Wireless Capsule Endoscopy

WirelessCE is performed using the PillCam Given Diagnostic Imaging System (previously called M2A), which is a disposable imaging capsule manufactured by Given Imaging. The capsule measures 11 by 30 mm and contains video imaging, self-illumination, and image transmission modules, as well as a battery supply that lasts up to 8 hours. The indwelling camera takes images at a rate of two frames per second as peristalsis carries the capsule through the gastrointestinal tract. The average transit time from ingestion to evacuation is 24 hours. The device uses wireless radio transmission to send the images to a receiving recorder device that the patient wears around the waist. This receiving device also contains localizing antennae sensors that can roughly gauge where the image was taken over the abdomen. Images are then downloaded onto a workstation for viewing and processing.

CE hasbeen proposed as a method for identifying Crohn disease. There is no single criterion standard diagnostic test for Crohn disease; rather, diagnosis is based on a constellation of findings.^1, Thus it is difficult to determine the diagnostic characteristics of various tests used to diagnose the condition and difficult to determine a single comparator diagnostic test to CE.

Regulatory Status

Table 1 summarizes various wireless CE devices with clearance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Code used: NEZ

Table 1. Wireless Capsule Endoscopy Devices Cleared by the Food and Drug Administration

Device	Manufacturer	Date Cleared	510(k) No.	Indication
CapsoCam Plus (SV-3)	CapsoVision Inc.	4/19/2019	K183192	For visualization of the small bowel mucosa in adults. It may be used as a tool in the detection of abnormalities of the small bowel.
Olympus Small Intestinal Capsule Endoscope System	Olympus Medical Systems Corp.	3/5/2019	K183053	For visualization of the small intestine mucosa.
MiroCam Capsule Endoscope System	IntroMedic Co. Ltd.	11/8/2018	K180732	May be used as a tool in the detection of abnormalities of the small bowel and this device is indicated for adults and children from two years of age.
Olympus Small Intestinal Capsule Endoscope System	Olympus Medical Systems Corp.	3/13/2018	K173459	May be used in the visualization and monitoring of lesions that may indicate Crohn's disease not detected by upper and lower endoscopy. - It may be used in the visualization and monitoring of lesions that may be a source of obscure bleeding (either overt or occult) not detected by upper and lower endoscopy. It may be used in the visualization and monitoring of lesions that may be potential causes of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) not detected by upper and lower endoscopy. The Red Color Detection Function is intended to mark frames of the video suspected of containing blood or red areas.
PillCam Patency System	Given Imaging Ltd.	3/8/2018	K180171	Intended to verify adequate patency of the gastrointestinal tract prior to administration of the PillCam video capsule in patients with known or suspected strictures.
MiroCam Capsule Endoscope System	IntroMedic Co. Ltd.	1/30/2018	K170438	For visualization of the small intestine mucosa.
PillCam SBC capsule endoscopy system PilCam Desktop Software 9.0	Given Imaging Ltd.	9/1/2017	K170210	For visualization of the small intestine mucosa.
RAPID Web	Given Imaging Ltd.	5/26/2017	K170839	Intended for visualization of the small bowel mucosa.
AdvanCE capsule endoscope delivery device	United States Endoscopy Group Inc.	3/10/2017	K163495	Intended for visualization of the small bowel mucosa.
OLYMPUS SMALL INTESTINAL CAPSULE ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM	OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEMS CORP.	1/19/2017	K163069	Intended for visualization of the small bowel mucosa.
CapsoCam Plus (SV-3) Capsule Endoscope System	CapsoVision Inc	10/21/2016	K161773	Intended for visualization of the small bowel mucosa.
CapsoCam (SV-1)	CapsoVision Inc.	2/9/2016	K151635	For use in diagnosing disorders of the small bowel, esophagus, and colon.
PillCam TM COLON 2	Given® Imaging	01/14/2016	K153466	Detection of colon polyps in patients after an incomplete colonoscopy and a complete evaluation of the colon was not technically possible, and for detection of colon polyps in patients with evidence of GI bleeding of lower GI origin with major risks for colonoscopy or moderate sedation.
MiroCam Capsule Endoscope System	INTROMEDIC CO. LTD	3/17/2015	K143663	Intended for visualization of the small bowel mucosa.
ENDOCAPSULE SOFTWARE 10; ENDOCAPSULE SOFTWARE 10 LIGHT	OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEMS CORP.	2/8/2015	K142680	Intended for visualization of the small bowel mucosa.

GI: gastrointestinal.

Related Policies

• None

 Initial diagnosis in members with suspected Crohn disease without evidence of disease on upper and lower endoscopy when all of the following are present:
a. abdominal pain
b. diarrhea
c. weight loss
d. one or more of the following:
1. fever
2. arthralgias
3. arthritis
4. skin manifestation such as erythema and pyoderma gangrenosum
5. primary sclerosing cholangitis
6. perianal signs such as perianal pain and drainage from large skin tags, anal fissures, perirectal abscesses, and anorectal fistulas
7. inflammatory markers including sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, iron deficiency, leukocytosis, or abnormal IBD markers

 In members with an established diagnosis of Crohn disease, when there are unexpected change(s) in the course of disease or response to treatment, suggesting the initial diagnosis may be incorrect and re-examination is indicated.
 In members with laboratory evidence of recurrent or persistent iron-deficiency with or without anemia, or positive occult blood test who have suspected small bowel bleeding with no bleeding source found after upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopic studies performed during the current episode of illness, and other sources of bleeding have been investigated.
 For surveillance of the small bowel in members with hereditary GI polyposis syndromes, including familial adenomatous polyposis and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome.

 Evaluation of the extent of involvement of known Crohn disease or ulcerative colitis.
 Evaluation of the esophagus, in members with gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) or other esophageal pathologies.
 Evaluation of other gastrointestinal diseases and conditions not presenting with GI bleeding, including but not limited to, celiac sprue, irritable bowel syndrome, Lynch syndrome (risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer), portal hypertensive enteropathy, small bowel neoplasm, and unexplained chronic abdominal pain.
 Evaluation of the colon, including but not limited to, detection of colonic polyps or colon cancer.
 Initial evaluation of patients with acute upper GI bleeding.

Evidence reviews assess whether a medical test is clinically useful. A useful test provides information to make a clinical management decision that improves the net health outcome. That is, the balance of benefits and harms is better when the test is used to manage the condition than when another test or no test is used to manage the condition.

The first step in assessing a medical test is to formulate the clinical context and purpose of the test. The test must be technically reliable, clinically valid, and clinically useful for that purpose. Evidence reviews assess the evidence on whether a test is clinically valid and clinically useful. Technical reliability is outside the scope of these reviews, and credible information on technical reliability is available from other sources.

Suspected Small Bowel Bleeding

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of wireless capsule endoscopy (CE) for patients who have suspected small bowel bleeding is to confirm a diagnosis and inform a decision to proceed to appropriate treatment.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of wireless CE improve the net health outcome in patients with suspected small bowel bleeding?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are patients with suspected small bowel bleeding. Suspected small bowel bleeding, previously referred to as obscure gastrointestinal (GI) tract bleeding, is defined as bleeding from the GI tract that persists or recurs without an obvious etiology after imaging with upper and lower endoscopy and radiologic evaluation of the small bowel. Recurrent or persistent iron-deficiency anemia, positive fecal occult blood test, or visible bleeding with no bleeding source found at original endoscopy are other indicators of obscure GI tract bleeding. Examples of etiologies for small bowel bleeding include angiodysplasia, tumor, medication-induced, infections, Crohn disease (CD), Meckel diverticulum, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, vasculitis, radiation enteritis, jejunal diverticula, and chronic mesenteric ischemia.

Interventions

The intervention of interest is wireless CE.

Comparators

The following practice is currently being used to diagnose small bowel bleeding: a standard workup without wireless CE and, with or without direct endoscopic procedures or specialized GI imaging. A “true” reference standard for suspected small bowel bleeding is difficult or impossible to achieve because the bleeding source may resolve and invasive techniques (eg, surgery) cannot be justifiably used.

Patients with suspected small bowel bleeding are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Outcomes

The outcomes of interest for diagnostic accuracy include test validity (ie, sensitivity, specificity). The primary outcomes of interest are symptoms and disease status that would change due to patient management decisions following wireless CE.

Wireless CE would be performed prior to surgical exploration if conventional endoscopy has been inconclusive. Follow-up for further diagnostic evaluation and surveillance for recurrence of symptoms would be immediate to weeks if no etiology is identified. Follow-up of weeks to months would be based on the disease condition identified by CE.

Technically Reliable

Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires a review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this policy and alternative sources exist. This policy focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Below are selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid. These will be applied to all of the indications reviewed in this policy.

• The study population represents the population of interest. Eligibility and selection are described.
• The test is compared with a credible reference standard.
• If the test is intended to replace or be an adjunct to an existing test; it should also be compared with that test.
• Studies should report sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Studies that completely report true- and false-positive results are ideal. Studies reporting other measures (eg, receiver operator curve, area under the receiver operator curve, c-statistic, likelihood ratios) may be included but are less informative.
• Studies should also report reclassification of the diagnostic or risk category.

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the characteristics and results of selected systematic reviews, which have evaluated a number of case series that compared the diagnostic accuracy of CE with alternative procedures such as intraoperative endoscopy or mesenteric angiography.

Table 2. Characteristics of Systematic Reviews Evaluating CE for Iron-Deficient Anemia

Study	Dates	Trials	Participants	N (Range)	Design	QUADAS Assessment of Included Trials
Koulaouzidis et al (2012)2,	2004-2011	24	Patients with iron-deficiency anemia who had SBCE and at last 1 lower and upper GI endoscopy prior to CE	1960 (35-652)	Observational	Low-to-moderate quality

CE: capsule endoscopy; GI: gastrointestinal; SBCE: small bowel capsule endoscopy.

Table 3. Results of Systematic Reviews Evaluating CE for Iron-Deficient Anemia

Study	Overall Diagnostic Yielda	Diagnostic Yield of Patients With IDAb	I2, %	Diagnostic Yield, n (%)c
Koulaouzidis et al (2012)2,
Total N	1960	264		·Angioctasias: 293 (45.9) ·Inflammatory lesions: 126 (19.7) ·Polyp/mass lesions: 42 (6.6) ·Not classified: 177 (27.7)
Pooled effect (95% CI), %	47 (42 to 52)	66.6 (61.0 to 72.3)	78.8
p			<0.001

CE: capsule endoscopy; CI: confidence interval; IDA: iron-deficient anemia.

