GI and Hepatology News

Pediatric gastroenterologists are a vital, yet often overlooked segment of the GI workforce and an important part of AGA’s diverse membership. Per the American Board of Pediatrics, 2,232 pediatricians have been board certified in pediatric gastroenterology since formal certification was first offered in 1990, and AGA Institute Council’s Pediatric Gastroenterology and Developmental Biology Section has nearly 1,900 members.

According to a recently published study in the journal Pediatrics, the pediatric GI workforce is expected to double by 2040, growing at a rate faster than that of most other pediatric subspecialties. This is largely due to the increased scope and complexity of the field driven by scientific advances and the increasing prevalence of digestive and liver diseases in children, including inflammatory bowel and other diseases.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we highlight Dr. Yoyo Zhang, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Stanford Children’s Health specializing in intestinal and liver transplantation. Her passion for her profession and for improving the lives of her patients shines brightly, and her interview provides fascinating insights into the complexities and rewards of the rapidly expanding field of pediatric gastroenterology.

University of Michigan

In our Perspectives feature, we offer expert insights on how to appropriately screen patients for certain rare malignancies. Is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and if so, how should it be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher-risk populations?

We hope you enjoy all the content in our November issue – as always, thanks for reading!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Pediatric gastroenterologists are a vital, yet often overlooked segment of the GI workforce and an important part of AGA’s diverse membership. Per the American Board of Pediatrics, 2,232 pediatricians have been board certified in pediatric gastroenterology since formal certification was first offered in 1990, and AGA Institute Council’s Pediatric Gastroenterology and Developmental Biology Section has nearly 1,900 members.

According to a recently published study in the journal Pediatrics, the pediatric GI workforce is expected to double by 2040, growing at a rate faster than that of most other pediatric subspecialties. This is largely due to the increased scope and complexity of the field driven by scientific advances and the increasing prevalence of digestive and liver diseases in children, including inflammatory bowel and other diseases.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we highlight Dr. Yoyo Zhang, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Stanford Children’s Health specializing in intestinal and liver transplantation. Her passion for her profession and for improving the lives of her patients shines brightly, and her interview provides fascinating insights into the complexities and rewards of the rapidly expanding field of pediatric gastroenterology.

University of Michigan

In our Perspectives feature, we offer expert insights on how to appropriately screen patients for certain rare malignancies. Is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and if so, how should it be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher-risk populations?

We hope you enjoy all the content in our November issue – as always, thanks for reading!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Pediatric gastroenterologists are a vital, yet often overlooked segment of the GI workforce and an important part of AGA’s diverse membership. Per the American Board of Pediatrics, 2,232 pediatricians have been board certified in pediatric gastroenterology since formal certification was first offered in 1990, and AGA Institute Council’s Pediatric Gastroenterology and Developmental Biology Section has nearly 1,900 members.

According to a recently published study in the journal Pediatrics, the pediatric GI workforce is expected to double by 2040, growing at a rate faster than that of most other pediatric subspecialties. This is largely due to the increased scope and complexity of the field driven by scientific advances and the increasing prevalence of digestive and liver diseases in children, including inflammatory bowel and other diseases.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we highlight Dr. Yoyo Zhang, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Stanford Children’s Health specializing in intestinal and liver transplantation. Her passion for her profession and for improving the lives of her patients shines brightly, and her interview provides fascinating insights into the complexities and rewards of the rapidly expanding field of pediatric gastroenterology.

University of Michigan

In our Perspectives feature, we offer expert insights on how to appropriately screen patients for certain rare malignancies. Is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and if so, how should it be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher-risk populations?

We hope you enjoy all the content in our November issue – as always, thanks for reading!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Dear colleagues,

As gastroenterologists and endoscopists, we spend significant time preventing and diagnosing GI malignancies. While colorectal and esophageal cancer and their precursor lesions are well known to us, our approach to rarer malignancies is less well defined.

For instance, is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and, if so, how should this be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher risk populations, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis? And what about the costs, financial and otherwise, associated with screening?

An Approach to Pancreatic Cancer Screening

BY DANIEL A. BERNSTEIN, MD, AND DARSHAN KOTHARI, MD

Pancreatic cancer carries a dismal prognosis, now accounting for the third-most cancer-related mortality in the United States. A small proportion of patients are diagnosed at a local stage of disease, with over half found to have metastatic disease at presentation. Given the low overall incidence and lifetime risk in the general population, population-based screening is not justified.

About 10% of cases of pancreas cancer are associated with germ-line mutations and/or with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Several academic societies and expert committees now recommend regular screening for pancreatic cancer in patients who are considered high-risk individuals, as they carry a fivefold relative risk for pancreatic cancer. Moreover, studies suggest that screening has the potential to identify early-stage resectable disease and decrease mortality in this patient population.

Duke University

Patients who benefit from pancreatic cancer screening are those who carry an increased lifetime risk (in excess of 5%) of pancreatic cancer. High-risk individuals include those with germ-line mutations and/or those with a family history of pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives. Consensus guidelines by the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provide medical centers with detailed recommendations on who and when to start screening.

High-risk individuals fall into three categories:

• Patients with high-risk germline mutations including: familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome (CDKN2A), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (STK11), and hereditary pancreatitis (PRSS1 and SPINK1)
• Patients with low- to moderate-risk germ-line mutations with at least one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer: Lynch Syndrome (particularly MLH1 mutation), ataxia-telangiectasia (ATM), or Li-Fraumeni syndrome (p53)
• Patients with one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer who in turn has one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer (eg, a patient’s mother and maternal aunt or a patient’s father and patient’s sister)

Consistent with established guidelines, we recommend screening for high-risk patients beginning at age 50, or 10 years before the youngest age at which pancreas cancer was diagnosed in an affected relative. Screening is recommended earlier in patients with particularly high risk: at age 40 for patients with CDKN2A and STKI11 mutations and age 40 for patients with PRSS1 mutation or 20 years after the first attack of acute pancreatitis. For patients with a strong family history of pancreas cancer, we recommend comprehensive evaluation by a certified genetic counselor at a high-volume cancer center.

Duke University

In practice, patients at our institution who are identified as high risk based on the above criteria are referred for an initial consultation at our pancreas center. In most cases, this should occur no sooner than 5 years prior to the recommended starting age for screening. All patients who are identified as high risk should be screened annually for diabetes given the growing evidence base supporting an association between new-onset diabetes and pancreatic cancer.

After an initial visit and discussion of the risks and benefits of screening, most screening protocols start with a baseline endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance abdomen with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP), which will be repeated annually or sooner as the clinical condition warrants. A sooner-interval EUS should be considered for patients already undergoing screening who are newly found to have diabetes.

At our institution, we start with an in-person clinic evaluation followed by EUS. Thereafter, patients undergo MRI/MRCP (synchronized with a same-day clinic visit) alternating with EUS every 6 months to ensure patients are seen twice a year, though there is no specific data to support this approach. Non-diabetics also undergo yearly diabetes screening which will trigger an EUS if patients become diabetic.

We engage in shared decision-making with our high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening and at each visit we review their concurrent medical conditions and suitability to continue screening. We consider discontinuing screening after age 75, at the onset of any life-limiting illness, or after a discussion of risks and benefits if comorbidities lead to a substantial deterioration in a patient’s overall health status.

While a growing body of evidence exists to support the application of pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals, this preventive service remains underutilized. Recent analysis of the screening cohort at our institution showed a demographically homogeneous group of mostly highly educated, high-income White females. These findings are consistent with the patient cohorts described in other pancreatic cancer screening programs and represent only a fraction of people who would qualify for pancreatic cancer screening.

A survey of patients undergoing screening at our institution identified cost, travel, and time associated with pancreatic cancer screening to be frequent challenges to participation. Further studies are needed to fully explore the barriers and psychological burden of pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals, and to identify ways to enrich the cohort of patients undergoing screening. This may involve novel methods to identify family members of patients with a new diagnosis of pancreas cancer and increasing health literacy around pancreatic cancer screening among patients and providers.

Pancreatic cancer screening has the potential to identify early-stage disease in patients who are at high risk because of germ-line mutations and/or family history. We recommend that patients engage in pancreatic cancer screening at high-volume centers with well-supported oncology, genetics, and research infrastructure.

Dr. Bernstein is a gastroenterology fellow at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Kothari is an associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Duke University School of Medicine.

Screening for Cholangiocarcinoma

BY JUDAH KUPFERMAN, MD, AND APARNA GOEL, MD

Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare but aggressive cancer of the bile ducts that poses many diagnostic challenges. Approximately 3% of gastrointestinal cancers are attributed to cholangiocarcinoma, and while the annual incidence of disease in the United States is about 1.26 per 100,000 people, the incidence of intrahepatic disease has been rising considerably.^1,2 Screening for cholangiocarcinoma is reserved for high-risk individuals — such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), secondary sclerosing cholangitis (SSC), and biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts or Caroli’s disease. The goal is to balance the benefits of early diagnosis with the costs and risks associated with screening, particularly given the limitations of available tools like MRI with cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), which has a sensitivity of 70%-85%. In general, we recommend annual cholangiocarcinoma screening for high-risk individuals with MRI and MRCP as well as with cancer antigen (CA) 19-9. .

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

The lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC is 10%-15% with an annual risk of 0.5%-1.5%. In our experience, this is often the most feared complication for PSC patients, even more so than the risk of liver transplantation. We recommend annual MRI with MRCP in addition to CA 19-9 for patients with PSC in the first decade of their diagnosis, as most cancers are diagnosed during this period. If a patient’s imaging has remained stable for over a decade and there is minimal hepatic fibrosis, we discuss the option of reducing screening frequency to every 2 years to minimize costs and exposure to MRI contrast risks.

If MRI reveals a concerning new large duct stricture, we will evaluate this with an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), as differentiating benign and malignant strictures is quite challenging with MRI. We generally recommend ERCP with brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization to improve diagnostic yield. Depending on imaging findings and location of the new large duct stricture, we may consider cholangioscopy during ERCP for direct visualization of the bile duct and directed tissue biopsies. Unfortunately, even in young, asymptomatic patients who undergo regular screening, cholangiocarcinoma is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage.
 

Screening in Patients with Secondary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Patients with SSC may develop cholangiocarcinoma because of chronic inflammatory and fibrotic processes, such as IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, sarcoidosis, ischemic cholangiopathy, cystic fibrosis, recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, severe sepsis (as recently seen from SARS-CoV-2), surgical complications, or other etiologies. When the condition is reversible, such as with IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, cancer screening may not be necessary. However, when irreversible damage occurs, the cancer risk increases, though it varies by disease type and severity. In most cases, we recommend routine screening for cholangiocarcinoma with MRI and CA 19-9 in this population.

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Biliary Tract Disorders

Biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts and Caroli’s disease also harbor an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Choledochal cysts are congenital cystic dilations of the bile duct that have a 10%-30% lifetime risk of malignant transformation to cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical intervention to remove the cyst is often recommended because of this high risk. However, some patients may be unable or unwilling to undergo this surgery or they may have residual cysts. We recommend ongoing screening with MRI and CA 19-9 for these patients. Similarly, Caroli’s disease is a congenital disease associated with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct cysts and associated with a 5%-15% lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma. MRI with MRCP and CA 19-9 should be performed routinely for patients with Caroli’s disease and syndrome.

Risks and Challenges in Cholangiocarcinoma Screening

While MRI with MRCP is the gold standard for cholangiocarcinoma screening, its limitations must be carefully considered. One growing concern is the potential for gadolinium retention in the brain, bones, or skin following repeated MRI scans. Though the long-term effects of gadolinium retention are not fully understood, we factor this into screening decisions, particularly for younger patients who may undergo decades of regular imaging.

MRI is not always feasible for certain patients, including those with metal implants, on hemodialysis, or with severe allergic reactions. In such cases, CT or ultrasound may serve as alternatives, though with lower sensitivity for detecting cholangiocarcinoma. Additionally, claustrophobia during MRI can be addressed with sedation, but this underscores the importance of shared decision-making.

From our perspective, cholangiocarcinoma screening in high-risk patients is crucial but not without challenges. Our current screening methods, while essential, are far from perfect, often missing early cancers or leading to unnecessary interventions. Because of these limitations, the window for treatment of localized disease can easily be missed. In our practice, we tailor screening strategies to each patient’s specific needs, weighing the potential benefits against the risks, costs, and the inherent uncertainty of early detection tools. We believe it is essential to involve patients in this decision-making process to provide a balanced, individualized approach that considers both clinical evidence and the personal preferences of each person.

Dr. Kupferman is a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. Dr. Goel is a transplant hepatologist and a clinical associate professor in gastroenterology & hepatology at Stanford.

References

1. Vithayathil M and Khan SA. J Hepatol. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.07.022.

2. Patel N and Benipal B. Cureus. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3962.

Dear colleagues,

As gastroenterologists and endoscopists, we spend significant time preventing and diagnosing GI malignancies. While colorectal and esophageal cancer and their precursor lesions are well known to us, our approach to rarer malignancies is less well defined.

For instance, is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and, if so, how should this be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher risk populations, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis? And what about the costs, financial and otherwise, associated with screening?

