Upper GI Tract

Prakash Gyawali, MD, led off the session with a lecture on functional heartburn, which he defined as burning retrosternal discomfort not relieved by antisecretory therapy, in a patient for whom endoscopy, esophageal pH monitoring, and manometry have revealed no evidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), or major esophageal motility disorders. When performing pH monitoring to assess for functional heartburn, Dr. Gyawali advised that the test be done with patients off of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Despite similarity to the heartburn sensation of GERD, Dr. Gyawali pointed out how functional heartburn has features resembling irritable bowel syndrome, such as its association with anxiety and depression, and its response to neuromodulators (e.g., antidepressants). He discussed how new impedance-based esophageal metrics such as the postswallow-induced peristaltic wave index and measurement of mean nocturnal baseline impedance might be used to confirm a diagnosis of functional heartburn. Although neuromodulators remain the mainstay of management for functional heartburn, Dr. Gyawali discussed encouraging preliminary results of studies on psychotherapy, hypnotherapy, and alternative therapies such as acupuncture.

Rhonda Souza, MD, AGAF, discussed EoE, focusing especially on the controversial condition of PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) in which patients have typical EoE symptoms and histology, with no evidence of GERD by endoscopy or esophageal pH monitoring, yet they respond to PPI therapy. She discussed two possible explanations for PPI-REE: 1) the patients have subclinical GERD that responds to PPI antisecretory effects, or 2) the patients have EoE that responds to PPI anti-inflammatory effects. Dr. Souza reviewed data from her laboratory showing that omeprazole can block the secretion of eotaxin-3, a potent eosinophil chemoattractant in esophageal epithelial cells stimulated with allergic (Th2) cytokines in vitro. This potential anti-inflammatory PPI effect is entirely independent of any effect on gastric acid inhibition. After reviewing recent clinical and esophageal transcriptome data, Dr. Souza concluded that PPI-REE is probably just a subset of EoE, not an independent disorder.

John Inadomi, MD, AGAF, discussed Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. He pointed out the inadequacy of current screening programs, noting studies showing that less than 10% of patients found to have esophageal adenocarcinoma had a prior diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. He estimated the annual incidence of adenocarcinoma at 0.12%-0.5% for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s metaplasia. He discussed how current American College of Gastroenterology guidelines call for screening men who have chronic GERD symptoms with at least two other Barrett’s cancer risk factors (age greater than 50 years, white race, central obesity, cigarette smoking, family history of Barrett’s esophagus), and noted how the very low risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma in women (similar to the risk of breast cancer in men) supports the ACG recommendation not to screen women routinely for Barrett’s esophagus. Dr. Inadomi recommended endoscopic eradication as the preferred treatment for patients with confirmed dysplasia of any grade. He also noted that the removal of nodular lesions by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection is a crucial part of endoscopic eradication therapy.

In a lecture titled “The truth about PPIs,” Byron Cryer, MD, reviewed a number of potential adverse effects of PPIs, including Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea, bone fractures, kidney disease, dementia, myocardial infarction, and interactions with clopidogrel. He pointed out that most of these putative adverse effects have been identified as modest increases in risks noted in observational studies, and the quality of this evidence is considered low or very low. In contrast, the benefits of PPIs for patients with complicated GERD and for patients at risk for NSAID complications have been established in high-quality, randomized controlled trials. Dr. Cryer concluded that, when PPIs are prescribed appropriately, their benefits likely outweigh their risks. However, he also noted that PPIs frequently are prescribed inappropriately, in which case they have no benefit and their potential for risk assumes greater importance.

Dr. Spechler is chief of the division of gastroenterology and co-director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases, Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas; he is an investigator/professor and co-director of the Center for Esophageal Research, Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Courses held at DDW 2017.