^a Per-patient analysis.
^b From 4 studies (n=264 patients; 13.47% of total).
^c Patients with positive SBCE findings.

Randomized Controlled Trials

A small RCT compared CE with mesenteric angiography in patients with acute melena or hematochezia. While CE had a higher diagnostic yield, secondary outcomes such as transfusion, hospitalization, and mortality did not differ significantly between groups. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the characteristics and results of selected RCTs.

Table 4. Characteristics of RCT Evaluating CE for Obscure GI Bleeding

Study	Countries	Sites	Dates	Participants	Interventions
					Active	Comparator
Leung et al (2012)3,	China	1	2005-2007	Consecutive adults with active overt obscure GI bleeding	30 randomized to CE	30 randomized to mesenteric angiography

CE: capsule endoscopy; GI: gastrointestinal; RCT: randomized controlled trial.

Table 5. Results of RCT Evaluating CE for Obscure GI Bleeding

Study	Diagnostic Yield (95% CI), %a	Rebleeding Rates (95% CI), %	Hospitalization Rate, n (%)	Transfusion Rate, n (%)	Mean Follow-Up (SD), mo
Leung et al (2012)3,
CE	53.3 (36.1 to 69.8)	16.7 (7.3 to 33.6)	5 (16.7)	3 (10)	48.5 (20.9)
Angiography	20 (9.5 to 37.3)	33.3 (19.2 to 51.2)	5 (16.7)	3 (10)
Difference	33.3 (8.9 to 52.8)	16.7 (-5.3 to 36.8)
p	0.016	0.23	1.0	1.0

CI: confidence interval; CE: capsule endoscopy; GI: gastrointestinal; RCT: randomized controlled trial; SD: standard deviation.

^a Percentage identified with a high probability of bleeding.

The purpose of the limitations tables (see Tables 6 and 7) is to display notable limitations identified in each study. This information is synthesized as a summary of the body of evidence following each table and provides the conclusions on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the position statement.

Table 6. Relevance Limitations of RCT Evaluating CE for Obscure GI Bleeding

Study	Populationa	Interventionb	Comparatorc	Outcomesd	Duration of Follow-Upe
Leung et al (2012)3,	2. It is possible patients with moderate bleeding would not undergo angiography in clinical setting 4. Patients with overt but nonmassive bleeding may not be ideal for CE or angiography		2. A criterion standard is lacking for evaluation of obscure GI bleeding

The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive limitations assessment.
CE: capsule endoscopy; GI: gastrointestinal; RCT: randomized controlled trial.

^a Population key: 1. Intended use population unclear; 2. Clinical context is unclear; 3. Study population is unclear; 4. Study population not representative of intended use.

^b Intervention key: 1. Classification thresholds not defined; 2. Version used unclear; 3. Not intervention of interest.

^c Comparator key: 1. Classification thresholds not defined; 2. Not compared to credible reference standard; 3. Not compared to other tests in use for same purpose.

^d Outcomes key: 1. Study does not directly assess a key health outcome; 2. Evidence chain or decision model not explicated; 3. Key clinical validity outcomes not reported (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values); 4. Reclassification of diagnostic or risk categories not reported; 5. Adverse events of the test not described (excluding minor discomforts and inconvenience of venipuncture or noninvasive tests).

^e Follow-Up key: 1. Follow-up duration not sufficient with respect tonatural history of disease (true-positives, true-negatives, false-positives, false-negatives cannot be determined).

Table 7. Study Design and Conduct Limitations of RCT Evaluating CE for Obscure GI Bleeding

Study	Allocationa	Blindingb	Selective Reportingc	Follow-Upd	Powere	Statisticalf
Leung et al (2012)3,					3. Study underpowered to detect significant difference in clinical outcome

The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive limitations assessment.
CE: capsule endoscopy; RCT: randomized controlled trial.

^a Allocation key: 1. Participants not randomly allocated; 2. Allocation not concealed; 3. Allocation concealment unclear; 4. Inadequate control for selection bias.

^b Blinding key: 1. Not blinded to treatment assignment; 2. Not blinded outcome assessment; 3. Outcome assessed by treating physician.

^c Selective Reporting key: 1. Not registered; 2. Evidence of selective reporting; 3. Evidence of selective publication.
^d Follow-Up key: 1. High loss to follow-up or missing data; 2. Inadequate handling of missing data; 3. High number of crossovers; 4. Inadequate handling of crossovers; 5. Inappropriate exclusions; 6. Not intent to treat analysis (per protocol for noninferiority trials).
^e Power key: 1. Power calculations not reported; 2. Power not calculated for primary outcome; 3. Power not based on clinically important difference.
^f Statistical key: 1. Intervention is not appropriate for outcome type: (a) continuous; (b) binary; (c) time to event; 2. Intervention is not appropriate for multiple observations per patient; 3. Confidence intervals and/or p values not reported; 4. Comparative treatment effects not calculated.

Case Series

Tables 8 and 9 summarize the characteristics and results of selected case series.

Table 8. Characteristics of Case Series Evaluating CE for Obscure GI Bleeding

Study	Country	Participants	Treatment Delivery	Follow-Up (Range), mo
Hartmann et al (2005)4,	Germany	47 patients >18 y with obscure GI bleeding	Patients received CE and criterion standard, intraoperative endoscopy	NR
Pennazio et al (2004)5,	Italy	100 patients ≥18 y with obscure GI bleeding	51 patients received CE and PE before or after the procedure	Mean: 18 (5-25)

CE: capsule endoscopy; GI: gastrointestinal; NR: not reported; PE: push enteroscopy.

Table 9. Results of Case Series Evaluating CE for Obscure GI Bleeding

Study	Treatment	Locating Bleeding With CE, %		Diagnostic Yield for Positive Lesions, %	PPV of CE, %	NPV of CE %
		Sensitivity	Specificitya
Hartmann et al (2005)4,	CE and intraoperative endoscopy	95	75	Both procedures: 76.6	95	86
Pennazio (2004)5,	CE and PE	89	95	67 (95% CI, 54 to 80)	97	82.6

CE: capsule endoscopy; PPV: positive predictive value; NPV: negative predictive value; PE: push enteroscopy; CI: confidence interval
^a CE results confirmed by intraoperative endoscopy or other reference standards.

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be fromRCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Based on evidence that CE isolates the source of bleeding at least as well as other diagnostic tools and that few diagnostic options are available to patients with suspected small bowel bleeding, a chain of evidence can be constructed to support the clinical utility of CE for this indication.

Section Summary: Suspected Small Bowel Bleeding

A small RCT compared CE with mesenteric angiography in patients with acute melena or hematochezia. While CE had a higher diagnostic yield, secondary outcomes such as transfusion, hospitalization, and mortality did not differ significantly between groups. A large number of uncontrolled studies have evaluated the use of CE in the evaluation of patients with suspected small bowel bleeding. These studies have consistently reported that a substantial proportion of patients receive a definitive diagnosis following this test when there are few other diagnostic options. A meta-analysis of 24 studies estimated that the diagnostic yield in this patient population was approximately half of the included patients and was higher in patients with documented iron-deficiency anemia. CE appears to locate the source of bleeding at least as well as other diagnostic methods and direct treatment to the source of bleeding.

Suspected Crohn Disease

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of wireless CE for patients with suspectedCD is to confirm a diagnosis and inform a decision to proceed to appropriate treatment.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of wireless CE improve the net health outcome in patients with suspected CD?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are individuals with suspected CD. CD is one of the two types of inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn disease can involve the entire GI tract and is characterized by transmural inflammation.

Interventions

The test being considered is wireless CE.

Patients with suspected CD are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Comparators

The following tests are currently being used to diagnose CD: Ileocolonoscopy, barium small bowel follow-through, computed tomography enterography (CTE), magnetic resonance enterography (MRE).

Patients with suspected CD are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Outcomes

The general outcomes of interest are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status.

The diagnosis of CD requires confirmatory imaging when the disease is prominent on the differential diagnosis list. The imaging study would be performed and promptly followed by appropriate treatment. CD is a chronic condition requiring long-term follow-up.

Technically Reliable

Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires a review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this policy and alternative sources exist. This policy focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid are described in the first indication above.

Results from a meta-analysis by Choi et al (2017), which compared CE with various modalities for diagnosing CD, are summarized in Tables 10 and 11. The reference standards varied for the selected studies, so quantitative data were not synthesized for diagnostic accuracy. In the pooled analysis, in patients with suspected CD, the sensitivity of CE ranged from 89.6% to 92.0% and the specificity was 100%.

Table 10. Characteristics of Systematic Reviews Assessing the Diagnostic Yield of CE vs Other Modalities^a

Study	Dates	Trials	Participants	N (Range)	Design
Choi et al (2017)6,	2002-2013	24	Patients with suspected or established CD	NR	RCT, nonrandomized, and diagnostic accuracy studies

CD: Crohn disease; CE: capsule endoscopy; NR: not reported; RCT: randomized controlled trial.
^a Other modalities include small bowel follow-through, enteroclysis, computed tomography enterography, and magnetic resonance enterography.

Table 11. Results of Systematic Reviews Assessing the Diagnostic Yield of CE vs Other Modalities

Study	CE vs SBFTa	CE vs ECb	CE vs CTEb	CE vs MREb
Choi et al (2017)6,
N	94
Diagnostic yield, %	66 vs 21.3	75.7 vs 29.4	72.5 vs 22.5	85.7 vs 100
Weighted incremental yield (95% CI)	0.44 (0.29 to 0.59)	0.50 (0.21 to 0.79)	0.36 (0.18 to 0.90)	-0.16 (-0.63 to 0.32)
I2, %	30	52	68	44

CE: capsule endoscopy; CI: confidence interval; CTE: computed tomography enterography; EC: enteroclysis; MRE: magnetic resonance enterography; SBFT: small bowel follow-through.

^a From 4 studies (3 included in meta-analysis).
^b From 2 studies.

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Based on evidence that CE can provide a diagnosis of CD when other tests cannot, a chain of evidence can be constructed to support the clinical utility of CE for this indication.

Section Summary: Suspected CD

For patients with suspected CD who cannot be diagnosed by other modalities, CE can confirm the diagnosis in a substantial number of patients. The diagnostic yield in the available studies varied but is likely superior to alternative tests such as CTE or MRE scanning.