An Approach to Pancreatic Cancer Screening

BY DANIEL A. BERNSTEIN, MD, AND DARSHAN KOTHARI, MD

Pancreatic cancer carries a dismal prognosis, now accounting for the third-most cancer-related mortality in the United States. A small proportion of patients are diagnosed at a local stage of disease, with over half found to have metastatic disease at presentation. Given the low overall incidence and lifetime risk in the general population, population-based screening is not justified.

About 10% of cases of pancreas cancer are associated with germ-line mutations and/or with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Several academic societies and expert committees now recommend regular screening for pancreatic cancer in patients who are considered high-risk individuals, as they carry a fivefold relative risk for pancreatic cancer. Moreover, studies suggest that screening has the potential to identify early-stage resectable disease and decrease mortality in this patient population.

Duke University

Patients who benefit from pancreatic cancer screening are those who carry an increased lifetime risk (in excess of 5%) of pancreatic cancer. High-risk individuals include those with germ-line mutations and/or those with a family history of pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives. Consensus guidelines by the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provide medical centers with detailed recommendations on who and when to start screening.

High-risk individuals fall into three categories:

• Patients with high-risk germline mutations including: familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome (CDKN2A), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (STK11), and hereditary pancreatitis (PRSS1 and SPINK1)
• Patients with low- to moderate-risk germ-line mutations with at least one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer: Lynch Syndrome (particularly MLH1 mutation), ataxia-telangiectasia (ATM), or Li-Fraumeni syndrome (p53)
• Patients with one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer who in turn has one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer (eg, a patient’s mother and maternal aunt or a patient’s father and patient’s sister)

Consistent with established guidelines, we recommend screening for high-risk patients beginning at age 50, or 10 years before the youngest age at which pancreas cancer was diagnosed in an affected relative. Screening is recommended earlier in patients with particularly high risk: at age 40 for patients with CDKN2A and STKI11 mutations and age 40 for patients with PRSS1 mutation or 20 years after the first attack of acute pancreatitis. For patients with a strong family history of pancreas cancer, we recommend comprehensive evaluation by a certified genetic counselor at a high-volume cancer center.

Duke University

In practice, patients at our institution who are identified as high risk based on the above criteria are referred for an initial consultation at our pancreas center. In most cases, this should occur no sooner than 5 years prior to the recommended starting age for screening. All patients who are identified as high risk should be screened annually for diabetes given the growing evidence base supporting an association between new-onset diabetes and pancreatic cancer.

After an initial visit and discussion of the risks and benefits of screening, most screening protocols start with a baseline endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance abdomen with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP), which will be repeated annually or sooner as the clinical condition warrants. A sooner-interval EUS should be considered for patients already undergoing screening who are newly found to have diabetes.

At our institution, we start with an in-person clinic evaluation followed by EUS. Thereafter, patients undergo MRI/MRCP (synchronized with a same-day clinic visit) alternating with EUS every 6 months to ensure patients are seen twice a year, though there is no specific data to support this approach. Non-diabetics also undergo yearly diabetes screening which will trigger an EUS if patients become diabetic.

We engage in shared decision-making with our high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening and at each visit we review their concurrent medical conditions and suitability to continue screening. We consider discontinuing screening after age 75, at the onset of any life-limiting illness, or after a discussion of risks and benefits if comorbidities lead to a substantial deterioration in a patient’s overall health status.

While a growing body of evidence exists to support the application of pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals, this preventive service remains underutilized. Recent analysis of the screening cohort at our institution showed a demographically homogeneous group of mostly highly educated, high-income White females. These findings are consistent with the patient cohorts described in other pancreatic cancer screening programs and represent only a fraction of people who would qualify for pancreatic cancer screening.

A survey of patients undergoing screening at our institution identified cost, travel, and time associated with pancreatic cancer screening to be frequent challenges to participation. Further studies are needed to fully explore the barriers and psychological burden of pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals, and to identify ways to enrich the cohort of patients undergoing screening. This may involve novel methods to identify family members of patients with a new diagnosis of pancreas cancer and increasing health literacy around pancreatic cancer screening among patients and providers.

Pancreatic cancer screening has the potential to identify early-stage disease in patients who are at high risk because of germ-line mutations and/or family history. We recommend that patients engage in pancreatic cancer screening at high-volume centers with well-supported oncology, genetics, and research infrastructure.

Dr. Bernstein is a gastroenterology fellow at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Kothari is an associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Duke University School of Medicine.

Screening for Cholangiocarcinoma

BY JUDAH KUPFERMAN, MD, AND APARNA GOEL, MD

Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare but aggressive cancer of the bile ducts that poses many diagnostic challenges. Approximately 3% of gastrointestinal cancers are attributed to cholangiocarcinoma, and while the annual incidence of disease in the United States is about 1.26 per 100,000 people, the incidence of intrahepatic disease has been rising considerably.^1,2 Screening for cholangiocarcinoma is reserved for high-risk individuals — such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), secondary sclerosing cholangitis (SSC), and biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts or Caroli’s disease. The goal is to balance the benefits of early diagnosis with the costs and risks associated with screening, particularly given the limitations of available tools like MRI with cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), which has a sensitivity of 70%-85%. In general, we recommend annual cholangiocarcinoma screening for high-risk individuals with MRI and MRCP as well as with cancer antigen (CA) 19-9. .

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

The lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC is 10%-15% with an annual risk of 0.5%-1.5%. In our experience, this is often the most feared complication for PSC patients, even more so than the risk of liver transplantation. We recommend annual MRI with MRCP in addition to CA 19-9 for patients with PSC in the first decade of their diagnosis, as most cancers are diagnosed during this period. If a patient’s imaging has remained stable for over a decade and there is minimal hepatic fibrosis, we discuss the option of reducing screening frequency to every 2 years to minimize costs and exposure to MRI contrast risks.

If MRI reveals a concerning new large duct stricture, we will evaluate this with an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), as differentiating benign and malignant strictures is quite challenging with MRI. We generally recommend ERCP with brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization to improve diagnostic yield. Depending on imaging findings and location of the new large duct stricture, we may consider cholangioscopy during ERCP for direct visualization of the bile duct and directed tissue biopsies. Unfortunately, even in young, asymptomatic patients who undergo regular screening, cholangiocarcinoma is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage.
 

Screening in Patients with Secondary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Patients with SSC may develop cholangiocarcinoma because of chronic inflammatory and fibrotic processes, such as IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, sarcoidosis, ischemic cholangiopathy, cystic fibrosis, recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, severe sepsis (as recently seen from SARS-CoV-2), surgical complications, or other etiologies. When the condition is reversible, such as with IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, cancer screening may not be necessary. However, when irreversible damage occurs, the cancer risk increases, though it varies by disease type and severity. In most cases, we recommend routine screening for cholangiocarcinoma with MRI and CA 19-9 in this population.

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Biliary Tract Disorders

Biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts and Caroli’s disease also harbor an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Choledochal cysts are congenital cystic dilations of the bile duct that have a 10%-30% lifetime risk of malignant transformation to cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical intervention to remove the cyst is often recommended because of this high risk. However, some patients may be unable or unwilling to undergo this surgery or they may have residual cysts. We recommend ongoing screening with MRI and CA 19-9 for these patients. Similarly, Caroli’s disease is a congenital disease associated with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct cysts and associated with a 5%-15% lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma. MRI with MRCP and CA 19-9 should be performed routinely for patients with Caroli’s disease and syndrome.

Risks and Challenges in Cholangiocarcinoma Screening

While MRI with MRCP is the gold standard for cholangiocarcinoma screening, its limitations must be carefully considered. One growing concern is the potential for gadolinium retention in the brain, bones, or skin following repeated MRI scans. Though the long-term effects of gadolinium retention are not fully understood, we factor this into screening decisions, particularly for younger patients who may undergo decades of regular imaging.

MRI is not always feasible for certain patients, including those with metal implants, on hemodialysis, or with severe allergic reactions. In such cases, CT or ultrasound may serve as alternatives, though with lower sensitivity for detecting cholangiocarcinoma. Additionally, claustrophobia during MRI can be addressed with sedation, but this underscores the importance of shared decision-making.

From our perspective, cholangiocarcinoma screening in high-risk patients is crucial but not without challenges. Our current screening methods, while essential, are far from perfect, often missing early cancers or leading to unnecessary interventions. Because of these limitations, the window for treatment of localized disease can easily be missed. In our practice, we tailor screening strategies to each patient’s specific needs, weighing the potential benefits against the risks, costs, and the inherent uncertainty of early detection tools. We believe it is essential to involve patients in this decision-making process to provide a balanced, individualized approach that considers both clinical evidence and the personal preferences of each person.

Dr. Kupferman is a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. Dr. Goel is a transplant hepatologist and a clinical associate professor in gastroenterology & hepatology at Stanford.

References

1. Vithayathil M and Khan SA. J Hepatol. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.07.022.

2. Patel N and Benipal B. Cureus. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3962.

Dear colleagues,

As gastroenterologists and endoscopists, we spend significant time preventing and diagnosing GI malignancies. While colorectal and esophageal cancer and their precursor lesions are well known to us, our approach to rarer malignancies is less well defined.

For instance, is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and, if so, how should this be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher risk populations, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis? And what about the costs, financial and otherwise, associated with screening?

An Approach to Pancreatic Cancer Screening

BY DANIEL A. BERNSTEIN, MD, AND DARSHAN KOTHARI, MD

Pancreatic cancer carries a dismal prognosis, now accounting for the third-most cancer-related mortality in the United States. A small proportion of patients are diagnosed at a local stage of disease, with over half found to have metastatic disease at presentation. Given the low overall incidence and lifetime risk in the general population, population-based screening is not justified.

About 10% of cases of pancreas cancer are associated with germ-line mutations and/or with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Several academic societies and expert committees now recommend regular screening for pancreatic cancer in patients who are considered high-risk individuals, as they carry a fivefold relative risk for pancreatic cancer. Moreover, studies suggest that screening has the potential to identify early-stage resectable disease and decrease mortality in this patient population.

Duke University

Patients who benefit from pancreatic cancer screening are those who carry an increased lifetime risk (in excess of 5%) of pancreatic cancer. High-risk individuals include those with germ-line mutations and/or those with a family history of pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives. Consensus guidelines by the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provide medical centers with detailed recommendations on who and when to start screening.

High-risk individuals fall into three categories:

• Patients with high-risk germline mutations including: familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome (CDKN2A), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (STK11), and hereditary pancreatitis (PRSS1 and SPINK1)
• Patients with low- to moderate-risk germ-line mutations with at least one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer: Lynch Syndrome (particularly MLH1 mutation), ataxia-telangiectasia (ATM), or Li-Fraumeni syndrome (p53)
• Patients with one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer who in turn has one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer (eg, a patient’s mother and maternal aunt or a patient’s father and patient’s sister)

Consistent with established guidelines, we recommend screening for high-risk patients beginning at age 50, or 10 years before the youngest age at which pancreas cancer was diagnosed in an affected relative. Screening is recommended earlier in patients with particularly high risk: at age 40 for patients with CDKN2A and STKI11 mutations and age 40 for patients with PRSS1 mutation or 20 years after the first attack of acute pancreatitis. For patients with a strong family history of pancreas cancer, we recommend comprehensive evaluation by a certified genetic counselor at a high-volume cancer center.

Duke University

In practice, patients at our institution who are identified as high risk based on the above criteria are referred for an initial consultation at our pancreas center. In most cases, this should occur no sooner than 5 years prior to the recommended starting age for screening. All patients who are identified as high risk should be screened annually for diabetes given the growing evidence base supporting an association between new-onset diabetes and pancreatic cancer.

After an initial visit and discussion of the risks and benefits of screening, most screening protocols start with a baseline endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance abdomen with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP), which will be repeated annually or sooner as the clinical condition warrants. A sooner-interval EUS should be considered for patients already undergoing screening who are newly found to have diabetes.

At our institution, we start with an in-person clinic evaluation followed by EUS. Thereafter, patients undergo MRI/MRCP (synchronized with a same-day clinic visit) alternating with EUS every 6 months to ensure patients are seen twice a year, though there is no specific data to support this approach. Non-diabetics also undergo yearly diabetes screening which will trigger an EUS if patients become diabetic.

We engage in shared decision-making with our high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening and at each visit we review their concurrent medical conditions and suitability to continue screening. We consider discontinuing screening after age 75, at the onset of any life-limiting illness, or after a discussion of risks and benefits if comorbidities lead to a substantial deterioration in a patient’s overall health status.

While a growing body of evidence exists to support the application of pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals, this preventive service remains underutilized. Recent analysis of the screening cohort at our institution showed a demographically homogeneous group of mostly highly educated, high-income White females. These findings are consistent with the patient cohorts described in other pancreatic cancer screening programs and represent only a fraction of people who would qualify for pancreatic cancer screening.

A survey of patients undergoing screening at our institution identified cost, travel, and time associated with pancreatic cancer screening to be frequent challenges to participation. Further studies are needed to fully explore the barriers and psychological burden of pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals, and to identify ways to enrich the cohort of patients undergoing screening. This may involve novel methods to identify family members of patients with a new diagnosis of pancreas cancer and increasing health literacy around pancreatic cancer screening among patients and providers.