Prakash Gyawali, MD, led off the session with a lecture on functional heartburn, which he defined as burning retrosternal discomfort not relieved by antisecretory therapy, in a patient for whom endoscopy, esophageal pH monitoring, and manometry have revealed no evidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), or major esophageal motility disorders. When performing pH monitoring to assess for functional heartburn, Dr. Gyawali advised that the test be done with patients off of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Despite similarity to the heartburn sensation of GERD, Dr. Gyawali pointed out how functional heartburn has features resembling irritable bowel syndrome, such as its association with anxiety and depression, and its response to neuromodulators (e.g., antidepressants). He discussed how new impedance-based esophageal metrics such as the postswallow-induced peristaltic wave index and measurement of mean nocturnal baseline impedance might be used to confirm a diagnosis of functional heartburn. Although neuromodulators remain the mainstay of management for functional heartburn, Dr. Gyawali discussed encouraging preliminary results of studies on psychotherapy, hypnotherapy, and alternative therapies such as acupuncture.

Rhonda Souza, MD, AGAF, discussed EoE, focusing especially on the controversial condition of PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) in which patients have typical EoE symptoms and histology, with no evidence of GERD by endoscopy or esophageal pH monitoring, yet they respond to PPI therapy. She discussed two possible explanations for PPI-REE: 1) the patients have subclinical GERD that responds to PPI antisecretory effects, or 2) the patients have EoE that responds to PPI anti-inflammatory effects. Dr. Souza reviewed data from her laboratory showing that omeprazole can block the secretion of eotaxin-3, a potent eosinophil chemoattractant in esophageal epithelial cells stimulated with allergic (Th2) cytokines in vitro. This potential anti-inflammatory PPI effect is entirely independent of any effect on gastric acid inhibition. After reviewing recent clinical and esophageal transcriptome data, Dr. Souza concluded that PPI-REE is probably just a subset of EoE, not an independent disorder.

John Inadomi, MD, AGAF, discussed Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. He pointed out the inadequacy of current screening programs, noting studies showing that less than 10% of patients found to have esophageal adenocarcinoma had a prior diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. He estimated the annual incidence of adenocarcinoma at 0.12%-0.5% for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s metaplasia. He discussed how current American College of Gastroenterology guidelines call for screening men who have chronic GERD symptoms with at least two other Barrett’s cancer risk factors (age greater than 50 years, white race, central obesity, cigarette smoking, family history of Barrett’s esophagus), and noted how the very low risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma in women (similar to the risk of breast cancer in men) supports the ACG recommendation not to screen women routinely for Barrett’s esophagus. Dr. Inadomi recommended endoscopic eradication as the preferred treatment for patients with confirmed dysplasia of any grade. He also noted that the removal of nodular lesions by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection is a crucial part of endoscopic eradication therapy.

In a lecture titled “The truth about PPIs,” Byron Cryer, MD, reviewed a number of potential adverse effects of PPIs, including Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea, bone fractures, kidney disease, dementia, myocardial infarction, and interactions with clopidogrel. He pointed out that most of these putative adverse effects have been identified as modest increases in risks noted in observational studies, and the quality of this evidence is considered low or very low. In contrast, the benefits of PPIs for patients with complicated GERD and for patients at risk for NSAID complications have been established in high-quality, randomized controlled trials. Dr. Cryer concluded that, when PPIs are prescribed appropriately, their benefits likely outweigh their risks. However, he also noted that PPIs frequently are prescribed inappropriately, in which case they have no benefit and their potential for risk assumes greater importance.

Dr. Spechler is chief of the division of gastroenterology and co-director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases, Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas; he is an investigator/professor and co-director of the Center for Esophageal Research, Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Courses held at DDW 2017.