Suspected Celiac Disease

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of wireless CE for patients who have suspected celiac disease is to confirm a diagnosis and inform a decision to proceed to appropriate treatment.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of CE endoscopy improve the net health outcome in patients with suspected celiac disease?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are individuals with suspected celiac disease. Celiac disease, or gluten-sensitive enteropathy, is an immune-mediated condition of the small intestine. Serologic markers of the disease have good sensitivity and specificity in triaging patients to endoscopy.

Interventions

The test being considered is wireless CE. CE has been evaluated as an alternative method of diagnosing celiac disease, assessing the extent of disease, and in the evaluation of celiac disease unresponsive to treatment.

Patients with suspected celiac disease are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Comparators

The following test is currently being used to diagnose celiac disease: endoscopy with biopsy. The criterion standard for the diagnosis of celiac disease is obtained through small bowel biopsies obtained during endoscopy.

Patients with suspected celiac disease are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Outcomes

The general outcomes of interest are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status.

The diagnosis of celiac disease requires confirmatory imaging when the disease is prominent on the differential diagnosis list. The imaging study would be performed and promptly followed by appropriate treatment. Celiac disease is a chronic condition requiring long-term follow-up.

Technically Reliable

Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires a review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this policy and alternative sources exist. This policy focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid are described in the first indication above.

Systematic Reviews

A meta-analysis by El-Matary et al (2009) compared the diagnostic performance of CE with a reference standard of duodenal biopsy.^7, The pooled analysis of 3 studies showed a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 98%. Another meta-analysis by Rokkas and Niv (2012) also compared the diagnostic performance of CE with biopsy, summarizing 6 studies (totaln=166 subjects).^8, The overall pooled sensitivity was 89%, and the specificity was 95%.

CE detected involvement of intestines beyond the duodenum; however, the clinical significance of detecting the extent of celiac disease is uncertain. Given the less than 90% sensitivity of CE for celiac disease, it does not appear to be an adequate alternative method of making an initial diagnosis.

Nonrandomized Studies

In a study by Kurien et al (2013), 62 patients with an equivocal diagnosis of celiac disease and 69 patients with the confirmedceliac disease who were unresponsive to standard treatment were evaluated with CE.^9, Results were combined with human leukocyte antigen typing and response to gluten challenge, with the final diagnosis made by three expert physicians who received the information from all threesources. The main outcome was the increase in diagnostic yield after CE combined with the other tests. The diagnostic yield was greatest in cases with antibody-negative villous atrophy where a diagnosis of celiac diseasewas made in 9 (28%) of 32 patients. In 8 (12%) of the 69 nonresponsive celiac disease patients, CE identified 2 cases of enteropathy-associated lymphoma, 4 type 1 refractory disease cases, 1 fibroepithelial polyp, and 1 case of ulcerative jejunitis. This study was limited by the small sample size and use of other tests in conjunction with CE to ascertain a final diagnosis.

The role of CE in nonresponsive celiac disease has been evaluated in only a few studies. One case series by Culliford et al (2005) evaluated 47 patients with complicated celiac disease and found unexpected additional findings in 60% of patients, most of which were ulcerations.^10, However, the definition of “complicated” celiac disease included other factors such as evidence of blood loss, itself an indication for CE. The impact on patient management and outcomes is unclear.

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Because the clinical validity of wireless CE for diagnosing celiac disease has not been established, a chain of evidence supporting the test’s clinical utility for this indication cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Suspected Celiac Disease

In cases where the diagnosis of celiac disease is equivocal, CE can sometimes reveal morphologic changes in the small bowel consistent with celiac disease. However, it is unlikely that the appearance of small bowel on CE is itself sufficient to make a definitive diagnosis of celiac disease. Small bowel biopsy, celiac serologies, and human leukocyte antigen typing remain the standard tests for confirming celiac disease and have a higher sensitivity and specificity for this purpose. Case series of patients with unresponsive celiac disease undergoing CE have shown some yield of actionable diagnoses that have the potential to improve patient outcomes. Larger studies are needed to better determine the diagnostic yield of CE in these patients.

Unexplained Chronic Abdominal Pain

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of wireless CE for patients who have unexplained chronic abdominal pain is to confirm a diagnosis and inform a decision to proceed to appropriate treatment.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of wireless CE improve the net health outcome in patients with unexplained chronic abdominal pain?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are individuals with unexplained chronic abdominal pain.

Interventions

The test being considered is wireless CE.

Patients with unexplained chronic abdominal pain are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Comparators

The following practice is currently being used to diagnose chronic abdominal pain: standard workup for abdominal pain without CE.

Patients with unexplained chronic abdominal pain are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Outcomes

The general outcomes of interest are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status.

The diagnosis of chronic abdominal pain is often one of exclusion after a comprehensive clinical evaluation including empirical treatment. Imaging studies are used during initial and follow-up evaluations. Continued follow-up would be based on a definitive or working diagnosis, which would typically occur over weeks to months.

Technically Reliable

Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires a review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this policy and alternative sources exist. This policy focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid are described in the first indication above.

Systematic Reviews

Xue et al (2015) reported on a systematic review of 21 studies (total N=1520 patients) evaluating CE for unexplained chronic abdominal pain.^11, The pooled diagnostic yield was 20.9% (95% CI, 15.9% to 25.9%). The most commonly identified findings were inflammatory lesions (78.3%) and tumors (9.0%). Studies in the review were highly heterogeneous. Limitations in interpreting the findings included retrospective study designs, different durations of abdominal pain, and the use of different tests before CE.

Case Series

In a study not included in the systematic review, Yang et al (2014) reported on a case series evaluating 243 patients with CE for unexplained chronic abdominal pain.^12, The diagnostic yield of CE was 23.0%. Identified findings included 19 (7.8%) patients with CD, 15 (6.2%) with enteritis, 11 (4.5%) with idiopathic intestinal lymphangiectasia, 5 (2.1%) with uncinariasis, 5 (2.1%) with abnormal transit time and other findings (eg, small bowel tumor, ascariasis, anaphylactoid purpura).

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Because the clinical validity of wireless CE for diagnosing unexplained chronic abdominal pain has not been established, a chain of evidence supporting the test’s clinical utility for this indication cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Unexplained Chronic Abdominal Pain

While CE diagnosed unexplained chronic abdominal pain in a proportion of patients reported in retrospective studies, the sequence and chronology of testing and treatment recommended before CE needs to be defined to determine whether CE had utility to diagnose the condition.

Established Crohn Disease

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of wireless CE for patients who have established diagnosis of(CD is to inform management decisions based on disease status.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of wireless CE improve the net health outcome in patients diagnosed with CD?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are patients with CD.

Interventions

The intervention of interest is wireless CE.

Patients with an established diagnosis of Crohn disease are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Comparators

The following test is currently being used to monitor CD: Ileocolonoscopy, barium small bowel follow-through, CTE, and MRE.

An international consensus statement indicated that radiographic imaging should take precedence over CE because of the capability to detect obstructive strictures as well as extraluminal and transmural disease.^1, The consensus statement identified some studies in which CE had a higher percentage of positive findings than alternative tests in patients with established CD, but it is not clear how these findings correlated with either symptoms or outcomes of the therapeutic intervention. A 2013 European consensus statement indicated MRE or CTE is usually preferred to CE in patients with known CD patients.^13, The 2013 consensus also indicated CE should be limited in patients with CD to the evaluation of unexplained symptoms, unexplained iron-deficiency, or obscure GI bleeding after other investigations are inconclusive.

Patients with an established diagnosis of Crohn disease are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Outcomes

The beneficial outcome of a true test result, if correctly classified as low disease activity, is the avoidance of endoscopy and unnecessary medications.

Wireless CE would be performed to monitor patients with CD.

Technically Reliable

Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires a review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this policy and alternative sources exist. This policy focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid are described in the first indication above.

Kopylov et al (2017) published a systematic review of studies evaluating the use of CE for CD.^14, Reviewers included prospective studies comparing CE with MRE and/or small bowel contrast ultrasound in patients who had suspected and/or established CD. In pooled analyses of the 11 studies that included patients with established CD, the diagnostic yield of CE was similar to that of MRE (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.48; I²=48%) and to ultrasound (OR=0.57; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.20; I²=67%).

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Based on evidence that CE has a similar diagnostic yield as radiography when used to monitor CD and CE can be used when radiography cannot, a chain of evidence can be constructed to support the clinical utility of CE for this indication.

Section Summary: EstablishedCD

A 2017 systematic review of 11 studies in patients with established CD found a similar diagnostic yield with CE compared with radiography. International consensus statements have suggested that radiographic imaging has advantages (eg, ability to detect obstructive strictures) and that CE should be limited to certain situations (eg, unexplained symptoms or other inconclusive investigations).

Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory disease of the large intestine. CE has been proposed as an alternative method for assessing the extent and severity of disease activity in those with known ulcerative colitis.

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of wireless CE for patients who have ulcerative colitis is to inform management decisions based on disease status.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of wireless CEimprove the net health outcome in patients with ulcerative colitis?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are individuals with ulcerative colitis.

Interventions

The test being considered is wireless CE.

Patients with ulcerative colitis are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Comparators

The following test is currently being used to manage ulcerative colitis: optical colonoscopy.

Patients with ulcerative colitis are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Outcomes

The general outcomes of interest are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status.

Wireless CE would be performed to monitor patients after a confirmed diagnosis of ulcerative colitis.

Technically Reliable

Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires a review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this policy and alternative sources exist. This policy focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid are described in the first indication above.

A number of prospective observational studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CE in patients with ulcerative colitis. Tables 12 and 13 summarize the characteristics and results of these studies.

Table 12. Characteristics of Observational Comparative Studies Assessing CE for UC

Study	Study Type	Country	Dates	Participants	Treatment	Follow-Up
Shi et al (2017)15,	Single-center prospective observational	China	2014-2016	Patients 18-80 y with UC requiring colonoscopy	150 patients underwent CE-2 and colonoscopy	NR
San Juan-Acosta et al (2014)16,	Single-blind prospective comparative	Spain	2010-2012	Patients 18-70 y with UC with flare in disease activity or due for CRC screening	23 underwent CE-1, 19 had CE-2; all followed by colonoscopy	NR
Oliva et al (2014)17,	Prospective observational	Spain	2011-2012	Patients 6-18 y with a diagnosis at least 3 mo prior to enrollment	30 patients underwent CE-2, followed by colonoscopy	NR
Sung et al (2012)18,	Prospective cohort	China and Singapore	2000-2008	Patients with suspected or known UC	100 patients underwent CE and same-day colonoscopy	NR

CE-1:first-generation capsule endoscopy CE-2:second-generation capsule endoscopy; CRC: colorectal cancer; NR: not reported; UC: ulcerative colitis.