Pancreatic cancer screening has the potential to identify early-stage disease in patients who are at high risk because of germ-line mutations and/or family history. We recommend that patients engage in pancreatic cancer screening at high-volume centers with well-supported oncology, genetics, and research infrastructure.

Dr. Bernstein is a gastroenterology fellow at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Kothari is an associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Duke University School of Medicine.

Screening for Cholangiocarcinoma

BY JUDAH KUPFERMAN, MD, AND APARNA GOEL, MD

Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare but aggressive cancer of the bile ducts that poses many diagnostic challenges. Approximately 3% of gastrointestinal cancers are attributed to cholangiocarcinoma, and while the annual incidence of disease in the United States is about 1.26 per 100,000 people, the incidence of intrahepatic disease has been rising considerably.^1,2 Screening for cholangiocarcinoma is reserved for high-risk individuals — such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), secondary sclerosing cholangitis (SSC), and biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts or Caroli’s disease. The goal is to balance the benefits of early diagnosis with the costs and risks associated with screening, particularly given the limitations of available tools like MRI with cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), which has a sensitivity of 70%-85%. In general, we recommend annual cholangiocarcinoma screening for high-risk individuals with MRI and MRCP as well as with cancer antigen (CA) 19-9. .

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

The lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC is 10%-15% with an annual risk of 0.5%-1.5%. In our experience, this is often the most feared complication for PSC patients, even more so than the risk of liver transplantation. We recommend annual MRI with MRCP in addition to CA 19-9 for patients with PSC in the first decade of their diagnosis, as most cancers are diagnosed during this period. If a patient’s imaging has remained stable for over a decade and there is minimal hepatic fibrosis, we discuss the option of reducing screening frequency to every 2 years to minimize costs and exposure to MRI contrast risks.

If MRI reveals a concerning new large duct stricture, we will evaluate this with an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), as differentiating benign and malignant strictures is quite challenging with MRI. We generally recommend ERCP with brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization to improve diagnostic yield. Depending on imaging findings and location of the new large duct stricture, we may consider cholangioscopy during ERCP for direct visualization of the bile duct and directed tissue biopsies. Unfortunately, even in young, asymptomatic patients who undergo regular screening, cholangiocarcinoma is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage.
 

Screening in Patients with Secondary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Patients with SSC may develop cholangiocarcinoma because of chronic inflammatory and fibrotic processes, such as IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, sarcoidosis, ischemic cholangiopathy, cystic fibrosis, recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, severe sepsis (as recently seen from SARS-CoV-2), surgical complications, or other etiologies. When the condition is reversible, such as with IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, cancer screening may not be necessary. However, when irreversible damage occurs, the cancer risk increases, though it varies by disease type and severity. In most cases, we recommend routine screening for cholangiocarcinoma with MRI and CA 19-9 in this population.

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Biliary Tract Disorders

Biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts and Caroli’s disease also harbor an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Choledochal cysts are congenital cystic dilations of the bile duct that have a 10%-30% lifetime risk of malignant transformation to cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical intervention to remove the cyst is often recommended because of this high risk. However, some patients may be unable or unwilling to undergo this surgery or they may have residual cysts. We recommend ongoing screening with MRI and CA 19-9 for these patients. Similarly, Caroli’s disease is a congenital disease associated with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct cysts and associated with a 5%-15% lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma. MRI with MRCP and CA 19-9 should be performed routinely for patients with Caroli’s disease and syndrome.

Risks and Challenges in Cholangiocarcinoma Screening

While MRI with MRCP is the gold standard for cholangiocarcinoma screening, its limitations must be carefully considered. One growing concern is the potential for gadolinium retention in the brain, bones, or skin following repeated MRI scans. Though the long-term effects of gadolinium retention are not fully understood, we factor this into screening decisions, particularly for younger patients who may undergo decades of regular imaging.

MRI is not always feasible for certain patients, including those with metal implants, on hemodialysis, or with severe allergic reactions. In such cases, CT or ultrasound may serve as alternatives, though with lower sensitivity for detecting cholangiocarcinoma. Additionally, claustrophobia during MRI can be addressed with sedation, but this underscores the importance of shared decision-making.

From our perspective, cholangiocarcinoma screening in high-risk patients is crucial but not without challenges. Our current screening methods, while essential, are far from perfect, often missing early cancers or leading to unnecessary interventions. Because of these limitations, the window for treatment of localized disease can easily be missed. In our practice, we tailor screening strategies to each patient’s specific needs, weighing the potential benefits against the risks, costs, and the inherent uncertainty of early detection tools. We believe it is essential to involve patients in this decision-making process to provide a balanced, individualized approach that considers both clinical evidence and the personal preferences of each person.

Dr. Kupferman is a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. Dr. Goel is a transplant hepatologist and a clinical associate professor in gastroenterology & hepatology at Stanford.

References

1. Vithayathil M and Khan SA. J Hepatol. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.07.022.

2. Patel N and Benipal B. Cureus. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3962.

Introduction

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a frequently encountered condition, and rising annually.¹ A recent meta-analysis suggests nearly 14% (1.03 billion) of the population are affected worldwide. Differences may range by region from 12% in Latin America to 20% in North America, and by country from 4% in China to 23% in Turkey.¹ In the United States, 21% of the population are afflicted with weekly GERD symptoms.² Novel medical therapies and endoscopic options provide clinicians with opportunities to help patients with GERD.³Herein, we review diagnostics as well as the evolution of medical, endoscopic and basic surgical management for GERD.

Diagnosis

Definition

courtesy University of Southern California

GERD was originally defined by the Montreal consensus as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications.⁴ Heartburn and regurgitation are common symptoms of GERD, with a sensitivity of 30%-76% and specificity of 62%-96% for erosive esophagitis (EE), which occurs when the reflux of stomach content causes esophageal mucosal breaks.⁵ The presence of characteristic mucosal injury observed during an upper endoscopy or abnormal esophageal acid exposure on ambulatory reflux monitoring are objective evidence of GERD. A trial of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may function as a diagnostic test for patients exhibiting the typical symptoms of GERD without any alarm symptoms.^3,6

Endoscopic Evaluation and Confirmation

The 2022 American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) clinical practice update recommends diagnostic endoscopy, after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks, in patients whose GERD symptoms do not respond adequately to an empiric trial of a PPI.³ Those with GERD and alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, bleeding, and vomiting should undergo endoscopy as soon as possible. Endoscopic findings of EE (Los Angeles Grade B or more severe) and long-segment Barrett’s esophagus (> 3-cm segment with intestinal metaplasia on biopsy) are diagnostic of GERD.³

Reflux Monitoring

courtesy University of Southern California

With ambulatory reflux monitoring (pH or impedance-pH), esophageal acid exposure (or neutral refluxate in impedance testing) can be measured to confirm GERD diagnosis and to correlate symptoms with reflux episodes. Patients with atypical GERD symptoms or patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GERD whose symptoms have not improved sufficiently with twice-daily PPI therapy should have esophageal impedance-pH monitoring while on PPIs.^6,7

Esophageal Manometry

High-resolution esophageal manometry can be used to assess motility abnormalities associated with GERD.

Although no manometric abnormality is unique to GERD, weak lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure and ineffective esophageal motility frequently coexist with severe GERD.⁶

Manometry is particularly useful in patients considering surgical or endoscopic anti-reflux procedures to evaluate for achalasia,³ an important contraindication to surgery.
 

Medical Management

courtesy University of Southern California

Management of GERD requires a multidisciplinary and personalized approach based on symptom presentation, body mass index, endoscopic findings (e.g., presence of EE, Barrett’s esophagus, hiatal hernia), and physiological abnormalities (e.g., gastroparesis or ineffective motility).³

Lifestyle Modifications

Recommended lifestyle modifications include weight loss for patients with obesity, stress reduction, tobacco and alcohol cessation, elevating the head of the bed, staying upright during and after meals, avoidance of food intake < 3 hours before bedtime, and cessation of foods that potentially aggravate reflux symptoms such as coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, acidic foods, and foods with high fat content.^6,8

Medications

Pharmacologic therapy for GERD includes medications that primarily aim to neutralize or reduce gastric acid -- we summarize options in Table 1.^3,8

MDedge News

Proton Pump Inhibitors

Most guidelines suggest a trial of 4-8 weeks of once-daily enteric-coated PPI before meals in patients with typical GERD symptoms and no alarm symptoms. Escalation to double-dose PPI may be considered in the case of persistent symptoms. The relative potencies of standard-dose pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and rabeprazole are presented in Table 1.⁹ When a PPI switch is needed, rabeprazole may be considered as it is a PPI that does not rely on CYP2C19 for primary metabolism.⁹

Acid suppression should be weaned down to the lowest effective dose or converted to H2RAs or other antacids once symptoms are sufficiently controlled unless patients have EE, Barrett’s esophagus, or peptic stricture.³ Patients with severe GERD may require long-term PPI therapy or an invasive anti-reflux procedure.

Recent studies have shown that potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCAB) like vonoprazan may offer more effective gastric acid inhibition. While not included in the latest clinical practice update, vonoprazan is thought to be superior to lansoprazole for those with LA Grade C/D esophagitis for both symptom relief and healing at 2 weeks.¹⁰

Adjunctive Therapies

Alginates can function as a physical barrier to even neutral reflux and may be helpful for patients with postprandial or nighttime symptoms as well as those with hiatal hernia.³ H2RAs can also help mitigate nighttime symptoms.³ Baclofen is a gamma-aminobutyric acid–B agonist which inhibits transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) and may be effective for patients with belching.³ Prokinetics may be helpful for GERD with concomitant gastroparesis^.3 Sucralfate is a mucosal protective agent, but there is a lack of data supporting its efficacy in GERD treatment. Consider referral to a behavioral therapist for supplemental therapies, hypnotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies for functional heartburn or reflux-associated esophageal hypervigilance or reflux hypersensitivity.³

When to Refer to Higher Level of Care

For patients who do not wish to remain on longer-term pharmacologic therapy or would benefit from anatomic repair, clinicians should have a discussion of risks and benefits prior to consideration of referral for anti-reflux procedures.^3,6,8 We advise this conversation should include review of patient health status, postsurgical side effects such as increased flatus, bloating and dysphagia as well as the potential need to still resume PPI post operation.⁸

Endoscopic Management

Patient Selection And Evaluation

For the groups indicated for a higher level of care, we agree with AGA recommendations, multi-society guidelines, and expert review,^3,7,11,12 and highlight potential options in Table 2. Step-up options should be based on patient characteristics and reviewed carefully with patients. Endoscopic therapies are less invasive than surgery and may be considered for those who do not require anatomic repair of hiatal hernia, do not want surgery, or are not suitable for surgery.

MDedge News

The pathophysiology of GERD is from a loss of the anti-reflux barrier of the esophageal gastric junction (EGJ) at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) leading to unintended retrograde movement of gastric contents.⁶ Anatomically, the LES is composed of muscles of the distal esophagus and sling fibers of the proximal stomach, the “external valve” from the diaphragmatic crura, and the “internal valve” from the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV). GERD occurs from mechanical failure of the LES. First, there may be disproportional dilation of the diaphragmatic crura as categorized by Hill Grade of the GEFV as seen by a retroflexed view of EGJ after 30-45 seconds of insufflation.¹³ Second, there may be a migration of the LES away from the diaphragmatic crura as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Provocative maneuvers may reveal a sliding hernia by gentle retraction of the endoscope while under retroflexed view.¹³ Third, there may be more frequent TLESR associated with GERD.¹²

The aim of most interventions is to restore competency of the LES by reconstruction of the GEFV via suture or staple-based approximation of tissue.^11,12 Intraluminal therapy may only target the GEFV at the internal valve. Therefore, most endoscopic interventions are limited to patients with intact diaphragmatic crura (ie, small to no hiatal hernia and GEFV Hill Grade 1 to 2). Contraindications for endoscopic therapy are moderate to severe reflux (ie, LA Grade C/ D), hiatus hernia 2 cm or larger, strictures, or long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.
 

Utility, Safety, and Outcomes of TIF

Historically, endoscopic therapy targeting endoscopic fundoplication started with EndoLuminal gastro-gastric fundoplication (ELF, 2005) which was a proof of concept of safe manipulation and suture for gastro-gastric plication to below the Z-line. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) 1.0 was suggested in 2007 for clinical application by proposing a longitudinal oriented esophago-gastric plication 1 cm above the Z-line.

In 2009, TIF2.0 was proposed as a rotational 270° wrap of the cardia and fundus to a full-thickness esophago-gastric fundoplication around 2-4 cm of the distal esophagus. Like a surgical fundoplication, this reinforces sling fibers, increases the Angle of His and improves the cardiac notch. TIF 2.0 is indicated for those with small (< 2 cm) or no hiatal hernia and a GEFV Hill Grade 1 or 2. The present iteration of TIF2.0 uses EsophyX-Z (EndoGastric Solutions; Redmond, Washington) which features dual fastener deployment and a simplified firing mechanism. Plication is secured via nonresorbable polypropylene T-fasteners with strength equivalence of 3-0 sutures.