Prakash Gyawali, MD, led off the session with a lecture on functional heartburn, which he defined as burning retrosternal discomfort not relieved by antisecretory therapy, in a patient for whom endoscopy, esophageal pH monitoring, and manometry have revealed no evidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), or major esophageal motility disorders. When performing pH monitoring to assess for functional heartburn, Dr. Gyawali advised that the test be done with patients off of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Despite similarity to the heartburn sensation of GERD, Dr. Gyawali pointed out how functional heartburn has features resembling irritable bowel syndrome, such as its association with anxiety and depression, and its response to neuromodulators (e.g., antidepressants). He discussed how new impedance-based esophageal metrics such as the postswallow-induced peristaltic wave index and measurement of mean nocturnal baseline impedance might be used to confirm a diagnosis of functional heartburn. Although neuromodulators remain the mainstay of management for functional heartburn, Dr. Gyawali discussed encouraging preliminary results of studies on psychotherapy, hypnotherapy, and alternative therapies such as acupuncture.

Rhonda Souza, MD, AGAF, discussed EoE, focusing especially on the controversial condition of PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) in which patients have typical EoE symptoms and histology, with no evidence of GERD by endoscopy or esophageal pH monitoring, yet they respond to PPI therapy. She discussed two possible explanations for PPI-REE: 1) the patients have subclinical GERD that responds to PPI antisecretory effects, or 2) the patients have EoE that responds to PPI anti-inflammatory effects. Dr. Souza reviewed data from her laboratory showing that omeprazole can block the secretion of eotaxin-3, a potent eosinophil chemoattractant in esophageal epithelial cells stimulated with allergic (Th2) cytokines in vitro. This potential anti-inflammatory PPI effect is entirely independent of any effect on gastric acid inhibition. After reviewing recent clinical and esophageal transcriptome data, Dr. Souza concluded that PPI-REE is probably just a subset of EoE, not an independent disorder.

John Inadomi, MD, AGAF, discussed Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. He pointed out the inadequacy of current screening programs, noting studies showing that less than 10% of patients found to have esophageal adenocarcinoma had a prior diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. He estimated the annual incidence of adenocarcinoma at 0.12%-0.5% for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s metaplasia. He discussed how current American College of Gastroenterology guidelines call for screening men who have chronic GERD symptoms with at least two other Barrett’s cancer risk factors (age greater than 50 years, white race, central obesity, cigarette smoking, family history of Barrett’s esophagus), and noted how the very low risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma in women (similar to the risk of breast cancer in men) supports the ACG recommendation not to screen women routinely for Barrett’s esophagus. Dr. Inadomi recommended endoscopic eradication as the preferred treatment for patients with confirmed dysplasia of any grade. He also noted that the removal of nodular lesions by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection is a crucial part of endoscopic eradication therapy.

In a lecture titled “The truth about PPIs,” Byron Cryer, MD, reviewed a number of potential adverse effects of PPIs, including Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea, bone fractures, kidney disease, dementia, myocardial infarction, and interactions with clopidogrel. He pointed out that most of these putative adverse effects have been identified as modest increases in risks noted in observational studies, and the quality of this evidence is considered low or very low. In contrast, the benefits of PPIs for patients with complicated GERD and for patients at risk for NSAID complications have been established in high-quality, randomized controlled trials. Dr. Cryer concluded that, when PPIs are prescribed appropriately, their benefits likely outweigh their risks. However, he also noted that PPIs frequently are prescribed inappropriately, in which case they have no benefit and their potential for risk assumes greater importance.

Dr. Spechler is chief of the division of gastroenterology and co-director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases, Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas; he is an investigator/professor and co-director of the Center for Esophageal Research, Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Courses held at DDW 2017.

The high costs of endoscopy make screening patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for Barrett’s esophagus a costly endeavor. But using a minimally invasive test followed by endoscopy only if results are positive could cut costs by up to 41%, according to investigators.

The report is in the September issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.02.017).

The findings mirror those from a prior study (Gastroenterology. 2013 Jan;144[1]:62-73.e60) of the new cytosponge device, which tests surface esophageal tissue for trefoil factor 3, a biomarker for Barrett’s esophagus, said Curtis R. Heberle, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his associates. In addition, two separate models found the cytosponge strategy cost effective compared with no screening (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs], about $26,000-$33,000). However, using the cytosponge instead of screening all GERD patients with endoscopy would reduce quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by about 1.8-5.5 years for every 1,000 patients.