Table 13. Results of Observational Comparative Studies Assessing CE for Ulcerative Colitis

Study	Active Colonic Inflammation, %		PPV, %	NPV, %	Correlation Between Colon CE and Colonoscopy
	Sensitivitya	Specificity			Disease Severity	Extent of Inflammation
Shi et al (2017)15,
N	150	150	150		150	150
Mucosal inflammation (MES >0)	97			94-95
M-to-S inflammation (MES >1)	94
Postinflammatory polyps	100	91
ICC (95% CI)					0.69 (0.46 to 0.81)a	0.64 (0.38 to 0.78)b
p					<0.001	<0.001
San Juan-Acosta et al (2014)16,
N	42	42	42		42	42
CE vs colonoscopy
Disease activity	77.78	95.83	93.33	85.19
Disease extent	68.75	96.15	91.67	83.33
κ (95% CI)					0.79 (0.62 to 0.96)	0.71 (0.52 to 0.90)
Oliva et al (2014)17,
N	30	30	30
% (95% CI)	96 (79 to 99)	100 (61 to 100)	100 (85 to 100)	85 (49 to 97)
Sung et al (2012)18,
N	100	100	100
% (95% CI)	89 (80 to 95)	75 (51 to 90)	93 (84 to 97)	65 (43 to 83)

CE: capsule endoscopy; CI: confidence interval; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; MES: Mayo Endoscopic Subscore; M-to-S: moderate to severe; NPV: negative predictive value; PPV: positive predictive value.

^a MES.
^b Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity.

In the study by San Juan-Acosta et al (2014), although the correspondence between the 2 methods was reasonably good, it is uncertain whether management changes based on one or the other test would result in similar or different patient outcomes.^16,

Oliva et al (2014) evaluated 30 patients with known ulcerative colitis with both CE and colonoscopy to assess disease activity.^17, The reference standard for disease activity was a Matts score greater than six as judged by colonoscopy. Although the two methods had a high concordance at this cutoff level of disease in this study, patient outcomes linked to these assessments of disease activity cannot be determined.

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Because the clinical validity of wireless CE for monitoring ulcerative colitis has not been established, a chain of evidence supporting the test’s clinical utility for this indication cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Ulcerative Colitis

Several diagnostic accuracy studies have compared CE with colonoscopy to assess disease activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. Two of 4 studies were small (ie, <50 patients) and thus data on diagnostic accuracy are limited. Because there are insufficient data on diagnostic accuracy, a chain of evidence on clinical utility cannot be constructed.

Esophageal Disorders

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of wireless CE for patients who have esophageal disorders is to inform management decisions based on disease status.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of wireless CEimprove the net health outcome in patients with esophageal disorders?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are individuals with esophageal disorders. Gastrointestinal reflux disease and chronic sequelae such as Barrett esophagus may require diagnostic and surveillance interventions.

Interventions

The test being considered is wireless CE. In the esophagus, the capsule camera has been proposed as a screening technique for Barrett esophagus associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Evaluation of the esophagus requires limited transit time, and it is estimated that the test takes 20 minutes to perform.

CE can visualize several types of esophageal conditions. It could substitute for traditional upper endoscopy for several indications and may have the advantage of comfort and convenience. However, interventional procedures and biopsies cannot be performed with CE.CE could triage patients for endoscopy if either the sensitivity or the specificity is high. Traditional endoscopy could then be performed on the appropriate group to determine false-positives or false-negatives, having spared the group with a high positive predictive value an endoscopy procedure.

Patients with esophageal disorders are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Comparators

The following test is currently being used to manage esophageal disorders: upper GI endoscopy.

Outcomes

The general outcomes of interest are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status.

Wireless CE would be performed to monitor patients after a confirmed diagnosis of an esophageal disorder.

Technically Reliable

Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires a review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this policy and alternative sources exist. This policy focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid are described in the first indication above.

Most studies have shown that CE has inferior diagnostic characteristics compared with traditional upper endoscopy for a variety of esophageal conditions. A meta-analysis by Guturu et al (2011) evaluated 9 studies comparing CE with traditional endoscopy for detecting esophageal varices and calculated a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 85%.^19, A meta-analysis by Bhardwaj et al (2009) assessed 9 studies comparing CE with traditional endoscopy for detecting Barrett esophagus and reported a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 86%.^20, Because of the lower sensitivity and specificity of that test, CE cannot substitute for traditional endoscopy nor can it be used to triage patients to endoscopy.

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Because the clinical validity of wireless CE for monitoring esophageal disorders has not been established, a chain of evidence supporting the test’s clinical utility for this indication cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Esophageal Disorders

Other available modalities are superior to CE for monitoring esophageal disorders. The diagnostic characteristics of CE are inadequate to substitute for other modalities or to triage patients to other modalities.

Hereditary GI Polyposis Syndromes

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of wireless CE for patients who have hereditary GI polyposis syndromes is to inform management decisions based on disease status.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of wireless CEimprove the net health outcome in patients with hereditary GI polyposis syndromes?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are individuals with hereditary GI polyposis syndromes, including Lynch syndrome and Peutz-Jeghers (PJS) syndrome.

Interventions

The test being considered is wireless CE.

Patients with hereditary GI polyposis syndromes are actively managed by gastroenterologists and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Comparators

The following tests and practices are currently being used to manage hereditary GI polyposis syndromes: ileocolonoscopy, barium small bowel follow-through, CTE, and MRE, which are performed by a gastroenterologist in an outpatient setting.

Outcomes

The general outcomes of interest are, test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status.

Wireless CE would be performed to monitor patients after a confirmed diagnosis with hereditary GI polyposis syndromes.

Technically Reliable

Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires a review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this policy and alternative sources exist. This policy focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid are described in the first indication above.

Persons with familial adenomatous polyposis and PJS are genetically at high-risk of small bowel polyps and tumors. Urquhart et al (2014) compared CE with MRE in 20 patients with PJS.^21,CE identified more polyps 10 mm or larger (47 polyps) than MRE (14 polyps; p=0.02). However, subsequent balloon enteroscopy in 12 patients showed a poor correlation of findings between techniques, with a 100%positive predictive value of finding a polyp on balloon enteroscopy with MRE vs 60% for CE. A study by Brown et al (2006) in 19 patients showed a greater number of polyps identified with CE than with barium follow-through examinations.^22, Mata et al (2005) studied the role of CE in 24 patients with hereditary GI polyposis syndromes, including familial adenomatous polyposis (n=20) or PJS (n=4).^23, Compared with barium studies using small bowel enteroclysis, CE identified four additional patients with small bowel polyps, which were subsequently removed with endoscopic polypectomy. Although these studies were small, they demonstrated that CEcan identify additional lesions compared with other diagnostic methods in persons with disease syndromes at high-risk for such lesions.

The lifetime risk of small bowel cancer in Lynch syndrome has been estimated at 5%. Although not extremely high, this risk is greatly increased compared with the general population. There are a few case series of the prevalence of neoplastic lesions in asymptomatic patients in patients with Lynch syndrome. Haanstra et al (2015), 200 patients with Lynch syndrome underwentCE.^24,Small bowel neoplasia was detected in the duodenum in two patients (one adenocarcinoma, one adenoma). These lesions would have been in the reach of a gastroduodenoscope. In a smaller study by Saurin et al (2010), 35 asymptomatic patients with Lynch syndrome underwent colon CE.^25, Small bowel neoplasms were diagnosed in three (8.6%) patients (one adenocarcinoma, two adenomas with low-grade dysplasia).

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Because the clinical validity of wireless CE for monitoring hereditary GI polyposis syndromes has not been established, a chain of evidence supporting the test’s clinical utility for this indication cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Hereditary GI Polyposis Syndromes

Although studies have shown at least a low prevalence of small bowel neoplasms, these data are insufficient to determine whether evaluation with CE would improve patient outcomes. Additional data on the prevalence and natural history of small bowel polyps in Lynch syndrome patients are necessary. At this time, surveillance of the small bowel is not generally recommended as a routine intervention for patients with Lynch syndrome.

Portal Hypertensive Enteropathy

Patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension can develop portal hypertensive enteropathy, which may lead to GI bleeding. CE has been considered as a diagnostic tool for portal hypertensive enteropathy.

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of wireless CE for patients who have portal hypertensive enteropathy is to inform management decisions based on disease status.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of wireless CEimprove the net health outcome in patients with portal hypertensive enteropathy?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are individuals with portal hypertensive enteropathy.

Interventions

The test being considered is wireless CE, which is performed in an outpatient setting by a gastroenterologist.

Comparators

The following test is currently being used to manage portal hypertensive enteropathy: upper and lower endoscopy, which are performed in an outpatient setting by a gastroenterologist.

Outcomes

The general outcomes of interest are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status.

Wireless CE would be performed to monitor patients after a confirmed diagnosis with portal hypertensive enteropathy.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid are described in the first indication above.

Several systematic reviews, including a Cochrane review, have been published. Tables 14 and 15 summarize the characteristics and results of select systematic reviews.

Table 14. Characteristics of Systematic Reviews Assessing CE for Portal Hypertensive Enteropathy

Study	Dates	Trials	Participants	N (Range)	Design
McCarty et al (2017)26,	2005-2015	17	Patients with portal hypertension	1328 (8-330)	NR
Colli et al (2014)27,	2005-2014	16	Adults with cirrhosis	936 (NR)	Cohort

NR: not reported.

Table 15. Results of Systematic Reviews Assessing CE for Portal Hypertensive Enteropathy

Study	CE, %		Likelihood Ratios		Diagnostic Accuracy
	Sensitivity	Specificity	Positive	Negative	CE	Medium-to-Large Varices
McCarty et al (2017)26,
N	1328	1328	1328
PE (95% CI), %	83 (76 to 89)	85 (75 to 91)	5.4 (3.3 to 9.0)	0.20 (0.14 to 0.28)	90 (88 to 93)	92 (90 to 94)
Studies with low risk of bias, n
PE (95% CI), %	80 (81 to 88)	86 (68 to 94)			85 (81 to 88)	92 (89 to 94)
Colli et al (2014)27,
N	936	936	936
PE (95% CI), %	84.8 (77.3 to 90.2)	84.3 (73.1 to 91.4)	5.4 (3.1 to 9.5)	0.18 (0.12 to 0.27)
Studies with low risk of bias, n	396	396	396
PE (95% CI), %	79.7 (73.1 to 85.0)	86.1 (64.5 to 95.5)	5.8 (2.1 to 16.1)	0.24 (0.18 to 0.31)

CI: confidence interval; CE: capsule endoscopy; PE: pooled effect.

