Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is the most common chronic bacterial infection, affecting approximately half of the world’s population. H. pylori is a Class I carcinogen according to the World Health Organization, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has linked it to 90% of stomach cancer cases worldwide. The overall pattern points to a yearly reduction in eradication rates of H. pylori with the likelihood of success further decreasing after each unsuccessful therapeutic effort. Antimicrobial resistance in Helicobacter pylori is a major public health concern and is a predominant cause attributed to eradication failure. As a result, determining H. pylori’s antibiotic susceptibility prior to the administration of eradication regimens becomes increasingly critical. Detecting H. pylori and its antimicrobial resistance has traditionally been accomplished by time-consuming culture and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing. The resistance of H. pylori to different antibiotics is caused by various molecular mechanisms, and advances in sequencing technology have greatly facilitated the testing of antibiotic susceptibility to H. pylori. This review will summarize H. pylori antibiotic resistance patterns, mechanisms, and clinical implications. We will also review the pros and cons of current antibiotic susceptibility testing methods. Along with a comparison of tailored susceptibility-guided regimens and empirical therapy based on the latest evidence, an evidence-based approach to such situations will be explored.

Thiopurine S-methyltransferase (TPMT) and Nudix hydrolase (NUDT15) polymorphisms predispose to thiopurine-related leukopenia. Retrospective evaluation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients harboring NUDT15 polymorphisms and exposed to thiopurines. We report the frequency of NUDT15 polymorphism, frequency of leukopenia, the tolerated dose of azathioprine, and the clinical efficacy of thiopurines. Of 1440 patients, 118 (8.2%) had NUDT15 polymorphism. Among 51 with complete details, 46 were heterozygous (90.2%), and 5 homozygous (9.2%) for NUDT15. Twenty (43.5%) heterozygous and all homozygous patients developed leukopenia. Leukopenia was significantly more in NUDT15 heterozygous group compared to controls (43.45% vs 7.8%, Odds ratio: 9, 95% CI 3.57-22.9). The maximum tolerated dose of azathioprine was lower in NUDT15 heterozygous group (1.1 ± 0.4 mg per kg vs 1.7 ± 0.7 mg per kg, p = 0.002). The mean time to leukopenia was earlier in the heterozygous group vs controls (19 ± 56 weeks vs 70 ± 53 weeks, p-value 0.002). Seven (35%) of 20 heterozygous patients who developed leukopenia, could be maintained at a lower dose of thiopurine. Twenty-five maintained clinical remission while on thiopurines. Thiopurines should be avoided in NUDT15 homozygous but can be used cautiously at lower dosages with frequent monitoring among heterozygous patients.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most common (90%) type of solid pancreatic neoplasm. Due to its late presentation and poor survival rate, early diagnosis and timely treatment is of utmost importance for better clinical outcomes. Endoscopic ultrasound provides high-resolution images of the pancreas and has excellent sensitivity in the diagnosis of even small (<2 cm) pancreatic lesions. Apart from imaging, it also has an advantage of tissue acquisition (EUS fine-needle aspiration, FNA; or fine-needle biopsy, FNB) for definitive diagnoses. EUS-guided tissue acquisition plays a crucial role in genomic and molecular studies, which in today’s era of personalized medicine, are likely to become important components of PDAC management. With the use of better needle designs and technical advancements, EUS has now become an indispensable tool in the management of PDAC. Lastly, artificial intelligence for the detection of pancreatic lesions and newer automated needles for tissue acquisition will obviate observer dependency in the near future, resulting in the wider dissemination and adoption of this technology for improved outcomes in patients with PDAC.

Embryological development of the pancreas is a complex phenomenon and, therefore, it can have multiple developmental aberrations. Fortunately, the majority of these pancreatic ductal anomalies are asymptomatic with no clinical relevance and are incidentally detected during diagnostic cross-sectional imaging or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or autopsy. Occasionally, pancreatic duct anomalies can result in symptoms like abdominal pain or recurrent pancreatitis. Also, an accurate pre-operative diagnosis of ductal anomalies can prevent inadvertent duct injury during surgery. Conventionally, ERCP had been used for an accurate diagnosis of pancreatic duct anomalies. However, because it is invasive and associated with a risk of pancreatitis, it has been replaced with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). MRCP has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of ductal anomalies, which can be further improved with the use of secretin-enhanced MRCP. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a new diagnostic and interventional tool in the armamentarium of endoscopists and has demonstrated promising results in the detection of pancreatic duct variations and anomalies. Along with the visualization of the course and configuration of the pancreatic duct, EUS can also visualize changes in the pancreatic parenchyma, thereby helping with an early diagnosis of any co-existent pancreatic disease. Absence of the stack sign and crossed duct sign are important EUS features to diagnose pancreas divisum. EUS can also help with the diagnosis of other congenital ductal anomalies like annular pancreas, ansa pancreatica, and anomalous pancreaticobiliary union, although the published experience is limited.

Background and Aims: Colonoscopy has a vital role in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), as well as in the estimation of disease severity, monitoring response to therapy, and surveillance for neoplasia. We performed a systematic review of randomised trials of various bowel preparations for colonoscopy in IBD. Methods: We searched various electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL) for studies reporting about the use of various strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in IBD. We included only randomized clinical trials (RCTs). A network meta-analysis was done using a frequentist approach to compare the effectiveness of various bowel preparations. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. Other outcome parameters like compliance, tolerance, acceptance, and adverse effects were assessed qualitatively. Results: Seven RCTs reporting about 960 patients were included. On comparison with 4 liter (L) of poliethylen glycol (PEG), oral sulfate solution (OR=1.1, 95%CI: 0.65-1.86); PEG2L/Ascorbate (OR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.65-1.48); PEG1L (OR=1, 95%CI: 0.55-1.81); PEG2L plus bisacodyl (OR=1.08, 95%CI: 0.71-1.65); PEG4L plus simethicone (OR=1, 95%CI: 0.67-1.50); PEG/ sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate (SPMC) 1.5L (OR=0.99, 95%CI: 0.55-1.78); SPMC 2L (OR=1.09, 95%CI: 0.61-1.97) had similar effectiveness. Three RCTs reported compliance, five RCTs reported tolerance, two studies reported patient acceptance and five RCTs reported data on the willingness of patients to repeat the procedure in the future. Low-volume preparations had better compliance, tolerance, acceptance, and willingness to repeat. No difference in additional outcomes like change in disease activity after colonoscopy, procedure-related outcomes after colonoscopy like cecal intubation rate, and change in electrolyte levels were found. Conclusion: Various bowel preparations had similar effectiveness in respect to colonoscopy preparation in IBD patients. Low-volume preparations have better compliance, tolerance, and acceptance. The systematic review was limited by a small number of included RCTs.