Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background/Aims: We investigated how interactions between humans and computer-aided detection (CADe) systems are influenced by the user’s experience and polyp characteristics. Methods: We developed a CADe system using YOLOv4, trained on 16,996 polyp images from 1,914 patients and 1,800 synthesized sessile serrated lesion (SSL) images. The performance of polyp detection with CADe assistance was evaluated using a computerized test module. Eighteen participants were grouped by colonoscopy experience (nurses, fellows, and experts). The value added by CADe based on the histopathology and detection difficulty of polyps were analyzed. Results: The area under the curve for CADe was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.91). CADe assistance increased overall polyp detection accuracy from 69.7% to 77.7% (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.09). However, accuracy decreased when CADe inaccurately detected a polyp (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.87). The impact of CADe assistance was most and least prominent in the nurses (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.71 to 2.27) and the experts (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.74), respectively. Participants demonstrated better sensitivity with CADe assistance, achieving 81.7% for adenomas and 92.4% for easy-to-detect polyps, surpassing the standalone CADe performance of 79.7% and 89.8%, respectively. For SSLs and difficult-to-detect polyps, participants' sensitivities with CADe assistance (66.5% and 71.5%, respectively) were below those of standalone CADe (81.1% and 74.4%). Compared to the other two groups (56.1% and 61.7%), the expert group showed sensitivity closest to that of standalone CADe in detecting SSLs (79.7% vs 81.1%, respectively). Conclusions CADe assistance boosts polyp detection significantly, but its effectiveness depends on the user’s experience, particularly for challenging lesions.

Background/Aims: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) often. However, the disease course of patients with both IBD and AS is not well understood. This study aims to evaluate the effect of concomitant AS on IBD outcomes. Methods: Among the 4,722 patients with IBD who were treated in 3 academic hospitals from 2004 to 2021, 55 were also diagnosed with AS (IBD-AS group). Based on patients’ electronic medical records, the outcomes of IBD in IBD-AS group and IBD group without AS (IBD-only group) were appraised. Results: The proportion of patients treated with biologics or small molecule therapies was significantly higher in IBD-AS group than the proportion in IBD-only group (27.3% vs. 12.7%, P= 0.036). Patients with both ulcerative colitis and AS had a significantly higher risk of biologics or small molecule therapies than patients with only ulcerative colitis (P< 0.001). For univariable logistic regression, biologics or small molecule therapies were associated with concomitant AS (odds ratio, 4.099; 95% confidence interval, 1.863–9.021; P< 0.001) and Crohn’s disease (odds ratio, 3.552; 95% confidence interval, 1.590–7.934; P= 0.002). Conclusions Concomitant AS is associated with the high possibility of biologics or small molecule therapies for IBD. IBD patients who also had AS may need more careful examination and active treatment to alleviate the severity of IBD.

Background/Aims: We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) vs. biologic disease- modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in Korean patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs. Methods: A quasi-experimental, multi-center, prospective, non-randomized study was conducted to compare response rates between JAKi and bDMARDs in patients with RA naïve to targeted therapy. An interim analysis was performed to estimate the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity (LDA) based on disease activity score (DAS)–28– erythroid sedimentation rate (ESR) (DAS28-ESR) at 24 weeks after treatment initiation and to evaluate the development of adverse events (AEs). Results: Among 506 patients enrolled from 17 institutions between April 2020 and August 2022, 346 (196 JAKi group and 150 bDMARD group) were included in the analysis. After 24 weeks of treatment, 49.0% of JAKi users and 48.7% of bDMARD users achieved LDA (p = 0.954). DAS28-ESR remission rates were also comparable between JAKi and bDMARD users (30.1% and 31.3%, respectively; p = 0.806). The frequency of AEs reported in the JAKi group was numerically higher than that in the bDMARDs group, but the frequencies of serious and severe AEs were comparable between the groups. Conclusions Our interim findings reveal JAKi have comparable effectiveness and safety to bDMARDs at 24 weeks after treatment initiation.