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Because the clinical validity of wireless CE for monitoring portal hypertensive enteropathy has not been established, a chain of evidence supporting the test’s clinical utility for this indication cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Portal Hypertensive Enteropathy

CE has been used to diagnose portal hypertensive enteropathy. Systematic reviews of studies of its diagnostic performance have reported limited sensitivity and specificity. Because neither the sensitivity nor the specificity was high for identifying esophageal varices, CE should not be used instead of esophagogastroduodenoscopy nor should it be used to triage patients to esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Based on these diagnostic characteristics, the test does not appear to have clinical utility.

Acute Upper GI Tract Bleeding

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of wireless CE for patients who have acute upper CI tract bleeding is to inform management decisions based on disease status.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of wireless CEimprove the net health outcome in patients with acute upper GI tract bleeding?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are patients with acute GI tract bleeding.

Interventions

The intervention of interest is wireless CE.

The test would be performed in an urgent care or emergency department setting.

Comparators

The following practices are currently being used to manage acute upper CI tract bleeding: standard workup of acute bleeding without wireless CE and, with or without direct endoscopic procedures or specialized GI imaging.

The tests would be performed in an urgent care or emergency department setting.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes of interest for clinical utility are symptoms and disease status that would change due to patient management decisions following wireless CE. Other outcomes of interest are the avoidance of hospitalizations and reductions in resource utilization (eg, need for additional testing or procedures).

Wireless CE would be performed as soon as possible after acute bleeding is identified. Wireless CE would be performed to monitor patients after a confirmed diagnosis with acute GI tract bleeding.

Technically Reliable

Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires a review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this policy and alternative sources exist. This policy focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid are described in the first indication above.

Randomized Controlled Trials

Sung et al (2016) reported on a prospective RCT to evaluate the use of CE in the emergency department for patients with suspected upper GI bleeding.^28,CE was used to determine whether patients would be admitted to the hospital or sent home, vs an alternative strategy of admitting all patients. Eligible patients presented with signs and/or symptoms of acute upper GI bleeding but were without hemodynamic shock or conditions likely to preclude the use of the capsule endoscope. Seventy-one patients were randomized to CE in the emergency department (n=37), followed by monitoring for upper GI bleeding, or standard care (n=34), which included mandatory hospital admission. Seven CE patients with active bleeding or endoscopic findings were admitted, with the remainder discharged home. There were no deaths or morbid outcomes in either group, indicating that CE could result in equivalent patient outcomes with many patients safely avoiding emergency hospitalization.

Tables 16 and 17 summarize the characteristics and results of select RCTs.

Table 16. Characteristics of RCTs Assessing CE for Acute GI Tract Bleeding

Study	Countries	Sites	Dates	Participants	Interventions
					Active	Comparator
Sung et al (2016)28,	China	NR	2013-2014	Patients presenting to ED with symptoms suggestive of UGIB	37 randomized to CE; admission determined by CE	34 randomized to SOC; admission determined by GBS
Gutkin et al (2013)29,	U.S.	3	NR	Patients ≥18 y with history suggestive of acute UGIB ≤48 h prior to ED presentation	12 randomized to VCE prior to endoscopy	12 randomized to endoscopy

CE: capsule endoscopy; ED: emergency department; GI: gastrointestinal; GBS: Glasgow Blatchford score; NR: not reported; RCT: randomized controlled trial; SOC: standard of care; UGIB: upper gastrointestinal bleeding; VCE: video capsule endoscopy.

Table 17. Results of RCTs Assessing CE for Acute GI Tract Bleeding

Study	Active Bleeding or Endoscopic Findings, n	Hospitalization, n	Mortality, n	GBS Score	Agreement Between CE and EGD
Sung et al (2016)28,
N	68	68	68	68	68
CE	·“Coffee ground” material: 2 ·Peptic ulcer with Forrest Ib stigmata: 2 ·Forrest IIa: 2 ·Esophageal varix: 1	7	0	·6 patients: 0 ·3 patients: 1 ·25 patients: ≥2
SOC	·Peptic ulcer: 14 ·Duodenal ulcer: 12 ·Gastritis/duodenitis: 10 ·Gastric or duodenal erosions: 5 ·Mallory Weiss tear: 1	34	0	·No patients scored 0 ·7 patients: 1 ·27 patients: ≥2
Gutkin et al (2013)29,
N	24				24
VCE	8 (67.7%) had positive findings confirmed by endoscopy; for these patients, average Rockall score was 3; average Blatchford score was 13				VCE data identical to EGD results (p=1.0)

CE: capsule endoscopy; EGD: esophagogastroduodenoscopy; GI: gastrointestinal; GBS: Glasgow Blatchford score; RCT: randomized controlled trial; RR: relative risk; SOC: standard of care; VCE: video capsule endoscopy.

The purpose of the limitations tables (see Tables 18 and 19) is to display notable limitations identified in each study. This information is synthesized as a summary of the body of evidence following each table and provides the conclusions on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the position statement.

Table 18. Relevance Limitations

Study	Populationa	Interventionb	Comparatorc	Outcomesd	Duration of Follow-Upe
Sung et al (2016)28,
Gutkin et al (2013)29,

The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive limitations assessment.

^a Population key: 1. Intended use population unclear; 2. Clinical context is unclear; 3. Study population is unclear; 4. Study population not representative of intended use.

^b Intervention key: 1. Classification thresholds not defined; 2. Version used unclear; 3. Not intervention of interest.

^c Comparator key: 1. Classification thresholds not defined; 2. Not compared to credible reference standard; 3. Not compared to other tests in use for same purpose.

^d Outcomes key: 1. Study does not directly assess a key health outcome; 2. Evidence chain or decision model not explicated; 3. Key clinical validity outcomes not reported (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values); 4. Reclassification of diagnostic or risk categories not reported; 5. Adverse events of the test not described (excluding minor discomforts and inconvenience of venipuncture or noninvasive tests).

^e Follow-Up key: 1. Follow-up duration not sufficient with respect tonatural history of disease (true-positives, true-negatives, false-positives, false-negatives cannot be determined).

Table 19. Study Design and Conduct Limitations

Study	Selectiona	Blindingb	Delivery of Testc	Selective Reportingd	Data Completenesse	Statisticalf
Sung et al (2016)28,						3. As a feasibility study, confidence intervals and p values were not reported
Gutkin et al (2013)29,					2. Small sample size based on pilot/ feasibility study

The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive limitations assessment.

^a Selection key: 1. Selection not described; 2. Selection not random or consecutive (ie, convenience).

^b Blinding key: 1. Not blinded to results of reference or other comparator tests.

^c Test Delivery key: 1. Timing of delivery of index or reference test not described; 2. Timing of index and comparator tests not same; 3. Procedure for interpreting tests not described; 4. Expertise of evaluators not described.

^d Selective Reporting key: 1. Not registered; 2. Evidence of selective reporting; 3. Evidence of selective publication.

^e Data Completeness key: 1. Inadequate description of indeterminate and missing samples; 2. High number of samples excluded; 3. High loss to follow-up or missing data.

^f Statistical key: 1. Confidence intervals and/or p values not reported; 2. Comparison with other tests not reported.

Cohort Studies

Two 2013 studies with small cohorts of patients (range, 49-83 patients) have reported on the use of CE before upper endoscopy for acute GI bleeding, to triage and/or risk-stratify patients in the emergency department or hospital.^30,31, These studies reported that CE provides useful information, such as identifying gross bleeding and inflammatory lesions in a substantial proportion of patients and in stratifying patients into high- or low-risk categories. However, the yield of CE in localizing the bleeding source was lower than for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, which is the standard initial evaluation for acute upper GI bleeding.

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Because the clinical validity of wireless CE for diagnosing acute upper GI tract bleeding has not been established, a chain of evidence supporting the test’s clinical utility for this indication cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Acute Upper GI Tract Bleeding

Use of CE in the emergency department setting for suspected upper GI bleeding is based on efficiency (avoiding hospitalization, avoiding immediate endoscopy). Controlled studies are needed to assess further the impact of CE on health outcomes compared with standard management. Patients should be followed to their ultimate diagnosis to determine whether the use of CEvs other triage strategies or immediate endoscopy results in lower health care resource utilization.

Colon Cancer Screening

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of wireless CE for patients who are being screened for colon cancer is to confirm a diagnosis and inform a decision to proceed to appropriate treatment.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of wireless CE improve the net health outcome in patients undergoing colon cancer screening?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are patients who are undergoing colon cancer screening.

Interventions

The intervention of interest is wireless CE, which is performed by gastroenterologists in an outpatient setting. Patients screened for colon cancer are actively managed by oncologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, surgeons, and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Comparators

The following test is currently being used to diagnose colon cancer: standard workup using optical colonoscopy, which is performed by gastroenterologists in an outpatient setting. Patients screened for colon cancer are actively managed by oncologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, surgeons, and primary care providers in an outpatient setting.

Outcomes

The outcomes of interest for diagnostic accuracy include test validity (ie, sensitivity, specificity). The primary outcomes of interest for clinical utility are overall mortality and disease-specific mortality from colon cancer.

Wireless CE would be performed after an initial clinical examination. Though not completely standardized, follow-up for screening for colon cancer would be based on guidelines for asymptomatic screening or for follow-up of significant screening findings.

Technically Reliable

Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires a review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this policy and alternative sources exist. This policy focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid are described in the first indication above.

Several studies have assessed the accuracy of CE for detecting colonic lesions. Spada et al (2016) reported on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of CE for detecting colorectal polyps with stratified results for first- and second-generation capsules.^32, Across the 14 eligible studies, the indications for endoscopy included colorectal cancer screening (n=1261 [47%]), postpolypectomy surveillance or family history of colorectal cancer (n=636 [24%]), symptoms suggestive of cancer and/or fecal occult blood test positivity (n=619 [23%]), positive imaging tests (n=136 [5%]), or other indication (24 [1%]). Characteristics of the systematic review and its main findings are summarized in Tables 20 and 21, respectively.

