Upper GI Tract

A new ratio based on manometric esophageal length in relation to patient height could offer an objective means of preoperatively identifying shortened esophagus, which could improve surgical planning and outcomes with hiatal hernia repair, according to investigators.

In a retrospective analysis, patients with a lower manometric esophageal length-to-height (MELH) ratio had a higher rate of hiatal hernia recurrence, reported lead author Pooja Lal, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues.

A short esophagus increases tension at the gastroesophageal junction, which may necessitate a lengthening procedure in addition to hiatal hernia repair, the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. As lengthening may require additional expertise, preoperative knowledge of a short esophagus is beneficial; however, until this point, short esophagus could only be identified intraoperatively. Since previous attempts to define short esophagus were confounded by patient height, the investigators devised the MELH ratio to account for this variable.

The investigators evaluated data from 245 patients who underwent hiatal hernia repair by Nissen fundoplication, of whom 157 also underwent esophageal lengthening with a Collis gastroplasty. The decision to perform a Collis gastroplasty was made intraoperatively if a patient did not have at least 2-3 cm of intra-abdominal esophageal length with minimal tension.

For all patients, the MELH ratio was determined by dividing manometric esophageal length by patient height (both in centimeters).

On average, patients who needed a Collis gastroplasty had a shorter esophagus (20.2 vs. 22.4 cm; P less than .001) and a lower MELH ratio (0.12 vs. 0.13; P less than .001).

Multivariable hazard regression showed that regardless of surgical approach, for every 0.01 U-increment increase in MELH ratio, risk of hernia recurrence decreased by 33% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P less than .001). In contrast, regardless of MELH ratio, repair without Collis was associated with a 500% increased risk of recurrence (HR, 6.1; P less than .001). Over 5 years, the benefit of Collis gastroplasty translated to a significantly lower rate of both hernia recurrence (18% vs. 55%; P less than .001) and reoperations for recurrence (0% vs. 10%; P less than .001).

“We suggest that surgeons and gastroenterologists calculate the MELH ratio before repair of a hiatal hernia, and be cognizant of patients with a shortened esophagus,” the investigators concluded. “An esophageal lengthening procedure such as a Collis gastroplasty may reduce the risk of hernia recurrence and reoperation for recurrence, especially for patients with a MELH ratio less than 0.12.”The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lal P et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001316.

A new ratio based on manometric esophageal length in relation to patient height could offer an objective means of preoperatively identifying shortened esophagus, which could improve surgical planning and outcomes with hiatal hernia repair, according to investigators.

In a retrospective analysis, patients with a lower manometric esophageal length-to-height (MELH) ratio had a higher rate of hiatal hernia recurrence, reported lead author Pooja Lal, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues.

A short esophagus increases tension at the gastroesophageal junction, which may necessitate a lengthening procedure in addition to hiatal hernia repair, the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. As lengthening may require additional expertise, preoperative knowledge of a short esophagus is beneficial; however, until this point, short esophagus could only be identified intraoperatively. Since previous attempts to define short esophagus were confounded by patient height, the investigators devised the MELH ratio to account for this variable.

The investigators evaluated data from 245 patients who underwent hiatal hernia repair by Nissen fundoplication, of whom 157 also underwent esophageal lengthening with a Collis gastroplasty. The decision to perform a Collis gastroplasty was made intraoperatively if a patient did not have at least 2-3 cm of intra-abdominal esophageal length with minimal tension.

For all patients, the MELH ratio was determined by dividing manometric esophageal length by patient height (both in centimeters).

On average, patients who needed a Collis gastroplasty had a shorter esophagus (20.2 vs. 22.4 cm; P less than .001) and a lower MELH ratio (0.12 vs. 0.13; P less than .001).

Multivariable hazard regression showed that regardless of surgical approach, for every 0.01 U-increment increase in MELH ratio, risk of hernia recurrence decreased by 33% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P less than .001). In contrast, regardless of MELH ratio, repair without Collis was associated with a 500% increased risk of recurrence (HR, 6.1; P less than .001). Over 5 years, the benefit of Collis gastroplasty translated to a significantly lower rate of both hernia recurrence (18% vs. 55%; P less than .001) and reoperations for recurrence (0% vs. 10%; P less than .001).

“We suggest that surgeons and gastroenterologists calculate the MELH ratio before repair of a hiatal hernia, and be cognizant of patients with a shortened esophagus,” the investigators concluded. “An esophageal lengthening procedure such as a Collis gastroplasty may reduce the risk of hernia recurrence and reoperation for recurrence, especially for patients with a MELH ratio less than 0.12.”The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lal P et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001316.

A new ratio based on manometric esophageal length in relation to patient height could offer an objective means of preoperatively identifying shortened esophagus, which could improve surgical planning and outcomes with hiatal hernia repair, according to investigators.

In a retrospective analysis, patients with a lower manometric esophageal length-to-height (MELH) ratio had a higher rate of hiatal hernia recurrence, reported lead author Pooja Lal, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues.

A short esophagus increases tension at the gastroesophageal junction, which may necessitate a lengthening procedure in addition to hiatal hernia repair, the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. As lengthening may require additional expertise, preoperative knowledge of a short esophagus is beneficial; however, until this point, short esophagus could only be identified intraoperatively. Since previous attempts to define short esophagus were confounded by patient height, the investigators devised the MELH ratio to account for this variable.

The investigators evaluated data from 245 patients who underwent hiatal hernia repair by Nissen fundoplication, of whom 157 also underwent esophageal lengthening with a Collis gastroplasty. The decision to perform a Collis gastroplasty was made intraoperatively if a patient did not have at least 2-3 cm of intra-abdominal esophageal length with minimal tension.

For all patients, the MELH ratio was determined by dividing manometric esophageal length by patient height (both in centimeters).

On average, patients who needed a Collis gastroplasty had a shorter esophagus (20.2 vs. 22.4 cm; P less than .001) and a lower MELH ratio (0.12 vs. 0.13; P less than .001).

Multivariable hazard regression showed that regardless of surgical approach, for every 0.01 U-increment increase in MELH ratio, risk of hernia recurrence decreased by 33% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P less than .001). In contrast, regardless of MELH ratio, repair without Collis was associated with a 500% increased risk of recurrence (HR, 6.1; P less than .001). Over 5 years, the benefit of Collis gastroplasty translated to a significantly lower rate of both hernia recurrence (18% vs. 55%; P less than .001) and reoperations for recurrence (0% vs. 10%; P less than .001).

“We suggest that surgeons and gastroenterologists calculate the MELH ratio before repair of a hiatal hernia, and be cognizant of patients with a shortened esophagus,” the investigators concluded. “An esophageal lengthening procedure such as a Collis gastroplasty may reduce the risk of hernia recurrence and reoperation for recurrence, especially for patients with a MELH ratio less than 0.12.”The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lal P et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001316.

For children with milk-induced eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), 9 months of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) with Viaskin Milk did not significantly improve eosinophil counts or symptoms, compared with placebo, according to the results of an intention-to-treat analysis of a randomized, double-blinded pilot study.

Average maximum eosinophil counts were 50.1 per high-power field in the Viaskin Milk group versus 48.2 in the placebo group, said Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates. However, in the per-protocol analysis, the seven patients who received Viaskin Milk had mean eosinophil counts of 25.6 per high-power field, compared with 95.0 for the two children who received placebo (P = .038). Moreover, 47% of patients had fewer than 15 eosinophils per high-power field after an additional 11 months of open-label treatment with Viaskin Milk. Taken together, the findings justify larger, multicenter studies to evaluate EPIT for treating EoE and other non-IgE mediated food diseases, Dr. Spergel and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

EoE results from an immune response to specific food allergens, including milk. Classic symptoms include difficulty feeding and failure to thrive in infants, abdominal pain in young children, and dysphagia in older children and adults. Definitive diagnosis requires an esophageal biopsy with an eosinophil count of 15 or more cells per high-power field. “There are no approved therapies [for eosinophilic esophagitis] beyond avoidance of the allergen(s) or treatment of inflammation,” the investigators wrote.

In prior studies, exposure to EPIT was found to mitigate eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease in mice and pigs. In humans, milk is the most common dietary cause of eosinophilic esophagitis. Accordingly, Viaskin Milk is an EPIT containing an allergen extract of milk that is administered epicutaneously using a specialized delivery system. To evaluate its use for the treatment of pediatric milk-induced EoE (at least 15 eosinophils per high-power frame despite at least 2 months of high-dose proton pump–inhibitor therapy at 1-2 mg/kg twice daily), the researchers randomly assigned 20 children on a 3:1 basis to receive either Viaskin Milk or placebo for 9 months. Patients and investigators were double-blinded for this phase of the study, during most of which patients abstained from milk. Toward the end of the 9 months, patients resumed consuming milk and continued doing so if their upper endoscopy biopsy showed resolution of EoE (eosinophil count less than 15 per high-power field).

In the intention-to-treat analysis, Viaskin Milk did not meet the primary endpoint of the difference in least squares mean compared with placebo (8.6; 95% confidence interval, –35.36 to 52.56). Symptom scores also were similar between groups. In contrast, at the end of the 11-month, open-label period, 9 of 19 evaluable patients had eosinophil biopsy counts of fewer than 15 per high-power field, for a response rate of 47%. “The number of adverse events did not differ significantly between the Viaskin Milk and placebo groups,” the researchers added.

Protocol violations might explain why EPIT failed to meet the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat analysis, they wrote. “For example, the patients on the active therapy wanted to ingest more milk, while the patients in the placebo group wanted less milk,” they reported. “Three patients in the active therapy went on binge milk diets drinking 4 to 8 times the amount of milk compared with baseline.” The use of proton pump inhibitors also was inconsistent between groups, they added. “The major limitation in the [per-protocol] population was the small sample size of this pilot study, raising the possibility of false-positive results.”

The study was funded by DBV Technologies and by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Eosinophilic Esophagitis Family Fund. Dr. Spergel disclosed consulting agreements, grants funding, and stock equity with DBV Technologies. Three coinvestigators also disclosed ties to DBV. The remaining five coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Spergel JM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.05.014.

For children with milk-induced eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), 9 months of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) with Viaskin Milk did not significantly improve eosinophil counts or symptoms, compared with placebo, according to the results of an intention-to-treat analysis of a randomized, double-blinded pilot study.