Rates of esophageal adenocarcinoma have climbed more than sixfold in the United States in 4 decades, and 5-year survival rates remain below 20%. Nonetheless, the high cost of endoscopy and 10%-20% prevalence of GERD makes screening all patients for Barrett’s esophagus infeasible. To evaluate the cytosponge strategy, the researchers fit data from the multicenter BEST2 study (PLoS Med. 2015 Jan; 12[1]: e1001780) into two validated models calibrated to high-quality Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data on esophageal cancer. Both models compared no screening with a one-time screen by either endoscopy alone or cytosponge with follow-up endoscopy in the event of a positive test. The models assumed patients were male, were 60 years old, and had GERD but not esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Without screening, there were about 14-16 cancer cases and about 15,077 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for every 1,000 patients. The cytosponge strategy was associated with about 8-13 cancer cases and about 15,105 QALYs. Endoscopic screening produced the most benefit overall – only about 7-12 cancer cases, with more than 15,100 QALYs. “However, greater benefits were accompanied by higher total costs,” the researchers said. For every 1,000 patients, no screening cost about $704,000 to $762,000, the cytosponge strategy cost about $1.5 to $1.6 million, and population-wide endoscopy cost about $2.1 to $2.2 million. Thus, the cytosponge method would lower the cost of screening by 37%-41% compared with endoscopically screening all men with GERD. The cytosponge was also cost effective in a model of 60-year-old women with GERD.

Using only endoscopic screening was not cost effective in either model, exceeding a $100,000 threshold of willingness to pay by anywhere from $107,000 to $330,000. The cytosponge is not yet available commercially, but the investigators assumed it cost $182 based on information from the manufacturer (Medtronic) and Medicare payments for similar devices. Although the findings withstood variations in indirect costs and age at initial screening, they were “somewhat sensitive” to variations in costs of the cytosponge and its presumed sensitivity and specificity in clinical settings. However, endoscopic screening only became cost effective when the cytosponge test cost at least $225.

The models assumed perfect adherence to screening, which probably exaggerated the effectiveness of the cytosponge and endoscopic screening, the investigators said. They noted that cytosponge screening can be performed without sedation during a short outpatient visit.

The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The investigators had no relevant disclosures.

The high costs of endoscopy make screening patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for Barrett’s esophagus a costly endeavor. But using a minimally invasive test followed by endoscopy only if results are positive could cut costs by up to 41%, according to investigators.

The report is in the September issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.02.017).

The findings mirror those from a prior study (Gastroenterology. 2013 Jan;144[1]:62-73.e60) of the new cytosponge device, which tests surface esophageal tissue for trefoil factor 3, a biomarker for Barrett’s esophagus, said Curtis R. Heberle, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his associates. In addition, two separate models found the cytosponge strategy cost effective compared with no screening (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs], about $26,000-$33,000). However, using the cytosponge instead of screening all GERD patients with endoscopy would reduce quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by about 1.8-5.5 years for every 1,000 patients.