Compared with the original, TIF2.0 represents a decrease of severe adverse events from 2%-2.5% to 0.4%-1%.^11,14 Based on longitudinal TEMPO data, patient satisfaction ranges between 70% and 90% and rates of patients reverting to daily PPI use are 17% and 34% at 1 and 5 years. A 5% reintervention rate was noted to be comparable with surgical reoperation for fundoplication.¹⁵ One retrospective evaluation of patients with failed TIF followed by successful cTIF noted that in all failures there was a documented underestimation of a much larger crura defect at time of index procedure.¹⁶ Chest pain is common post procedure and patients and collaborating providers should be counseled on the expected course. In our practice, we admit patients for at least 1 postprocedure day and consider scheduling symptom control medications for those with significant pain.
 

TIF2.0 for Special Populations

Indications for TIF2.0 continue to evolve. In 2017, concomitant TIF2.0 with hiatal hernia repair (cTIF or HH-TIF) for hernia > 2 cm was accepted for expanded use. In one study, cTIF has been shown to have similar outcomes for postprocedural PPI use, dysphagia, wrap disruption, and hiatal hernia recurrence, compared with hiatal hernia repair paired with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with possibly shorter postadmission stay, serious adverse events, and bloating.¹⁷ A cTIF may be performed in a single general anesthetic session typically with a surgical hiatal hernia repair followed by TIF2.0.

Other Endoscopic Procedures

Several other endoscopic interventions have been proposed for GERD management. The following procedures are under continuous study and should be considered only by those with expertise.
 

Stretta

The Stretta device (Restech; Houston, Texas) was approved in 2000 for use of a radiofrequency (RF) generator and catheter applied to the squamocolumnar junction under irrigation. Ideal candidates for this nonablative procedure may include patients with confirmed GERD, low-grade EE, without Barrett’s esophagus, small hiatal hernia, and a competent LES with pressure > 5 mmHg. Meta-analysis has yielded conflicting results in terms of its efficacy, compared with TIF2.0, and recent multi-society guidance suggests fundoplication over Stretta.⁷

ARM, MASE, and RAP

Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARM) has been proposed based on the observation that patients undergoing mucosectomy for neoplasms in the cardia had improvement of reflux symptoms.^11,12 Systematic review has suggested a clinical response of 80% of either PPI discontinuation or reduction, but 17% of adverse events include development of strictures. Iterations of ARM continue to be studied including ARM with band ligation (L-ARM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection for GERD (ESD-G).¹²

Experts have proposed incorporating endoscopic suturing of the EGJ to modulate the LES. Mucosal ablation and suturing of the EG junction (MASE) has been proposed by first priming tissue via argon plasma coagulation (APC) prior to endoscopic overstitch of two to three interrupted sutures below the EGJ to narrow and elongate the EGJ. The resection and plication (RAP) procedure performs a mucosal resection prior to full-thickness plication of the LES and cardia.^11,12 Expert opinion has suggested that RAP may be used in patients with altered anatomy whereas MASE may be used when resection is not possible (eg, prior scarring, resection or ablation).¹²
 

Surgical Management

We agree with a recent multi-society guideline recommending that an interdisciplinary consultation with surgery for indicated patients with refractory GERD and underlying hiatal hernia, or who do not want lifelong medical therapy.

Fundoplication creates a surgical wrap to reinforce the LES and may be performed laparoscopically. Contraindications include body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2 and significantly impaired dysmotility. Fundoplication of 180°, 270°, and 360° may achieve comparable outcomes, but a laparoscopic toupet fundoplication (LTF 270°) may have fewer postsurgical issues of dysphagia and bloating. Advantages for both anterior and posterior partial fundoplications have been demonstrated by network meta-analysis. Therefore, a multi-society guideline for GERD suggests partial over complete fundoplication.⁷ Compared with posterior techniques, anterior fundoplication (Watson fundoplication) led to more recurrent reflux symptoms but less dysphagia and other side effects.¹⁹

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical option that strengthens the LES with magnets to improve sphincter competence. In addition to listed contraindications of fundoplication, patients with an allergy to nickel and/or titanium are also contraindicated to receive MSA.⁷ MSA has been suggested to be equivalent to LNF although there may be less gas bloat and greater ability to belch on follow up.²⁰
 

Surgical Options for Special Populations

Patients with medically refractory GERD and a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² may benefit from either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or fundoplication, however sleeve gastrectomy is not advised.⁷ In patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, RYGB may provide an optimal choice. We agree with consultation with a bariatric surgeon when reviewing these situations.

Conclusion

Patients with GERD are commonly encountered worldwide. Empiric PPI are effective mainstays for medical treatment of GERD. Novel PCABs (e.g., vonoprazan) may present new options for GERD with LA Grade C/D esophagitis EE and merit more study. In refractory cases or for patients who do not want long term medical therapy, step-up therapy may be considered via endoscopic or surgical interventions. Patient anatomy and comorbidities should be considered by the clinician to inform treatment options. Surgery may have the most durable outcomes for those requiring step-up therapy. Improvements in technique, devices and patient selection have allowed TIF2.0 to grow as a viable offering with excellent 5-year outcomes for indicated patients.

Dr. Chang, Dr. Tintara, and Dr. Phan are based in the Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. They have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Richter JE andRubenstein JH. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.045.

2. El-Serag HB et al. Gut. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269.

3. Yadlapati R et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.025.

4. Vakil N et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Aug. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x.

5. Numans ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00011.

6. Kahrilas PJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2008 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.045.

7. Slater BJ et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09817-3.

8. Gyawali CP et al. Gut. 2018 Jul. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722.

9. Graham DY and Tansel A. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.09.033.

10. Graham DY and Dore MP. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.018.

11. Haseeb M and Thompson CC. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Sep. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000968.

12. Kolb JM and Chang KJ. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Jul. doi:10.1097/MOG.0000000000000944.

13. Nguyen NT et al. Foregut. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1177/26345161221126961.

14. Mazzoleni G et al. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Feb. doi: 10.1055/a-1322-2209.

15. Trad KS et al. Surg Innov. 2018 Apr. doi: 10.1177/1553350618755214.

16. Kolb JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(21)02953-X.

17. Jaruvongvanich VK et al. Endosc Int Open. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1055/a-1972-9190.

18. Lee Y et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Jul. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10151-5.

19. Andreou A et al. Surg Endosc. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07208-9.

20. Guidozzi N et al. Dis Esophagus. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.1093/dote/doz031.

Introduction

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a frequently encountered condition, and rising annually.¹ A recent meta-analysis suggests nearly 14% (1.03 billion) of the population are affected worldwide. Differences may range by region from 12% in Latin America to 20% in North America, and by country from 4% in China to 23% in Turkey.¹ In the United States, 21% of the population are afflicted with weekly GERD symptoms.² Novel medical therapies and endoscopic options provide clinicians with opportunities to help patients with GERD.³Herein, we review diagnostics as well as the evolution of medical, endoscopic and basic surgical management for GERD.

Diagnosis

Definition

courtesy University of Southern California

GERD was originally defined by the Montreal consensus as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications.⁴ Heartburn and regurgitation are common symptoms of GERD, with a sensitivity of 30%-76% and specificity of 62%-96% for erosive esophagitis (EE), which occurs when the reflux of stomach content causes esophageal mucosal breaks.⁵ The presence of characteristic mucosal injury observed during an upper endoscopy or abnormal esophageal acid exposure on ambulatory reflux monitoring are objective evidence of GERD. A trial of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may function as a diagnostic test for patients exhibiting the typical symptoms of GERD without any alarm symptoms.^3,6

Endoscopic Evaluation and Confirmation

The 2022 American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) clinical practice update recommends diagnostic endoscopy, after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks, in patients whose GERD symptoms do not respond adequately to an empiric trial of a PPI.³ Those with GERD and alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, bleeding, and vomiting should undergo endoscopy as soon as possible. Endoscopic findings of EE (Los Angeles Grade B or more severe) and long-segment Barrett’s esophagus (> 3-cm segment with intestinal metaplasia on biopsy) are diagnostic of GERD.³

Reflux Monitoring

courtesy University of Southern California

With ambulatory reflux monitoring (pH or impedance-pH), esophageal acid exposure (or neutral refluxate in impedance testing) can be measured to confirm GERD diagnosis and to correlate symptoms with reflux episodes. Patients with atypical GERD symptoms or patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GERD whose symptoms have not improved sufficiently with twice-daily PPI therapy should have esophageal impedance-pH monitoring while on PPIs.^6,7

Esophageal Manometry

High-resolution esophageal manometry can be used to assess motility abnormalities associated with GERD.

Although no manometric abnormality is unique to GERD, weak lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure and ineffective esophageal motility frequently coexist with severe GERD.⁶

Manometry is particularly useful in patients considering surgical or endoscopic anti-reflux procedures to evaluate for achalasia,³ an important contraindication to surgery.
 

Medical Management

courtesy University of Southern California

Management of GERD requires a multidisciplinary and personalized approach based on symptom presentation, body mass index, endoscopic findings (e.g., presence of EE, Barrett’s esophagus, hiatal hernia), and physiological abnormalities (e.g., gastroparesis or ineffective motility).³

Lifestyle Modifications

Recommended lifestyle modifications include weight loss for patients with obesity, stress reduction, tobacco and alcohol cessation, elevating the head of the bed, staying upright during and after meals, avoidance of food intake < 3 hours before bedtime, and cessation of foods that potentially aggravate reflux symptoms such as coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, acidic foods, and foods with high fat content.^6,8

Medications

Pharmacologic therapy for GERD includes medications that primarily aim to neutralize or reduce gastric acid -- we summarize options in Table 1.^3,8

MDedge News

Proton Pump Inhibitors

Most guidelines suggest a trial of 4-8 weeks of once-daily enteric-coated PPI before meals in patients with typical GERD symptoms and no alarm symptoms. Escalation to double-dose PPI may be considered in the case of persistent symptoms. The relative potencies of standard-dose pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and rabeprazole are presented in Table 1.⁹ When a PPI switch is needed, rabeprazole may be considered as it is a PPI that does not rely on CYP2C19 for primary metabolism.⁹

Acid suppression should be weaned down to the lowest effective dose or converted to H2RAs or other antacids once symptoms are sufficiently controlled unless patients have EE, Barrett’s esophagus, or peptic stricture.³ Patients with severe GERD may require long-term PPI therapy or an invasive anti-reflux procedure.

Recent studies have shown that potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCAB) like vonoprazan may offer more effective gastric acid inhibition. While not included in the latest clinical practice update, vonoprazan is thought to be superior to lansoprazole for those with LA Grade C/D esophagitis for both symptom relief and healing at 2 weeks.¹⁰

Adjunctive Therapies

Alginates can function as a physical barrier to even neutral reflux and may be helpful for patients with postprandial or nighttime symptoms as well as those with hiatal hernia.³ H2RAs can also help mitigate nighttime symptoms.³ Baclofen is a gamma-aminobutyric acid–B agonist which inhibits transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) and may be effective for patients with belching.³ Prokinetics may be helpful for GERD with concomitant gastroparesis^.3 Sucralfate is a mucosal protective agent, but there is a lack of data supporting its efficacy in GERD treatment. Consider referral to a behavioral therapist for supplemental therapies, hypnotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies for functional heartburn or reflux-associated esophageal hypervigilance or reflux hypersensitivity.³

When to Refer to Higher Level of Care

For patients who do not wish to remain on longer-term pharmacologic therapy or would benefit from anatomic repair, clinicians should have a discussion of risks and benefits prior to consideration of referral for anti-reflux procedures.^3,6,8 We advise this conversation should include review of patient health status, postsurgical side effects such as increased flatus, bloating and dysphagia as well as the potential need to still resume PPI post operation.⁸

Endoscopic Management

Patient Selection And Evaluation

For the groups indicated for a higher level of care, we agree with AGA recommendations, multi-society guidelines, and expert review,^3,7,11,12 and highlight potential options in Table 2. Step-up options should be based on patient characteristics and reviewed carefully with patients. Endoscopic therapies are less invasive than surgery and may be considered for those who do not require anatomic repair of hiatal hernia, do not want surgery, or are not suitable for surgery.

MDedge News

The pathophysiology of GERD is from a loss of the anti-reflux barrier of the esophageal gastric junction (EGJ) at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) leading to unintended retrograde movement of gastric contents.⁶ Anatomically, the LES is composed of muscles of the distal esophagus and sling fibers of the proximal stomach, the “external valve” from the diaphragmatic crura, and the “internal valve” from the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV). GERD occurs from mechanical failure of the LES. First, there may be disproportional dilation of the diaphragmatic crura as categorized by Hill Grade of the GEFV as seen by a retroflexed view of EGJ after 30-45 seconds of insufflation.¹³ Second, there may be a migration of the LES away from the diaphragmatic crura as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Provocative maneuvers may reveal a sliding hernia by gentle retraction of the endoscope while under retroflexed view.¹³ Third, there may be more frequent TLESR associated with GERD.¹²

The aim of most interventions is to restore competency of the LES by reconstruction of the GEFV via suture or staple-based approximation of tissue.^11,12 Intraluminal therapy may only target the GEFV at the internal valve. Therefore, most endoscopic interventions are limited to patients with intact diaphragmatic crura (ie, small to no hiatal hernia and GEFV Hill Grade 1 to 2). Contraindications for endoscopic therapy are moderate to severe reflux (ie, LA Grade C/ D), hiatus hernia 2 cm or larger, strictures, or long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.
 

