IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital

Diversity and plasticity are hallmarks of cells of the monocyte-macrophage lineage. In response to IFNs, Toll-like receptor engagement, or IL-4/IL-13 signaling, macrophages undergo M1 (classical) or M2 (alternative) activation, which represent extremes of a continuum in a universe of activation states. Progress has now been made in defining the signaling pathways, transcriptional networks, and epigenetic mechanisms underlying M1-M2 or M2-like polarized activation. Functional skewing of mononuclear phagocytes occurs in vivo under physiological conditions (e.g., ontogenesis and pregnancy) and in pathology (allergic and chronic inflammation, tissue repair, infection, and cancer). However, in selected preclinical and clinical conditions, coexistence of cells in different activation states and unique or mixed phenotypes have been observed, a reflection of dynamic changes and complex tissue-derived signals. The identification of mechanisms and molecules associated with macrophage plasticity and polarized activation provides a basis for macrophage-centered diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Inflammatory conditions in selected organs increase the risk of cancer. An inflammatory component is present also in the microenvironment of tumors that are not epidemiologically related to inflammation. Recent studies have begun to unravel molecular pathways linking inflammation and cancer. In the tumor microenvironment, smoldering inflammation contributes to proliferation and survival of malignant cells, angiogenesis, metastasis, subversion of adaptive immunity, reduced response to hormones and chemotherapeutic agents. Recent data suggest that an additional mechanism involved in cancer-related inflammation (CRI) is induction of genetic instability by inflammatory mediators, leading to accumulation of random genetic alterations in cancer cells. In a seminal contribution, Hanahan and Weinberg [(2000) Cell, 100, 57-70] identified the six hallmarks of cancer. We surmise that CRI represents the seventh hallmark.

INTRODUCTION Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection (1). Sepsis and septic shock are major healthcare problems, impacting millions of people around the world each year and killing between one in three and one in six of those it affects (2–4). Early identification and appropriate management in the initial hours after the development of sepsis improve outcomes. The recommendations in this document are intended to provide guidance for the clinician caring for adult patients with sepsis or septic shock in the hospital setting. Recommendations from these guidelines cannot replace the clinician’s decision-making capability when presented with a unique patient’s clinical variables. These guidelines are intended to reflect best practice (Table 1). TABLE 1. - Table of Current Recommendations and Changes From Previous 2016 Recommendations Recommendations 2021 Recommendation Strength and Quality of Evidence Changes From 2016 Recommendations 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong , moderate-quality evidence (for screening) Changed from Best practice statement “We recommend that hospitals and hospital systems have a performance improvement program for sepsis including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients.” Strong , very low-quality evidence (for standard operating procedures) 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single-screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong , moderate-quality evidence NEW 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence INITIAL RESUSCITATION 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice statement 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hr of resuscitation. Weak, low quality of evidence DOWNGRADE from Strong , low quality of evidence “We recommend that in the initial resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hr” 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation, over physical examination, or static parameters alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong , moderate-quality evidence ADMISSION TO INTENSIVE CARE 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice statement For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within hr of Strong , low quality of evidence from “We recommend that of should be as as after and within one for septic shock and sepsis Strong , very low quality of evidence , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice statement For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hr from the time when sepsis first Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice statement NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for as compared to one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence We on the of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for an initial over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of on and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend or a of infection that and as as and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of that are a of sepsis or septic shock after other Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest for of over using of for Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using over of Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and of is we suggest using clinical to when to over clinical alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using as fluid for resuscitation. Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for resuscitation. Weak , low quality of evidence from , low quality of “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using in patients who of Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using for resuscitation. Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using for resuscitation. Weak , moderate-quality evidence from , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic For adults with septic shock, we recommend using as the over other Strong evidence evidence quality of evidence quality of evidence low-quality evidence For adults with septic shock on with mean arterial pressure we suggest of the of Weak , quality evidence For adults with septic shock and mean arterial pressure and we suggest Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest to or using alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock, we suggest of arterial blood pressure over as as and are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest to mean arterial pressure a is Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of fluid in the first hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who have of hypoperfusion and after the initial resuscitation. NEW “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence is evidence to a on the of in adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest the of over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of in to for adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using a low over a Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using an for of 30 over higher Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with to sepsis-induced we suggest using higher over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using low as compared with Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence using we recommend against using Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using for hr Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis induced we suggest using over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using when in with the in to Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and an for we suggest using IV Weak , moderate-quality evidence from Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest against using IV to septic shock patients fluid resuscitation and are to for this is not we suggest IV at a of For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We the of blood is evidence to a on the of other blood For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have for we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using a to Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low over for Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using in to over alone. Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using or Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and with for we suggest against using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend at a of Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and we suggest against using to improve or to Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and and or we suggest using Weak , low quality of evidence For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who be we suggest of Weak , very low quality of evidence CARE For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of and with patients and over Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest of over hr or Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on to of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the of on clinician be the treatment when to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against for patients over on clinician Weak , low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest to over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a of at of over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on the of tool over For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend screening for and and and to these Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest and sepsis and to hospital and in the setting. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend the clinical provide the to in in and hospital to are and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis and septic shock and we suggest using a compared with to the Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend at and hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis and septic shock and we recommend including the sepsis and and after sepsis in the and hospital Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock who we recommend hospital with to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and is evidence to a on compared with For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a for or against For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend and for and after hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest to a program Weak , very low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock for or an of we suggest to a Weak , very low quality of evidence are to in the be at for Sepsis and - Recommendation 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong quality of evidence for Strong very low-quality evidence for standard operating Sepsis performance improvement of sepsis of sepsis and for a of on the of performance improvement that these with to sepsis with a in in patients with sepsis and septic shock The of performance improvement not to be as as the of a program that sepsis screening and Sepsis screening are to identification of sepsis and of or of the health is in of these with having the of with in of clinical and are for sepsis as response of or Early or Early improve performance of screening and in a of patients from for hospital sepsis the the operating and higher for the for screening as MEWS and target patients in as or of three not a of screening is in and of sepsis screening are an of sepsis for operating procedures are a of that a response to clinical Sepsis standard operating as Early have to a standard with of the sepsis and the between of sepsis and of sepsis to hospitals in the in a and after of sepsis with a from other this time in hospitals with higher with the sepsis a of in higher with standard operating procedures compared with it in one - Recommendation 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong moderate-quality The qSOFA three to and in patients with or suspected a a and a blood pressure mm of these are the is qSOFA to the recommendations of the on the of Sepsis qSOFA as a of in patients with or suspected to as a screening tool that time have the of the qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis The have as to have that qSOFA is having of for identification of infection induced organ dysfunction qSOFA are screening for sepsis and the clinician to the of the that of patients a qSOFA or these patients for of have when against the Early and the Early the of a qSOFA should the clinician to the of sepsis in given the of the the a against as a screening - Recommendation 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak low-quality The of lactate with in patients with suspected infection and sepsis is is as of the sepsis for those patients with sepsis and an elevated lactate is of the of septic shock that lactate be to for the of sepsis adult patients with suspected not have the of lactate in this The lactate an elevated from of the from with from and from the three are and an between the of lactate at and the are the of an elevated or lactate or the of a of sepsis in patients with suspected lactate is to or the on not be in we a the of serum lactate as an to the of sepsis in patients with suspected not - Recommendations 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hours of resuscitation. Weak low-quality 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation over physical or static parameters alone. Weak very low-quality parameters response to a or a fluid using pressure or 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak low-quality resuscitation, serum lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak low-quality fluid resuscitation is for the of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion in sepsis and septic shock. Previous guidelines recommend appropriate resuscitation of sepsis or septic shock and having a low for it in those patients sepsis is not is the evidence from this is a best practice and are that a is The 2016 a for using a of 30 mL/kg of IV in initial fluid resuscitation. of initial resuscitation on evidence are for initial resuscitation in sepsis or septic shock. of adults to an with sepsis or septic shock that to 30 mL/kg of crystalloid fluid within 3 hours of sepsis with of of and of in of including and the and the of fluid in the of 30 that this fluid in clinical practice patients require fluid initial resuscitation. to be with the of fluid and with fluid of and of the of septic patients is the for a initial and of the response to treatment. and fluid the initial resuscitation should be by of and organ perfusion. pressure and blood pressure are of fluid measures have at fluid compared with static measures with fluid against pressure or and of in response to in a and dynamic to guide fluid with to of to and of to in one other in between septic patients with a compared with standard from and a of evidence in to guide of fluid resuscitation as as the appropriate in patients with sepsis and in that resuscitation with of IV by and arterial with fluid in the first hours and higher hospital standard fluid the initial 30 mL/kg is by measures of fluid of mL/kg compared to to 3 mL/kg the of fluid and on of of or not be a in pressure that the is fluid a for lactate is an of and is not a of of septic shock in lactate as evidence of to (1). Previous of these guidelines have using lactate as a target of resuscitation in the of sepsis and septic shock, on to and of in serum lactate in with or in The that serum lactate are not in patients with septic shock, these that decrease lactate lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. with sepsis lactate not be in is not measures of organ be to the and of of the and capillary refill time have and to be of The a resuscitation a resuscitation at or lactate by hours in the first hours of septic shock the organ dysfunction as by in the and in the lactate this not the of a on using resuscitation and is and this should be by and to or fluid are of the or to the should management - Recommendation 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong moderate-quality MAP is a of mean in is the major of and MAP in blood and the of perfusion. as the and have the to blood a to be mm are with organ with MAP Previous guidelines a MAP of 65 mm Hg for initial resuscitation. The on a in septic shock patients who given to target a MAP of mm a target of mm Hg in a a in with higher MAP patients with higher MAP with with a higher of of this that the MAP in the of on this that higher MAP not improve in septic shock to and MAP target compared a mm with a that and MAP by the in patients 65 and with septic shock The in this a mean MAP of mm compared with mm Hg in the to in the by of and in in the and the of with higher MAP and the of patients with MAP of mm the a MAP of 65 mm Hg in the initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock who require to - Recommendation 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak low-quality The of patients on of in an appropriate the septic patients are in the and hospital of patients from are with sepsis and and and hospital of on the time for to the from and an of an in of for each of to of patients in the a higher hospital for the higher to time hr and compared with the to time for of an to time hr with hospital in patients with higher of with sepsis not patients to when hours hospital the a hospital higher and higher of and of patients in hospitals in the that to to higher and on of patients to an in outcomes. is evidence of and are best in an are of patients with sepsis to an not be in in and be this and appropriate treatment should not be of of - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice of these we the of a for to it is to in a a best practice we that appropriate should be in patients with suspected sepsis and septic shock it in in the of not in this as as The and of sepsis are and other is to sepsis, the cannot have a of sepsis in a with organ a or of patients with sepsis to have Best practice is to the to other are or a patient’s clinical after hospital or the of a of this be in when it is to or major is a that to on the that the is each as in and of the that by or in each in of or that the for a in the or a We not or evidence this are to a an that not from is or this is not of the should the of patients and patients that is not to - Recommendations For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within one of Strong low quality of evidence very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice and clinical examination, for and of and treatment for that this should be within 3 hours of that a be as to the of an of the