Rates of esophageal adenocarcinoma have climbed more than sixfold in the United States in 4 decades, and 5-year survival rates remain below 20%. Nonetheless, the high cost of endoscopy and 10%-20% prevalence of GERD makes screening all patients for Barrett’s esophagus infeasible. To evaluate the cytosponge strategy, the researchers fit data from the multicenter BEST2 study (PLoS Med. 2015 Jan; 12[1]: e1001780) into two validated models calibrated to high-quality Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data on esophageal cancer. Both models compared no screening with a one-time screen by either endoscopy alone or cytosponge with follow-up endoscopy in the event of a positive test. The models assumed patients were male, were 60 years old, and had GERD but not esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Without screening, there were about 14-16 cancer cases and about 15,077 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for every 1,000 patients. The cytosponge strategy was associated with about 8-13 cancer cases and about 15,105 QALYs. Endoscopic screening produced the most benefit overall – only about 7-12 cancer cases, with more than 15,100 QALYs. “However, greater benefits were accompanied by higher total costs,” the researchers said. For every 1,000 patients, no screening cost about $704,000 to $762,000, the cytosponge strategy cost about $1.5 to $1.6 million, and population-wide endoscopy cost about $2.1 to $2.2 million. Thus, the cytosponge method would lower the cost of screening by 37%-41% compared with endoscopically screening all men with GERD. The cytosponge was also cost effective in a model of 60-year-old women with GERD.

Using only endoscopic screening was not cost effective in either model, exceeding a $100,000 threshold of willingness to pay by anywhere from $107,000 to $330,000. The cytosponge is not yet available commercially, but the investigators assumed it cost $182 based on information from the manufacturer (Medtronic) and Medicare payments for similar devices. Although the findings withstood variations in indirect costs and age at initial screening, they were “somewhat sensitive” to variations in costs of the cytosponge and its presumed sensitivity and specificity in clinical settings. However, endoscopic screening only became cost effective when the cytosponge test cost at least $225.

The models assumed perfect adherence to screening, which probably exaggerated the effectiveness of the cytosponge and endoscopic screening, the investigators said. They noted that cytosponge screening can be performed without sedation during a short outpatient visit.

The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The investigators had no relevant disclosures.

The high costs of endoscopy make screening patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for Barrett’s esophagus a costly endeavor. But using a minimally invasive test followed by endoscopy only if results are positive could cut costs by up to 41%, according to investigators.

The report is in the September issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.02.017).

The findings mirror those from a prior study (Gastroenterology. 2013 Jan;144[1]:62-73.e60) of the new cytosponge device, which tests surface esophageal tissue for trefoil factor 3, a biomarker for Barrett’s esophagus, said Curtis R. Heberle, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his associates. In addition, two separate models found the cytosponge strategy cost effective compared with no screening (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs], about $26,000-$33,000). However, using the cytosponge instead of screening all GERD patients with endoscopy would reduce quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by about 1.8-5.5 years for every 1,000 patients.

Rates of esophageal adenocarcinoma have climbed more than sixfold in the United States in 4 decades, and 5-year survival rates remain below 20%. Nonetheless, the high cost of endoscopy and 10%-20% prevalence of GERD makes screening all patients for Barrett’s esophagus infeasible. To evaluate the cytosponge strategy, the researchers fit data from the multicenter BEST2 study (PLoS Med. 2015 Jan; 12[1]: e1001780) into two validated models calibrated to high-quality Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data on esophageal cancer. Both models compared no screening with a one-time screen by either endoscopy alone or cytosponge with follow-up endoscopy in the event of a positive test. The models assumed patients were male, were 60 years old, and had GERD but not esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Without screening, there were about 14-16 cancer cases and about 15,077 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for every 1,000 patients. The cytosponge strategy was associated with about 8-13 cancer cases and about 15,105 QALYs. Endoscopic screening produced the most benefit overall – only about 7-12 cancer cases, with more than 15,100 QALYs. “However, greater benefits were accompanied by higher total costs,” the researchers said. For every 1,000 patients, no screening cost about $704,000 to $762,000, the cytosponge strategy cost about $1.5 to $1.6 million, and population-wide endoscopy cost about $2.1 to $2.2 million. Thus, the cytosponge method would lower the cost of screening by 37%-41% compared with endoscopically screening all men with GERD. The cytosponge was also cost effective in a model of 60-year-old women with GERD.