Average maximum eosinophil counts were 50.1 per high-power field in the Viaskin Milk group versus 48.2 in the placebo group, said Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates. However, in the per-protocol analysis, the seven patients who received Viaskin Milk had mean eosinophil counts of 25.6 per high-power field, compared with 95.0 for the two children who received placebo (P = .038). Moreover, 47% of patients had fewer than 15 eosinophils per high-power field after an additional 11 months of open-label treatment with Viaskin Milk. Taken together, the findings justify larger, multicenter studies to evaluate EPIT for treating EoE and other non-IgE mediated food diseases, Dr. Spergel and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

EoE results from an immune response to specific food allergens, including milk. Classic symptoms include difficulty feeding and failure to thrive in infants, abdominal pain in young children, and dysphagia in older children and adults. Definitive diagnosis requires an esophageal biopsy with an eosinophil count of 15 or more cells per high-power field. “There are no approved therapies [for eosinophilic esophagitis] beyond avoidance of the allergen(s) or treatment of inflammation,” the investigators wrote.

In prior studies, exposure to EPIT was found to mitigate eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease in mice and pigs. In humans, milk is the most common dietary cause of eosinophilic esophagitis. Accordingly, Viaskin Milk is an EPIT containing an allergen extract of milk that is administered epicutaneously using a specialized delivery system. To evaluate its use for the treatment of pediatric milk-induced EoE (at least 15 eosinophils per high-power frame despite at least 2 months of high-dose proton pump–inhibitor therapy at 1-2 mg/kg twice daily), the researchers randomly assigned 20 children on a 3:1 basis to receive either Viaskin Milk or placebo for 9 months. Patients and investigators were double-blinded for this phase of the study, during most of which patients abstained from milk. Toward the end of the 9 months, patients resumed consuming milk and continued doing so if their upper endoscopy biopsy showed resolution of EoE (eosinophil count less than 15 per high-power field).

In the intention-to-treat analysis, Viaskin Milk did not meet the primary endpoint of the difference in least squares mean compared with placebo (8.6; 95% confidence interval, –35.36 to 52.56). Symptom scores also were similar between groups. In contrast, at the end of the 11-month, open-label period, 9 of 19 evaluable patients had eosinophil biopsy counts of fewer than 15 per high-power field, for a response rate of 47%. “The number of adverse events did not differ significantly between the Viaskin Milk and placebo groups,” the researchers added.

Protocol violations might explain why EPIT failed to meet the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat analysis, they wrote. “For example, the patients on the active therapy wanted to ingest more milk, while the patients in the placebo group wanted less milk,” they reported. “Three patients in the active therapy went on binge milk diets drinking 4 to 8 times the amount of milk compared with baseline.” The use of proton pump inhibitors also was inconsistent between groups, they added. “The major limitation in the [per-protocol] population was the small sample size of this pilot study, raising the possibility of false-positive results.”

The study was funded by DBV Technologies and by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Eosinophilic Esophagitis Family Fund. Dr. Spergel disclosed consulting agreements, grants funding, and stock equity with DBV Technologies. Three coinvestigators also disclosed ties to DBV. The remaining five coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Spergel JM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.05.014.

For children with milk-induced eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), 9 months of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) with Viaskin Milk did not significantly improve eosinophil counts or symptoms, compared with placebo, according to the results of an intention-to-treat analysis of a randomized, double-blinded pilot study.

Average maximum eosinophil counts were 50.1 per high-power field in the Viaskin Milk group versus 48.2 in the placebo group, said Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates. However, in the per-protocol analysis, the seven patients who received Viaskin Milk had mean eosinophil counts of 25.6 per high-power field, compared with 95.0 for the two children who received placebo (P = .038). Moreover, 47% of patients had fewer than 15 eosinophils per high-power field after an additional 11 months of open-label treatment with Viaskin Milk. Taken together, the findings justify larger, multicenter studies to evaluate EPIT for treating EoE and other non-IgE mediated food diseases, Dr. Spergel and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

EoE results from an immune response to specific food allergens, including milk. Classic symptoms include difficulty feeding and failure to thrive in infants, abdominal pain in young children, and dysphagia in older children and adults. Definitive diagnosis requires an esophageal biopsy with an eosinophil count of 15 or more cells per high-power field. “There are no approved therapies [for eosinophilic esophagitis] beyond avoidance of the allergen(s) or treatment of inflammation,” the investigators wrote.

In prior studies, exposure to EPIT was found to mitigate eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease in mice and pigs. In humans, milk is the most common dietary cause of eosinophilic esophagitis. Accordingly, Viaskin Milk is an EPIT containing an allergen extract of milk that is administered epicutaneously using a specialized delivery system. To evaluate its use for the treatment of pediatric milk-induced EoE (at least 15 eosinophils per high-power frame despite at least 2 months of high-dose proton pump–inhibitor therapy at 1-2 mg/kg twice daily), the researchers randomly assigned 20 children on a 3:1 basis to receive either Viaskin Milk or placebo for 9 months. Patients and investigators were double-blinded for this phase of the study, during most of which patients abstained from milk. Toward the end of the 9 months, patients resumed consuming milk and continued doing so if their upper endoscopy biopsy showed resolution of EoE (eosinophil count less than 15 per high-power field).

In the intention-to-treat analysis, Viaskin Milk did not meet the primary endpoint of the difference in least squares mean compared with placebo (8.6; 95% confidence interval, –35.36 to 52.56). Symptom scores also were similar between groups. In contrast, at the end of the 11-month, open-label period, 9 of 19 evaluable patients had eosinophil biopsy counts of fewer than 15 per high-power field, for a response rate of 47%. “The number of adverse events did not differ significantly between the Viaskin Milk and placebo groups,” the researchers added.

Protocol violations might explain why EPIT failed to meet the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat analysis, they wrote. “For example, the patients on the active therapy wanted to ingest more milk, while the patients in the placebo group wanted less milk,” they reported. “Three patients in the active therapy went on binge milk diets drinking 4 to 8 times the amount of milk compared with baseline.” The use of proton pump inhibitors also was inconsistent between groups, they added. “The major limitation in the [per-protocol] population was the small sample size of this pilot study, raising the possibility of false-positive results.”

The study was funded by DBV Technologies and by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Eosinophilic Esophagitis Family Fund. Dr. Spergel disclosed consulting agreements, grants funding, and stock equity with DBV Technologies. Three coinvestigators also disclosed ties to DBV. The remaining five coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Spergel JM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.05.014.

In patients with Barrett’s esophagus and low-grade dysplasia confirmed by repeat endoscopy, endoscopic eradication therapy is the optimal cost-effective management strategy, according to an analysis of population-based models. For patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, the optimal surveillance interval is every 3 years for men and every 5 years for women, according to the study, which was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Clinical guidelines recommend surveillance or treatment of patients with Barrett’s esophagus, a precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma, depending on the presence and grade of dysplasia. For high-grade dysplasia, guidelines recommend endoscopic eradication therapy. For low-grade dysplasia, the optimal strategy is unclear, said first study author Amir-Houshang Omidvari, MD, MPH, a researcher at Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands) and colleagues. In addition, the ideal surveillance interval for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus is unknown.

Simulated cohorts

To identify optimal management strategies, the investigators simulated cohorts of 60-year-old patients with Barrett’s esophagus in the United States using three independent population-based models. They followed each cohort until death or age 100 years. The study compared disease progression without surveillance or treatment with 78 management strategies. The cost-effectiveness analyses used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

For low-grade dysplasia, the researchers assessed various surveillance intervals, endoscopic eradication therapy with confirmation of low-grade dysplasia by a repeat endoscopy after 2 months of high-dose acid suppression, and endoscopic eradication therapy without confirmatory testing. For nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, the researchers evaluated no surveillance and surveillance intervals of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 10 years. The researchers made assumptions based on published data about rates of misdiagnosis, treatment efficacy, recurrence, complications, and other outcomes. They used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement rates to evaluate costs. For all management strategies, the researchers assumed surveillance would stop at age 80 years.

In a simulated cohort of men with Barrett’s esophagus who did not receive surveillance or endoscopic eradication therapy, the models predicted an average esophageal adenocarcinoma cumulative incidence of 111 cases per 1,000 patients and mortality of 77 deaths per 1,000 patients, with a total cost of $5.7 million for their care. Management strategies “prevented 23%-75% of [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases and decreased mortality by 31%-88% while increasing costs to $6.2-$17.3 million depending on the management strategy,” the authors said. The optimal cost-effective strategy – endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with low-grade dysplasia after endoscopic confirmation, and surveillance every 3 years for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus – decreased esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence to 38 cases (–66%) and mortality to 15 deaths (–81%) per 1,000 patients, compared with natural history. This approach increased costs to $9.8 million and gained 358 QALYs.

The models predicted fewer esophageal adenocarcinoma cases in women without surveillance or treatment (75 cases per 1,000 patients). “Because of the higher incremental costs per QALY gained in women, the optimal strategy was surveillance every 5 years for [nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus],” the researchers reported.

Avoiding misdiagnosis

“Despite the potential harms and cost of endoscopic therapy, [endoscopic eradication therapy of low-grade dysplasia] reduces the number of endoscopies required for surveillance ... because of prolonged surveillance intervals after successful treatment, and [it] generally prevents more [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases than strategies using only surveillance,” wrote Dr. Omidvari and colleagues. Confirmation of low-grade dysplasia with repeat testing before treatment was more cost-effective than treatment without confirmatory testing. Although this approach requires one more endoscopy per patient, a decrease in inappropriate treatment of patients with false-positive low-grade dysplasia diagnoses compensates for the additional testing costs, they said.

The researchers noted that available data on long-term outcomes are limited. Nevertheless, the analysis may have important implications for patients with Barrett’s esophagus without dysplasia or with low-grade dysplasia, the authors said.

The National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute supported the study and provided funding for the authors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Omidvari A-H et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.058.

In patients with Barrett’s esophagus and low-grade dysplasia confirmed by repeat endoscopy, endoscopic eradication therapy is the optimal cost-effective management strategy, according to an analysis of population-based models. For patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, the optimal surveillance interval is every 3 years for men and every 5 years for women, according to the study, which was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Clinical guidelines recommend surveillance or treatment of patients with Barrett’s esophagus, a precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma, depending on the presence and grade of dysplasia. For high-grade dysplasia, guidelines recommend endoscopic eradication therapy. For low-grade dysplasia, the optimal strategy is unclear, said first study author Amir-Houshang Omidvari, MD, MPH, a researcher at Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands) and colleagues. In addition, the ideal surveillance interval for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus is unknown.

