Randomized sham-controlled trials in endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events

Placebo Control and Blinding in Randomized Trials of Procedural Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression

Importance

Unlike medications, procedural interventions are rarely trialed against placebo prior to becoming accepted in clinical practice. When placebo-controlled trials are eventually conducted, procedural interventions may be less effective than previously believed.

Objective

To investigate the importance of including a placebo arm in trials of surgical and interventional procedures by comparing effect sizes from trials of the same procedure that do and do not include a placebo arm.

Data Sources

Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified all placebo-controlled trials for procedural interventions in any specialty of medicine and surgery from inception to March 31, 2019. A secondary search identified randomized clinical trials assessing the same intervention, condition, and end point but without a placebo arm for paired comparison.

Study Selection

Placebo-controlled trials of anatomically site-specific procedures requiring skin incision or endoscopic techniques were eligible for inclusion; these were then matched to trials without placebo control that fell within prespecified limits of heterogeneity.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Random-effects meta-regression, with placebo and blinding as a fixed effect and intervention and end point grouping as random effects, was used to calculate the impact of placebo control for each end point. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

End points were examined in prespecified subgroups: patient-reported or health care professional-assessed outcomes, quality of life, pain, blood pressure, exercise-related outcomes, recurrent bleeding, and all-cause mortality.

Results

Ninety-seven end points were matched from 72 blinded, placebo-controlled trials (hereafter, blinded) and 55 unblinded trials without placebo control (hereafter, unblinded), including 111 500 individual patient end points. Unblinded trials had larger standardized effect sizes than blinded trials for exercise-related outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.89; P < .001) and quality-of-life (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.53; P = .003) and health care professional-assessed end points (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61; P < .001). The placebo effect accounted for 88.1%, 55.2%, and 61.3% of the observed unblinded effect size for these end points, respectively. There was no significant difference between unblinded and blinded trials for patient-reported end points (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.64; P = .07), blood pressure (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.62; P = .15), all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.72; P = .36), pain (SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.57; P = .91), or recurrent bleeding events (OR, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.11 to 0.88; P = .88).

Conclusions and Relevance

The magnitude of the placebo effect found in this systematic review and meta-regression was dependent on the end point. Placebo control in trials of procedural interventions had the greatest impact on exercise-related, quality-of-life, and health care professional-assessed end points. Randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions may consider placebo control accordingly.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy for adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction

BACKGROUND

The sphincter of Oddi comprises a muscular complex encircling the distal part of the common bile duct and the pancreatic duct regulating the outflow from these ducts. Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction refers to the abnormal opening and closing of the muscular valve, which impairs the circulation of bile and pancreatic juices.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with a placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, administered orally or endoscopically, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.

SEARCH METHODS

We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 16 May 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials assessing any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy versus placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults diagnosed with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager to prepare the review. Our primary outcomes were: proportion of participants without successful treatment; proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events; and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were: all-cause mortality; proportion of participants with one or more non-serious adverse events; length of hospital stay; and proportion of participants without improvement in liver function tests. We used the outcome data at the longest follow-up and the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We planned to present the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR). We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised clinical trials, including 433 participants. Trials were published between 1989 and 2015. The trial participants had sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Two trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Japan. One was a multicentre trial conducted in seven US centres, and the remaining three were single-centre trials. One trial used a two-stage randomisation, resulting in two comparisons. The number of participants in the four trials ranged from 47 to 214 (median 86), with a median age of 45 years, and the mean proportion of males was 49%. The follow-up duration ranged from one year to four years after the end of treatment. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest to our review. The trials provided data for the comparisons and outcomes below, in conformity with our review protocol. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.66; 3 trials, 340 participants; follow-up range 1 to 4 years); serious adverse events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Physical scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.84 to 1.84; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Mental scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -4.16 to 2.16; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), and no improvement in liver function test (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.26; 1 trial, 47 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilationmay have little to no effect on serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 trial, 91 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.31; 1 trial, 99 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Funding One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial was funded by a foundation (the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIDDK), and two trials seemed to be funded by the local health institutes or universities where the investigators worked. We did not identify any ongoing randomised clinical trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence from the trials included in this review, we do not know if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham or versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy increases, reduces, or makes no difference to the number of people with treatment success; if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham or versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation increases, reduces, or makes no difference to serious adverse events; or if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham improves, worsens, or makes no difference to health-related quality of life and liver function tests in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Evidence on the effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with sham, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation,or dual endoscopic sphincterotomyon all-cause mortality, non-serious adverse events, and length of hospital stay is lacking. We found no trials comparing endoscopic sphincterotomy versus a placebo drug or versus any other pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination. All four trials were underpowered and lacked trial data on clinically important outcomes. We lack randomised clinical trials assessing clinically and patient-relevant outcomes to demonstrate the effects of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.