patient’s and the of sepsis is to be For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hours from the time when sepsis first Weak very low quality of For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak very low quality of Early of appropriate is one of the to in patients with sepsis to patients with sepsis or septic shock should be as an The to provide as as be against the with to patients infection These a of as or and sepsis is as sepsis in and that first to be sepsis to be the of infection and of for each with suspected sepsis should the and of The with in patients with septic shock, have a between time to and in patients with septic shock in patients septic shock a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients for patients not on a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients with sepsis at least one of or or organ and for patients with septic to a for sepsis and a for septic shock in a of patients in each in time from to of with of and of in patients with in patients not an between and should be that the and at of to the of with or other patients with sepsis shock, the between time to and within the first hours from is have one to a in between and the other in a in time to suggest that after hours from hospital sepsis We suggest in patients with sepsis shock as as sepsis to be the and 3 hours after sepsis first suspected for sepsis at that given the of with septic shock and the of and the a to and within one in patients with septic shock. for patients with sepsis, we recommend be 1). For patients with sepsis shock, we recommend a of and of be to within 3 should be or should be to the Recommendations on of from suggest that of in patients with sepsis and septic shock is and and of a of in The and time for by and the of and of on is to recommendations to the of in patients with sepsis and septic shock in are in with the recommendations to - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak very low quality of is in in response to in with clinical the of and of a of 30 a of and of for sepsis in patients We evidence from three that compared for of the three in to of to or of to and not in of the and on the with of the and the quality of evidence very guidelines for the management of recommend of for patients with of and in including the a against using to guide in to clinical - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak low quality of The on to an against in an treatment for sepsis and septic shock the that the patient’s infection is caused by the of with treatment for in a with and the of with treatment in a for of patients and be to The of by from in to in and by for of infection or IV of or of hospital and of on the of including in on patients with the of in patients with of hours are with in not in patients with or sepsis, including against with higher patients The with are by an between of and in patients with or to for in a with be in a be from including the of to for are and on and clinical for are - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for compared with one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak very low quality of the of in of the world and between in and the initial of is to the at least one that is against the the and are the of on the of for and the of the and are is for patients with in a with of in or other between in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock when from the in the of of and in a low with the from the Recommendations the of one for treatment over one are given clinical including of and the of the of sepsis is to the appropriate For this we from recommendations in patients with sepsis or septic shock recommend the of on of to guide this infection or with within the of within the to a within the and within the the and are is not for patients with with and quality of evidence very and the of with the of for treatment. have an in in patients at for we suggest using for treatment to the of in patients with a low for we suggest using a for as are of using and the a of including infection and development of of is in patients at for with septic shock. - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak low quality of Sepsis and septic shock to are in and are with that of appropriate

This paper is the first in a series of two publications relating to the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn's disease and concerns the methodology of the consensus process, and the classification, diagnosis and medical management of active and quiescent Crohn's disease. Surgical management as well as special situations including management of perianal Crohn's disease of this ECCO Consensus are covered in a subsequent second paper [Gionchetti et al JCC 2016].

OBJECTIVES: The Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) program was initiated by the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IOIBD). It examined potential treatment targets for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to be used for a "treat-to-target" clinical management strategy using an evidence-based expert consensus process. METHODS: A Steering Committee of 28 IBD specialists developed recommendations based on a systematic literature review and expert opinion. Consensus was gained if ≥75% of participants scored the recommendation as 7-10 on a 10-point rating scale (where 10=agree completely). RESULTS: The group agreed upon 12 recommendations for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). The agreed target for UC was clinical/patient-reported outcome (PRO) remission (defined as resolution of rectal bleeding and diarrhea/altered bowel habit) and endoscopic remission (defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0-1). Histological remission was considered as an adjunctive goal. Clinical/PRO remission was also agreed upon as a target for CD and defined as resolution of abdominal pain and diarrhea/altered bowel habit; and endoscopic remission, defined as resolution of ulceration at ileocolonoscopy, or resolution of findings of inflammation on cross-sectional imaging in patients who cannot be adequately assessed with ileocolonoscopy. Biomarker remission (normal C-reactive protein (CRP) and calprotectin) was considered as an adjunctive target. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for selecting the goals for treat-to-target strategies in patients with IBD are made available. Prospective studies are needed to determine how these targets will change disease course and patients' quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib, an oral, small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitor, was shown to have potential efficacy as induction therapy for ulcerative colitis in a phase 2 trial. We further evaluated the efficacy of tofacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy. METHODS: We conducted three phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of tofacitinib therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. In the OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2 trials, 598 and 541 patients, respectively, who had moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis despite previous conventional therapy or therapy with a tumor necrosis factor antagonist were randomly assigned to receive induction therapy with tofacitinib (10 mg twice daily) or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary end point was remission at 8 weeks. In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, 593 patients who had a clinical response to induction therapy were randomly assigned to receive maintenance therapy with tofacitinib (either 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily) or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary end point was remission at 52 weeks. RESULTS: In the OCTAVE Induction 1 trial, remission at 8 weeks occurred in 18.5% of the patients in the tofacitinib group versus 8.2% in the placebo group (P=0.007); in the OCTAVE Induction 2 trial, remission occurred in 16.6% versus 3.6% (P<0.001). In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, remission at 52 weeks occurred in 34.3% of the patients in the 5-mg tofacitinib group and 40.6% in the 10-mg tofacitinib group versus 11.1% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). In the OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2 trials, the rates of overall infection and serious infection were higher with tofacitinib than with placebo. In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, the rate of serious infection was similar across the three treatment groups, and the rates of overall infection and herpes zoster infection were higher with tofacitinib than with placebo. Across all three trials, adjudicated nonmelanoma skin cancer occurred in five patients who received tofacitinib and in one who received placebo, and adjudicated cardiovascular events occurred in five who received tofacitinib and in none who received placebo; as compared with placebo, tofacitinib was associated with increased lipid levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib was more effective as induction and maintenance therapy than placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; OCTAVE Induction 1, OCTAVE Induction 2, and OCTAVE Sustain ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01465763 , NCT01458951 , and NCT01458574 , respectively.).

