Background/Aims: H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been used to treat gastritis by inhibiting gastric acid. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are more potent acid suppressants than H2RA.However, the efficacy and safety of low-dose PPI for treating gastritis remain unclear. The aim was to investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose PPI for treating gastritis. Methods: A double-blind, noninferiority, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial randomly assigned 476 patients with endoscopic erosive gastritis to a group using esomeprazole 10 mg (DW1903) daily and a group using famotidine 20 mg (DW1903R1) daily for 2 weeks. The full-analysis set included 319 patients (DW1903, n=159; DW1903R1, n=160) and the per-protocol set included 298 patients (DW1903, n=147; DW1903R1, n=151). The primary endpoint (erosion improvement rate) and secondary endpoint (erosion and edema cure rates, improvement rates of hemorrhage, erythema, and symptoms) were assessed after the treatment. Adverse events were compared. Results: According to the full-analysis set, the erosion improvement rates in the DW1903 and DW1903R1 groups were 59.8% and 58.8%, respectively. According to the per-protocol analysis, the erosion improvement rates in the DW1903 and DW1903R1 groups were 61.9% and 59.6%, respectively. Secondary endpoints were not significantly different between two groups except that the hemorrhagic improvement rate was higher in DW1903 with statistical tendency. The number of adverse events were not statistically different. Conclusions DW1903 of a low-dose PPI was not inferior to DW1903R1 of H2RA. Thus, lowdose PPI can be a novel option for treating gastritis (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05163756).

Background/Aims: Fexuprazan is a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker that could be of benefit to patients with gastric mucosal injury. The aim of this study was to assess the 2-week efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with acute or chronic gastritis. Methods: In this study, 327 patients with acute or chronic gastritis who had one or more gastric erosions on endoscopy and subjective symptoms were randomized into three groups receiving fexuprazan 20 mg once a day (q.d.), fexuprazan 10 mg twice a day (b.i.d.), or placebo for 2 weeks. The posttreatment assessments were the primary endpoint (erosion improvement rate), secondary endpoints (cure rates of erosion and edema and improvement rates of redness, hemorrhage, and subjective symptoms), and drug-related adverse events. Results: Among the patients, 57.8% (59/102), 65.7% (67/102), and 40.6% (39/96) showed erosion improvement 2 weeks after receiving fexuprazan 20 mg q.d., fexuprazan 10 mg b.i.d., and placebo, respectively. Both fexuprazan 20 mg q.d. and 10 mg b.i.d. showed superior efficacy to the placebo (p=0.017 and p<0.001, respectively). Likewise, both fexuprazan 20 mg q.d. and 10 mg b.i.d. also showed higher erosion healing rates than the placebo (p=0.033 and p=0.010, respectively). No difference was noted in the edema healing rate and the improvement rates for redness, hemorrhage, and subjective symptoms between the fexuprazan and placebo groups.No significant difference was noted in the incidence of adverse drug reactions. Conclusions Fexuprazan 20 mg q.d. and 10 mg b.i.d. for 2 weeks showed therapeutic efficacy superior to that of placebo in patients with acute or chronic gastritis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04341454).

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (appointed a Task Force to develope medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on indication for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues.This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice

Background/Aims: The mucoprotective drug rebamipide is used to treat gastritis and peptic ulcers. We compared the efficacy of Mucosta Ⓡ (rebamipide 100 mg) and its new formulation, AD-203 (rebamipide 150 mg), in treating erosive gastritis. Methods: This double-blind, active control, noninferiority, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial randomly assigned 475 patients with endoscopically proven erosive gastritis to two groups: AD-203 twice daily or Mucosta Ⓡ thrice daily for 2 weeks. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included 454 patients (AD-203, n=229; Mucosta Ⓡ , n=225), and the per-protocol (PP) analysis included 439 patients (AD-203, n=224; Mucosta Ⓡ , n=215). The posttreatment assessments included the primary (erosion improvement rate) and secondary endpoints (erosion and edema cure rates; improvement rates of redness, hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal symptoms). Drug-related adverse events were evaluated. Results: According to the ITT analysis, the erosion improvement rates (posttreatment) in AD-203-treated and Mucosta Ⓡ -treated patients were 39.7% and 43.8%, respectively. According to the PP analysis, the erosion improvement rates (posttreatment) in AD-203-treated and Mucosta Ⓡ -treated patients were 39.3% and 43.7%, respectively. The one-sided 97.5% lower limit for the improvement rate difference between the study groups was −4.01% (95% confidence interval [CI], –13.09% to 5.06%) in the ITT analysis and −4.44% (95% CI, –13.65% to 4.78%) in the PP analysis. The groups did not significantly differ in the secondary endpoints in either analysis. Twenty-four AD-203-treated and 20 Mucosta Ⓡ -treated patients reported adverse events but no serious adverse drug reactions; both groups presented similar adverse event rates. Conclusions The new formulation of rebamipide 150 mg (AD-203) twice daily was not inferior to rebamipide 100 mg (Mucosta Ⓡ ) thrice daily. Both formulations showed a similar efficacy in treating erosive gastritis.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to develope medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to develop medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.