Simulated cohorts

To identify optimal management strategies, the investigators simulated cohorts of 60-year-old patients with Barrett’s esophagus in the United States using three independent population-based models. They followed each cohort until death or age 100 years. The study compared disease progression without surveillance or treatment with 78 management strategies. The cost-effectiveness analyses used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

For low-grade dysplasia, the researchers assessed various surveillance intervals, endoscopic eradication therapy with confirmation of low-grade dysplasia by a repeat endoscopy after 2 months of high-dose acid suppression, and endoscopic eradication therapy without confirmatory testing. For nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, the researchers evaluated no surveillance and surveillance intervals of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 10 years. The researchers made assumptions based on published data about rates of misdiagnosis, treatment efficacy, recurrence, complications, and other outcomes. They used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement rates to evaluate costs. For all management strategies, the researchers assumed surveillance would stop at age 80 years.

In a simulated cohort of men with Barrett’s esophagus who did not receive surveillance or endoscopic eradication therapy, the models predicted an average esophageal adenocarcinoma cumulative incidence of 111 cases per 1,000 patients and mortality of 77 deaths per 1,000 patients, with a total cost of $5.7 million for their care. Management strategies “prevented 23%-75% of [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases and decreased mortality by 31%-88% while increasing costs to $6.2-$17.3 million depending on the management strategy,” the authors said. The optimal cost-effective strategy – endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with low-grade dysplasia after endoscopic confirmation, and surveillance every 3 years for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus – decreased esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence to 38 cases (–66%) and mortality to 15 deaths (–81%) per 1,000 patients, compared with natural history. This approach increased costs to $9.8 million and gained 358 QALYs.

The models predicted fewer esophageal adenocarcinoma cases in women without surveillance or treatment (75 cases per 1,000 patients). “Because of the higher incremental costs per QALY gained in women, the optimal strategy was surveillance every 5 years for [nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus],” the researchers reported.

Avoiding misdiagnosis

“Despite the potential harms and cost of endoscopic therapy, [endoscopic eradication therapy of low-grade dysplasia] reduces the number of endoscopies required for surveillance ... because of prolonged surveillance intervals after successful treatment, and [it] generally prevents more [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases than strategies using only surveillance,” wrote Dr. Omidvari and colleagues. Confirmation of low-grade dysplasia with repeat testing before treatment was more cost-effective than treatment without confirmatory testing. Although this approach requires one more endoscopy per patient, a decrease in inappropriate treatment of patients with false-positive low-grade dysplasia diagnoses compensates for the additional testing costs, they said.

The researchers noted that available data on long-term outcomes are limited. Nevertheless, the analysis may have important implications for patients with Barrett’s esophagus without dysplasia or with low-grade dysplasia, the authors said.

The National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute supported the study and provided funding for the authors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Omidvari A-H et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.058.

In patients with Barrett’s esophagus and low-grade dysplasia confirmed by repeat endoscopy, endoscopic eradication therapy is the optimal cost-effective management strategy, according to an analysis of population-based models. For patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, the optimal surveillance interval is every 3 years for men and every 5 years for women, according to the study, which was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Clinical guidelines recommend surveillance or treatment of patients with Barrett’s esophagus, a precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma, depending on the presence and grade of dysplasia. For high-grade dysplasia, guidelines recommend endoscopic eradication therapy. For low-grade dysplasia, the optimal strategy is unclear, said first study author Amir-Houshang Omidvari, MD, MPH, a researcher at Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands) and colleagues. In addition, the ideal surveillance interval for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus is unknown.

Simulated cohorts

To identify optimal management strategies, the investigators simulated cohorts of 60-year-old patients with Barrett’s esophagus in the United States using three independent population-based models. They followed each cohort until death or age 100 years. The study compared disease progression without surveillance or treatment with 78 management strategies. The cost-effectiveness analyses used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

For low-grade dysplasia, the researchers assessed various surveillance intervals, endoscopic eradication therapy with confirmation of low-grade dysplasia by a repeat endoscopy after 2 months of high-dose acid suppression, and endoscopic eradication therapy without confirmatory testing. For nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, the researchers evaluated no surveillance and surveillance intervals of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 10 years. The researchers made assumptions based on published data about rates of misdiagnosis, treatment efficacy, recurrence, complications, and other outcomes. They used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement rates to evaluate costs. For all management strategies, the researchers assumed surveillance would stop at age 80 years.

In a simulated cohort of men with Barrett’s esophagus who did not receive surveillance or endoscopic eradication therapy, the models predicted an average esophageal adenocarcinoma cumulative incidence of 111 cases per 1,000 patients and mortality of 77 deaths per 1,000 patients, with a total cost of $5.7 million for their care. Management strategies “prevented 23%-75% of [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases and decreased mortality by 31%-88% while increasing costs to $6.2-$17.3 million depending on the management strategy,” the authors said. The optimal cost-effective strategy – endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with low-grade dysplasia after endoscopic confirmation, and surveillance every 3 years for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus – decreased esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence to 38 cases (–66%) and mortality to 15 deaths (–81%) per 1,000 patients, compared with natural history. This approach increased costs to $9.8 million and gained 358 QALYs.

The models predicted fewer esophageal adenocarcinoma cases in women without surveillance or treatment (75 cases per 1,000 patients). “Because of the higher incremental costs per QALY gained in women, the optimal strategy was surveillance every 5 years for [nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus],” the researchers reported.

Avoiding misdiagnosis

“Despite the potential harms and cost of endoscopic therapy, [endoscopic eradication therapy of low-grade dysplasia] reduces the number of endoscopies required for surveillance ... because of prolonged surveillance intervals after successful treatment, and [it] generally prevents more [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases than strategies using only surveillance,” wrote Dr. Omidvari and colleagues. Confirmation of low-grade dysplasia with repeat testing before treatment was more cost-effective than treatment without confirmatory testing. Although this approach requires one more endoscopy per patient, a decrease in inappropriate treatment of patients with false-positive low-grade dysplasia diagnoses compensates for the additional testing costs, they said.

The researchers noted that available data on long-term outcomes are limited. Nevertheless, the analysis may have important implications for patients with Barrett’s esophagus without dysplasia or with low-grade dysplasia, the authors said.

The National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute supported the study and provided funding for the authors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Omidvari A-H et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.058.

An implanted gastric electrical stimulation device significantly improved refractory vomiting but not quality of life in a randomized, multicenter, double-blind crossover trial of 172 patients.

After 4 months of electrical stimulation, frequency of vomiting was significantly improved from baseline in the intervention arm, compared with the control arm, in patients with both delayed (P less than .01) and normal (P = .05) gastric emptying. There was also an improvement in nausea with gastric stimulation. In contrast, there was no significant improvement in the coprimary endpoint of quality of life. Based on these findings, “a limited number of medically resistant patients may benefit from gastroelectric stimulation to relieve nausea and vomiting,” wrote Philippe Ducrotté, MD, of Rouen (France) University Hospital and associates in Gastroenterology.

High-frequency gastric electrical stimulation with the surgically implanted Enterra device is regarded as a treatment option for chronic refractory vomiting in patients with or without gastroparesis. However, only moderate evidence supports the use of this therapy, with level 1 evidence limited to a single study, according to the researchers. For the study, they enrolled 172 adults with at least 12 months of nausea or vomiting that was refractory to antiemetic or prokinetic therapy and was either idiopathic or related to type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus or surgery (partial gastric resection or vagotomy). Symptoms “had to be severe enough to affect the general condition of the patient, including [causing] weight loss, or the need to change dietary intake to control diabetes,” said the researchers.

The study started with a 4-month run-in period, after which all patients had the device implanted and left off for one month. Patients in the intervention arm then had the device turned on and programmed at standard parameters (5 mA, 14 Hz, 330 micros, cycle on 0.1s, cycle off 5s). Both groups were assessed at 4 months, and 149 patients then crossed over to the other arm and were assessed again at 4 months. Vomiting was evaluated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (most severe) to 5 (symptom absent), while quality of life was assessed by means of the 36-question, self-administered Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI).

During the intervention, 30.6% of patients reported at least a 1-point improvement on the vomiting frequency scale, while 53% reported no change. With the device turned off, 16.5% of patients reported an improvement in vomiting. During both phases of the trial, median vomiting frequency score was improved in the intervention arm compared with the control arm (P less than .001) in patients with (42%) and without (58%) diabetes. “Gastric emptying was not accelerated during the on period compared with the off period,” the investigators wrote. 

A total of 133 (77%) patients in the study had gastroparesis. Most patients were women in their 40s who vomited several times per day. Among 45 device-related events, the most common was abdominal pain at the implantation site (62%), followed by “infectious problems” at the abdominal pouch level (36%) and hematoma (2%). Three of these events “were serious enough to prompt device removal,” the researchers wrote.

The French government funded the study. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest. They dedicated the paper to the memory of Dr. Ducrotté, who died during the course of the study.

*This story was updated on January 13, 2020.

SOURCE: Ducrotté P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Oct 1. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.10.018

An implanted gastric electrical stimulation device significantly improved refractory vomiting but not quality of life in a randomized, multicenter, double-blind crossover trial of 172 patients.

After 4 months of electrical stimulation, frequency of vomiting was significantly improved from baseline in the intervention arm, compared with the control arm, in patients with both delayed (P less than .01) and normal (P = .05) gastric emptying. There was also an improvement in nausea with gastric stimulation. In contrast, there was no significant improvement in the coprimary endpoint of quality of life. Based on these findings, “a limited number of medically resistant patients may benefit from gastroelectric stimulation to relieve nausea and vomiting,” wrote Philippe Ducrotté, MD, of Rouen (France) University Hospital and associates in Gastroenterology.

High-frequency gastric electrical stimulation with the surgically implanted Enterra device is regarded as a treatment option for chronic refractory vomiting in patients with or without gastroparesis. However, only moderate evidence supports the use of this therapy, with level 1 evidence limited to a single study, according to the researchers. For the study, they enrolled 172 adults with at least 12 months of nausea or vomiting that was refractory to antiemetic or prokinetic therapy and was either idiopathic or related to type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus or surgery (partial gastric resection or vagotomy). Symptoms “had to be severe enough to affect the general condition of the patient, including [causing] weight loss, or the need to change dietary intake to control diabetes,” said the researchers.

The study started with a 4-month run-in period, after which all patients had the device implanted and left off for one month. Patients in the intervention arm then had the device turned on and programmed at standard parameters (5 mA, 14 Hz, 330 micros, cycle on 0.1s, cycle off 5s). Both groups were assessed at 4 months, and 149 patients then crossed over to the other arm and were assessed again at 4 months. Vomiting was evaluated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (most severe) to 5 (symptom absent), while quality of life was assessed by means of the 36-question, self-administered Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI).

During the intervention, 30.6% of patients reported at least a 1-point improvement on the vomiting frequency scale, while 53% reported no change. With the device turned off, 16.5% of patients reported an improvement in vomiting. During both phases of the trial, median vomiting frequency score was improved in the intervention arm compared with the control arm (P less than .001) in patients with (42%) and without (58%) diabetes. “Gastric emptying was not accelerated during the on period compared with the off period,” the investigators wrote. 