Utility, Safety, and Outcomes of TIF

Historically, endoscopic therapy targeting endoscopic fundoplication started with EndoLuminal gastro-gastric fundoplication (ELF, 2005) which was a proof of concept of safe manipulation and suture for gastro-gastric plication to below the Z-line. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) 1.0 was suggested in 2007 for clinical application by proposing a longitudinal oriented esophago-gastric plication 1 cm above the Z-line.

In 2009, TIF2.0 was proposed as a rotational 270° wrap of the cardia and fundus to a full-thickness esophago-gastric fundoplication around 2-4 cm of the distal esophagus. Like a surgical fundoplication, this reinforces sling fibers, increases the Angle of His and improves the cardiac notch. TIF 2.0 is indicated for those with small (< 2 cm) or no hiatal hernia and a GEFV Hill Grade 1 or 2. The present iteration of TIF2.0 uses EsophyX-Z (EndoGastric Solutions; Redmond, Washington) which features dual fastener deployment and a simplified firing mechanism. Plication is secured via nonresorbable polypropylene T-fasteners with strength equivalence of 3-0 sutures.

Compared with the original, TIF2.0 represents a decrease of severe adverse events from 2%-2.5% to 0.4%-1%.^11,14 Based on longitudinal TEMPO data, patient satisfaction ranges between 70% and 90% and rates of patients reverting to daily PPI use are 17% and 34% at 1 and 5 years. A 5% reintervention rate was noted to be comparable with surgical reoperation for fundoplication.¹⁵ One retrospective evaluation of patients with failed TIF followed by successful cTIF noted that in all failures there was a documented underestimation of a much larger crura defect at time of index procedure.¹⁶ Chest pain is common post procedure and patients and collaborating providers should be counseled on the expected course. In our practice, we admit patients for at least 1 postprocedure day and consider scheduling symptom control medications for those with significant pain.
 

TIF2.0 for Special Populations

Indications for TIF2.0 continue to evolve. In 2017, concomitant TIF2.0 with hiatal hernia repair (cTIF or HH-TIF) for hernia > 2 cm was accepted for expanded use. In one study, cTIF has been shown to have similar outcomes for postprocedural PPI use, dysphagia, wrap disruption, and hiatal hernia recurrence, compared with hiatal hernia repair paired with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with possibly shorter postadmission stay, serious adverse events, and bloating.¹⁷ A cTIF may be performed in a single general anesthetic session typically with a surgical hiatal hernia repair followed by TIF2.0.

Other Endoscopic Procedures

Several other endoscopic interventions have been proposed for GERD management. The following procedures are under continuous study and should be considered only by those with expertise.
 

Stretta

The Stretta device (Restech; Houston, Texas) was approved in 2000 for use of a radiofrequency (RF) generator and catheter applied to the squamocolumnar junction under irrigation. Ideal candidates for this nonablative procedure may include patients with confirmed GERD, low-grade EE, without Barrett’s esophagus, small hiatal hernia, and a competent LES with pressure > 5 mmHg. Meta-analysis has yielded conflicting results in terms of its efficacy, compared with TIF2.0, and recent multi-society guidance suggests fundoplication over Stretta.⁷

ARM, MASE, and RAP

Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARM) has been proposed based on the observation that patients undergoing mucosectomy for neoplasms in the cardia had improvement of reflux symptoms.^11,12 Systematic review has suggested a clinical response of 80% of either PPI discontinuation or reduction, but 17% of adverse events include development of strictures. Iterations of ARM continue to be studied including ARM with band ligation (L-ARM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection for GERD (ESD-G).¹²

Experts have proposed incorporating endoscopic suturing of the EGJ to modulate the LES. Mucosal ablation and suturing of the EG junction (MASE) has been proposed by first priming tissue via argon plasma coagulation (APC) prior to endoscopic overstitch of two to three interrupted sutures below the EGJ to narrow and elongate the EGJ. The resection and plication (RAP) procedure performs a mucosal resection prior to full-thickness plication of the LES and cardia.^11,12 Expert opinion has suggested that RAP may be used in patients with altered anatomy whereas MASE may be used when resection is not possible (eg, prior scarring, resection or ablation).¹²
 

Surgical Management

We agree with a recent multi-society guideline recommending that an interdisciplinary consultation with surgery for indicated patients with refractory GERD and underlying hiatal hernia, or who do not want lifelong medical therapy.

Fundoplication creates a surgical wrap to reinforce the LES and may be performed laparoscopically. Contraindications include body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2 and significantly impaired dysmotility. Fundoplication of 180°, 270°, and 360° may achieve comparable outcomes, but a laparoscopic toupet fundoplication (LTF 270°) may have fewer postsurgical issues of dysphagia and bloating. Advantages for both anterior and posterior partial fundoplications have been demonstrated by network meta-analysis. Therefore, a multi-society guideline for GERD suggests partial over complete fundoplication.⁷ Compared with posterior techniques, anterior fundoplication (Watson fundoplication) led to more recurrent reflux symptoms but less dysphagia and other side effects.¹⁹

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical option that strengthens the LES with magnets to improve sphincter competence. In addition to listed contraindications of fundoplication, patients with an allergy to nickel and/or titanium are also contraindicated to receive MSA.⁷ MSA has been suggested to be equivalent to LNF although there may be less gas bloat and greater ability to belch on follow up.²⁰
 

Surgical Options for Special Populations

Patients with medically refractory GERD and a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² may benefit from either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or fundoplication, however sleeve gastrectomy is not advised.⁷ In patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, RYGB may provide an optimal choice. We agree with consultation with a bariatric surgeon when reviewing these situations.

Conclusion

Patients with GERD are commonly encountered worldwide. Empiric PPI are effective mainstays for medical treatment of GERD. Novel PCABs (e.g., vonoprazan) may present new options for GERD with LA Grade C/D esophagitis EE and merit more study. In refractory cases or for patients who do not want long term medical therapy, step-up therapy may be considered via endoscopic or surgical interventions. Patient anatomy and comorbidities should be considered by the clinician to inform treatment options. Surgery may have the most durable outcomes for those requiring step-up therapy. Improvements in technique, devices and patient selection have allowed TIF2.0 to grow as a viable offering with excellent 5-year outcomes for indicated patients.

Dr. Chang, Dr. Tintara, and Dr. Phan are based in the Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. They have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Richter JE andRubenstein JH. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.045.

2. El-Serag HB et al. Gut. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269.

3. Yadlapati R et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.025.

4. Vakil N et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Aug. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x.

5. Numans ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00011.

6. Kahrilas PJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2008 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.045.

7. Slater BJ et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09817-3.

8. Gyawali CP et al. Gut. 2018 Jul. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722.

9. Graham DY and Tansel A. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.09.033.

10. Graham DY and Dore MP. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.018.

11. Haseeb M and Thompson CC. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Sep. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000968.

12. Kolb JM and Chang KJ. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Jul. doi:10.1097/MOG.0000000000000944.

13. Nguyen NT et al. Foregut. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1177/26345161221126961.

14. Mazzoleni G et al. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Feb. doi: 10.1055/a-1322-2209.

15. Trad KS et al. Surg Innov. 2018 Apr. doi: 10.1177/1553350618755214.

16. Kolb JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(21)02953-X.

17. Jaruvongvanich VK et al. Endosc Int Open. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1055/a-1972-9190.

18. Lee Y et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Jul. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10151-5.

19. Andreou A et al. Surg Endosc. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07208-9.

20. Guidozzi N et al. Dis Esophagus. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.1093/dote/doz031.

Introduction

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a frequently encountered condition, and rising annually.¹ A recent meta-analysis suggests nearly 14% (1.03 billion) of the population are affected worldwide. Differences may range by region from 12% in Latin America to 20% in North America, and by country from 4% in China to 23% in Turkey.¹ In the United States, 21% of the population are afflicted with weekly GERD symptoms.² Novel medical therapies and endoscopic options provide clinicians with opportunities to help patients with GERD.³Herein, we review diagnostics as well as the evolution of medical, endoscopic and basic surgical management for GERD.

Diagnosis

Definition

courtesy University of Southern California

GERD was originally defined by the Montreal consensus as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications.⁴ Heartburn and regurgitation are common symptoms of GERD, with a sensitivity of 30%-76% and specificity of 62%-96% for erosive esophagitis (EE), which occurs when the reflux of stomach content causes esophageal mucosal breaks.⁵ The presence of characteristic mucosal injury observed during an upper endoscopy or abnormal esophageal acid exposure on ambulatory reflux monitoring are objective evidence of GERD. A trial of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may function as a diagnostic test for patients exhibiting the typical symptoms of GERD without any alarm symptoms.^3,6

Endoscopic Evaluation and Confirmation

The 2022 American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) clinical practice update recommends diagnostic endoscopy, after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks, in patients whose GERD symptoms do not respond adequately to an empiric trial of a PPI.³ Those with GERD and alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, bleeding, and vomiting should undergo endoscopy as soon as possible. Endoscopic findings of EE (Los Angeles Grade B or more severe) and long-segment Barrett’s esophagus (> 3-cm segment with intestinal metaplasia on biopsy) are diagnostic of GERD.³

Reflux Monitoring

courtesy University of Southern California

With ambulatory reflux monitoring (pH or impedance-pH), esophageal acid exposure (or neutral refluxate in impedance testing) can be measured to confirm GERD diagnosis and to correlate symptoms with reflux episodes. Patients with atypical GERD symptoms or patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GERD whose symptoms have not improved sufficiently with twice-daily PPI therapy should have esophageal impedance-pH monitoring while on PPIs.^6,7

Esophageal Manometry

High-resolution esophageal manometry can be used to assess motility abnormalities associated with GERD.

Although no manometric abnormality is unique to GERD, weak lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure and ineffective esophageal motility frequently coexist with severe GERD.⁶

Manometry is particularly useful in patients considering surgical or endoscopic anti-reflux procedures to evaluate for achalasia,³ an important contraindication to surgery.
 

Medical Management

courtesy University of Southern California

Management of GERD requires a multidisciplinary and personalized approach based on symptom presentation, body mass index, endoscopic findings (e.g., presence of EE, Barrett’s esophagus, hiatal hernia), and physiological abnormalities (e.g., gastroparesis or ineffective motility).³

Lifestyle Modifications

Recommended lifestyle modifications include weight loss for patients with obesity, stress reduction, tobacco and alcohol cessation, elevating the head of the bed, staying upright during and after meals, avoidance of food intake < 3 hours before bedtime, and cessation of foods that potentially aggravate reflux symptoms such as coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, acidic foods, and foods with high fat content.^6,8

Medications

Pharmacologic therapy for GERD includes medications that primarily aim to neutralize or reduce gastric acid -- we summarize options in Table 1.^3,8

MDedge News

Proton Pump Inhibitors

Most guidelines suggest a trial of 4-8 weeks of once-daily enteric-coated PPI before meals in patients with typical GERD symptoms and no alarm symptoms. Escalation to double-dose PPI may be considered in the case of persistent symptoms. The relative potencies of standard-dose pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and rabeprazole are presented in Table 1.⁹ When a PPI switch is needed, rabeprazole may be considered as it is a PPI that does not rely on CYP2C19 for primary metabolism.⁹

Acid suppression should be weaned down to the lowest effective dose or converted to H2RAs or other antacids once symptoms are sufficiently controlled unless patients have EE, Barrett’s esophagus, or peptic stricture.³ Patients with severe GERD may require long-term PPI therapy or an invasive anti-reflux procedure.

Recent studies have shown that potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCAB) like vonoprazan may offer more effective gastric acid inhibition. While not included in the latest clinical practice update, vonoprazan is thought to be superior to lansoprazole for those with LA Grade C/D esophagitis for both symptom relief and healing at 2 weeks.¹⁰

Adjunctive Therapies

Alginates can function as a physical barrier to even neutral reflux and may be helpful for patients with postprandial or nighttime symptoms as well as those with hiatal hernia.³ H2RAs can also help mitigate nighttime symptoms.³ Baclofen is a gamma-aminobutyric acid–B agonist which inhibits transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) and may be effective for patients with belching.³ Prokinetics may be helpful for GERD with concomitant gastroparesis^.3 Sucralfate is a mucosal protective agent, but there is a lack of data supporting its efficacy in GERD treatment. Consider referral to a behavioral therapist for supplemental therapies, hypnotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies for functional heartburn or reflux-associated esophageal hypervigilance or reflux hypersensitivity.³

When to Refer to Higher Level of Care

For patients who do not wish to remain on longer-term pharmacologic therapy or would benefit from anatomic repair, clinicians should have a discussion of risks and benefits prior to consideration of referral for anti-reflux procedures.^3,6,8 We advise this conversation should include review of patient health status, postsurgical side effects such as increased flatus, bloating and dysphagia as well as the potential need to still resume PPI post operation.⁸

Endoscopic Management

Patient Selection And Evaluation

For the groups indicated for a higher level of care, we agree with AGA recommendations, multi-society guidelines, and expert review,^3,7,11,12 and highlight potential options in Table 2. Step-up options should be based on patient characteristics and reviewed carefully with patients. Endoscopic therapies are less invasive than surgery and may be considered for those who do not require anatomic repair of hiatal hernia, do not want surgery, or are not suitable for surgery.