Using only endoscopic screening was not cost effective in either model, exceeding a $100,000 threshold of willingness to pay by anywhere from $107,000 to $330,000. The cytosponge is not yet available commercially, but the investigators assumed it cost $182 based on information from the manufacturer (Medtronic) and Medicare payments for similar devices. Although the findings withstood variations in indirect costs and age at initial screening, they were “somewhat sensitive” to variations in costs of the cytosponge and its presumed sensitivity and specificity in clinical settings. However, endoscopic screening only became cost effective when the cytosponge test cost at least $225.

The models assumed perfect adherence to screening, which probably exaggerated the effectiveness of the cytosponge and endoscopic screening, the investigators said. They noted that cytosponge screening can be performed without sedation during a short outpatient visit.

The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The investigators had no relevant disclosures.

Gastroparesis is defined as delayed gastric emptying with associated symptoms in the absence of mechanical obstruction. The cardinal symptoms are upper abdominal pain, postprandial fullness, bloating, early satiety, nausea, and, with more severe disease, vomiting. Weight loss, malnutrition, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, bezoar formation, and aspiration pneumonia may occur in advanced cases. Unfortunately, there are few approved or efficacious treatment options for diabetic gastroparesis. The 5-HT₄ receptor agonist, cisapride, has been withdrawn from the prescription markets in most countries.

AGA Institute

Dr. Camilleri is a faculty member in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. His comments were made during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the Annual Digestive Disease Week.

Gastroparesis is defined as delayed gastric emptying with associated symptoms in the absence of mechanical obstruction. The cardinal symptoms are upper abdominal pain, postprandial fullness, bloating, early satiety, nausea, and, with more severe disease, vomiting. Weight loss, malnutrition, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, bezoar formation, and aspiration pneumonia may occur in advanced cases. Unfortunately, there are few approved or efficacious treatment options for diabetic gastroparesis. The 5-HT₄ receptor agonist, cisapride, has been withdrawn from the prescription markets in most countries.

AGA Institute

Dr. Camilleri is a faculty member in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. His comments were made during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the Annual Digestive Disease Week.

Gastroparesis is defined as delayed gastric emptying with associated symptoms in the absence of mechanical obstruction. The cardinal symptoms are upper abdominal pain, postprandial fullness, bloating, early satiety, nausea, and, with more severe disease, vomiting. Weight loss, malnutrition, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, bezoar formation, and aspiration pneumonia may occur in advanced cases. Unfortunately, there are few approved or efficacious treatment options for diabetic gastroparesis. The 5-HT₄ receptor agonist, cisapride, has been withdrawn from the prescription markets in most countries.

AGA Institute

Dr. Camilleri is a faculty member in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. His comments were made during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the Annual Digestive Disease Week.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are associated with a significantly higher risk of death than are H₂-receptor antagonists, according to a 5-year longitudinal cohort study.

The study, published online in BMJ Open, found that increased risk of death was evident even in people without gastrointestinal conditions, and it increased with longer duration of use.

Yan Xie, MPH, of the VA Saint Louis Health Care System and coauthors, wrote that PPIs are linked to a range of serious adverse outcomes – such as acute interstitial nephritis, chronic kidney disease, incident dementia, and Clostridium difficile infection – each of which is associated with higher risk of mortality.

Courtesy Yan Xie

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are associated with a significantly higher risk of death than are H₂-receptor antagonists, according to a 5-year longitudinal cohort study.

The study, published online in BMJ Open, found that increased risk of death was evident even in people without gastrointestinal conditions, and it increased with longer duration of use.

Yan Xie, MPH, of the VA Saint Louis Health Care System and coauthors, wrote that PPIs are linked to a range of serious adverse outcomes – such as acute interstitial nephritis, chronic kidney disease, incident dementia, and Clostridium difficile infection – each of which is associated with higher risk of mortality.

Courtesy Yan Xie

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are associated with a significantly higher risk of death than are H₂-receptor antagonists, according to a 5-year longitudinal cohort study.

