelve (35%) meetings had at least one sponsor COI. Among 476 individual votes, 74 (15.5%) involved a COI, with 33 (6.9%) sponsor COI. COI decreased significantly over time, with more COI in 1996–2000 and 2001–2005 compared to 2006–2010, 2011–2015, and 2016–2020 (p&lt;0.01). There were no significant associations between pre-defined predictors, including COI, and committee level recommendations or individual votes (p&gt;0.05 for all univariate analyses).

Conclusions

The GIDAC reviewed 34 proposals from 1998–2018. The majority were recommended for approval and later approved by the FDA, highlighting the GIDAC’s prominence in the regulatory process. COI are present among GIDAC panelists but decreasing over time and not associated with recommendations.

Funding Agencies

None

A77 A REUSABLE POLYCARBONATE BOX TO DECREASE DROPLET CONTAMINATION DURING UPPER ENDOSCOPY: A SIMULATION-BASED STUDY FOR THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Background

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are aerosol-generating, increasing the risk of healthcare workers (HCW) contracting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Aims

To present a polycarbonate box (EndoBox) designed for use in upper GI endoscopy and evaluate its impact on the contamination of endoscopy staff during simulated procedures.

Methods

Simulated gastroscopies were performed using an upper body simulator placed in left lateral decubitus (LLD) and supine positions. The endoscopist and assistant wore personal protective equipment. Droplet exposure was measured using fluorescent abiotic surrogate particles. Two blinded observers independently viewed images from each scenario to qualitatively evaluate contamination levels. The primary outcome was the level of HCW contamination by droplets generated from a simulated cough with and without the EndoBox on the upper body simulator. The endoscopist’s ergonomic behaviour was also assessed using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) tool.

Results

Without the EndoBox, there was a higher level of contamination on the endoscopist when the upper body simulator is in the LLD position. A higher level of contamination was observed on the assistant when the simulator is in supine position. With the EndoBox, the contamination levels on the endoscopy staff were lower in both LLD and supine scenarios. The endoscopist’s ergonomics were rated 2 to 3 on the RULA tool when using the EndoBox.

Conclusions

The EndoBox reduces macroscopic droplet contamination during simulated gastroscopy. The endoscopist’s risk of musculoskeletal injury remained in the low risk categories as assessed by the RULA tool. Another advantage of the EndoBox design is the arch extending from the bottom that allows for removal of the box without withdrawing the endoscope. This enables rapid access to the patient’s airway if they experience respiratory distress. This study was limited by an inability to assess microscopic contamination and contamination at the level of the port or buttons when suction is applied. Within these limitations, the EndoBox may be a useful adjunct to traditional personal protective equipment.

Funding Agencies

SMHA AFP COVID-Related Innovation Funds

A161 PREVALENCE OF FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (FCOI) AMONG PROPENSITY-SCORE MATCHED RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES EVALUATING BIOLOGIC THERAPEUTICS FOR IBD

Background

Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) studies have commonly relied on real-world evidence to evaluate different therapies. An emerging idea has been the use of propensity score matching as a statistical method to account for baseline characteristics in IBD patients. In retrospective studies, propensity score matching of patients helps reduce treatment assignment bias and mimic the effects of randomization. Recently, propensity-score matching has become an important tool in IBD studies comparing biologic therapeutics. Biologic medications are among the highest-grossing drugs worldwide, and their pharmaceutical producers make considerable payments to physicians to market them. In spite of this, there is a lack of evidence examining the role of undue industry influence among propensity-score matched comparative studies evaluating biologic therapeutics for IBD.

Aims

Given the documented association between IBD biologics and FCOI, we hypothesize a high burden of FCOI in propensity-score matched studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of disclosed & undisclosed financial conflicts of Interest (FCOI) in propensity-score matched comparison studies evaluating biologics for IBD.

Methods

We developed & ran a librarian-reviewed systematic search on EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases for all propensity-score matched retrospective studies comparing biologics for the treatment of IBD. Full-text retrieval & screening was performed on all studies in duplicate. 16 articles were identified. Industry payments to authors were only considered FCOI if they were made by a company producing a biologic that was included in the comparison study. Disclosed FCOI were identified by authors’ interests disclosures in full-texts. Any undisclosed FCOI among US authors were identified using the Centre for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Database, which collects industry payments to physicians.

Results

Based on a preliminary analysis of 16 studies, there was at least one author with a relevant FCOI in 14 (88%) of the 16 studies. 14 studies (88%) had at least one disclosed FCOI, while 6 studies (37.5%) had at least one undisclosed FCOI. Among studies with disclosed FCOI, a mean of 40.2% (SD = 23.4%) of authors/study reported FCOI. Among studies with undisclosed FCOI, a mean of 18.8% (SD = 7.0%) of authors/study reported FCOI. The total dollar value of FCOIs was $1,974,328.3. The median conflict dollar value was $5,576.6 (IQR: $321.6 to $36,394.9).