BACKGROUND: A single, high priming dose of tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated antigen 4) plus durvalumab (anti–programmed cell death ligand-1), an infusion regimen termed STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab), showed encouraging clinical activity and safety in a phase 2 trial of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, open-label, phase 3 trial, the majority of the patients we enrolled with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and no previous systemic treatment were randomly assigned to receive one of three regimens: tremelimumab (300 mg, one dose) plus durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks; STRIDE), durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks), or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary objective was overall survival for STRIDE versus sorafenib. Noninferiority for overall survival for durvalumab versus sorafenib was a secondary objective. RESULTS: In total, 1171 patients were randomly assigned to STRIDE (n=393), durvalumab (n=389), or sorafenib (n=389). The median overall survival was 16.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.16 to 19.58) with STRIDE, 16.56 months (95% CI, 14.06 to 19.12) with durvalumab, and 13.77 months (95% CI, 12.25 to 16.13) with sorafenib. Overall survival at 36 months was 30.7%, 24.7%, and 20.2%, respectively. The overall survival hazard ratio for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (96.02% CI, 0.65 to 0.93; P=0.0035). Overall survival with durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95.67% CI, 0.73 to 1.03; noninferiority margin, 1.08). Median progression-free survival was not significantly different among all three groups. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred for 50.5% of patients with STRIDE, 37.1% with durvalumab, and 52.4% with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE significantly improved overall survival versus sorafenib. Durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03298451.)

Abstract TAM and other myeloid-derived tumor infiltrating cells are reviewed as pivotal players in the tumor microenvironment; implications to anti-cancer therapy are described. The microenvironment of solid tumors is characterized by a reactive stroma with an abundance of inflammatory mediators and leukocytes, dysregulated vessels and proteolytic enzymes. TAM, major players in the connection between inflammation and cancer, summarize a number of functions (e.g., promotion of tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis, incessant matrix turnover, repression of adaptive immunity), which ultimately have an important impact on disease progression. Thus, together with other myeloid-related cells present at the tumor site (Tie2 macrophages and MDSCs), TAM represent an attractive target of novel biological therapies of tumors.

Abstract The genetic make-up of an individual contributes to the susceptibility and response to viral infection. Although environmental, clinical and social factors have a role in the chance of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of COVID-19 1,2 , host genetics may also be important. Identifying host-specific genetic factors may reveal biological mechanisms of therapeutic relevance and clarify causal relationships of modifiable environmental risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes. We formed a global network of researchers to investigate the role of human genetics in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Here we describe the results of three genome-wide association meta-analyses that consist of up to 49,562 patients with COVID-19 from 46 studies across 19 countries. We report 13 genome-wide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19. Several of these loci correspond to previously documented associations to lung or autoimmune and inflammatory diseases 3–7 . They also represent potentially actionable mechanisms in response to infection. Mendelian randomization analyses support a causal role for smoking and body-mass index for severe COVID-19 although not for type II diabetes. The identification of novel host genetic factors associated with COVID-19 was made possible by the community of human genetics researchers coming together to prioritize the sharing of data, results, resources and analytical frameworks. This working model of international collaboration underscores what is possible for future genetic discoveries in emerging pandemics, or indeed for any complex human disease.

Ulcerative colitis [UC] is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] characterised by colonic inflammation extending to a variable extent from the rectum. Care of the patient with UC requires appropriate input from across the multiprofessional team. These guidelines summarise the recommended medical treatment for adults with UC. Other ECCO guidelines consider the approach to UC diagnosis and monitoring,1–3 nursing care,4 management of disease complications,5–7 risk of infection,8 and technical aspects of surgery.9 This document was prepared as part of a process that also led to the publication of a related guideline with recommendations on the surgical care of the patients with UC and on the medical aspects of the management of the patient hospitalised with severe UC. ECCO Guidelines on Therapeutics in Ulcerative Colitis: Surgical Treatment. Patients living with UC can have a variable disease course.10 In this document, we discuss therapeutic approaches stratified by disease severity [mildly-to-moderately active and moderately-to-severely active disease]. Attempts to define disease severity are widely used in setting clinical trial inclusion criteria and can be measured according to several different definitions.11 Trial populations will inevitably vary, and we reflect the continuum of disease severity by having the moderate disease category span both broad categories. It is also important to remember that these definitions capture severity at a given point in time and may not reflect the cumulative long-term burden of disease experienced by a patient.12 It is also important to consider disease extent when planning treatment in UC, as this may affect the optimal route of drug administration. This is typically defined according to disease involving the rectum only [proctitis], disease distal to the splenic flexure [left-sided UC], or disease extending proximal to the splenic flexure [extensive UC].13 These definitions of disease extent are recognised as somewhat arbitrary; in clinical practice, topically administered therapies are often used for UC whose extent is limited to the rectum and a portion of the sigmoid colon [proctosigmoiditis], with the term ‘distal colitis’ used to describe this disease distribution. It should be remembered that disease distribution can change10,14 and that proximal disease extension can be a negative prognostic marker.15 This document was compiled following the ‘Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation’ [GRADE] methodology.16 A panel of 33 experts was selected by the Guidelines Committee of ECCO from a competitive pool of applicants and worked with a team of methodologists and librarians. All panellists received training in the GRADE methodology. Additionally, six patients with UC, representing the European Federation of Crohn’s and Colitis Associations [EFCCA], were invited to participate in all face-to-face meetings as full voting members. Two domains for the medical treatment of UC were identified and used as the basis for the following two working groups based upon disease severity: mildly-to-moderately active disease and moderately-to-severely active disease. We recognise that these divisions are somewhat arbitrary, partially overlapping, and inconsistently defined; therefore, we ensured close collaboration between the working groups to ensure that key topics were covered appropriately with the aim of providing guidance applicable across the continuum of UC severity encountered