A total of 133 (77%) patients in the study had gastroparesis. Most patients were women in their 40s who vomited several times per day. Among 45 device-related events, the most common was abdominal pain at the implantation site (62%), followed by “infectious problems” at the abdominal pouch level (36%) and hematoma (2%). Three of these events “were serious enough to prompt device removal,” the researchers wrote.

The French government funded the study. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest. They dedicated the paper to the memory of Dr. Ducrotté, who died during the course of the study.

*This story was updated on January 13, 2020.

SOURCE: Ducrotté P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Oct 1. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.10.018

An implanted gastric electrical stimulation device significantly improved refractory vomiting but not quality of life in a randomized, multicenter, double-blind crossover trial of 172 patients.

After 4 months of electrical stimulation, frequency of vomiting was significantly improved from baseline in the intervention arm, compared with the control arm, in patients with both delayed (P less than .01) and normal (P = .05) gastric emptying. There was also an improvement in nausea with gastric stimulation. In contrast, there was no significant improvement in the coprimary endpoint of quality of life. Based on these findings, “a limited number of medically resistant patients may benefit from gastroelectric stimulation to relieve nausea and vomiting,” wrote Philippe Ducrotté, MD, of Rouen (France) University Hospital and associates in Gastroenterology.

High-frequency gastric electrical stimulation with the surgically implanted Enterra device is regarded as a treatment option for chronic refractory vomiting in patients with or without gastroparesis. However, only moderate evidence supports the use of this therapy, with level 1 evidence limited to a single study, according to the researchers. For the study, they enrolled 172 adults with at least 12 months of nausea or vomiting that was refractory to antiemetic or prokinetic therapy and was either idiopathic or related to type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus or surgery (partial gastric resection or vagotomy). Symptoms “had to be severe enough to affect the general condition of the patient, including [causing] weight loss, or the need to change dietary intake to control diabetes,” said the researchers.

The study started with a 4-month run-in period, after which all patients had the device implanted and left off for one month. Patients in the intervention arm then had the device turned on and programmed at standard parameters (5 mA, 14 Hz, 330 micros, cycle on 0.1s, cycle off 5s). Both groups were assessed at 4 months, and 149 patients then crossed over to the other arm and were assessed again at 4 months. Vomiting was evaluated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (most severe) to 5 (symptom absent), while quality of life was assessed by means of the 36-question, self-administered Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI).

During the intervention, 30.6% of patients reported at least a 1-point improvement on the vomiting frequency scale, while 53% reported no change. With the device turned off, 16.5% of patients reported an improvement in vomiting. During both phases of the trial, median vomiting frequency score was improved in the intervention arm compared with the control arm (P less than .001) in patients with (42%) and without (58%) diabetes. “Gastric emptying was not accelerated during the on period compared with the off period,” the investigators wrote. 

A total of 133 (77%) patients in the study had gastroparesis. Most patients were women in their 40s who vomited several times per day. Among 45 device-related events, the most common was abdominal pain at the implantation site (62%), followed by “infectious problems” at the abdominal pouch level (36%) and hematoma (2%). Three of these events “were serious enough to prompt device removal,” the researchers wrote.

The French government funded the study. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest. They dedicated the paper to the memory of Dr. Ducrotté, who died during the course of the study.

*This story was updated on January 13, 2020.

SOURCE: Ducrotté P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Oct 1. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.10.018

In males but not females, hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance, and metabolic syndrome are independently associated with a higher risk of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), based on a recent case-control study.

These findings offer some insight into why men have higher rates of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma than do women, reported lead author Bradley J. Kendall, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues.

“Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) and its precursor lesion, Barrett’s esophagus (BE), are more common in males than females,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “In contrast, gastroesophageal reflux (GER), the major risk factor for BE and EA occurs at similar frequencies in both sexes. In addition, 10% to 20% of BE and EA cases report no history of GER symptoms. This suggests that non-GER factors are important in the development of BE and EA.”

To examine risk factors more closely, the investigators enrolled 227 patients with BE and 241 age- and sex-matched controls. Data were drawn from self-reported questionnaires, interviews, blood pressure readings, and anthropometric measurements, the latter of which included weight, height, and waist circumference. These patient characteristics were supplemented with fasted blood assays. The investigators looked for associations between BE and insulin level, Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus, insulin-like growth factors, and interleukin-6 (IL-6).

Across the entire population, independent associations were detected between BE and hyperinsulinemia (highest vs. lowest tertile; odds ratio, 1.9; P = .003), insulin resistance (OR, 1.9; P = .006) and metabolic syndrome (OR, 1.8; P = .004). For those with metabolic syndrome, risk of BE increased by 20% for each additional syndrome criterion (P = .02).

When stratifying by sex, however, all of the above risk factors remained statistically significant in men, but not in women. For male patients, compared with the population as a whole, risks were relatively higher for all three factors: hyperinsulinemia (OR, 2.1; P = .007), insulin resistance (OR, 2.1; P = .01), and metabolic syndrome (OR, 2.3; P = .001). Similarly, for men with metabolic syndrome, each additional syndrome criterion increased risk of BE by 40% (P = .005).

Regardless of sex stratification, the other evaluated characteristics (type 2 diabetes mellitus, insulin-like growth factors, and IL-6) were not associated with BE risk.

The investigators offered some possible mechanistic explanations for their findings.

“Hyperinsulinemia ... can result in increased insulin signaling, increased cellular proliferation, reduced apoptosis, oncogenic pathway activation, and enhanced cellular invasion,” they wrote. “In addition, abdominal obesity, which is the driver of these disorders of insulin homeostasis, also alters adipocytokine profiles and induces a chronic systemic inflammatory state. The inflammatory state can result in oncoprotein activation, angiogenesis, cellular proliferation, apoptosis, and metastasis.”

Concerning the difference between sexes, the investigators pointed to patterns of abdominal obesity. “[A]bdominal obesity and the associated metabolic sequelae are more common in males than females,” they wrote. “These observations give rise to the notion that the metabolic syndrome potentiates the inflammatory effects of the gastric refluxate in the distal esophagus and this may play a role in the male predominance of BE and EA.”

While these findings offer insight into the underlying processes that precipitate BE, the investigators suggested that more research is needed.

“The interactions of obesity hormones, GER, and the cells of the esophageal mucosa warrant further investigation,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the Queensland Cancer Fund, Queensland Government Smart State Fund, and the Princess Alexandra Hospital Research Foundation, and others. The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Kendall BJ et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Dec 24. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001307.

In males but not females, hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance, and metabolic syndrome are independently associated with a higher risk of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), based on a recent case-control study.

These findings offer some insight into why men have higher rates of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma than do women, reported lead author Bradley J. Kendall, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues.

“Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) and its precursor lesion, Barrett’s esophagus (BE), are more common in males than females,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “In contrast, gastroesophageal reflux (GER), the major risk factor for BE and EA occurs at similar frequencies in both sexes. In addition, 10% to 20% of BE and EA cases report no history of GER symptoms. This suggests that non-GER factors are important in the development of BE and EA.”

To examine risk factors more closely, the investigators enrolled 227 patients with BE and 241 age- and sex-matched controls. Data were drawn from self-reported questionnaires, interviews, blood pressure readings, and anthropometric measurements, the latter of which included weight, height, and waist circumference. These patient characteristics were supplemented with fasted blood assays. The investigators looked for associations between BE and insulin level, Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus, insulin-like growth factors, and interleukin-6 (IL-6).

Across the entire population, independent associations were detected between BE and hyperinsulinemia (highest vs. lowest tertile; odds ratio, 1.9; P = .003), insulin resistance (OR, 1.9; P = .006) and metabolic syndrome (OR, 1.8; P = .004). For those with metabolic syndrome, risk of BE increased by 20% for each additional syndrome criterion (P = .02).

When stratifying by sex, however, all of the above risk factors remained statistically significant in men, but not in women. For male patients, compared with the population as a whole, risks were relatively higher for all three factors: hyperinsulinemia (OR, 2.1; P = .007), insulin resistance (OR, 2.1; P = .01), and metabolic syndrome (OR, 2.3; P = .001). Similarly, for men with metabolic syndrome, each additional syndrome criterion increased risk of BE by 40% (P = .005).

Regardless of sex stratification, the other evaluated characteristics (type 2 diabetes mellitus, insulin-like growth factors, and IL-6) were not associated with BE risk.

The investigators offered some possible mechanistic explanations for their findings.

“Hyperinsulinemia ... can result in increased insulin signaling, increased cellular proliferation, reduced apoptosis, oncogenic pathway activation, and enhanced cellular invasion,” they wrote. “In addition, abdominal obesity, which is the driver of these disorders of insulin homeostasis, also alters adipocytokine profiles and induces a chronic systemic inflammatory state. The inflammatory state can result in oncoprotein activation, angiogenesis, cellular proliferation, apoptosis, and metastasis.”

Concerning the difference between sexes, the investigators pointed to patterns of abdominal obesity. “[A]bdominal obesity and the associated metabolic sequelae are more common in males than females,” they wrote. “These observations give rise to the notion that the metabolic syndrome potentiates the inflammatory effects of the gastric refluxate in the distal esophagus and this may play a role in the male predominance of BE and EA.”

While these findings offer insight into the underlying processes that precipitate BE, the investigators suggested that more research is needed.

“The interactions of obesity hormones, GER, and the cells of the esophageal mucosa warrant further investigation,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the Queensland Cancer Fund, Queensland Government Smart State Fund, and the Princess Alexandra Hospital Research Foundation, and others. The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Kendall BJ et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Dec 24. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001307.

In males but not females, hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance, and metabolic syndrome are independently associated with a higher risk of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), based on a recent case-control study.

These findings offer some insight into why men have higher rates of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma than do women, reported lead author Bradley J. Kendall, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues.

“Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) and its precursor lesion, Barrett’s esophagus (BE), are more common in males than females,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “In contrast, gastroesophageal reflux (GER), the major risk factor for BE and EA occurs at similar frequencies in both sexes. In addition, 10% to 20% of BE and EA cases report no history of GER symptoms. This suggests that non-GER factors are important in the development of BE and EA.”

To examine risk factors more closely, the investigators enrolled 227 patients with BE and 241 age- and sex-matched controls. Data were drawn from self-reported questionnaires, interviews, blood pressure readings, and anthropometric measurements, the latter of which included weight, height, and waist circumference. These patient characteristics were supplemented with fasted blood assays. The investigators looked for associations between BE and insulin level, Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus, insulin-like growth factors, and interleukin-6 (IL-6).