MDedge News

The pathophysiology of GERD is from a loss of the anti-reflux barrier of the esophageal gastric junction (EGJ) at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) leading to unintended retrograde movement of gastric contents.⁶ Anatomically, the LES is composed of muscles of the distal esophagus and sling fibers of the proximal stomach, the “external valve” from the diaphragmatic crura, and the “internal valve” from the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV). GERD occurs from mechanical failure of the LES. First, there may be disproportional dilation of the diaphragmatic crura as categorized by Hill Grade of the GEFV as seen by a retroflexed view of EGJ after 30-45 seconds of insufflation.¹³ Second, there may be a migration of the LES away from the diaphragmatic crura as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Provocative maneuvers may reveal a sliding hernia by gentle retraction of the endoscope while under retroflexed view.¹³ Third, there may be more frequent TLESR associated with GERD.¹²

The aim of most interventions is to restore competency of the LES by reconstruction of the GEFV via suture or staple-based approximation of tissue.^11,12 Intraluminal therapy may only target the GEFV at the internal valve. Therefore, most endoscopic interventions are limited to patients with intact diaphragmatic crura (ie, small to no hiatal hernia and GEFV Hill Grade 1 to 2). Contraindications for endoscopic therapy are moderate to severe reflux (ie, LA Grade C/ D), hiatus hernia 2 cm or larger, strictures, or long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.
 

Utility, Safety, and Outcomes of TIF

Historically, endoscopic therapy targeting endoscopic fundoplication started with EndoLuminal gastro-gastric fundoplication (ELF, 2005) which was a proof of concept of safe manipulation and suture for gastro-gastric plication to below the Z-line. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) 1.0 was suggested in 2007 for clinical application by proposing a longitudinal oriented esophago-gastric plication 1 cm above the Z-line.

In 2009, TIF2.0 was proposed as a rotational 270° wrap of the cardia and fundus to a full-thickness esophago-gastric fundoplication around 2-4 cm of the distal esophagus. Like a surgical fundoplication, this reinforces sling fibers, increases the Angle of His and improves the cardiac notch. TIF 2.0 is indicated for those with small (< 2 cm) or no hiatal hernia and a GEFV Hill Grade 1 or 2. The present iteration of TIF2.0 uses EsophyX-Z (EndoGastric Solutions; Redmond, Washington) which features dual fastener deployment and a simplified firing mechanism. Plication is secured via nonresorbable polypropylene T-fasteners with strength equivalence of 3-0 sutures.

Compared with the original, TIF2.0 represents a decrease of severe adverse events from 2%-2.5% to 0.4%-1%.^11,14 Based on longitudinal TEMPO data, patient satisfaction ranges between 70% and 90% and rates of patients reverting to daily PPI use are 17% and 34% at 1 and 5 years. A 5% reintervention rate was noted to be comparable with surgical reoperation for fundoplication.¹⁵ One retrospective evaluation of patients with failed TIF followed by successful cTIF noted that in all failures there was a documented underestimation of a much larger crura defect at time of index procedure.¹⁶ Chest pain is common post procedure and patients and collaborating providers should be counseled on the expected course. In our practice, we admit patients for at least 1 postprocedure day and consider scheduling symptom control medications for those with significant pain.
 

TIF2.0 for Special Populations

Indications for TIF2.0 continue to evolve. In 2017, concomitant TIF2.0 with hiatal hernia repair (cTIF or HH-TIF) for hernia > 2 cm was accepted for expanded use. In one study, cTIF has been shown to have similar outcomes for postprocedural PPI use, dysphagia, wrap disruption, and hiatal hernia recurrence, compared with hiatal hernia repair paired with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with possibly shorter postadmission stay, serious adverse events, and bloating.¹⁷ A cTIF may be performed in a single general anesthetic session typically with a surgical hiatal hernia repair followed by TIF2.0.

Other Endoscopic Procedures

Several other endoscopic interventions have been proposed for GERD management. The following procedures are under continuous study and should be considered only by those with expertise.
 

Stretta

The Stretta device (Restech; Houston, Texas) was approved in 2000 for use of a radiofrequency (RF) generator and catheter applied to the squamocolumnar junction under irrigation. Ideal candidates for this nonablative procedure may include patients with confirmed GERD, low-grade EE, without Barrett’s esophagus, small hiatal hernia, and a competent LES with pressure > 5 mmHg. Meta-analysis has yielded conflicting results in terms of its efficacy, compared with TIF2.0, and recent multi-society guidance suggests fundoplication over Stretta.⁷

ARM, MASE, and RAP

Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARM) has been proposed based on the observation that patients undergoing mucosectomy for neoplasms in the cardia had improvement of reflux symptoms.^11,12 Systematic review has suggested a clinical response of 80% of either PPI discontinuation or reduction, but 17% of adverse events include development of strictures. Iterations of ARM continue to be studied including ARM with band ligation (L-ARM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection for GERD (ESD-G).¹²

Experts have proposed incorporating endoscopic suturing of the EGJ to modulate the LES. Mucosal ablation and suturing of the EG junction (MASE) has been proposed by first priming tissue via argon plasma coagulation (APC) prior to endoscopic overstitch of two to three interrupted sutures below the EGJ to narrow and elongate the EGJ. The resection and plication (RAP) procedure performs a mucosal resection prior to full-thickness plication of the LES and cardia.^11,12 Expert opinion has suggested that RAP may be used in patients with altered anatomy whereas MASE may be used when resection is not possible (eg, prior scarring, resection or ablation).¹²
 

Surgical Management

We agree with a recent multi-society guideline recommending that an interdisciplinary consultation with surgery for indicated patients with refractory GERD and underlying hiatal hernia, or who do not want lifelong medical therapy.

Fundoplication creates a surgical wrap to reinforce the LES and may be performed laparoscopically. Contraindications include body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2 and significantly impaired dysmotility. Fundoplication of 180°, 270°, and 360° may achieve comparable outcomes, but a laparoscopic toupet fundoplication (LTF 270°) may have fewer postsurgical issues of dysphagia and bloating. Advantages for both anterior and posterior partial fundoplications have been demonstrated by network meta-analysis. Therefore, a multi-society guideline for GERD suggests partial over complete fundoplication.⁷ Compared with posterior techniques, anterior fundoplication (Watson fundoplication) led to more recurrent reflux symptoms but less dysphagia and other side effects.¹⁹

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical option that strengthens the LES with magnets to improve sphincter competence. In addition to listed contraindications of fundoplication, patients with an allergy to nickel and/or titanium are also contraindicated to receive MSA.⁷ MSA has been suggested to be equivalent to LNF although there may be less gas bloat and greater ability to belch on follow up.²⁰
 

Surgical Options for Special Populations

Patients with medically refractory GERD and a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² may benefit from either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or fundoplication, however sleeve gastrectomy is not advised.⁷ In patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, RYGB may provide an optimal choice. We agree with consultation with a bariatric surgeon when reviewing these situations.

Conclusion

Patients with GERD are commonly encountered worldwide. Empiric PPI are effective mainstays for medical treatment of GERD. Novel PCABs (e.g., vonoprazan) may present new options for GERD with LA Grade C/D esophagitis EE and merit more study. In refractory cases or for patients who do not want long term medical therapy, step-up therapy may be considered via endoscopic or surgical interventions. Patient anatomy and comorbidities should be considered by the clinician to inform treatment options. Surgery may have the most durable outcomes for those requiring step-up therapy. Improvements in technique, devices and patient selection have allowed TIF2.0 to grow as a viable offering with excellent 5-year outcomes for indicated patients.

Dr. Chang, Dr. Tintara, and Dr. Phan are based in the Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. They have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Richter JE andRubenstein JH. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.045.

2. El-Serag HB et al. Gut. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269.

3. Yadlapati R et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.025.

4. Vakil N et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Aug. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x.

5. Numans ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00011.

6. Kahrilas PJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2008 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.045.

7. Slater BJ et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09817-3.

8. Gyawali CP et al. Gut. 2018 Jul. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722.

9. Graham DY and Tansel A. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.09.033.

10. Graham DY and Dore MP. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.018.

11. Haseeb M and Thompson CC. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Sep. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000968.

12. Kolb JM and Chang KJ. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Jul. doi:10.1097/MOG.0000000000000944.

13. Nguyen NT et al. Foregut. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1177/26345161221126961.

14. Mazzoleni G et al. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Feb. doi: 10.1055/a-1322-2209.

15. Trad KS et al. Surg Innov. 2018 Apr. doi: 10.1177/1553350618755214.

16. Kolb JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(21)02953-X.

17. Jaruvongvanich VK et al. Endosc Int Open. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1055/a-1972-9190.

18. Lee Y et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Jul. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10151-5.

19. Andreou A et al. Surg Endosc. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07208-9.

20. Guidozzi N et al. Dis Esophagus. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.1093/dote/doz031.

The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.

As medical director of intestinal transplant at Stanford Children’s Health, Dr. Zhang sees children with critical illnesses like intestinal failure or chronic liver disease. Everyday life for them is a challenge.

Stanford Medicine

Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.

Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.

In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.

She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
 

Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI?

I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.

And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills. 
 

Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation?

I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.

Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
 

Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work?

Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.

Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014. 
 

Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?

Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant. 

Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share?

One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming. 

He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal. 

He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him. 
 

Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research?

I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.

I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting. 
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?

My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Huge texter

Favorite junk food?

French fries



Cat or dog person?

Dog

Favorite ice cream?

Strawberry

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist

Best place you’ve traveled to?

Thailand

Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?

Too many

Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?

New York City

Favorite sport?

Tennis

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.

As medical director of intestinal transplant at Stanford Children’s Health, Dr. Zhang sees children with critical illnesses like intestinal failure or chronic liver disease. Everyday life for them is a challenge.

Stanford Medicine

Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.

Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.

In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.

She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
 

Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI?

I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.

And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills. 
 

Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation?

I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.

Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
 

Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work?

Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.

Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014. 
 

Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?

Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant. 

Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share?

One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming. 

He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal. 

He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him. 
 

Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research?

I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.

I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting. 
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?

My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Huge texter

Favorite junk food?

French fries



Cat or dog person?

Dog

Favorite ice cream?

Strawberry

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist

Best place you’ve traveled to?

Thailand

Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?

Too many

Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?

New York City

Favorite sport?

Tennis

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.

As medical director of intestinal transplant at Stanford Children’s Health, Dr. Zhang sees children with critical illnesses like intestinal failure or chronic liver disease. Everyday life for them is a challenge.

Stanford Medicine

Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.

Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.

In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.

She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
 

Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI?

I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.

And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills. 
 

Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation?

I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.

Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
 

Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work?

Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.

Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014. 
 

Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?

Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant. 

Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share?

One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming. 

He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal. 

He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him. 
 

Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research?

I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.

I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting. 
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?

My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Huge texter

Favorite junk food?

French fries



Cat or dog person?

Dog

Favorite ice cream?

Strawberry

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist

Best place you’ve traveled to?

Thailand

Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?

Too many

Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?

New York City

Favorite sport?

Tennis

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

PHILADELPHIA — Low-volume bowel preparation is noninferior in adequacy to standard-volume prep in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Patients who received MoviPrep (2L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid) reported higher tolerability and willingness to repeat colonoscopy preparation in the future than those taking GoLYTELY (4L of polyethylene glycol and electrolytes). In addition, the rates of electrolyte abnormalities and acute kidney injury were low and similar between the two groups.

Yale School of Medicine

“Bowel preparation remains a challenge in the inpatient setting, where 20%-50% of all colonoscopies can have inadequate bowel preparation,” said lead author Karen Xiao, MD, assistant professor in the section of digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Previous studies have indicated that low-volume (2L), split-dose preparations are noninferior to high-volume (4L), split-dose regimens, and patients generally prefer low-volume options, she said. However, the current standard of care for inpatients continues to include high-volume polyethylene glycol electrocyte lavage, which may be less tolerable.

“Similar to prior studies, our study supports that MoviPrep may be a suitable alternative to traditional high-volume bowel preparation in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy,” she said.

In a single-blind, multi-site, randomized controlled trial, Xiao and colleagues in the Yale–New Haven Health System randomly assigned inpatients undergoing colonoscopy to MoviPrep or GoLYTELY between January 2022 and July 2024. They excluded patients with prior small or large bowel resection, foreign body removal, or medical contraindications, such as obstruction, pregnancy, phenylketonuria, or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.

After bowel prep but before colonoscopy, patients took the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey. Colonoscopies were then recorded, and videos were scored by a single-blinded central reviewer. The primary outcome included the adequacy of bowel prep as defined by a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of 6 or higher, with each segment scoring 2 or higher.