Conclusions

We found a high burden of undisclosed FCOI (37.5%) among authors of propensity-score matched studies evaluating IBD biologics. Given the potential for undue industry influence stemming from such payments, authors should ensure better transparency with industry relationships.

Funding Agencies

None

A71 RECOMMENDATION REVERSALS IN GASTROENTEROLOGY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Background

Clinical practice guidelines are evidence-based resources designed to inform clinical decision making. Often, superior evidence will support the inclusion of novel procedures and practices to replace older recommendations. Recommendation reversals occur when (a) superior quality evidence emerges to suggest the harm or non-beneficence of prior recommendations, and (b) that recommendation is not supplanted by a newer one.

Aims

The primary objective of this study was to describe the content, frequency and rationale for recommendation reversals in CPGs published by gastroenterological societies.

Methods

For this meta-epidemiologic study, we considered two criteria to define a recommendation reversal: (a) the more recent CPG makes a recommendation that contradicts a previously accepted practice; and (b) the prior recommendation is not replaced by any novel intervention. We searched CPGs published by 20 major GI societies from 1991- 2019. Guidelines were included if had at least two iterations with the same title and used a valid evidence rating system (such as GRADE). Explicit recommendations which reported definite levels of evidence and strength of recommendation were extracted.

Results

We identified 1022 clinical guidelines from GI societies over 28 years. 292 CPGs were included for data synthesis. 5985 explicit statements were extracted. 12 reversals were confirmed and are summarized in the Table. Six reversals (50.0%) occurred due to studies reporting non-beneficence and 3 (25.0%) occrred due to studies reporting harm. Three recommendations (25.0%) were reversed due to new clinical trials; 3 (25.0%) due to systematic reviews or meta-analyses; and 2 to conform with CPGs of other societies (16.7%).

Conclusions

We describe recommendation reversals made in gastroenterology CPGs, and the reasons thereof. Investigation of recommendation reversals allows for the identification of low-value medical practices. This reinforces the need for GI CPG committees to (1) iteratively review guidelines to re-evaluate recommendations made on low-quality evidence and; (2) refrain from making recommendations when evidence for the same is weak.

Funding Agencies

None

Phytochemical management of root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) kofoid and white chitwood by Artemisia spp. in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.)

In vitro and screen house experiments were conducted to investigate the effectiveness of thirteen phytochemicals from Artemisia elegantissimia and A. incisa on root knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) cv. Rio Grande. A positive control (Carbofuran) and negative control (H2O) were also used for comparison. Effectiveness of phytochemicals against juveniles (J2s) mortality and egg hatch inhibition were evaluated after 24, 48 and 72 hours of incubation at three concentrations viz; 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 mg/mL in vitro conditions. Amongst thirteen phytochemicals, Isoscopletin (Coumarin), Carbofuran and Apigenin (Flavonoid) showed the highest mortality and egg hatch inhibition of M. incognita at all intervals. Inhibition of eggs and J2s mortality were the greatest (90.0%) and (96.0%) at 0.3 mg/mL concentration. Application of phytochemicals caused reduction in number of galls, galling index, and egg masses on tomato plant and enhanced plant growth parameters under screen house conditions. Gall numbers (1.50), galling index (1.00), number of juveniles (4.83) and egg masses (4.00) were greatly reduced and plant growth parameters such as; plant height (28.48 cm), fresh (72.13 g) and dry shoot weights (35.99 g), and root fresh (6.58 g) and dry weights (1.43 g) were increased significantly by using Isoscopletin. In structure activity relationship, juveniles of M. incognita, exhibited variations in their shape and postures upon death when exposed to different concentrations of phytochemicals of Artemisia spp. The present study suggests that Artemisia based phytochemicals possess strong nematicidal effects and can be used effectively in an integrated disease management program against root knot nematodes.

Potential of graphene-based materials to combat COVID-19: properties, perspectives, and prospects

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a new virus in the coronavirus family that causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19), emerges as a big threat to the human race. To date, there is no medicine and vaccine available for COVID-19 treatment. While the development of medicines and vaccines are essentially and urgently required, what is also extremely important is the repurposing of smart materials to design effective systems for combating COVID-19. Graphene and graphene-related materials (GRMs) exhibit extraordinary physicochemical, electrical, optical, antiviral, antimicrobial, and other fascinating properties that warrant them as potential candidates for designing and development of high-performance components and devices required for COVID-19 pandemic and other futuristic calamities. In this article, we discuss the potential of graphene and GRMs for healthcare applications and how they may contribute to fighting against COVID-19.