Across the entire population, independent associations were detected between BE and hyperinsulinemia (highest vs. lowest tertile; odds ratio, 1.9; P = .003), insulin resistance (OR, 1.9; P = .006) and metabolic syndrome (OR, 1.8; P = .004). For those with metabolic syndrome, risk of BE increased by 20% for each additional syndrome criterion (P = .02).

When stratifying by sex, however, all of the above risk factors remained statistically significant in men, but not in women. For male patients, compared with the population as a whole, risks were relatively higher for all three factors: hyperinsulinemia (OR, 2.1; P = .007), insulin resistance (OR, 2.1; P = .01), and metabolic syndrome (OR, 2.3; P = .001). Similarly, for men with metabolic syndrome, each additional syndrome criterion increased risk of BE by 40% (P = .005).

Regardless of sex stratification, the other evaluated characteristics (type 2 diabetes mellitus, insulin-like growth factors, and IL-6) were not associated with BE risk.

The investigators offered some possible mechanistic explanations for their findings.

“Hyperinsulinemia ... can result in increased insulin signaling, increased cellular proliferation, reduced apoptosis, oncogenic pathway activation, and enhanced cellular invasion,” they wrote. “In addition, abdominal obesity, which is the driver of these disorders of insulin homeostasis, also alters adipocytokine profiles and induces a chronic systemic inflammatory state. The inflammatory state can result in oncoprotein activation, angiogenesis, cellular proliferation, apoptosis, and metastasis.”

Concerning the difference between sexes, the investigators pointed to patterns of abdominal obesity. “[A]bdominal obesity and the associated metabolic sequelae are more common in males than females,” they wrote. “These observations give rise to the notion that the metabolic syndrome potentiates the inflammatory effects of the gastric refluxate in the distal esophagus and this may play a role in the male predominance of BE and EA.”

While these findings offer insight into the underlying processes that precipitate BE, the investigators suggested that more research is needed.

“The interactions of obesity hormones, GER, and the cells of the esophageal mucosa warrant further investigation,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the Queensland Cancer Fund, Queensland Government Smart State Fund, and the Princess Alexandra Hospital Research Foundation, and others. The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Kendall BJ et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Dec 24. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001307.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently released a clinical practice update for endoscopic treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and/or early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The update offers best practice advice for a range of clinical scenarios based on published evidence, including guidelines and recent systematic reviews, reported lead author Prateek Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City. Dr. Sharma was accompanied on the authoring review team by three other expert gastroenterologists from the United States and the Netherlands.

Beyond practice advice, the investigators highlighted a research focus for the future.

“Given the expense and time required for careful and continual surveillance after Barrett’s endoscopic therapy, the future must define improved means of risk-stratifying patients for therapy who are at highest risk for cancer development and for risk of recurrence after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. “Potentially, we may use a panel of patient characteristics (such as the [Progression in Barrett’s] score), preablation tissue characteristics (e.g., baseline grade of dysplasia) and the posttherapy molecular makeup of the epithelium to help risk stratify our patients.”

For now, many of the treatment principles in the update depend upon histologic features.

For instance, either endoscopic therapy or continued surveillance are reasonable options for patients with Barrett’s esophagus who have confirmed and persistent low-grade dysplasia. In contrast, the update recommends that all patients with high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a) undergo endoscopic therapy, highlighting that this method is preferred over esophagectomy for patients with T1a cancer. Along the same lines, the investigators noted that endoscopic therapy is a “reasonable alternative” to esophagectomy in cases of T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma in the presence of minimal invasion and good to moderate differentiation, particularly in patients who are poor candidates for surgery.

During the decision-making process, patients with dysplasia should be advised that not undergoing endoscopic therapy may increase cancer risk, the investigators wrote, adding that patients should also be informed about endoscopic therapy–related risks of bleeding and perforation, which occur in less than 1% of patients, and the risk of postprocedural stricture formation, which occurs in approximately 6% of patients.

If endoscopic therapy is elected, the update suggests that the procedure be done by experts who perform at least 10 new cases per year.

Concerning specifics of therapy, the investigators advised that mucosal ablation be applied to all visible esophageal columnar mucosa, 5-10 mm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction, and 5-10 mm distal to the gastroesophageal junction. Ablation should only be performed in cases of flat Barrett’s esophagus in which no visible abnormalities or signs of inflammation are present, the review team wrote.

The investigators went on to lay out some “practical ground rules” for endoscopic therapy, including a potential pitfall.

“Ablation therapy may consist of multiple 2-3 monthly ablation sessions that may extend over a period of more than a year,” the investigators wrote. “The worst adverse outcome during the treatment period is failing to recognize and treat an invasive cancer while continuing the ablation sessions. This occurrence may place the patient outside of the window of opportunity for curative endoscopic treatment. Therefore, every ablation session starts with careful endoscopic inspection using [high-definition white-light endoscopy] and preferably optical chromoendoscopy to exclude the presence of visible abnormalities that require an endoscopic resection instead of the scheduled ablation. Routine biopsies of flat Barrett’s esophagus are not necessary or recommended prior to ablation at these sessions, as the blood may inhibit optimal energy transfer to the tissue.”

Following successfully achieved complete endoscopic and histologic eradication of intestinal metaplasia, the update calls for surveillance endoscopy with biopsies at intervals of 1 and 3 years for cases of low-grade dysplasia and at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months for high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma, followed by annual checks thereafter.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus, Ironwood, Erbe, and others.

SOURCE: Sharma P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.051.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently released a clinical practice update for endoscopic treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and/or early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The update offers best practice advice for a range of clinical scenarios based on published evidence, including guidelines and recent systematic reviews, reported lead author Prateek Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City. Dr. Sharma was accompanied on the authoring review team by three other expert gastroenterologists from the United States and the Netherlands.

Beyond practice advice, the investigators highlighted a research focus for the future.

“Given the expense and time required for careful and continual surveillance after Barrett’s endoscopic therapy, the future must define improved means of risk-stratifying patients for therapy who are at highest risk for cancer development and for risk of recurrence after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. “Potentially, we may use a panel of patient characteristics (such as the [Progression in Barrett’s] score), preablation tissue characteristics (e.g., baseline grade of dysplasia) and the posttherapy molecular makeup of the epithelium to help risk stratify our patients.”

For now, many of the treatment principles in the update depend upon histologic features.

For instance, either endoscopic therapy or continued surveillance are reasonable options for patients with Barrett’s esophagus who have confirmed and persistent low-grade dysplasia. In contrast, the update recommends that all patients with high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a) undergo endoscopic therapy, highlighting that this method is preferred over esophagectomy for patients with T1a cancer. Along the same lines, the investigators noted that endoscopic therapy is a “reasonable alternative” to esophagectomy in cases of T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma in the presence of minimal invasion and good to moderate differentiation, particularly in patients who are poor candidates for surgery.

During the decision-making process, patients with dysplasia should be advised that not undergoing endoscopic therapy may increase cancer risk, the investigators wrote, adding that patients should also be informed about endoscopic therapy–related risks of bleeding and perforation, which occur in less than 1% of patients, and the risk of postprocedural stricture formation, which occurs in approximately 6% of patients.

If endoscopic therapy is elected, the update suggests that the procedure be done by experts who perform at least 10 new cases per year.

Concerning specifics of therapy, the investigators advised that mucosal ablation be applied to all visible esophageal columnar mucosa, 5-10 mm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction, and 5-10 mm distal to the gastroesophageal junction. Ablation should only be performed in cases of flat Barrett’s esophagus in which no visible abnormalities or signs of inflammation are present, the review team wrote.

The investigators went on to lay out some “practical ground rules” for endoscopic therapy, including a potential pitfall.

“Ablation therapy may consist of multiple 2-3 monthly ablation sessions that may extend over a period of more than a year,” the investigators wrote. “The worst adverse outcome during the treatment period is failing to recognize and treat an invasive cancer while continuing the ablation sessions. This occurrence may place the patient outside of the window of opportunity for curative endoscopic treatment. Therefore, every ablation session starts with careful endoscopic inspection using [high-definition white-light endoscopy] and preferably optical chromoendoscopy to exclude the presence of visible abnormalities that require an endoscopic resection instead of the scheduled ablation. Routine biopsies of flat Barrett’s esophagus are not necessary or recommended prior to ablation at these sessions, as the blood may inhibit optimal energy transfer to the tissue.”

Following successfully achieved complete endoscopic and histologic eradication of intestinal metaplasia, the update calls for surveillance endoscopy with biopsies at intervals of 1 and 3 years for cases of low-grade dysplasia and at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months for high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma, followed by annual checks thereafter.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus, Ironwood, Erbe, and others.

SOURCE: Sharma P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.051.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently released a clinical practice update for endoscopic treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and/or early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The update offers best practice advice for a range of clinical scenarios based on published evidence, including guidelines and recent systematic reviews, reported lead author Prateek Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City. Dr. Sharma was accompanied on the authoring review team by three other expert gastroenterologists from the United States and the Netherlands.

Beyond practice advice, the investigators highlighted a research focus for the future.

“Given the expense and time required for careful and continual surveillance after Barrett’s endoscopic therapy, the future must define improved means of risk-stratifying patients for therapy who are at highest risk for cancer development and for risk of recurrence after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. “Potentially, we may use a panel of patient characteristics (such as the [Progression in Barrett’s] score), preablation tissue characteristics (e.g., baseline grade of dysplasia) and the posttherapy molecular makeup of the epithelium to help risk stratify our patients.”

For now, many of the treatment principles in the update depend upon histologic features.

For instance, either endoscopic therapy or continued surveillance are reasonable options for patients with Barrett’s esophagus who have confirmed and persistent low-grade dysplasia. In contrast, the update recommends that all patients with high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a) undergo endoscopic therapy, highlighting that this method is preferred over esophagectomy for patients with T1a cancer. Along the same lines, the investigators noted that endoscopic therapy is a “reasonable alternative” to esophagectomy in cases of T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma in the presence of minimal invasion and good to moderate differentiation, particularly in patients who are poor candidates for surgery.

During the decision-making process, patients with dysplasia should be advised that not undergoing endoscopic therapy may increase cancer risk, the investigators wrote, adding that patients should also be informed about endoscopic therapy–related risks of bleeding and perforation, which occur in less than 1% of patients, and the risk of postprocedural stricture formation, which occurs in approximately 6% of patients.

If endoscopic therapy is elected, the update suggests that the procedure be done by experts who perform at least 10 new cases per year.

Concerning specifics of therapy, the investigators advised that mucosal ablation be applied to all visible esophageal columnar mucosa, 5-10 mm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction, and 5-10 mm distal to the gastroesophageal junction. Ablation should only be performed in cases of flat Barrett’s esophagus in which no visible abnormalities or signs of inflammation are present, the review team wrote.