in clinical practice. Working group participants first formulated a series of specific questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes [PICO] system, which were deemed to be clinically important for the medical treatment of UC. These questions were debated in a series of telephone conferences before final agreement at a meeting of the full guideline group in Vienna in November 2019. Voting on the inclusion of PICO questions was conducted, and only those achieving agreement of >80% by the panel were included in the next phase of the process. At this meeting, the panellists also ranked each outcome’s importance on a scale of 1 to 9 based on the GRADE definitions.16 Scores of 7‒9 indicated an outcome that is critical to patients for decision making; scores of 4‒6 indicated an important outcome, but not critical; and scores of 1‒3 indicated an outcome of limited importance. The panellists’ agreement on outcomes’ importance was assessed using the Disagreement Index, as described in the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.17 The team of librarians performed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central databases, using specific search strings for each PICO question [available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. Two working group members [one assigned to the PICO question and another from the same group as second reviewer] independently screened titles and abstracts to exclude any irrelevant reports. Subsequently, the working group members assigned to each PICO question assessed the full text of the selected publications for relevance to the specific PICO. Note that were only selected the PICO as data on at of the of for the of the In this that of a drug of were not included for not at outcome defined as of critical importance. of the the guidelines in this document from in patients with UC. The methodologists performed the The risk was used to treatment with were in with the in group of a we used a that was to the of the the we prepared and the using and We used for All are all for a and we on the in the The was based on the and the risk in the The of was using the following and each PICO we the of for each outcome, and the of across a guideline the of the extent to which the in the is to a the of the for each outcome across all we with the from as and assessed the following that to the of risk of and publication of was assessed using the Cochrane was assessed with the Cochrane a and the was according to the a different but related or outcome from the of was based on the of of was by when the of was and by two when was was assessed using and the and only were at included in the The of was a of the of across all critical for decision making; the of for any of the critical the of all used in each key data and for each outcome of and each of the of are as Supplementary with of the of We of of each of the the risk with the risk with the the and any the data in the with of the of across The of each was as that the of an the or or as that the is also the of and of between and and All recommendations were to voting by the panel the ECCO for each with six from the European of and from a of ECCO members in ECCO guideline The final of all was panel members a final meeting in and to a final recommendations were at of the panellists with the and The of text and and were by the ECCO also the final of these These guidelines are to and in on the medical treatment of should not be used to a of should not be used for and should not be as the of any or All with the and publication of this guideline were by The of ECCO in the of panel members or the or of PICO A of of the key from ECCO UC guidelines is in the Supplementary These guidelines the for the of different medical therapies in the treatment of UC. were and in a by the which were typically from clinical and based upon of an the medical care of a patient with UC the between a given drug and patients encountered in the not the of a given clinical trial It is important that these guidelines are used first to the of the of any given which the with the in a treatment A key of is when to is in UC in Crohn’s disease on the importance of treatment At the same the of can to and as can to the of an is a in the GRADE process when the of as guidelines will be that this document can not is that appropriate and of patients for is critical to optimal The of treatment in UC is to of and is important to not only of clinical but also as this is with long-term The importance of these was in the decision by the panel to and clinical as of critical importance. The term widely used in the to as and from therapies and This is somewhat as the of and to therapies with the of and are as a part of UC the of this we to the term as in the of any widely also the of this specific definitions of have used in these are in the for of the we typically in a both for patients disease or in appropriate or can a in clinical practice, are trial data in this and are to several of this we have recommendations to the in a in clinical In to the and of medical for UC, and when to consider or treatment to the and burden to patients of drug is an important The limited on treatment and is the of this We at a of to in patients with mildly-to-moderately active UC of We performed a of with a of patients for a in achieving clinical the clinical in at was for with in of patients with of those The of on as in with patients was with was The in with patients for a of was in the The of was as to and publication and for as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. A Cochrane the of or across This not any in between different of of colonic distribution of different in were in any this patients with active UC to with appropriately are to upon to an The same Cochrane not for of across when with of the same of the a of of a of with in patients with active disease or in those with treatment with or UC a of data also of in the group in the In according to disease severity not any in between and in of a We at a of for the of in active distal colitis We identified that assessed a of for which we used for as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC All of inflammation but in the proximal of disease extent a of from the to was a in clinical and clinical when with patients and In in that assessed 1 for as in distal was in patients with those with in between treatment and were the of was as is the clinical and related to administration. We the of with for of in patients with active UC of at extent a were that the of with as for of in patients with active UC as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC In all of these the of with the of this the of is Two these two therapeutic for clinical in patients with disease of at The were in of of clinical and of clinical In the of in clinical was is to in clinical in active These included patients and treatment was All were in of patient criteria used to define disease and and was a of and a risk of as the of and were in of The of clinical between and treatment was was only trial on the of on of Patients of of those with of the was not The of for this outcome was of assessed of the outcome of which was an and in the It is to the of treatment only trial this with were patients in the treatment group and patients in the group experienced In to this was also a risk of the of the data for this outcome was assessed to be we that the for clinical and the and risk of the all a in of in patients for was We using for the of in patients with active distal colitis The of topically administered for the of in patients with and distal the of a treatment with may be by patients to the route of administration. have on this but included all of the that was identified we performed a of that with as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC were to in of clinical clinical and not with The of patients included in each was and the of was This was to and identified for the outcome critical outcome, critical were to have we