In the final analysis, 202 patients received MoviPrep and 210 received GoLYTELY. In both groups, the average age was 62; about 60% were men; and 66% were White, about 22% Black, and 13%-15% Hispanic. About 65% of patients in both arms had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3, with another 20% in each group having an ASA score of 4, “reflective of a sicker inpatient population,” Xiao said.

Inpatient colonoscopy was indicated for gastrointestinal bleeding (55%), diarrhea (15%-20%), abnormal imaging (10%-13%), inflammatory bowel disease (4%), or other (35%-41%). Patients could have more than one indication for colonoscopy.

Overall, bowel preparation was scored as adequate in 111 patients with MoviPrep (55%) and 111 patients with GoLYTELY (52.9%), and was inadequate in 91 patients with MoviPrep (45%) and 99 patients with GoLYTELY (47.1%). With a rate difference of 2.1% and a P value of .007, MoviPrep was considered noninferior to GoLYTELY for adequate bowel preparation.

In terms of secondary outcomes, there wasn’t a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with a median stay of 6 days. Similarly, there were no differences in the rates of adverse events, including acute kidney injury and electrolyte abnormalities, with rates ranging from 1% to 9%. MoviPrep patients were slightly more likely to need additional bowel prep but also had a slightly shorter time to colonoscopy.
 

Ease of Use Is a Plus

On the basis of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey, there wasn’t a difference between the groups in how much bowel prep solution was left in the bottle. However, more than twice as many patients who took MoviPrep said the prep was “easy,” and more MoviPrep patients called it “acceptable,” whereas more GoLYTELY patients said prep was “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult.”

In addition, significantly more MoviPrep patients (49.7% vs 33.7%) said they were “mostly willing” to drink the same prep again if they needed another colonoscopy in the future, while more GoLYTELY patients said they were “somewhat willing” (44.7% vs 34.6%) or “not willing at all” (21.6% vs 15.7%).

“Bowel prep, particularly in hospitals, is important because we do it so often. When you think about what our patients in the hospital are going through, they’re very sick and often have multiple comorbidities, so how can we give them a bowel prep that is safe for them, easiest for them, easy for our nursing staff who are experiencing shortages, and as good as the traditional bowel prep,” said the session’s moderator, Amy Oxentenko, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Mayo Clinic

“Here we’ve seen great data that we can provide half the volume of the prep, still get amazing results in terms of adequacy of preparation, and the patients had a better experience,” said Oxentenko, the incoming ACG president. “That’s important because they likely may need another colonoscopy in the future, and we would hate for the bowel prep in the hospital to potentially dissuade them from a future colonoscopy.”

Future studies could stratify patients on the basis of colonoscopy indication or patient history, including conditions such as chronic constipation or neurogenic bowel, where some patients may still need a high-volume prep, Oxentenko said.

“Also, in the hospital setting, we don’t always know when a patient is going to the endoscopy suite due to other patient cases that may get prolonged or pushed in,” she said. “So how do you time the second dose of the split dose in anticipation of when that patient will go to the endoscopy suite to maintain that great preparation with a smaller volume prep?”

The study was awarded the ACG Governors Award for Excellence in Clinical Research (Trainee). Xiao and Oxentenko reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Low-volume bowel preparation is noninferior in adequacy to standard-volume prep in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Patients who received MoviPrep (2L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid) reported higher tolerability and willingness to repeat colonoscopy preparation in the future than those taking GoLYTELY (4L of polyethylene glycol and electrolytes). In addition, the rates of electrolyte abnormalities and acute kidney injury were low and similar between the two groups.

Yale School of Medicine

“Bowel preparation remains a challenge in the inpatient setting, where 20%-50% of all colonoscopies can have inadequate bowel preparation,” said lead author Karen Xiao, MD, assistant professor in the section of digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Previous studies have indicated that low-volume (2L), split-dose preparations are noninferior to high-volume (4L), split-dose regimens, and patients generally prefer low-volume options, she said. However, the current standard of care for inpatients continues to include high-volume polyethylene glycol electrocyte lavage, which may be less tolerable.

“Similar to prior studies, our study supports that MoviPrep may be a suitable alternative to traditional high-volume bowel preparation in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy,” she said.

In a single-blind, multi-site, randomized controlled trial, Xiao and colleagues in the Yale–New Haven Health System randomly assigned inpatients undergoing colonoscopy to MoviPrep or GoLYTELY between January 2022 and July 2024. They excluded patients with prior small or large bowel resection, foreign body removal, or medical contraindications, such as obstruction, pregnancy, phenylketonuria, or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.

After bowel prep but before colonoscopy, patients took the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey. Colonoscopies were then recorded, and videos were scored by a single-blinded central reviewer. The primary outcome included the adequacy of bowel prep as defined by a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of 6 or higher, with each segment scoring 2 or higher.

In the final analysis, 202 patients received MoviPrep and 210 received GoLYTELY. In both groups, the average age was 62; about 60% were men; and 66% were White, about 22% Black, and 13%-15% Hispanic. About 65% of patients in both arms had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3, with another 20% in each group having an ASA score of 4, “reflective of a sicker inpatient population,” Xiao said.

Inpatient colonoscopy was indicated for gastrointestinal bleeding (55%), diarrhea (15%-20%), abnormal imaging (10%-13%), inflammatory bowel disease (4%), or other (35%-41%). Patients could have more than one indication for colonoscopy.

Overall, bowel preparation was scored as adequate in 111 patients with MoviPrep (55%) and 111 patients with GoLYTELY (52.9%), and was inadequate in 91 patients with MoviPrep (45%) and 99 patients with GoLYTELY (47.1%). With a rate difference of 2.1% and a P value of .007, MoviPrep was considered noninferior to GoLYTELY for adequate bowel preparation.

In terms of secondary outcomes, there wasn’t a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with a median stay of 6 days. Similarly, there were no differences in the rates of adverse events, including acute kidney injury and electrolyte abnormalities, with rates ranging from 1% to 9%. MoviPrep patients were slightly more likely to need additional bowel prep but also had a slightly shorter time to colonoscopy.
 

Ease of Use Is a Plus

On the basis of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey, there wasn’t a difference between the groups in how much bowel prep solution was left in the bottle. However, more than twice as many patients who took MoviPrep said the prep was “easy,” and more MoviPrep patients called it “acceptable,” whereas more GoLYTELY patients said prep was “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult.”

In addition, significantly more MoviPrep patients (49.7% vs 33.7%) said they were “mostly willing” to drink the same prep again if they needed another colonoscopy in the future, while more GoLYTELY patients said they were “somewhat willing” (44.7% vs 34.6%) or “not willing at all” (21.6% vs 15.7%).

“Bowel prep, particularly in hospitals, is important because we do it so often. When you think about what our patients in the hospital are going through, they’re very sick and often have multiple comorbidities, so how can we give them a bowel prep that is safe for them, easiest for them, easy for our nursing staff who are experiencing shortages, and as good as the traditional bowel prep,” said the session’s moderator, Amy Oxentenko, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Mayo Clinic

“Here we’ve seen great data that we can provide half the volume of the prep, still get amazing results in terms of adequacy of preparation, and the patients had a better experience,” said Oxentenko, the incoming ACG president. “That’s important because they likely may need another colonoscopy in the future, and we would hate for the bowel prep in the hospital to potentially dissuade them from a future colonoscopy.”

Future studies could stratify patients on the basis of colonoscopy indication or patient history, including conditions such as chronic constipation or neurogenic bowel, where some patients may still need a high-volume prep, Oxentenko said.

“Also, in the hospital setting, we don’t always know when a patient is going to the endoscopy suite due to other patient cases that may get prolonged or pushed in,” she said. “So how do you time the second dose of the split dose in anticipation of when that patient will go to the endoscopy suite to maintain that great preparation with a smaller volume prep?”

The study was awarded the ACG Governors Award for Excellence in Clinical Research (Trainee). Xiao and Oxentenko reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Low-volume bowel preparation is noninferior in adequacy to standard-volume prep in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Patients who received MoviPrep (2L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid) reported higher tolerability and willingness to repeat colonoscopy preparation in the future than those taking GoLYTELY (4L of polyethylene glycol and electrolytes). In addition, the rates of electrolyte abnormalities and acute kidney injury were low and similar between the two groups.

Yale School of Medicine

“Bowel preparation remains a challenge in the inpatient setting, where 20%-50% of all colonoscopies can have inadequate bowel preparation,” said lead author Karen Xiao, MD, assistant professor in the section of digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Previous studies have indicated that low-volume (2L), split-dose preparations are noninferior to high-volume (4L), split-dose regimens, and patients generally prefer low-volume options, she said. However, the current standard of care for inpatients continues to include high-volume polyethylene glycol electrocyte lavage, which may be less tolerable.

“Similar to prior studies, our study supports that MoviPrep may be a suitable alternative to traditional high-volume bowel preparation in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy,” she said.

In a single-blind, multi-site, randomized controlled trial, Xiao and colleagues in the Yale–New Haven Health System randomly assigned inpatients undergoing colonoscopy to MoviPrep or GoLYTELY between January 2022 and July 2024. They excluded patients with prior small or large bowel resection, foreign body removal, or medical contraindications, such as obstruction, pregnancy, phenylketonuria, or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.

After bowel prep but before colonoscopy, patients took the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey. Colonoscopies were then recorded, and videos were scored by a single-blinded central reviewer. The primary outcome included the adequacy of bowel prep as defined by a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of 6 or higher, with each segment scoring 2 or higher.

In the final analysis, 202 patients received MoviPrep and 210 received GoLYTELY. In both groups, the average age was 62; about 60% were men; and 66% were White, about 22% Black, and 13%-15% Hispanic. About 65% of patients in both arms had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3, with another 20% in each group having an ASA score of 4, “reflective of a sicker inpatient population,” Xiao said.

Inpatient colonoscopy was indicated for gastrointestinal bleeding (55%), diarrhea (15%-20%), abnormal imaging (10%-13%), inflammatory bowel disease (4%), or other (35%-41%). Patients could have more than one indication for colonoscopy.

Overall, bowel preparation was scored as adequate in 111 patients with MoviPrep (55%) and 111 patients with GoLYTELY (52.9%), and was inadequate in 91 patients with MoviPrep (45%) and 99 patients with GoLYTELY (47.1%). With a rate difference of 2.1% and a P value of .007, MoviPrep was considered noninferior to GoLYTELY for adequate bowel preparation.

In terms of secondary outcomes, there wasn’t a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with a median stay of 6 days. Similarly, there were no differences in the rates of adverse events, including acute kidney injury and electrolyte abnormalities, with rates ranging from 1% to 9%. MoviPrep patients were slightly more likely to need additional bowel prep but also had a slightly shorter time to colonoscopy.
 

Ease of Use Is a Plus

On the basis of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey, there wasn’t a difference between the groups in how much bowel prep solution was left in the bottle. However, more than twice as many patients who took MoviPrep said the prep was “easy,” and more MoviPrep patients called it “acceptable,” whereas more GoLYTELY patients said prep was “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult.”

In addition, significantly more MoviPrep patients (49.7% vs 33.7%) said they were “mostly willing” to drink the same prep again if they needed another colonoscopy in the future, while more GoLYTELY patients said they were “somewhat willing” (44.7% vs 34.6%) or “not willing at all” (21.6% vs 15.7%).

“Bowel prep, particularly in hospitals, is important because we do it so often. When you think about what our patients in the hospital are going through, they’re very sick and often have multiple comorbidities, so how can we give them a bowel prep that is safe for them, easiest for them, easy for our nursing staff who are experiencing shortages, and as good as the traditional bowel prep,” said the session’s moderator, Amy Oxentenko, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Mayo Clinic

“Here we’ve seen great data that we can provide half the volume of the prep, still get amazing results in terms of adequacy of preparation, and the patients had a better experience,” said Oxentenko, the incoming ACG president. “That’s important because they likely may need another colonoscopy in the future, and we would hate for the bowel prep in the hospital to potentially dissuade them from a future colonoscopy.”

Future studies could stratify patients on the basis of colonoscopy indication or patient history, including conditions such as chronic constipation or neurogenic bowel, where some patients may still need a high-volume prep, Oxentenko said.

“Also, in the hospital setting, we don’t always know when a patient is going to the endoscopy suite due to other patient cases that may get prolonged or pushed in,” she said. “So how do you time the second dose of the split dose in anticipation of when that patient will go to the endoscopy suite to maintain that great preparation with a smaller volume prep?”

The study was awarded the ACG Governors Award for Excellence in Clinical Research (Trainee). Xiao and Oxentenko reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Non-fasting breath gas patterns may help identify patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) who are most likely to respond to a low fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet, according to a new study.

The low FODMAP diet is the most evidence-based dietary therapy for patients with IBS, but we know that “only about 50% of our patients respond to it,” said principal investigator Prashant Singh, MD, assistant professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “Exhaled breath gases represent bacterial fermentation of dietary carbohydrates. These measurements could provide a simple biomarker for response to low FODMAP diets.”

Even before starting the low FODMAP diet, “you could see notable differences in breath test patterns between responders and nonresponders,” he said. “We saw that low FODMAP responders had higher hydrogen (H2) and lower methane (CH4) at baseline than nonresponders and had a greater drop in hydrogen following FODMAP restriction vs nonresponders.”