The investigators went on to lay out some “practical ground rules” for endoscopic therapy, including a potential pitfall.

“Ablation therapy may consist of multiple 2-3 monthly ablation sessions that may extend over a period of more than a year,” the investigators wrote. “The worst adverse outcome during the treatment period is failing to recognize and treat an invasive cancer while continuing the ablation sessions. This occurrence may place the patient outside of the window of opportunity for curative endoscopic treatment. Therefore, every ablation session starts with careful endoscopic inspection using [high-definition white-light endoscopy] and preferably optical chromoendoscopy to exclude the presence of visible abnormalities that require an endoscopic resection instead of the scheduled ablation. Routine biopsies of flat Barrett’s esophagus are not necessary or recommended prior to ablation at these sessions, as the blood may inhibit optimal energy transfer to the tissue.”

Following successfully achieved complete endoscopic and histologic eradication of intestinal metaplasia, the update calls for surveillance endoscopy with biopsies at intervals of 1 and 3 years for cases of low-grade dysplasia and at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months for high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma, followed by annual checks thereafter.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus, Ironwood, Erbe, and others.

SOURCE: Sharma P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.051.

A new risk prediction panel based on machine learning may enable routine, noninvasive identification of patients with a high risk of Barrett’s esophagus, according to investigators.

The methods used in the present study could potentially be applied to other conditions to aid in diagnosis and limit low-yield invasive testing, reported lead author Avi Rosenfeld, PhD, of Jerusalem College of Technology in Israel, and colleagues.

“The currently used system for identifying patients with Barrett’s esophagus, or those at risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma, is flawed because it is based on symptoms that trigger expensive and unpleasant invasive tests,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in The Lancet Digital Health.

In an effort to improve early clinical clarity, the investigators turned to machine learning. Algorithm development and testing relied upon data from more than 1,600 patients involved in two case-control trials, BEST2 and BOOST. From BEST2, 1,299 patients were randomized in a 6:4 ratio to generate a training dataset (n = 776) and a testing dataset (n = 523). Data from all 398 patients in the BOOST trial were used for external validation. Barrett’s esophagus was common in both trials, with a prevalence of 68% and 50% in BEST2 and BOOST, respectively.

During the training phase, machine learning identified independent patient characteristics associated with a diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. Specific artificial intelligence techniques included information gain and correlation-based feature selection.

“Both information gain and correlation-based feature selection are filter feature selection methods and thus have the advantage of being fast, scalable, and independent of the classifier,” the investigators noted. They explained that independence from the classifier is “crucial,” as this characteristic has been associated with improved interpretability and more stable algorithms than conventional statistical approaches.

The training process revealed eight distinct diagnostic features: sex, age, waist circumference, cigarette smoking, duration of acidic taste, duration of heartburn, frequency of stomach pain, and use of antireflux medication. All of these were directly correlated with Barrett’s esophagus, except for frequency of stomach pain, which had an inverse relationship. The investigators noted that this inverse relationship may initially seem counterintuitive, but a closer look suggests that the relationship is appropriate.

“Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma are not identified before cancer develops despite many of them having Barrett’s esophagus,” the investigators wrote. “Indeed, 40% of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma have not previously had symptomatic reflux and many probably had Barrett’s esophagus. Therefore, Barrett’s esophagus has been hypothesized to not be associated with severity of reflux symptoms; which fits with the model determined from our data.”

To provide a test of the model’s predictive ability, the investigators arbitrarily set sensitivity at 90%. Within this context, logistic regression was used to provide an upper estimate of the model’s predictive ability; this resulted in an area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) of 0.87 and a specificity of 68%. In the validation phase, these figures decreased slightly. In the testing dataset, AUC was 0.86, while specificity was 65%. External validation was associated with an AUC of 0.81 and a specificity of 58%.

“We have shown that a panel with eight features, including detailed stomach and chest symptoms, can identify the presence of Barrett’s esophagus with high sensitivity and specificity in a case-control population,” the investigators concluded.

“Simple triaging of individuals might be possible on the basis of predictive panels that include variables that are widely available or easy to obtain,” they added. “Patient age and sex, together with medication and smoking history, are routinely captured in primary care systems. Additionally, asking about duration of heartburn and acidic taste, frequency of stomach pain, and measuring waist circumference should be simple for physicians. Alternatively, a patient could do a self-assessment using a web-based app and generate a personalized risk profile for having Barrett’s esophagus.”

The study was funded by the Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust and Guts UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Cancer Research UK, and the Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences at University College London. Dr. Fitzgerald reported a relationship with Medtronic via licensing of the cytosponge device.

SOURCE: Rosenfeld A et al. Lancet Digital Health. 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30216-X.

A new risk prediction panel based on machine learning may enable routine, noninvasive identification of patients with a high risk of Barrett’s esophagus, according to investigators.

The methods used in the present study could potentially be applied to other conditions to aid in diagnosis and limit low-yield invasive testing, reported lead author Avi Rosenfeld, PhD, of Jerusalem College of Technology in Israel, and colleagues.

“The currently used system for identifying patients with Barrett’s esophagus, or those at risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma, is flawed because it is based on symptoms that trigger expensive and unpleasant invasive tests,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in The Lancet Digital Health.

In an effort to improve early clinical clarity, the investigators turned to machine learning. Algorithm development and testing relied upon data from more than 1,600 patients involved in two case-control trials, BEST2 and BOOST. From BEST2, 1,299 patients were randomized in a 6:4 ratio to generate a training dataset (n = 776) and a testing dataset (n = 523). Data from all 398 patients in the BOOST trial were used for external validation. Barrett’s esophagus was common in both trials, with a prevalence of 68% and 50% in BEST2 and BOOST, respectively.

During the training phase, machine learning identified independent patient characteristics associated with a diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. Specific artificial intelligence techniques included information gain and correlation-based feature selection.

“Both information gain and correlation-based feature selection are filter feature selection methods and thus have the advantage of being fast, scalable, and independent of the classifier,” the investigators noted. They explained that independence from the classifier is “crucial,” as this characteristic has been associated with improved interpretability and more stable algorithms than conventional statistical approaches.

The training process revealed eight distinct diagnostic features: sex, age, waist circumference, cigarette smoking, duration of acidic taste, duration of heartburn, frequency of stomach pain, and use of antireflux medication. All of these were directly correlated with Barrett’s esophagus, except for frequency of stomach pain, which had an inverse relationship. The investigators noted that this inverse relationship may initially seem counterintuitive, but a closer look suggests that the relationship is appropriate.

“Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma are not identified before cancer develops despite many of them having Barrett’s esophagus,” the investigators wrote. “Indeed, 40% of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma have not previously had symptomatic reflux and many probably had Barrett’s esophagus. Therefore, Barrett’s esophagus has been hypothesized to not be associated with severity of reflux symptoms; which fits with the model determined from our data.”

To provide a test of the model’s predictive ability, the investigators arbitrarily set sensitivity at 90%. Within this context, logistic regression was used to provide an upper estimate of the model’s predictive ability; this resulted in an area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) of 0.87 and a specificity of 68%. In the validation phase, these figures decreased slightly. In the testing dataset, AUC was 0.86, while specificity was 65%. External validation was associated with an AUC of 0.81 and a specificity of 58%.

“We have shown that a panel with eight features, including detailed stomach and chest symptoms, can identify the presence of Barrett’s esophagus with high sensitivity and specificity in a case-control population,” the investigators concluded.

“Simple triaging of individuals might be possible on the basis of predictive panels that include variables that are widely available or easy to obtain,” they added. “Patient age and sex, together with medication and smoking history, are routinely captured in primary care systems. Additionally, asking about duration of heartburn and acidic taste, frequency of stomach pain, and measuring waist circumference should be simple for physicians. Alternatively, a patient could do a self-assessment using a web-based app and generate a personalized risk profile for having Barrett’s esophagus.”

The study was funded by the Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust and Guts UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Cancer Research UK, and the Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences at University College London. Dr. Fitzgerald reported a relationship with Medtronic via licensing of the cytosponge device.

SOURCE: Rosenfeld A et al. Lancet Digital Health. 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30216-X.

A new risk prediction panel based on machine learning may enable routine, noninvasive identification of patients with a high risk of Barrett’s esophagus, according to investigators.

The methods used in the present study could potentially be applied to other conditions to aid in diagnosis and limit low-yield invasive testing, reported lead author Avi Rosenfeld, PhD, of Jerusalem College of Technology in Israel, and colleagues.

“The currently used system for identifying patients with Barrett’s esophagus, or those at risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma, is flawed because it is based on symptoms that trigger expensive and unpleasant invasive tests,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in The Lancet Digital Health.

In an effort to improve early clinical clarity, the investigators turned to machine learning. Algorithm development and testing relied upon data from more than 1,600 patients involved in two case-control trials, BEST2 and BOOST. From BEST2, 1,299 patients were randomized in a 6:4 ratio to generate a training dataset (n = 776) and a testing dataset (n = 523). Data from all 398 patients in the BOOST trial were used for external validation. Barrett’s esophagus was common in both trials, with a prevalence of 68% and 50% in BEST2 and BOOST, respectively.

During the training phase, machine learning identified independent patient characteristics associated with a diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. Specific artificial intelligence techniques included information gain and correlation-based feature selection.

“Both information gain and correlation-based feature selection are filter feature selection methods and thus have the advantage of being fast, scalable, and independent of the classifier,” the investigators noted. They explained that independence from the classifier is “crucial,” as this characteristic has been associated with improved interpretability and more stable algorithms than conventional statistical approaches.

The training process revealed eight distinct diagnostic features: sex, age, waist circumference, cigarette smoking, duration of acidic taste, duration of heartburn, frequency of stomach pain, and use of antireflux medication. All of these were directly correlated with Barrett’s esophagus, except for frequency of stomach pain, which had an inverse relationship. The investigators noted that this inverse relationship may initially seem counterintuitive, but a closer look suggests that the relationship is appropriate.

“Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma are not identified before cancer develops despite many of them having Barrett’s esophagus,” the investigators wrote. “Indeed, 40% of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma have not previously had symptomatic reflux and many probably had Barrett’s esophagus. Therefore, Barrett’s esophagus has been hypothesized to not be associated with severity of reflux symptoms; which fits with the model determined from our data.”

To provide a test of the model’s predictive ability, the investigators arbitrarily set sensitivity at 90%. Within this context, logistic regression was used to provide an upper estimate of the model’s predictive ability; this resulted in an area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) of 0.87 and a specificity of 68%. In the validation phase, these figures decreased slightly. In the testing dataset, AUC was 0.86, while specificity was 65%. External validation was associated with an AUC of 0.81 and a specificity of 58%.