In acute pulmonary embolism (PE), circulatory failure and systemic hypotension are important clinically for predicting poor prognosis. While pulmonary artery (PA) clot loads can be an indicator of the severity of current episode of PE or treatment effectiveness, they may not be used directly as an indicator of right ventricular (RV) failure or patient death. In other words, pulmonary vascular resistance or patient prognosis may not be determined only with mechanical obstruction of PAs and their branches by intravascular clot loads on computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), but determined also with vasoactive amines, reflex PA vasoconstriction, and systemic arterial hypoxemia occurring during acute PE. Large RV diameter with RV/left ventricle (LV) ratio > 1.0 and/or the presence of occlusive clot and pulmonary infarction on initial CTPA, and clinically determined high baseline PA pressure and RV dysfunction are independent predictors of oncoming chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). In this pictorial review, authors aimed to demonstrate clinical and serial CTPA features in patients with acute massive and submassive PE and to disclose acute CTPA and clinical features that are related to the prediction of oncoming CTEPH.

Background/Aims: Previous studies have reported the protective effects of tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) on gastric epithelial cells in some animal models, but the precise mechanisms are unclear. This study examined the effects of TUDCA on NF-κB signaling in gastric epithelial cells. Moreover, the protective effects of TUDCA in experimental gastritis models induced by ethanol and NSAID were evaluated and compared with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). Methods: After a pretreatment with TUDCA or UDCA, human gastric epithelial MKN-45 cells were stimulated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α to activate NF-κB signaling. A real-time PCR (RT-PCR) for human interleukin (IL)-1 mRNA was performed. An electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) and immunoblot analyses were carried out. In murine models, after a pretreatment with TUDCA or UDCA, ethanol and indomethacin were administered via oral gavage. Macroscopic and microscopic assessments were performed to evaluate the preventive effects of TUDCA and UDCA on murine gastritis. Results: A pretreatment with TUDCA downregulated the IL-1α mRNA levels in MKN-45 cells stimulated with TNF-α, as assessed by RT-PCR. As determined using EMSA, a pretreatment with TUDCA reduced the TNF-α-induced NF-κB DNA binding activity. A pretreatment with TUDCA inhibited IκBα phosphorylation induced by TNF-α, as assessed by immunoblot analysis. TUDCA attenuated the ethanol-induced and NSAID-induced gastritis in murine models, as determined macroscopically and microscopically. Conclusions TUDCA inhibited NF-κB signaling in gastric epithelial cells and ameliorated ethanol- and NSAID-induced gastritis in murine models. These results support the potential of TUDCA for the prevention of gastritis in humans.

Background/Aims: Combination of midazolam and opioids is used widely for endoscopic sedation. Compared with meperidine, fentanyl is reportedly associated with rapid recovery, turnover rate of endoscopy room, and quality of endoscopy. We compared fentanyl with meperidine when combined with midazolam for sedative colonoscopy. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional, 1:2 matching study was conducted. Induction and recovery time were compared as the primary outcomes. Moreover, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total procedure time of colonoscopy, paradoxical reaction, adenoma detection rate, and adverse effect of midazolam or opioids were assessed as the secondary outcomes. Results: A total of 129 subjects (43 fentanyl vs. 86 meperidine) were included in the analysis. The fentanyl group showed significantly more rapid induction time (4.5±2.7 min vs. 7.5±4.7 min, p<0.001), but longer recovery time (59.5±25.6 min vs. 50.3±10.9 min, p=0.030) than the meperidine group. In multivariate analysis, the induction time of the fentanyl group was 3.40 min faster (p<0.001), but the recovery time was 6.38 min longer (p=0.046) than that of the meperidine group. There was no difference in withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate between the two groups. Conclusions The fentanyl group had more rapid sedation induction time but longer recovery time than the meperidine group.