that the with in clinical practice, the between and was in between and the of as an for of in patients with active UC. We treatment with for of in patients with active distal UC of The of treatment with at a or or for of in patients with active distal UC in We performed a of these which included a of patients with at or or with at as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. were for the of clinical but were not in clinical In patients for was to be with or In the of not between or the of was as patients should be with a is to that and may be of This may be appropriate for patients to to It is also important to be of between in of and all of which may have in patient It is appropriate to a patient a trial of an are to an We the of for of in patients with active UC of The of treatment with using 9 for of in patients with active UC in as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. A of patients with were included and for were to in clinical and clinical and In two patients for was to be with in with In all the of and of any not between and and The of in a of for this critical to A of data from both phase a clinical and of for 9 for of these data that this was in patients with the between drug and was not in those with disease. data for the of as a This that the appropriate of may be in patients with mildly-to-moderately active disease are not to or are to 9 with in patients with mildly-to-moderately active UC a in the of clinical and and in the treatment We the of as for the of in patients with active UC of Two have on the of as with for of in patients with only patients in two were and assessed for clinical with given a of We performed a of these and not a between and for of clinical as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. data on clinical or were It should be that to the of of may be appropriate to in patients with active disease with is but only when given an We not any using or for the of to related of we the of in of across the We the of at a for of in UC patients of We identified two involving participants with of which to PICO We these in a as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. clinical was that was to for in patients with UC was the of but this not for with was with the of was to be to with data for we appropriate to a given the and of this may be the of this inconsistently in the literature and may reflect in We the of for the of in patients with distal UC We identified that assessed as in patients with distal UC or as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC used between 1 and 1 administered as or a of to [one The of was as a to risk of and The same were identified in a Cochrane The of as in patients with distal UC or was in of clinical with the of data on the of in distal UC or are for patients the of was to These not data on A Cochrane in the of patients or in the of to with with the of is is based on the clinical of and of of with the of this It is important to consider patient for the of the route for both in to and a of the route of may for with patients in and and may or should be We with for the of in patients with UC or are to moderate of We identified on treatment with in patients with UC were or to as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC In patients for 1 was to for the of clinical data on or clinical or were In to clinical different disease and definitions were with and are the clinical of we not the of for of is important that any with is an We not any of but to related we across the drug with the of This is in patients of should be in this the of for the of in of to any in of clinical We for of in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC of a limited the of for the of in moderately-to-severely active UC is in clinical practice. The limited is in part to the and limited at the time of the A included only two of used we performed a of these two and an of for the of clinical The of was as to a risk of and part the of patients included in each was as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. with treatment was in these two Other the of in both and also in both UC and Crohn’s to the for of which are a outcome for we that the with in clinical and the between and used limited the of another as or as an for of in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC. these is as the of A identified six that with and a of of but with of these used a We recommendations for in active and in moderately-to-severely active UC, to reflect the populations of the identified and the in these different It is important to that are data the of as and limited data on the of these to Additionally, is with to with the of with to we of in patients with UC. should be for any patient disease or of or to Additionally, of should be to a of and with a should be for any patient requires a of in a or a disease upon We treatment with and to in patients with UC have or to We identified that with in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC an to or of which were defined as or both in also to or of of for of clinical and clinical We data for which is related to but defined from the outcome of used in this guideline was to was in of when of treatment data for from were that are not Two that performed that is to for the of clinical and The first also that is to and for of clinical and and and for of and and patients with a of of are limited data to treatment of a phase trial that the clinical of with were in patients with different from A of identified that the of when used in UC. was not to In patients with a of to or of clinical and were not are limited data on the of in A key question is to an with an The of with is data not for in with in UC, a for this and have in patients with Crohn’s patients of to a first used as and with of is in of of a to of to the second The optimal time point for the of to be in Crohn’s of used in the UC disease severe or as at first and inflammatory have to patients may from treatment the of this approach have not in any We treatment with for the of in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC have or to of Two were identified that PICO These included patients with moderately-to-severely active UC with or of clinical of clinical and were Patients were to as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. We included these two in a was often in patients with the of for clinical was the same as for clinical the between patients with and those was not of in patients with were not different from those data from also this was also for and data were of at in the phase were for patients with for patients In at in a phase not between and patients The of was The of was for clinical to and The of was moderate for clinical to The for both was to in between the two The of for was moderate to the was as the with the of in both and We treatment with to in patients with UC have or to moderate of We performed a of data from two to PICO These included patients with UC an of or were to or or a were with or as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC was for in of clinical clinical and the was to and of on were were the was also to data are from of which should be when upon of The of an route of and the of should also be A of on data for clinical and in both the of patients to and the with were in of between these This was in the of that not of a between and or for clinical and in patients to but a or for patients with We treatment with for the of in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC with or to moderate of A with for in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC Patients were to have not to or to or as or or or have disease. of patients treatment with an treatment with both an and The the of in of clinical clinical and At of the in from was in those in those in from also a in the treatment not between and and with was for patients with and not a between and or for clinical and in patients to but a of or for patients with We or for the of