He added that these results imply that responders to this diet may exhibit differences in baseline microbiota composition regarding saccharolytic capacity and/or methanogens. 

Singh presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 
 

Breaths That Can Predict Response

To determine if pre-intervention non-fasting breath patterns are associated with a clinical response to low FODMAP diets, Singh and colleagues enrolled 284 self-selected participants (mean age, 45.2 years) with mild to moderate gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Participants used an app-connected breath analyzer to record hourly, non-fasting H2 and CH4 levels during waking hours, in addition to logging meal content and symptom severity (bloating, abdominal pain, and flatulence) on a 0-10 scale. 

Patients were directed to consume their habitual diet for 1 week, before following an app-directed low FODMAP diet for 1 week. Responders were defined as those with a ≥ 30% reduction in at least one mean symptom score. The researchers then compared average hourly H2 and CH4 levels and symptom scores at baseline between low FODMAP diet responders and nonresponders.

Of the participants, 111 were classified as responders and 173 as nonresponders. There were no significant differences between the groups in gender, age, body mass index, or FODMAP per calorie.

Following FODMAP restriction, responders had consistently lower abdominal pain throughout the day and lower bloating and flatulence predominantly in the latter part of the day. Nonresponders experienced no significant changes in key abdominal symptoms after adopting the low FODMAP diet. 

The researchers found that breath tests taken at baseline revealed predictive trends between the groups, even though average FODMAP consumption did not significantly differ between them. Baseline H2 levels were higher among responders than among nonresponders, especially in the morning and evening. However, responders had lower baseline CH4 levels throughout the day. 

Following FODMAP restrictions, responders had a significant drop in non-fasting H2 but not CH4, whereas nonresponders did not have a significant drop in either.

The study was limited by the fact that participants were not clinically diagnosed with IBS, their GI symptoms were mild overall, and no data were available on stool consistency/frequency or fecal microbiome composition for correlation with exhaled breath gas levels.
 

A Potential New Biomarker

Session co-moderator Kyle Staller, MD, MPH, director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that if validated, these findings provide hope for better directing low FODMAP diets to those patients who may benefit. 

Massachusetts General Hospital

There are some patients who may or may not respond to a FODMAP diet, for reasons we don’t yet know, possibly related to fermentation of gas, and it’s helpful to know before starting treatment, he said. It may help us with more of “a precision medicine approach before we really torture people with diets that can be very difficult to adhere to.” 

Staller, who was not involved in the study, added that, “People tend to really focus on small intestinal bacteria overgrowth when it comes to hydrogen and methane production, but in reality, this is really a very agile day-to-day, meal-to-meal responsiveness. 

“It’s a different paradigm,” he continued. “I’d also like to see more data as to why we see the diurnal rhythm” and whether potential factors such as intestinal transit times are playing a role. 

Singh reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Staller reported receiving research support from Ardelyx and Restasis and serving as a consultant to Anji, Ardelyx, GI Supply, Mahana, Restasis, and Sanofi. Funding associated with the study was not available at the time of publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Non-fasting breath gas patterns may help identify patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) who are most likely to respond to a low fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet, according to a new study.

The low FODMAP diet is the most evidence-based dietary therapy for patients with IBS, but we know that “only about 50% of our patients respond to it,” said principal investigator Prashant Singh, MD, assistant professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “Exhaled breath gases represent bacterial fermentation of dietary carbohydrates. These measurements could provide a simple biomarker for response to low FODMAP diets.”

Even before starting the low FODMAP diet, “you could see notable differences in breath test patterns between responders and nonresponders,” he said. “We saw that low FODMAP responders had higher hydrogen (H2) and lower methane (CH4) at baseline than nonresponders and had a greater drop in hydrogen following FODMAP restriction vs nonresponders.”

He added that these results imply that responders to this diet may exhibit differences in baseline microbiota composition regarding saccharolytic capacity and/or methanogens. 

Singh presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 
 

Breaths That Can Predict Response

To determine if pre-intervention non-fasting breath patterns are associated with a clinical response to low FODMAP diets, Singh and colleagues enrolled 284 self-selected participants (mean age, 45.2 years) with mild to moderate gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Participants used an app-connected breath analyzer to record hourly, non-fasting H2 and CH4 levels during waking hours, in addition to logging meal content and symptom severity (bloating, abdominal pain, and flatulence) on a 0-10 scale. 

Patients were directed to consume their habitual diet for 1 week, before following an app-directed low FODMAP diet for 1 week. Responders were defined as those with a ≥ 30% reduction in at least one mean symptom score. The researchers then compared average hourly H2 and CH4 levels and symptom scores at baseline between low FODMAP diet responders and nonresponders.

Of the participants, 111 were classified as responders and 173 as nonresponders. There were no significant differences between the groups in gender, age, body mass index, or FODMAP per calorie.

Following FODMAP restriction, responders had consistently lower abdominal pain throughout the day and lower bloating and flatulence predominantly in the latter part of the day. Nonresponders experienced no significant changes in key abdominal symptoms after adopting the low FODMAP diet. 

The researchers found that breath tests taken at baseline revealed predictive trends between the groups, even though average FODMAP consumption did not significantly differ between them. Baseline H2 levels were higher among responders than among nonresponders, especially in the morning and evening. However, responders had lower baseline CH4 levels throughout the day. 

Following FODMAP restrictions, responders had a significant drop in non-fasting H2 but not CH4, whereas nonresponders did not have a significant drop in either.

The study was limited by the fact that participants were not clinically diagnosed with IBS, their GI symptoms were mild overall, and no data were available on stool consistency/frequency or fecal microbiome composition for correlation with exhaled breath gas levels.
 

A Potential New Biomarker

Session co-moderator Kyle Staller, MD, MPH, director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that if validated, these findings provide hope for better directing low FODMAP diets to those patients who may benefit. 

Massachusetts General Hospital

There are some patients who may or may not respond to a FODMAP diet, for reasons we don’t yet know, possibly related to fermentation of gas, and it’s helpful to know before starting treatment, he said. It may help us with more of “a precision medicine approach before we really torture people with diets that can be very difficult to adhere to.” 

Staller, who was not involved in the study, added that, “People tend to really focus on small intestinal bacteria overgrowth when it comes to hydrogen and methane production, but in reality, this is really a very agile day-to-day, meal-to-meal responsiveness. 

“It’s a different paradigm,” he continued. “I’d also like to see more data as to why we see the diurnal rhythm” and whether potential factors such as intestinal transit times are playing a role. 

Singh reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Staller reported receiving research support from Ardelyx and Restasis and serving as a consultant to Anji, Ardelyx, GI Supply, Mahana, Restasis, and Sanofi. Funding associated with the study was not available at the time of publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Non-fasting breath gas patterns may help identify patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) who are most likely to respond to a low fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet, according to a new study.

The low FODMAP diet is the most evidence-based dietary therapy for patients with IBS, but we know that “only about 50% of our patients respond to it,” said principal investigator Prashant Singh, MD, assistant professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “Exhaled breath gases represent bacterial fermentation of dietary carbohydrates. These measurements could provide a simple biomarker for response to low FODMAP diets.”

Even before starting the low FODMAP diet, “you could see notable differences in breath test patterns between responders and nonresponders,” he said. “We saw that low FODMAP responders had higher hydrogen (H2) and lower methane (CH4) at baseline than nonresponders and had a greater drop in hydrogen following FODMAP restriction vs nonresponders.”

He added that these results imply that responders to this diet may exhibit differences in baseline microbiota composition regarding saccharolytic capacity and/or methanogens. 

Singh presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 
 

Breaths That Can Predict Response

To determine if pre-intervention non-fasting breath patterns are associated with a clinical response to low FODMAP diets, Singh and colleagues enrolled 284 self-selected participants (mean age, 45.2 years) with mild to moderate gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Participants used an app-connected breath analyzer to record hourly, non-fasting H2 and CH4 levels during waking hours, in addition to logging meal content and symptom severity (bloating, abdominal pain, and flatulence) on a 0-10 scale. 

Patients were directed to consume their habitual diet for 1 week, before following an app-directed low FODMAP diet for 1 week. Responders were defined as those with a ≥ 30% reduction in at least one mean symptom score. The researchers then compared average hourly H2 and CH4 levels and symptom scores at baseline between low FODMAP diet responders and nonresponders.

Of the participants, 111 were classified as responders and 173 as nonresponders. There were no significant differences between the groups in gender, age, body mass index, or FODMAP per calorie.

Following FODMAP restriction, responders had consistently lower abdominal pain throughout the day and lower bloating and flatulence predominantly in the latter part of the day. Nonresponders experienced no significant changes in key abdominal symptoms after adopting the low FODMAP diet. 

The researchers found that breath tests taken at baseline revealed predictive trends between the groups, even though average FODMAP consumption did not significantly differ between them. Baseline H2 levels were higher among responders than among nonresponders, especially in the morning and evening. However, responders had lower baseline CH4 levels throughout the day. 

Following FODMAP restrictions, responders had a significant drop in non-fasting H2 but not CH4, whereas nonresponders did not have a significant drop in either.

The study was limited by the fact that participants were not clinically diagnosed with IBS, their GI symptoms were mild overall, and no data were available on stool consistency/frequency or fecal microbiome composition for correlation with exhaled breath gas levels.
 

A Potential New Biomarker

Session co-moderator Kyle Staller, MD, MPH, director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that if validated, these findings provide hope for better directing low FODMAP diets to those patients who may benefit. 

Massachusetts General Hospital

There are some patients who may or may not respond to a FODMAP diet, for reasons we don’t yet know, possibly related to fermentation of gas, and it’s helpful to know before starting treatment, he said. It may help us with more of “a precision medicine approach before we really torture people with diets that can be very difficult to adhere to.” 

Staller, who was not involved in the study, added that, “People tend to really focus on small intestinal bacteria overgrowth when it comes to hydrogen and methane production, but in reality, this is really a very agile day-to-day, meal-to-meal responsiveness. 

“It’s a different paradigm,” he continued. “I’d also like to see more data as to why we see the diurnal rhythm” and whether potential factors such as intestinal transit times are playing a role. 

Singh reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Staller reported receiving research support from Ardelyx and Restasis and serving as a consultant to Anji, Ardelyx, GI Supply, Mahana, Restasis, and Sanofi. Funding associated with the study was not available at the time of publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is associated with a significant decrease in the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to the results of a retrospective study.

“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.

Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.

The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Retrospective Database Analysis

Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.

They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.

Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).

Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
 

A Proposed Protective Effect

Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.

“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”

This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”

These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.

“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”

Hypothesis-Generating Results

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research. 

"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. 

She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D. 

Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said. 

“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained. 

Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention." 

The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is associated with a significant decrease in the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to the results of a retrospective study.

“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.

Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.

The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Retrospective Database Analysis

Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.

They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.

Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).

Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
 

A Proposed Protective Effect

Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.

“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”

This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”

These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.

“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”

Hypothesis-Generating Results

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research. 

"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. 

She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D. 

Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said. 

“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained. 

Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention." 

The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is associated with a significant decrease in the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to the results of a retrospective study.

“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.

Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.

The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Retrospective Database Analysis

Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.

They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.

Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).

Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
 

A Proposed Protective Effect

Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.

“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”

This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”

These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.

“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”

Hypothesis-Generating Results

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research. 

"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. 

She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D. 

Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said. 

“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained. 

Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention." 

The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Researchers have developed an artificial intelligence (AI) tool capable of detecting and differentiating cystic and solid pancreatic lesions during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with high accuracy.

This was a transatlantic collaborative effort involving researchers in Portugal, Spain, the United States, and Brazil, and the AI tool “works on different platforms and different devices,” Miguel Mascarenhas, MD, PhD, with Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Mascarenhas noted that pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are a common incidental finding during imaging and are differentiated by whether they’re mucinous PCLs (M-PCLs) or non-mucinous PCLs (NM-PCLs). The malignancy risk is almost exclusive of PCL with a mucinous phenotype.

Pancreatic solid lesions are also prevalent, and differentiation is challenging. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (P-DAC) is the most common pancreatic solid lesion and has a poor prognosis because of late-stage disease at diagnosis. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs) are less common but have malignant potential.

EUS is the “gold standard” for pancreatic lesion evaluation, but its diagnostic accuracy is suboptimal, particularly for lesions < 10 mm, Mascarenhas noted.

With an eye toward improving diagnostic accuracy, he and colleagues developed a convolutional neural network for detecting and differentiating cystic (M-PCL and NM-PCL) and solid (P-DAC and P-NET) pancreatic lesions.

They leveraged data from 378 EUS exams with 126,000 still images — 19,528 M-PCL, 8175 NM-PCL, 64,286 P-DAC, 29,153 P-NET, and 4858 normal pancreas images.

The AI tool demonstrated 99.1% accuracy for identifying normal pancreatic tissue, and it showed 99% and 99.8% accuracy for M-PCL and NM-PCL, respectively.

For pancreatic solid lesions, P-DAC and P-NET were distinguished with 94% accuracy, with 98.7% and 83.6% sensitivity for P-DAC and P-NET, respectively.
 

Real-Time Validation Next