The Effect of Reiki on Anxiety, Stress, and Comfort Levels Before Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

This study's aim is to determine the effect of Reiki when applied before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy on levels of anxiety, stress, and comfort.

DESIGN

This single-blind, a pretest and post-test design, randomized, sham-controlled study was held between February and July 2021.

METHODS

Patients who met the inclusion criteria were separated by randomization into three groups: Reiki, sham Reiki, and control. A total of 159 patients participated in the study. In the intervention groups (Reiki and sham Reiki), Reiki and sham Reiki were applied once for approximately 20 to 25 minutes before gastrointestinal endoscopy.

FINDINGS

When the Reiki group was compared to the sham Reiki and control groups following the intervention, the decrease in the levels of patient stress (P < .001) and anxiety (P < .001) and the increase in patient comfort (P < .001) were found to be statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Reiki applied to patients before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was effective in reducing stress and anxiety and in increasing comfort.

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty for treatment of class 1 and 2 obesity (MERIT): a prospective, multicentre, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is an endolumenal, organ-sparing therapy for obesity, with wide global adoption. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of ESG with lifestyle modifications compared with lifestyle modifications alone.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised clinical trial at nine US centres, enrolling individuals aged 21-65 years with class 1 or class 2 obesity and who agreed to comply with lifelong dietary restrictions. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1·5; with stratified permuted blocks) to ESG with lifestyle modifications (ESG group) or lifestyle modifications alone (control group), with potential retightening or crossover to ESG, respectively, at 52 weeks. Lifestyle modifications included a low-calorie diet and physical activity. Participants in the primary ESG group were followed up for 104 weeks. The primary endpoint at 52 weeks was the percentage of excess weight loss (EWL), with excess weight being that over the ideal weight for a BMI of 25 kg/m². Secondary endpoints included change in metabolic comorbidities between the groups. We used multiple imputed intention-to-treat analyses with mixed-effects models. Our analyses were done on a per-protocol basis and a modified intention-to-treat basis. The safety population was defined as all participants who underwent ESG (both primary and crossover ESG) up to 52 weeks.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 20, 2017, and June 14, 2019, 209 participants were randomly assigned to ESG (n=85) or to control (n=124). At 52 weeks, the primary endpoint of mean percentage of EWL was 49·2% (SD 32·0) for the ESG group and 3·2% (18·6) for the control group (p<0·0001). Mean percentage of total bodyweight loss was 13·6% (8·0) for the ESG group and 0·8% (5·0) for the control group (p<0·0001), and 59 (77%) of 77 participants in the ESG group reached 25% or more of EWL at 52 weeks compared with 13 (12%) of 110 in the control group (p<0·0001). At 52 weeks, 41 (80%) of 51 participants in the ESG group had an improvement in one or more metabolic comorbidities, whereas six (12%) worsened, compared with the control group in which 28 (45%) of 62 participants had similar improvement, whereas 31 (50%) worsened. At 104 weeks, 41 (68%) of 60 participants in the ESG group maintained 25% or more of EWL. ESG-related serious adverse events occurred in three (2%) of 131 participants, without mortality or need for intensive care or surgery.

INTERPRETATION

ESG is a safe intervention that resulted in significant weight loss, maintained at 104 weeks, with important improvements in metabolic comorbidities. ESG should be considered as a synergistic weight loss intervention for patients with class 1 or class 2 obesity. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03406975.

FUNDING

Apollo Endosurgery, Mayo Clinic.

Endoscopic bariatric therapies for obesity: a review

▪ Obesity is reaching pandemic proportions globally, with overweight or obesity affecting at least two-thirds of Australian adults. ▪ Bariatric surgery is an effective weight loss strategy but is constrained by high resource requirements and low patient acceptance. ▪ Multiple endoscopic bariatric therapies have matured, with well established and favourable safety and efficacy profiles in multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and are best used within a multidisciplinary setting as an adjuvant to lifestyle intervention. ▪ Three types of intragastric balloon are currently in use in Australia offering average total weight loss ranging from 10% to 18%, with others available internationally. ▪ Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty produces average total weight loss of 15-20% with low rates of severe complications, with RCT data anticipated in December 2021. ▪Bariatric and metabolic endoscopy is rapidly evolving, with many novel, promising therapies currently under investigation.

Increased Sessile Serrated Adenoma Detection Rate With Mechanical New Technology Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

GOAL

This meta-analysis aims to compare the sessile-serrated adenoma detection rate (SSADR) of currently available mechanical new technology devices (NTDs) to conventional colonoscopy (CC).