“We have shown that a panel with eight features, including detailed stomach and chest symptoms, can identify the presence of Barrett’s esophagus with high sensitivity and specificity in a case-control population,” the investigators concluded.

“Simple triaging of individuals might be possible on the basis of predictive panels that include variables that are widely available or easy to obtain,” they added. “Patient age and sex, together with medication and smoking history, are routinely captured in primary care systems. Additionally, asking about duration of heartburn and acidic taste, frequency of stomach pain, and measuring waist circumference should be simple for physicians. Alternatively, a patient could do a self-assessment using a web-based app and generate a personalized risk profile for having Barrett’s esophagus.”

The study was funded by the Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust and Guts UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Cancer Research UK, and the Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences at University College London. Dr. Fitzgerald reported a relationship with Medtronic via licensing of the cytosponge device.

SOURCE: Rosenfeld A et al. Lancet Digital Health. 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30216-X.

SAN ANTONIO – A wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS) brush proved superior to standard forceps biopsies for detection of intestinal metaplasia (IM) in the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction in patients with no history of IM who had any visible columnar-lined esophagus on upper endoscopy in a large randomized trial.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This suggests that WATS should in fact be the preferred method of sampling these patients,” Steven R. DeMeester, MD, commented in presenting the study results at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

With that specific exception, however, the two sampling methods proved similarly effective at detecting IM and dysplasia, suggesting either technology can otherwise reliably be used to detect these conditions, added Dr. DeMeester, a general and thoracic surgeon at the Oregon Clinic, Portland.

This is important new information for clinicians. A prior multicenter, randomized trial by other investigators demonstrated that adding WATS to biopsy sampling improved the detection rate of dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma, compared with biopsies alone (Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Feb;87[2]:348-55). However, this dual-sampling strategy is too time-consuming for routine use in a busy practice. Given the new evidence that the two sampling methods can reliably be used interchangeably except in patients with no history of IM who have endoscopically visible columnar-lined esophagus, WATS offers a clear advantage in that it’s much quicker, especially in patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus, the surgeon said.

Unlike brush cytology, which merely collects surface epithelial cells, the WATS brush collects sheets of esophageal mucosa, which then undergo computer-assisted three-dimensional analysis.

“When done appropriately, a wide area of the esophageal mucosa can be sampled with the WATS brush,” Dr. DeMeester explained.

He reported on 1,002 patients who presented at nine U.S. centers for upper endoscopy for Barrett’s esophagus surveillance or evaluation of foregut symptoms. They were randomized to WATS or forceps biopsies using the Seattle protocol. In the entire group, WATS and forceps biopsies were similarly effective, each finding IM – a potentially premalignant mucosal change – in about 21% of patients, and dysplasia or cancer in 0.8%. Among the 185 patients who underwent endoscopy for follow-up of Barrett’s esophagus or post ablation, the two sampling strategies also performed similarly, detecting IM in roughly 36% of the 151 patients with columnar-lined esophagus shorter than 3 cm and in 56% of those with columnar-lined esophagus of greater length.

However, in the 196 patients with no history of IM who had any length of visible columnar-lined esophagus on endoscopy, the frequency of IM detection was 32.7% with WATS, compared with 15.3% with biopsy.

Dr. DeMeester and coinvestigators were also eager to identify factors associated with detection of IM in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction in patients undergoing elective endoscopy with no history of IM. They found that whites were at greater risk than blacks, by a margin of 10.1% (17.1% vs. 7%). Moreover, the 23% IM detection rate in patients aged over age 70 years was significantly higher than the 15.5% rate in those under age 70. And to their surprise, there was no significant difference between the IM detection rate in men and women.

Nearly 15% of study participants with no measurable columnar-lined esophagus turned out to have IM. And two patients with low-grade dysplasia and one with adenocarcinoma were found among the group with no history of IM and no visible columnar-lined esophagus on upper endoscopy.

“This demonstrates that the absence of a measurable columnar-lined esophagus does not exclude patients from the risk of having intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, or cancer at the gastroesophageal junction. Therefore evaluation of the gastroesophageal junction by biopsy or WATS should be considered during upper endoscopy, particularly in patients at increased risk for having intestinal metaplasia,” he concluded.

Dr. DeMeester reported serving as a consultant to BARD and receiving research funding from and serving as a paid speaker for CDx Diagnostics, which funded the trial.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – A wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS) brush proved superior to standard forceps biopsies for detection of intestinal metaplasia (IM) in the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction in patients with no history of IM who had any visible columnar-lined esophagus on upper endoscopy in a large randomized trial.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This suggests that WATS should in fact be the preferred method of sampling these patients,” Steven R. DeMeester, MD, commented in presenting the study results at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

With that specific exception, however, the two sampling methods proved similarly effective at detecting IM and dysplasia, suggesting either technology can otherwise reliably be used to detect these conditions, added Dr. DeMeester, a general and thoracic surgeon at the Oregon Clinic, Portland.

This is important new information for clinicians. A prior multicenter, randomized trial by other investigators demonstrated that adding WATS to biopsy sampling improved the detection rate of dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma, compared with biopsies alone (Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Feb;87[2]:348-55). However, this dual-sampling strategy is too time-consuming for routine use in a busy practice. Given the new evidence that the two sampling methods can reliably be used interchangeably except in patients with no history of IM who have endoscopically visible columnar-lined esophagus, WATS offers a clear advantage in that it’s much quicker, especially in patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus, the surgeon said.

Unlike brush cytology, which merely collects surface epithelial cells, the WATS brush collects sheets of esophageal mucosa, which then undergo computer-assisted three-dimensional analysis.

“When done appropriately, a wide area of the esophageal mucosa can be sampled with the WATS brush,” Dr. DeMeester explained.

He reported on 1,002 patients who presented at nine U.S. centers for upper endoscopy for Barrett’s esophagus surveillance or evaluation of foregut symptoms. They were randomized to WATS or forceps biopsies using the Seattle protocol. In the entire group, WATS and forceps biopsies were similarly effective, each finding IM – a potentially premalignant mucosal change – in about 21% of patients, and dysplasia or cancer in 0.8%. Among the 185 patients who underwent endoscopy for follow-up of Barrett’s esophagus or post ablation, the two sampling strategies also performed similarly, detecting IM in roughly 36% of the 151 patients with columnar-lined esophagus shorter than 3 cm and in 56% of those with columnar-lined esophagus of greater length.

However, in the 196 patients with no history of IM who had any length of visible columnar-lined esophagus on endoscopy, the frequency of IM detection was 32.7% with WATS, compared with 15.3% with biopsy.

Dr. DeMeester and coinvestigators were also eager to identify factors associated with detection of IM in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction in patients undergoing elective endoscopy with no history of IM. They found that whites were at greater risk than blacks, by a margin of 10.1% (17.1% vs. 7%). Moreover, the 23% IM detection rate in patients aged over age 70 years was significantly higher than the 15.5% rate in those under age 70. And to their surprise, there was no significant difference between the IM detection rate in men and women.

Nearly 15% of study participants with no measurable columnar-lined esophagus turned out to have IM. And two patients with low-grade dysplasia and one with adenocarcinoma were found among the group with no history of IM and no visible columnar-lined esophagus on upper endoscopy.

“This demonstrates that the absence of a measurable columnar-lined esophagus does not exclude patients from the risk of having intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, or cancer at the gastroesophageal junction. Therefore evaluation of the gastroesophageal junction by biopsy or WATS should be considered during upper endoscopy, particularly in patients at increased risk for having intestinal metaplasia,” he concluded.

Dr. DeMeester reported serving as a consultant to BARD and receiving research funding from and serving as a paid speaker for CDx Diagnostics, which funded the trial.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – A wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS) brush proved superior to standard forceps biopsies for detection of intestinal metaplasia (IM) in the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction in patients with no history of IM who had any visible columnar-lined esophagus on upper endoscopy in a large randomized trial.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This suggests that WATS should in fact be the preferred method of sampling these patients,” Steven R. DeMeester, MD, commented in presenting the study results at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

With that specific exception, however, the two sampling methods proved similarly effective at detecting IM and dysplasia, suggesting either technology can otherwise reliably be used to detect these conditions, added Dr. DeMeester, a general and thoracic surgeon at the Oregon Clinic, Portland.

This is important new information for clinicians. A prior multicenter, randomized trial by other investigators demonstrated that adding WATS to biopsy sampling improved the detection rate of dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma, compared with biopsies alone (Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Feb;87[2]:348-55). However, this dual-sampling strategy is too time-consuming for routine use in a busy practice. Given the new evidence that the two sampling methods can reliably be used interchangeably except in patients with no history of IM who have endoscopically visible columnar-lined esophagus, WATS offers a clear advantage in that it’s much quicker, especially in patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus, the surgeon said.

Unlike brush cytology, which merely collects surface epithelial cells, the WATS brush collects sheets of esophageal mucosa, which then undergo computer-assisted three-dimensional analysis.

“When done appropriately, a wide area of the esophageal mucosa can be sampled with the WATS brush,” Dr. DeMeester explained.

He reported on 1,002 patients who presented at nine U.S. centers for upper endoscopy for Barrett’s esophagus surveillance or evaluation of foregut symptoms. They were randomized to WATS or forceps biopsies using the Seattle protocol. In the entire group, WATS and forceps biopsies were similarly effective, each finding IM – a potentially premalignant mucosal change – in about 21% of patients, and dysplasia or cancer in 0.8%. Among the 185 patients who underwent endoscopy for follow-up of Barrett’s esophagus or post ablation, the two sampling strategies also performed similarly, detecting IM in roughly 36% of the 151 patients with columnar-lined esophagus shorter than 3 cm and in 56% of those with columnar-lined esophagus of greater length.

However, in the 196 patients with no history of IM who had any length of visible columnar-lined esophagus on endoscopy, the frequency of IM detection was 32.7% with WATS, compared with 15.3% with biopsy.

Dr. DeMeester and coinvestigators were also eager to identify factors associated with detection of IM in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction in patients undergoing elective endoscopy with no history of IM. They found that whites were at greater risk than blacks, by a margin of 10.1% (17.1% vs. 7%). Moreover, the 23% IM detection rate in patients aged over age 70 years was significantly higher than the 15.5% rate in those under age 70. And to their surprise, there was no significant difference between the IM detection rate in men and women.

Nearly 15% of study participants with no measurable columnar-lined esophagus turned out to have IM. And two patients with low-grade dysplasia and one with adenocarcinoma were found among the group with no history of IM and no visible columnar-lined esophagus on upper endoscopy.