Table 20. Characteristics of Systematic Review Assessing CE for Colon Cancer Screening

Study	Dates	Trials	N (Range)	Design	Outcome
Spada et al (2016)32,	2006-2015	14	2681 (40-884)	Diagnostic accuracy studies	Per-patient sensitivity of CCE for different categories of polyp size and for cancer

CCE: colon capsule endoscopy.

Table 21. Results of Systematic Review Assessing CE for Colon Cancer Screening

Random-Effects Model	Trials	N	Outcomes	Effect Size	95% CI	I2, %
For ≥10 mm polyps	10	NR	Diagnostic accuracy for ≥10 mm polyps	Sens=80.0% Spec=96.2% PLR=18.6 NLR=0.22 DOR=90.4	66% to 90.3% 94.0% to 97.6% 12.0 to 28.2 0.13 to 0.34 44 to 163	53.4 31.3
For ≥6 mm polyps	7	NR	Diagnostic accuracy for ≥6 mm polyps using 1st-generation CCE	Sens=58% Spec=85.7% PLR=3.7 NLR=0.51 DOR=7.4	44% to 70% 80.2% to 90.0%	65
For ≥6 mm polyps	6	NR	Diagnostic accuracy for ≥6 mm polyps using 2nd-generation CCE	Sens=86% Spec=88.1% PLR=7.9 NLR=0.16 DOR=50.5	82% to 89% 74.2% to 95.0% 3.7 to 16.1 0.12 to 0.21 20.3 to 107.0	0
For ≥10 mm polyps	3	NR	Diagnostic accuracy for ≥6 mm polyps using 1st-generation CCE	Sens=54% Spec=97.4% PLR=NR NLR=NR DOR=NR	29% to 77% 96.0% to 98.3%	76.2 0
For ≥10 mm polyps	6	NR	Diagnostic accuracy for ≥6 mm polyps using 2nd-generation CCE	Sens=88% Spec=95.3% PLR=NR NLR=NR DOR=NR	81% to 91% 91.5% to 97.5%	0 67

Adapted from Spada et al (2016).^32,
CCE: colon capsule endoscopy; CI: confidence interval; DOR: diagnostic odds ratio; NLR: negative likelihood ratio; NR: not reported; PLR: positive likelihood ratio; Sens: sensitivity; Spec: specificity.

There were no missed cancers (n=11) in the series using second-generation CE (per-patient sensitivity, 100%). In series using the first-generation CE, 6 of 26 proven cancers were missed on CE (per-patient sensitivity, 77%).

Prospective Studies

Other recent studies by Saito et al (2015), Morgan et al (2016), and Parodi (2018) have evaluated the diagnostic characteristics of CE, using subsequently performed colonoscopy as the reference standard.^33,34,35, In the Saito et al (2015) study, of 66 evaluable patients, per-patient sensitivity for the detection of polyps was 94% (95% CI, 88.2% to 99.7%). In the Morgan et al (2016) study, for lesions 10 mm or larger, sensitivity of CE was 100% (95% CI, 56.1% to 100%), with a specificity of 93.0% (95% CI, 79.9% to 98.2%). For lesions 6 mm or larger, sensitivity was 93.3% (95% CI, 66.0% to 99.7%) and the specificity was 80.0% (95% CI, 62.5% to 90.9%). The Parodi (2018) study included 177 first-degree relatives of individuals with colorectal cancer and found, for lesions 6 mm or larger, a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI, 81% to 96%) and a specificity of 88% (95% CI, 81% to 93%).^35,

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Because the clinical validity of wireless CE for diagnosing colon cancer has not been established, a chain of evidence supporting the test’s clinical utility for this indication cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Colon Cancer Screening

Studies of diagnostic characteristics alone are insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of CE for colon cancer screening. Because diagnostic performance is worse than standard colonoscopy, CE would need to be performed more frequently than standard colonoscopy to have comparable efficacy potentially. Without direct evidence of efficacy in a clinical trial of colon cancer screening using CE, modeling studies using established mathematical models of colon precursor incidence and progression to cancer could provide estimates of efficacy in preventing colon cancer mortality. Studies of CE in screening populations are necessary to determine the diagnostic characteristics of the test in this setting.

Known or Suspected Small Bowel Stricture

Clinical Context and Test Purpose

The purpose of the patency capsule for patients scheduled to undergo CE for known or suspected small bowel stricture is to confirm a diagnosis and inform a decision to proceed to CE.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does the use of a patency capsule improve the net health outcome in patients with known or suspected small bowel stricture?

The following PICOs were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients

The relevant population of interest are individuals scheduled to undergo CE for known or suspected small bowel stricture. Contraindications to the use of CE include known or suspected obstruction or stricture, Zenker diverticulum, intestinal pseudo-obstruction, and motility disorders. Certain patients with known or suspected strictures of the small bowel may be at risk of retaining the capsule. Surgical removal may be necessary.

Interventions

The test being considered is a patency capsule as a technique to evaluate patients with known or suspected strictures before using wireless CE. The capsule could be to select patients for CE instead of assessing clinical risk factors.

The use of the patency capsule has some risk itself. Published studies are small and do not provide comparative data on the incremental value of this capsule over standard clinical evaluation. In some series, the administration of the patency capsule has produced symptoms requiring hospitalization and even surgery. In a European study, Spada et al (2007) reported findings for 27 patients, 24 with CD.^36, In this study, 25 (92.6%) patients retrieved the patency capsule in their stools. Six patients complained of abdominal pain, four of whom excreted a nonintact capsule, and hospitalization was required in one patient due to the occlusive syndrome.

Patients who are scheduled to undergo patency capsule screening before wireless CE for known or suspected small bowel stricture are actively managed by oncologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, surgeons, and primary care providers in an outpatient clinical setting.

Comparators

The following practices are currently being used to diagnose known or suspected small bowel stricture: CE without patency capsule and alternative workup without CE, which is performed in an outpatient setting. Patients are actively managed byoncologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, surgeons, and primary care providers in an outpatient clinical setting.

Outcomes

The general outcomes of interest are test validity, symptoms, change in disease status, and treatment-related morbidity.

Technically Reliable

Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires a review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this policy and alternative sources exist. This policy focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid

A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Study Selection Criteria

Selection criteria for studies to assess whether a test is clinically valid are described in the first indication above.

In a series from Europe, Delvaux et al (2005) reported on findings in 22 patients with suspected intestinal stricture, 15 of whom had CD.^37, In this study, at 30 hours after ingestion, the patency capsule was detected in 17 (72.3%) patients. In all patients in whom the capsule was blocked in the small intestine, the stenosis had been suspected on CT scan or small bowel follow-through. In three patients, the delay in the progression of the patency capsule led to thecancellation of CE. In three patients, the patency capsule induced a symptomatic intestinal occlusion, which resolved spontaneously in one and required emergency surgery in two. The authors commented that the current technical development of the patency capsule limits its use in clinical practice, because it did not detect stenoses undiagnosed by CT or small bowel follow-through, and the start of dissolution at 40 hours after ingestion is too slow to prevent episodes of intestinal occlusion. They also commented that a careful interview eliciting the patient's history and symptoms remains the most useful indicator for suspicion of an intestinal stenosis.

Several studies have shown that patients who had an uncomplicated passage of the patency capsule subsequently underwent uncomplicated CE.^38,39,40, These patients often had significant findings on CE.^38,39, However, it is difficult to determine whether CE findings in these patients improved their outcomes beyond any alternative testing regimen available. In one of these studies, 3 of 106 patients had severe adverse events, including 1 patient who required surgery.^38,

Clinically Useful

A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No RCTs assessing the clinical utility of wireless CE for this indication were identified.

Chain of Evidence

Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Because the clinical validity of the patency capsule for diagnosing known or suspected strictures has not been established, a chain of evidence supporting the test’s clinical utility for this indication cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Bowel Stricture

The overall balance of harm and benefit of using the patency capsule cannot be determined from the existing studies.

Summary of Evidence

Patients With Suspected GI Disorders

For individuals who have suspected small bowel bleeding (previously referred to as obscure GI bleeding) who receive wireless CE, the evidence includes numerous case series evaluating patients with a nondiagnostic standard workup. The relevant outcomes are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status. The evidence has demonstrated that CE can identify a bleeding source in a substantial number of patients who cannot be diagnosed by other methods, with a low incidence of adverse events. Because there are few other options for diagnosing obscure small bowel bleeding in patients with negative upper and lower endoscopy, this technique will likely improve health outcomes by directing specific treatment when a bleeding source is identified. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals who have suspected small bowel CD who receive wireless CE, the evidence includes case series. The relevant outcomes are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status. Although the test performance characteristics and diagnostic yields of the capsule for this indication are uncertain, the diagnostic yields are as good as or better than other diagnostic options, and these data are likely to improve health outcomes by identifying some cases of CD and directing specific treatment. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals who have suspected celiac disease who receive wireless CE, the evidence includes case series and diagnostic accuracy studies. The relevant outcomes are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status. The diagnostic characteristics of CE are inadequate to substitute for other modalities or to triage patients to other modalities. For other conditions (eg, determining the extent of CD), direct evidence of improved outcomes or a strong indirect chain of evidence to improved outcomes is lacking. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of technology on net health outcomes.

For individuals who have unexplained chronic abdominal pain who receive wireless CE, the evidence includes case series and diagnostic accuracy studies. The relevant outcomes are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status. The diagnostic characteristics of CE are inadequate to substitute for other modalities or to triage patients to other modalities. For other conditions (eg, determining the extent of CD), direct evidence of improved outcomes or a strong chain of evidence to improved outcomes is lacking. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of technology on net health outcomes.

Patients With Confirmed GI Disorders

For individuals who have an established diagnosis of CD who receive wireless CE, the evidence includes diagnostic accuracy studies and a systematic review. The relevant outcomes are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status. A 2017 systematic review of 11 studies in patients with established CD found a similar diagnostic yield with CE and with radiography. Because there is evidence that the diagnostic yields are as good as or better than other diagnostic options, there is indirect evidence that CE is likely to improve health outcomes by identifying some cases of CD and directing specific treatment. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals who have ulcerative colitis who receive wireless CE, the evidence includes case series and diagnostic accuracy studies. The relevant outcomes are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status. Several diagnostic accuracy studies have compared CE with colonoscopy to assess disease activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. Two of 3 studies were small (ie, <50 patients) and thus data on diagnostic accuracy are limited. Direct evidence of improved outcomes and a strong chain of evidence to improved outcomes are lacking. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of technology on net health outcomes.