in patients with UC to with the same drug We performed a of data from of for the of in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC were for the of clinical clinical in of and clinical The risk of was not different between and was also for and data were the of these In UC patients have to an is to for or the of therapeutic drug to clinical have an between of and and clinical in UC. these were all and any or a of based for of to in patients with disease of of patients with of to have that of or drug to with patients not to and to patients to to These data that by drug may be to be clinically decision but this requires in a The same and the to and not to the of of drug to in patients are not of in participants with UC, to with to at or by therapeutic drug The therapeutic drug was not to and was was a of clinical to were to drug with given the of appropriate we were to a as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC and we in this We for of in patients with UC to with We identified that included patients with or which on of clinical and clinical in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC to as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC Patients in these were for We performed a of from these was in received with clinical was also in patients with The of for these was moderate to The of across involving patients was not different between and The of for this outcome was moderate to from the of in a In the of in patients with UC in those with with for a both and of in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC, to and clinical were with with The was not to and all were between these two at in all and were with the We the of for the and of in patients with moderately-to-severely active colitis of the and of with those of a in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC A of patients in the group in the group clinical clinical and was a in of for clinical in a of patients in the group in the group the of for clinical was as on data and the were of and at with and with It is important to that was not with of with for both We for in patients with UC to with moderate of We identified that in patients with or as patients to at a of or was to in clinical and in patients with UC an to the the was to of clinical and in were also The clinical was also to on were for in were to The was to an risk for was of the were of and and A of the of across inflammatory a risk of This was also in a of data from the in UC were and with a This risk to be and is with A in that the of with with this risk to be in patients or in those A of in patients with and with at risk a risk of in patients with with patients with This risk was not in patients with data are in patients with risk in the UC these the European recommended using at the and as treatment for patients with risk In this UC patients with for at and in for were to with the same or to clinical were and for the and in or were between the two were in the data that is also with an risk of and we the that the in patients with with the with and of recommendations for as a treatment in patients with UC, with the and to be for each We for the of in patients with UC to with moderate of A with for in UC in patients to The that treatment with at of when with in of clinical and of clinical at data were not for we used data for the related of and with was a in for those on the The of were also by the scores in patients the not in the treatment In to the also also for clinical clinical and with were but this not The between with and were in patients with a of These recommendations summarise the on the medical management of patients with UC. were identified the of the which should be by is or is and recommendations be ECCO as or It is important that these guidelines the of and to and the and of We recognise that on care are an important in recommendations can be for patients in The recommendations should be used to treatment and part of an treatment for patients with UC, which may also and ECCO will these guidelines by ECCO and and will any to ECCO Guidelines clinical the ECCO will as a to the guideline recommendations can be clinical and patient care The important not as to for both and negative of These treatment guidelines will be according to the Committee for the of guidelines on the ECCO will the GRADE approach and consider the from clinical in the The ECCO guidelines are at care only and are based on an process. treatment are a for the and should not be based on the of the ECCO ECCO or any of members any may not be for any in in the ECCO ECCO a of of The is based on a used by the Committee of The are not only at the ECCO and the of but are also to on the ECCO providing a comprehensive of of of the We the ECCO for and for the literature and for the on and on the

These guidelines are a consensus work of a considerable number of members of the immunology and flow cytometry community. They provide the theory and key practical aspects of flow cytometry enabling immunologists to avoid the common errors that often undermine immunological data. Notably, there are comprehensive sections of all major immune cell types with helpful Tables detailing phenotypes in murine and human cells. The latest flow cytometry techniques and applications are also described, featuring examples of the data that can be generated and, importantly, how the data can be analysed. Furthermore, there are sections detailing tips, tricks and pitfalls to avoid, all written and peer-reviewed by leading experts in the field, making this an essential research companion.

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

Endoscopy plays an essential role in the diagnosis, management, prognosis, and surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but surprisingly there are few available guidelines.1,2 This prompted the ECCO Guidelines Committee (GuiCom) members to promote a Consensus on the appropriate indication and application of different endoscopic modalities in IBD. Since the development of guidelines is an expensive and time-consuming process, this Consensus may help to avoid duplication of effort in the future. It may also identify issues where the evidence is lacking and controlled studies are awaited. The strategy to reach the Consensus involved five steps: 1. Two members of the GuiCom (VA and RE) identified four main topics: a) Diagnosis and follow-up; b) Score of endoscopic activity; c) Small bowel endoscopy; and d) Surveillance. During 2012 a call for participants to the Guideline was made to ECCO members. In addition, expert endoscopists recognised for their active research in the field were invited. Participants were selected by the Guicom and four working groups were created. Each working group had a chair (VA, MD, MT, and RE), two ECCO members including young members (Y-ECCO) and one experienced endoscopist. For the development of the guideline, relevant questions on separate topics were devised by the chairmen and their working parties. The questions were focused on current practice and areas of controversy. Participants of the Consensus process were asked to answer the questions based on evidence from the literature as well as their experience (Delphi procedure)3; 2. The working parties working in parallel performed a systematic literature search of their topic with the appropriate key words using Medline/Pubmed and the Cochrane database, as well as other relevant sources; 3. Provisional guideline statements on their topic were then written by the chairmen. These were circulated and commented on first by working party members and …

This paper is the second in a series of two publications relating to the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn's disease [CD] and concerns the surgical management of CD as well as special situations including management of perianal CD and extraintestinal manifestations. Diagnostic approaches and medical management of CD of this ECCO Consensus are covered in the first paper [Gomollon et al JCC 2016].

ESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines:- severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock- moderate, within 48 - 72 hours- mild, elective.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis for patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is poor. Glofitamab is a bispecific antibody that recruits T cells to tumor cells. METHODS: In the phase 2 part of a phase 1-2 study, we enrolled patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least two lines of therapy previously. Patients received pretreatment with obinutuzumab to mitigate cytokine release syndrome, followed by fixed-duration glofitamab monotherapy (12 cycles total). The primary end point was complete response according to assessment by an independent review committee. Key secondary end points included duration of response, survival, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 155 patients who were enrolled, 154 received at least one dose of any study treatment (obinutuzumab or glofitamab). At a median follow-up of 12.6 months, 39% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32 to 48) of the patients had a complete response according to independent review. Results were consistent among the 52 patients who had previously received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (35% of whom had a complete response). The median time to a complete response was 42 days (95% CI, 42 to 44). The majority (78%) of complete responses were ongoing at 12 months. The 12-month progression-free survival was 37% (95% CI, 28 to 46). Discontinuation of glofitamab due to adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients. The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (in 63% of the patients). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 62% of the patients, with grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome in 4% and grade 3 or higher neurologic events in 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Glofitamab therapy was effective for DLBCL. More than half the patients had an adverse event of grade 3 or 4. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03075696.).

The management of patients with IBD requires evaluation with objective tools, both at the time of diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease, to determine the location, extension, activity and severity of inflammatory lesions, as well as, the potential existence of complications. Whereas endoscopy is a well-established and uniformly performed diagnostic examination, the implementation of radiologic techniques for assessment of IBD is still heterogeneous; variations in technical aspects and the degrees of experience and preferences exist across countries in Europe. ECCO and ESGAR scientific societies jointly elaborated a consensus to establish standards for imaging in IBD using magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasonography, and including also other radiologic procedures such as conventional radiology or nuclear medicine examinations for different clinical situations that include general principles, upper GI tract, colon and rectum, perineum, liver and biliary tract, emergency situation, and the postoperative setting. The statements and general recommendations of this consensus are based on the highest level of evidence available, but significant gaps remain in certain areas such as the comparison of diagnostic accuracy between different techniques, the value for therapeutic monitoring, and the prognostic implications of particular findings.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Fatty liver disease, including non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFLD) and steatohepatitis (NASH), has been associated with increased intestinal barrier permeability and translocation of bacteria or bacterial products into the blood circulation. In this study, we aimed to unravel the role of both intestinal barrier integrity and microbiota in NAFLD/NASH development. METHODS: C57BL/6J mice were fed with high-fat diet (HFD) or methionine-choline-deficient diet for 1 week or longer to recapitulate aspects of NASH (steatosis, inflammation, insulin resistance). Genetic and pharmacological strategies were then used to modulate intestinal barrier integrity. RESULTS: We show that disruption of the intestinal epithelial barrier and gut vascular barrier (GVB) are early events in NASH pathogenesis. Mice fed HFD for only 1 week undergo a diet-induced dysbiosis that drives GVB damage and bacterial translocation into the liver. Fecal microbiota transplantation from HFD-fed mice into specific pathogen-free recipients induces GVB damage and epididymal adipose tissue enlargement. GVB disruption depends on interference with the WNT/β-catenin signaling pathway, as shown by genetic intervention driving β-catenin activation only in endothelial cells, preventing GVB disruption and NASH development. The bile acid analogue and farnesoid X receptor agonist obeticholic acid (OCA) drives β-catenin activation in endothelial cells. Accordingly, pharmacologic intervention with OCA protects against GVB disruption, both as a preventive and therapeutic agent. Importantly, we found upregulation of the GVB leakage marker in the colon of patients with NASH. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a new player in NASH development, the GVB, whose damage leads to bacteria or bacterial product translocation into the blood circulation. Treatment aimed at restoring β-catenin activation in endothelial cells, such as administration of OCA, protects against GVB damage and NASH development. LAY SUMMARY: The incidence of fatty liver disease is reaching epidemic levels in the USA, with more than 30% of adults having NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease), which can progress to more severe non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Herein, we show that disruption of the intestinal epithelial barrier and gut vascular barrier are early events in the development of NASH. We show that the drug obeticholic acid protects against barrier disruption and thereby prevents the development of NASH, providing further evidence for its use in the prevention or treatment of NASH.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing the rapidly increasing interest and evidence in using metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) for oligometastatic disease (OMD), ESTRO and ASTRO convened a committee to establish consensus regarding definitions of OMD and define gaps in current evidence. METHODS: A systematic literature review focused on curative intent MDRT was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Subsequent consensus opinion, using a Delphi process, highlighted the current state of evidence and the limitations in the available literature. RESULTS: Available evidence regarding the use of MDRT for OMD mostly derives from retrospective, single-centre series, with significant heterogeneity in patient inclusion criteria, definition of OMD, and outcomes reported. Consensus was reached that OMD is largely independent of primary tumour, metastatic location and the presence or length of a disease-free interval, supporting both synchronous and metachronous OMD. In the absence of clinical data supporting a maximum number of metastases and organs to define OMD, and of validated molecular biomarkers, consensus supported the ability to deliver safe and clinically meaningful radiotherapy with curative intent to all metastatic sites as a minimum requirement for defining OMD in the context of radiotherapy. Systemic therapy induced OMD was identified as a distinct state of OMD. High-resolution imaging to assess and confirm OMD is crucial, including brain imaging when indicated. Minimum common endpoints such as progression-free and overall survival, local control, toxicity and quality-of-life should be reported; uncommon endpoints as deferral of systemic therapy and cost were endorsed. CONCLUSION: While significant heterogeneity exists in the current OMD definitions in the literature, consensus was reached on multiple key questions. Based on available data, OMD can to date be defined as 1-5 metastatic lesions, a controlled primary tumor being optional, but where all metastatic sites must be safely treatable. Consistent definitions and reporting are warranted and encouraged in ongoing trials and reports generating further evidence to optimize patient benefits.