“This demonstrates that the absence of a measurable columnar-lined esophagus does not exclude patients from the risk of having intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, or cancer at the gastroesophageal junction. Therefore evaluation of the gastroesophageal junction by biopsy or WATS should be considered during upper endoscopy, particularly in patients at increased risk for having intestinal metaplasia,” he concluded.

Dr. DeMeester reported serving as a consultant to BARD and receiving research funding from and serving as a paid speaker for CDx Diagnostics, which funded the trial.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – The first new treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection to receive Food and Drug Administration approval in 22 years performed so well in a pivotal phase 3 trial that it is worthy of consideration as best-in-class first-line therapy, David Y. Graham, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug, recently approved as Talicia, is a rifabutin-based triple therapy. Each capsule contains 50 mg of rifabutin, 1,000 mg of amoxicillin, and 40 mg of omeprazole. As in the pivotal phase 3 trial led by Dr. Graham, the approved treatment regimen calls for adults to take four capsules every 8 hours for 14 days.

The impetus for developing the new therapy centers on the growing problem of resistance to long-standard agents for H. pylori eradication, including metronidazole and clarithromycin. The World Health Organization has declared H. pylori eradication to be a high priority for therapeutic development. Rifabutin resistance is rare: In one study, 413 of 414 strains of H. pylori were sensitive to the antibiotic, noted Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

He presented the results of the pivotal phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, active comparator trial, known as ERADICATE Hp2, in which 455 participants with confirmed H. pylori infection were randomized to a course of the all-in-one-capsule triple drug combo or to dual therapy with four capsules, each containing 1,000 mg of amoxicillin and 40 mg of omeprazole, every 8 hours for 14 days.

The primary endpoint was H. pylori eradication as documented by a negative urea breath test obtained 4-6 weeks after completing 14 days of treatment. The rate was 84% with the rifabutin-based combo, compared with 58% seen with the high-dose dual therapy. Moreover, in a prespecified secondary analysis restricted to the 391 participants who were confirmed to be actually taking their medication as evidenced by a positive blood level measured on day 13, the eradication rates rose to 90% and 65%, respectively.

The antimicrobial resistance rates documented in this study were eye opening: 17% of patients’ strains were resistant to clarithromycin, 44% to metronidazole, and 10.5% to both. Of concern, 6.4% of participants’ strains were amoxicillin resistant.

“For the first time we saw a low level – but a definite level – of amoxicillin resistance. That’s something we had not seen previously,” Dr. Graham said.

No rifabutin resistance was detected before or after treatment.

The side effect profiles of the two treatment regimens were similar. Diarrhea was reported by 9% of participants, headache by 7%, and nausea by 5%. No serious adverse events occurred in the 14-day study.

The efficacy of the rifabutin-based therapy wasn’t affected by metronidazole or clarithromycin resistance.

The ERADICATE Hp2 trial was sponsored by RedHill Biopharma of Tel Aviv. Dr. Graham reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – The first new treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection to receive Food and Drug Administration approval in 22 years performed so well in a pivotal phase 3 trial that it is worthy of consideration as best-in-class first-line therapy, David Y. Graham, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug, recently approved as Talicia, is a rifabutin-based triple therapy. Each capsule contains 50 mg of rifabutin, 1,000 mg of amoxicillin, and 40 mg of omeprazole. As in the pivotal phase 3 trial led by Dr. Graham, the approved treatment regimen calls for adults to take four capsules every 8 hours for 14 days.

The impetus for developing the new therapy centers on the growing problem of resistance to long-standard agents for H. pylori eradication, including metronidazole and clarithromycin. The World Health Organization has declared H. pylori eradication to be a high priority for therapeutic development. Rifabutin resistance is rare: In one study, 413 of 414 strains of H. pylori were sensitive to the antibiotic, noted Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

He presented the results of the pivotal phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, active comparator trial, known as ERADICATE Hp2, in which 455 participants with confirmed H. pylori infection were randomized to a course of the all-in-one-capsule triple drug combo or to dual therapy with four capsules, each containing 1,000 mg of amoxicillin and 40 mg of omeprazole, every 8 hours for 14 days.

The primary endpoint was H. pylori eradication as documented by a negative urea breath test obtained 4-6 weeks after completing 14 days of treatment. The rate was 84% with the rifabutin-based combo, compared with 58% seen with the high-dose dual therapy. Moreover, in a prespecified secondary analysis restricted to the 391 participants who were confirmed to be actually taking their medication as evidenced by a positive blood level measured on day 13, the eradication rates rose to 90% and 65%, respectively.

The antimicrobial resistance rates documented in this study were eye opening: 17% of patients’ strains were resistant to clarithromycin, 44% to metronidazole, and 10.5% to both. Of concern, 6.4% of participants’ strains were amoxicillin resistant.

“For the first time we saw a low level – but a definite level – of amoxicillin resistance. That’s something we had not seen previously,” Dr. Graham said.

No rifabutin resistance was detected before or after treatment.

The side effect profiles of the two treatment regimens were similar. Diarrhea was reported by 9% of participants, headache by 7%, and nausea by 5%. No serious adverse events occurred in the 14-day study.

The efficacy of the rifabutin-based therapy wasn’t affected by metronidazole or clarithromycin resistance.

The ERADICATE Hp2 trial was sponsored by RedHill Biopharma of Tel Aviv. Dr. Graham reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – The first new treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection to receive Food and Drug Administration approval in 22 years performed so well in a pivotal phase 3 trial that it is worthy of consideration as best-in-class first-line therapy, David Y. Graham, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug, recently approved as Talicia, is a rifabutin-based triple therapy. Each capsule contains 50 mg of rifabutin, 1,000 mg of amoxicillin, and 40 mg of omeprazole. As in the pivotal phase 3 trial led by Dr. Graham, the approved treatment regimen calls for adults to take four capsules every 8 hours for 14 days.

The impetus for developing the new therapy centers on the growing problem of resistance to long-standard agents for H. pylori eradication, including metronidazole and clarithromycin. The World Health Organization has declared H. pylori eradication to be a high priority for therapeutic development. Rifabutin resistance is rare: In one study, 413 of 414 strains of H. pylori were sensitive to the antibiotic, noted Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

He presented the results of the pivotal phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, active comparator trial, known as ERADICATE Hp2, in which 455 participants with confirmed H. pylori infection were randomized to a course of the all-in-one-capsule triple drug combo or to dual therapy with four capsules, each containing 1,000 mg of amoxicillin and 40 mg of omeprazole, every 8 hours for 14 days.

The primary endpoint was H. pylori eradication as documented by a negative urea breath test obtained 4-6 weeks after completing 14 days of treatment. The rate was 84% with the rifabutin-based combo, compared with 58% seen with the high-dose dual therapy. Moreover, in a prespecified secondary analysis restricted to the 391 participants who were confirmed to be actually taking their medication as evidenced by a positive blood level measured on day 13, the eradication rates rose to 90% and 65%, respectively.

The antimicrobial resistance rates documented in this study were eye opening: 17% of patients’ strains were resistant to clarithromycin, 44% to metronidazole, and 10.5% to both. Of concern, 6.4% of participants’ strains were amoxicillin resistant.

“For the first time we saw a low level – but a definite level – of amoxicillin resistance. That’s something we had not seen previously,” Dr. Graham said.

No rifabutin resistance was detected before or after treatment.

The side effect profiles of the two treatment regimens were similar. Diarrhea was reported by 9% of participants, headache by 7%, and nausea by 5%. No serious adverse events occurred in the 14-day study.

The efficacy of the rifabutin-based therapy wasn’t affected by metronidazole or clarithromycin resistance.

The ERADICATE Hp2 trial was sponsored by RedHill Biopharma of Tel Aviv. Dr. Graham reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

Amneal Pharmaceuticals has announced a voluntary recall for both ranitidine tablets and ranitidine syrup because of potential N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) levels above Food and Drug Administration–allowed cutoffs, according to an FDA MedWatch alert.

NDMA, a probable human carcinogen, has been found in several different ranitidine products since an initial FDA announcement in September 2019. Ranitidine, a histamine₂ receptor blocker, is indicated for multiple conditions, including treatment and prevention of ulcers of the stomach and intestines and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The affected ranitidine products being recalled by Amneal include 60-, 100-, 180-, 500-, and 1,000-count 150-mg tablets; 30-, 100-, 250-, and 1,000-count 300-mg tablets, and a 15-mg/mL syrup. The manufacturer has not received any reports of adverse events confirmed to be directly related to the recall.

Consumers should contact their physicians or health care providers if they have experienced any problems that may be related to the use of this drug product, the FDA said. Adverse reactions or quality problems can be reported to Amneal Drug Safety by phone at 1-877-835-5472.

[email protected]

Amneal Pharmaceuticals has announced a voluntary recall for both ranitidine tablets and ranitidine syrup because of potential N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) levels above Food and Drug Administration–allowed cutoffs, according to an FDA MedWatch alert.

NDMA, a probable human carcinogen, has been found in several different ranitidine products since an initial FDA announcement in September 2019. Ranitidine, a histamine₂ receptor blocker, is indicated for multiple conditions, including treatment and prevention of ulcers of the stomach and intestines and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The affected ranitidine products being recalled by Amneal include 60-, 100-, 180-, 500-, and 1,000-count 150-mg tablets; 30-, 100-, 250-, and 1,000-count 300-mg tablets, and a 15-mg/mL syrup. The manufacturer has not received any reports of adverse events confirmed to be directly related to the recall.

Consumers should contact their physicians or health care providers if they have experienced any problems that may be related to the use of this drug product, the FDA said. Adverse reactions or quality problems can be reported to Amneal Drug Safety by phone at 1-877-835-5472.

[email protected]

Amneal Pharmaceuticals has announced a voluntary recall for both ranitidine tablets and ranitidine syrup because of potential N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) levels above Food and Drug Administration–allowed cutoffs, according to an FDA MedWatch alert.

NDMA, a probable human carcinogen, has been found in several different ranitidine products since an initial FDA announcement in September 2019. Ranitidine, a histamine₂ receptor blocker, is indicated for multiple conditions, including treatment and prevention of ulcers of the stomach and intestines and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The affected ranitidine products being recalled by Amneal include 60-, 100-, 180-, 500-, and 1,000-count 150-mg tablets; 30-, 100-, 250-, and 1,000-count 300-mg tablets, and a 15-mg/mL syrup. The manufacturer has not received any reports of adverse events confirmed to be directly related to the recall.

Consumers should contact their physicians or health care providers if they have experienced any problems that may be related to the use of this drug product, the FDA said. Adverse reactions or quality problems can be reported to Amneal Drug Safety by phone at 1-877-835-5472.

[email protected]