For individuals who have esophageal disorders who receive wireless CE, the evidence includes case series and diagnostic accuracy studies. The relevant outcomes are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status. Other available modalities are superior to CE. The diagnostic characteristics of CE are inadequate to substitute for other modalities or to triage patients to other modalities. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of technology on net health outcomes.

For individuals who have hereditary GI polyposis syndromes who receive wireless CE, the evidence includes case series and diagnostic accuracy studies. The relevant outcomes are test validity, other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status. The data are insufficient to determine whether evaluation with CE would improve patient outcomes. Further information on the prevalence and natural history of small bowel polyps in Lynch syndrome patients is necessary. At present, surveillance of the small bowel is not generally recommended as a routine intervention for patients with Lynch syndrome. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of technology on net health outcomes.

For individuals who have portal hypertensive enteropathy who receive wireless CE, the evidence includes case series and diagnostic accuracy studies. The relevant outcomes are test validity, and other test performance measures, symptoms, and change in disease status. Systematic reviews of studies of CE’s diagnostic performance for this indicated have reported limited sensitivity and specificity. Due to insufficient data on diagnostic accuracy, a chain of evidence on clinical utility cannot be constructed. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of technology on net health outcomes.

Acute Upper GI Bleeding

For individuals who have acute upper GI tract bleeding who receive wireless CE, the evidence includes anRCT and several cohort studies. The relevant outcomes are test validity, and other test performance measures, symptoms, hospitalizations, and resource utilization. The use of CE in the emergency department setting for suspected upper GI bleeding is intended to avoid unnecessary hospitalization or immediate endoscopy. Controlled studies are needed to assess further the impact of CE on health outcomes compared with standard management. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of technology on net health outcomes.

Colon Cancer Screening

For individuals who are screened for colon cancer who receive wireless CE, the evidence includes diagnostic accuracy studies and systematic reviews. The relevant outcomes are overall survival, disease-specific survival, test validity, and other test performance measures. Studies of CE in screening populations are necessary to determine the diagnostic characteristics of the test in this setting. Studies of diagnostic characteristics alone are insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of CE for colon cancer screening. Because diagnostic performance is worse than standard colonoscopy, CE would need to be performed more frequently than standard colonoscopy to have comparable efficacy. Without direct evidence of efficacy in a clinical trial of colon cancer screening using CE, modeling studies using established mathematical models of colon precursor incidence and progression to cancer could provide estimates of efficacy in preventing colon cancer mortality. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of technology on net health outcomes.

Patency Capsule for Patients with Bowel Stricture

For individuals who are scheduled to undergo CE for known or suspected small bowel stricture who receive a patency capsule, the evidence includes case series. The relevant outcomes are test validity, symptoms, change in disease status, and treatment-related morbidity, The available studies have reported that CE following a successful patency capsule test results in high rates of success with low rates of adverse events. The capsule is also associated with adverse events. Because of the lack of comparative data to other diagnostic strategies, it is not possible to determine whether the use of the patency capsule improves the net health outcome. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of technology on net health outcomes.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements

American College of Gastroenterology

TheACG (2013) issued guidelines on the diagnosis and management of celiac disease.^41, The guidelines recommended that capsule endoscopy (CE) not be used for initial diagnosis, except for patients with positive celiac-specific serology who are unwilling or unable to undergo upper endoscopy with biopsy (strong recommendation, moderate level of evidence).

CE should be considered for the evaluation of small bowel mucosa in patients with complicated Crohn disease (CD; strong recommendation, moderate level of evidence).

The ACG (2018) updated its guidelines on the management of CD in adults.^42, It makes two recommendations specific to video capsule endoscopy:

“Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is a useful adjunct in the diagnosis of patients with small bowel Crohn’s disease in patients in whom there is a high index of suspicion of disease.”

“Patients with obstructive symptoms should have small bowel imaging and/or patency capsule evaluation before VCE to decrease risk of capsule retention.”

These recommendations are based on multiple studies. Capsule endoscopy was found to be “superior to small bowel barium studies, computed tomography enterography (CTE) and ileocolonoscopy in patients with suspected CD, with incremental yield of diagnosis of 32%, 47%, and 22%, respectively….Capsule endoscopy has a high negative predictive value of 96%.”

“However, some studies have questioned the specificity of capsule endoscopy findings for CD, and to date there is no consensus as to exactly which capsule endoscopy findings constitute a diagnosis of CD.”^42,

The ACG (2015) issued guidelines on the diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding (including using “small bowel bleeding” to replace “obscure GI [gastrointestinal] bleeding,” which should be reserved for patients in whom a source of bleeding cannot be identified anywhere in the GI tract).^43, These guidelines made the following statements related to video CE (see Table 22).

Table 22. Recommendations on Diagnosis and Management of Small Bowel Bleeding

Recommendation	SOR	LOE
“… VCE should be considered as a first-line procedure for SB evaluation after upper and lower GI sources have been excluded, including second-look endoscopy when indicated”	Strong	Moderate
“VCE should be performed before deep enteroscopy to increase diagnostic yield. Initial deep enteroscopy can be considered in cases of massive hemorrhage or when VCE is contraindicated”	Strong	High

GI: gastrointestinal; LOE: level of evidence; SB: small bowel; SOR: strength of recommendation; VCE: video capsule endoscopy.

American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (2016) released guidelines for the use of endoscopy in the management of suspected small bowel bleeding.^44, These guidelines made the following recommendations on capsule endoscopy (see Table 23).

Table 23. Recommendations on Use of Endoscopy to Manage Suspected Small Bowel Bleeding

Recommendation	QOE
We suggest VCE as the initial test for patients with overt or occult small-bowel bleeding. Positive VCE results should be followed with push enteroscopy if within reach or DAE.”	Moderate
“We suggest DAE or push enteroscopy if VCE is unavailable or nondiagnostic in patients with overt small bowel bleeding.”	Moderate

DAE: device-assisted enteroscopy; QOE: quality of evidence; VCE: video capsule endoscopy.

American Gastroenterological Association Institute

The American Gastrointestinal Institute (2017) issued guidelines on the use of capsule endoscopy.^45, Table 24 summarizes the most relevant recommendations (not all recommendations are included).

Table 24. AGA 2017 Capsule Endoscopy Recommendations

Stmt No.	Recommendation	Grade	QOE
Recommendations Supporting the Use of Capsule Endoscopy (CE)
1	For suspected Crohn’s disease (CD), with negative ileocolonoscopy and imaging studies (CE of small bowel)	Strong	Very low
2	For CD and clinical features unexplained by ileocolonoscopy or imaging studies	Strong	Very low
3	For CD, when assessment of small-bowel mucosal healing (beyond reach of ileocolonoscopy) is needed	Conditional	Very low
4	For suspected small-bowel recurrence of CD after colectomy, undiagnosed by ileocolonoscopy or imaging studies	Strong	Very low
7	For celiac disease with unexplained symptoms despite treatment and appropriate investigations	Strong	Very low (efficacy) Low (safety)
8	For documented overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (excluding hemoatemesis) and negative findings on high-quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy	Strong	Very low
9	For overt, obscure bleeding episode, as soon as possible	Strong	Very low
10	With prior negative CE with repeated obscure bleeding, repeated studies (endoscopy, colonoscopy and/or CE)	Strong	Very low
11	For suspected obscure bleeding and unexplained mild chronic iron-deficiency anemia, in selected cases	Strong	Very low
12	For polyposis syndromes, which require small bowel studies, for ongoing surveillance	Conditional	Very low (efficacy) Low (safety)
Recommendations Against Use of CE
5	For diagnosing CD when chronic abdominal pain or diarrhea are only symptoms, and with no evidence of biomarkers associated with CD	Conditional	Low
6	For diagnosing celiac disease	Strong	Very low (efficacy) Low (safety)
13	For routine substitution of colonoscopy	Strong	Very low
14	For inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), as substitute for colonoscopy to assess extent and severity of disease	Strong	Very low (efficacy) Low (safety)

QOE: quality of evidence; Stmt: statement.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) published its most recent recommendations for colorectal cancer screening.^46, Colorectal cancer screening was recommended starting at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years (A recommendation). Studies evaluating CE were not included in the evidence reviews in this report.

Ongoing and Unpublished Clinical Trials

Some currently ongoing and unpublished trials that might influence this review are listed in Table 25.

Table 25. Summary of Key Trials

NCT No.	Trial Name	Planned Enrollment	Completion Date
Ongoing
NCT01371591a	Pilot Study to Investigate the Use of Wireless Capsule Endoscopy for Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding	100	Aug 2018 (ongoing)
NCT03291743	The Biologic Onset of Crohn’s Disease: A Screening Study in First Degree Relatives	144	Feb 2020
NCT03241368a	Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Study Comparing PillCam® Crohn’s Capsule Endoscopy to Ileocolonoscopy (IC) Plus MRE for Detection of Active CD in the Small Bowel and Colon in Subjects With Known CD and Mucosal Disease	352	Nov 2019
Unpublished
NCT02754661a	Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Study Comparing the Diagnostic Yield of Colon Capsule Endoscopy Versus Computd Tomographic Colonography in a Screening Population	320	Aug 2018 (completed; last updated Jan 2019)

NCT: national clinical trial.
^a Denotes industry-sponsored or cosponsored trial.]
________________________________________________________________________________________

Horizon BCBSNJ Medical Policy Development Process:

This Horizon BCBSNJ Medical Policy (the “Medical Policy”) has been developed by Horizon BCBSNJ’s Medical Policy Committee (the “Committee”) consistent with generally accepted standards of medical practice, and reflects Horizon BCBSNJ’s view of the subject health care services, supplies or procedures, and in what circumstances they are deemed to be medically necessary or experimental/ investigational in nature. This Medical Policy also considers whether and to what degree the subject health care services, supplies or procedures are clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration and if they are considered effective for the illnesses, injuries or diseases discussed. Where relevant, this Medical Policy considers whether the subject health care services, supplies or procedures are being requested primarily for the convenience of the covered person or the health care provider. It may also consider whether the services, supplies or procedures are more costly than an alternative service or sequence of services, supplies or procedures that are at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of the relevant illness, injury or disease. In reaching its conclusion regarding what it considers to be the generally accepted standards of medical practice, the Committee reviews and considers the following: all credible scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community, physician and health care provider specialty society recommendations, the views of physicians and health care providers practicing in relevant clinical areas (including, but not limited to, the prevailing opinion within the appropriate specialty) and any other relevant factor as determined by applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Index:
Wireless Capsule Endoscopy as a Diagnostic Technique in Disorders of the Small Bowel, Esophagus, and Colon
Wireless Capsule Endoscopy as a Diagnostic Technique in Disorders of the Small Bowel and Colon
Capsule Endoscopy
Given Diagnostic Imaging System
M2A Given Diagnostic Imaging System
Olympus Capsule Endoscope System
PillCam SB Capsule Endoscopy
Given AGILE Patency System
AGILE Patency System
Wireless Capsule Endoscopy as a Diagnostic Technique in Disorders of the Esophagus (PillCam ESO)
Given Diagnostic System with the PillCam ESO Capsule
PillCam ESO
Capsule Endoscopy, PillCam ESO
ESO, PillCam

References:
1. Bourreille A, Ignjatovic A, Aabakken L, et al. Role of small-bowel endoscopy in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: an international OMED-ECCO consensus. Endoscopy. Jul 2009;41(7):618-637. PMID 19588292.