BACKGROUND

NTDs including Endocuff, EndoRing, G-Eye, and AmplifEYE were developed with the aim of improving adenoma detection rate by enhancing colonic mucosal visualization. Increasing awareness of the risk of sessile-serrated adenoma progression to malignancy has ushered a need to increase the detection of these characteristically flat lesions.

STUDY

Embase and PubMed/Medline databases were searched from inception through January 2019 for published manuscripts or major conference abstracts reporting SSADR with Endocuff, EndoRing, G-Eye, AmplifEYE, and CC. Randomized controlled trials, high-quality case-control, cohort, and observational studies in adults with >10 subjects were included. The primary outcome was pooled SSADR odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) comparing CC with the NTDs. In addition, an analysis comparing each device to CC was performed.

RESULTS

Of 207 citations identified, a total of 14 studies with 12,655 subjects were included in our analysis (5931 subjects with NTDs and 6724 with CC). There were 12 studies with Endocuff, 2 with EndoRing, 1 with G-EYE, and 1 with AmplifEYE. The mean age was 62.4 years and 57.5% were males. Pooled SSADR with NTDs was 12.3% as compared with 6.4% with CC, with an OR of 1.81 (95% CI: 1.6-2.0, I2: 77%). Analysis of Endocuff alone yielded an OR 1.81 (95% CI: 1.6-2.1, I2: 79%).

CONCLUSION

Mechanical NTDs, notably Endocuff, are a safe and effective tool to increase the SSADR.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Procedures: A Review

Since the 1980s, endoscopic ultrasound has advanced from being purely diagnostic to an interventional modality. The gastrointestinal tract offers an exceptional window for assessing the vascular structures in the mediastinum and in the abdomen. This has led to a rapidly growing interest in endoscopic ultrasound-controlled vascular interventions as a minimally invasive alternative to surgical and radiological procedures.

New technologies improve adenoma detection rate, adenoma miss rate, and polyp detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The need to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colorectal cancer screening has ushered in devices that mechanically or optically improve conventional colonoscopy. Recently, new technology devices (NTDs) have become available. We aimed to compare the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between NTDs and conventional colonoscopy and between mechanical and optical NTDs.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 2017 for articles or abstracts reporting ADR, PDR, and AMR with NTDs. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies with >10 subjects were included. Primary outcomes included ADR, PDR, and AMR odds ratio (OR) between conventional colonoscopy and NTDs. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rates, adverse events, cecal intubation time, and total colonoscopy time.

RESULTS

From 141 citations, 45 studies with 20,887 subjects were eligible for ≥1 analyses. Overall, the ORs for ADR (1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.47; P < .01) and PDR (1.51; 95% CI, 1.37-1.67; P < .01) were higher with NTDs. Higher ADR (OR, 1.52 vs 1.25; P = .035) and PDR (OR, 1.63 vs 1.10; P ≤ .01) were observed with mechanical NTDs. The overall AMR with NTDs was lower compared with conventional colonoscopy (OR, .19; 95% CI, .14-.26; P < .01). Mechanical NTDs had lower AMRs compared with optical NTDs (OR, .10 vs .33; P < .01). No differences in cecal intubation rates, cecal intubation time, or total colonoscopy time were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Newer endoscopic technologies are an effective option to improve ADR and PDR and decrease AMR, particularly with mechanical NTDs. No differences in operability and safety were found.

Absence of Complications after Endoscopic Mucosal Biopsy

BACKGROUND

There is no clarity with regard to the occurrence of serious complications from EGD-driven mucosal biopsy. This is important for considering both clinically indicated procedures and mucosal sampling for research.

METHODS

We sought to quantify rates of serious complications from esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with biopsy. We studied 13,233 patients undergoing outpatient EGD with biopsy over 5 years in 2 North Dakota community hospitals, based on the reasoning that serious complications would cause hospitalization within 30 days. We reviewed the records of all patients with a diagnostic or procedure code or admission within 30 days after the outpatient EGD with biopsy.

RESULTS

Of the 13,233 patients who underwent outpatient EGD with biopsy, 411 were admitted within 30 days, most of them because of their underlying diagnosis. Two patients were admitted due to complications that resulted because of additional simultaneous procedures. No patient was admitted because of complications that could be ascribed to conscious sedation, upper GI endoscopic access, or mucosal biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

These data confirm that EGD biopsy is safe within community settings and suggest that the risk/benefit ratio for performing EGD biopsy for research is likely to be favorable if the research has scientific merit. Serious complications or perforation following EGD biopsy did not occur in 13,233 patients in community hospitals in North Dakota.