2. Koulaouzidis A, Rondonotti E, Giannakou A, et al. Diagnostic yield of small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with iron-deficiency anemia: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. Nov 2012;76(5):983-992. PMID 23078923.

3. Leung WK, Ho SS, Suen BY, et al. Capsule endoscopy or angiography in patients with acute overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective randomized study with long-term follow-up. Am J Gastroenterol. Sep 2012;107(9):1370-1376. PMID 22825363.

4. Hartmann D, Schmidt H, Bolz G, et al. A prospective two-center study comparing wireless capsule endoscopy with intraoperative enteroscopy in patients with obscure GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. Jun 2005;61(7):826-832. PMID 15933683.

5. Pennazio M, Santucci R, Rondonotti E, et al. Outcome of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding after capsule endoscopy: report of 100 consecutive cases. Gastroenterology. Mar 2004;126(3):643-653. PMID 14988816.

6. Choi M, Lim S, Choi MG, et al. Effectiveness of capsule endoscopy compared with other diagnostic modalities in patients with small bowel Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis. Gut Liver. Jan 15 2017;11(1):62-72. PMID 27728963.

7. El-Matary W, Huynh H, Vandermeer B. Diagnostic characteristics of given video capsule endoscopy in diagnosis of celiac disease: a meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. Dec 2009;19(6):815-820. PMID 19405806.

8. Rokkas T, Niv Y. The role of video capsule endoscopy in the diagnosis of celiac disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. Mar 2012;24(3):303-308. PMID 22266837.

9. Kurien M, Evans KE, Aziz I, et al. Capsule endoscopy in adult celiac disease: a potential role in equivocal cases of celiac disease? Gastrointest Endosc. Feb 2013;77(2):227-232. PMID 23200728.

10. Culliford A, Daly J, Diamond B, et al. The value of wireless capsule endoscopy in patients with complicated celiac disease. Gastrointest Endosc. Jul 2005;62(1):55-61. PMID 15990820.

11. Xue M, Chen X, Shi L, et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with unexplained chronic abdominal pain: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. Jan 2015;81(1):186-193. PMID 25012561.

12. Yang L, Chen Y, Zhang B, et al. Increased diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy in patients with chronic abdominal pain. PLoS One. Jan 31 2014;9(1):e87396. PMID 24498097.

13. Annese V, Daperno M, Rutter MD, et al. European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. Dec 15 2013;7(12):982-1018. PMID 24184171.

14. Kopylov U, Yung DE, Engel T, et al. Diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy versus magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel contrast ultrasound in the evaluation of small bowel Crohn's disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis. Aug 2017;49(8):854-863. PMID 28512034.

15. Shi HY, Chan FKL, Higashimori A, et al. A prospective study on second-generation colon capsule endoscopy to detect mucosal lesions and disease activity in ulcerative colitis (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. Dec 2017;86(6):1139-1146 e1136. PMID 28713062.

16. San Juan-Acosta M, Caunedo-Alvarez A, Arguelles-Arias F, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy is a safe and useful tool to assess disease parameters in patients with ulcerative colitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. Aug 2014;26(8):894-901. PMID 24987825.

17. Oliva S, Di Nardo G, Hassan C, et al. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy vs. colonoscopy in pediatric ulcerative colitis: a pilot study. Endoscopy. Jun 2014;46(6):485-492. PMID 24777427.

18. Sung J, Ho KY, Chiu HM, et al. The use of Pillcam Colon in assessing mucosal inflammation in ulcerative colitis: a multicenter study. Endoscopy. Aug 2012;44(8):754-758. PMID 22696193.

19. Guturu P, Sagi SV, Ahn D, et al. Capsule endoscopy with PILLCAM ESO for detecting esophageal varices: a meta-analysis. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol. Mar 2011;57(1):1-11. PMID 21372764.

20. Bhardwaj A, Hollenbeak CS, Pooran N, et al. A meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of esophageal capsule endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. Jun 2009;104(6):1533-1539. PMID 19491867.

21. Urquhart P, Grimpen F, Lim GJ, et al. Capsule endoscopy versus magnetic resonance enterography for the detection of small bowel polyps in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Fam Cancer. Jun 2014;13(2):249-255. PMID 24509884.

22. Brown G, Fraser C, Schofield G, et al. Video capsule endoscopy in peutz-jeghers syndrome: a blinded comparison with barium follow-through for detection of small-bowel polyps. Endoscopy. Apr 2006;38(4):385-390. PMID 16680639.

23. Mata A, Llach J, Castells A, et al. A prospective trial comparing wireless capsule endoscopy and barium contrast series for small-bowel surveillance in hereditary GI polyposis syndromes. Gastrointest Endosc. May 2005;61(6):721-725. PMID 15855978.

24. Haanstra JF, Al-Toma A, Dekker E, et al. Prevalence of small-bowel neoplasia in Lynch syndrome assessed by video capsule endoscopy. Gut. Oct 2015;64(10):1578-1583. PMID 25209657.

25. Saurin JC, Pilleul F, Soussan EB, et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy diagnoses early and advanced neoplasms in asymptomatic patients with Lynch syndrome. Endoscopy. Dec 2010;42(12):1057-1062. PMID 20821360.

26. McCarty TR, Afinogenova Y, Njei B. Use of wireless capsule endoscopy for the diagnosis and grading of esophageal varices in patients with portal hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. Feb 2017;51(2):174-182. PMID 27548729.

27. Colli A, Gana JC, Turner D, et al. Capsule endoscopy for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices in people with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Oct 01 2014;10(10):CD008760. PMID 25271409.

28. Sung JJ, Tang RS, Ching JY, et al. Use of capsule endoscopy in the emergency department as a triage of patients with GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. Dec 2016;84(6):907-913. PMID 27156655.

29. Gutkin E, Shalomov A, Hussain SA, et al. Pillcam ESO((R)) is more accurate than clinical scoring systems in risk stratifying emergency room patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. May 2013;6(3):193-198. PMID 23634183.

30. Chandran S, Testro A, Urquhart P, et al. Risk stratification of upper GI bleeding with an esophageal capsule. Gastrointest Endosc. Jun 2013;77(6):891-898. PMID 23453185.

31. Gralnek IM, Ching JY, Maza I, et al. Capsule endoscopy in acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a prospective cohort study. Endoscopy. Dec 2013;45(1):12-19. PMID 23254402.

32. Spada C, Pasha SF, Gross SA, et al. Accuracy of first- and second-generation colon capsules in endoscopic detection of colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. Nov 2016;14(11):1533-1543 e1538. PMID 27165469.

33. Saito Y, Saito S, Oka S, et al. Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of colon capsule endoscopy in the detection of lesions of the colon: prospective, multicenter, open study. Gastrointest Endosc. Nov 2015;82(5):861-869. PMID 25936450.

34. Morgan DR, Malik PR, Romeo DP, et al. Initial US evaluation of second-generation capsule colonoscopy for detecting colon polyps. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. May 3 2016;3(1):e000089. PMID 27195129.

35. Parodi A, Vanbiervliet G, Hassan C, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in those with family histories of colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 2018;87(3):695-704. PMID 28554656.

36. Spada C, Shah SK, Riccioni ME, et al. Video capsule endoscopy in patients with known or suspected small bowel stricture previously tested with the dissolving patency capsule. J Clin Gastroenterol. Jul 2007;41(6):576-582. PMID 17577114.

37. Delvaux M, Ben Soussan E, Laurent V, et al. Clinical evaluation of the use of the M2A patency capsule system before a capsule endoscopy procedure, in patients with known or suspected intestinal stenosis. Endoscopy. Sep 2005;37(9):801-807. PMID 16116529.

38. Herrerias JM, Leighton JA, Costamagna G, et al. Agile patency system eliminates risk of capsule retention in patients with known intestinal strictures who undergo capsule endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. May 2008;67(6):902-909. PMID 18355824.

39. Postgate AJ, Burling D, Gupta A, et al. Safety, reliability and limitations of the given patency capsule in patients at risk of capsule retention: a 3-year technical review. Dig Dis Sci. Oct 2008;53(10):2732-2738. PMID 18320313.

40. Banerjee R, Bhargav P, Reddy P, et al. Safety and efficacy of the M2A patency capsule for diagnosis of critical intestinal patency: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. Dec 2007;22(12):2060-2063. PMID 17614957.

41. Rubio-Tapia A, Hill ID, Kelly CP, et al. ACG clinical guidelines: diagnosis and management of celiac disease. Am J Gastroenterol. May 2013;108(5):656-676; quiz 677. PMID 23609613.

42. Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV, Isaacs KL et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Crohn's Disease in Adults. Am. J. Gastroenterol., 2018 Apr 4;113(4). PMID 29610508.

43. Gerson LB, Fidler JL, Cave DR, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. Sep 2015;110(9):1265-1287; quiz 1288. PMID 26303132.

44. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Gurudu SR, Bruining DH, et al. The role of endoscopy in the management of suspected small-bowel bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. Jan 2017;85(1):22-31. PMID 27374798.

45. Enns RA, Hookey L, Armstrong D, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of video capsule endoscopy. Gastroenterology. Feb 2017;152(3):497-514. PMID 28063287.

46. U. S. Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. Jun 21 2016;315(23):2564-2575. PMID 27304597.

Codes:
(The list of codes is not intended to be all-inclusive and is included below for informational purposes only. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis, drug or device code(s) does not constitute or imply authorization, certification, approval, offer of coverage or guarantee of payment.)

CPT*

91110
91111
0355T