The study, published online in BMJ Open, found that increased risk of death was evident even in people without gastrointestinal conditions, and it increased with longer duration of use.

Yan Xie, MPH, of the VA Saint Louis Health Care System and coauthors, wrote that PPIs are linked to a range of serious adverse outcomes – such as acute interstitial nephritis, chronic kidney disease, incident dementia, and Clostridium difficile infection – each of which is associated with higher risk of mortality.

Courtesy Yan Xie

One IV 5-g dose of idarucizumab completely, rapidly, and safely reversed the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran, according to final results for 503 patients in the multicenter, prospective, open-label, uncontrolled RE-VERSE AD study.

Uncontrolled bleeding stopped a median of 2.5 hours after 134 patients received idarucizumab. In a separate group of 202 patients, 197 were able to undergo urgent procedures after a median of 1.6 hours, Charles V. Pollack Jr., MD, and his associates reported at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress. The report was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

One IV 5-g dose of idarucizumab completely, rapidly, and safely reversed the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran, according to final results for 503 patients in the multicenter, prospective, open-label, uncontrolled RE-VERSE AD study.

Uncontrolled bleeding stopped a median of 2.5 hours after 134 patients received idarucizumab. In a separate group of 202 patients, 197 were able to undergo urgent procedures after a median of 1.6 hours, Charles V. Pollack Jr., MD, and his associates reported at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress. The report was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

One IV 5-g dose of idarucizumab completely, rapidly, and safely reversed the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran, according to final results for 503 patients in the multicenter, prospective, open-label, uncontrolled RE-VERSE AD study.

Uncontrolled bleeding stopped a median of 2.5 hours after 134 patients received idarucizumab. In a separate group of 202 patients, 197 were able to undergo urgent procedures after a median of 1.6 hours, Charles V. Pollack Jr., MD, and his associates reported at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress. The report was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Patients with at least five biopsies showing nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus were statistically as likely to progress to high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma as patients with a single such biopsy, according to a multicenter prospective registry study reported in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: org/10.1016/j.cgh.2017.02.019).

The findings, which contradict those from another recent multicenter cohort study (Gastroenterology. 2013;145[3]:548-53), highlight the need for more studies before lengthening the time between surveillance biopsies in patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, Rajesh Krishnamoorthi, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., wrote with his associates.

Barrett’s esophagus is the strongest predictor of esophageal adenocarcinoma, but studies have reported mixed results as to whether the risk of this cancer increases over time or wanes with consecutive biopsies that indicate nondysplasia, the researchers noted. Therefore, they studied the prospective, multicenter Mayo Clinic Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Barrett’s Esophagus registry, excluding patients who progressed to adenocarcinoma within 12 months, had missing data, or had no follow-up biopsies. This approach left 480 subjects for analysis. Patients averaged 63 years of age, 78% were male, the mean length of Barrett’s esophagus was 5.7 cm, and the average time between biopsies was 1.8 years, with a standard deviation of 1.3 years.

A total of 16 patients progressed to high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma over 1,832 patient-years of follow-up, for an overall annual risk of progression of 0.87%. Two patients progressed to esophageal adenocarcinoma (annual risk, 0.11%; 95% confidence interval, 0.03% to 0.44%), while 14 patients progressed to high-grade dysplasia (annual risk, 0.76%; 95% CI, 0.45% to 1.29%). Eight patients progressed to one of these two outcomes after a single nondysplastic biopsy, three progressed after two such biopsies, three progressed after three such biopsies, none progressed after four such biopsies, and two progressed after five such biopsies. Statistically, patients with at least five consecutive nondysplastic biopsies were no less likely to progress than were patients with only one nondysplastic biopsy (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.07 to 1.92; P = .32). Hazard ratios for the other groups ranged between 0.0 and 0.85, with no significant difference in estimated risk between groups (P = .68) after controlling for age, sex, and length of Barrett’s esophagus.

The previous multicenter cohort study linked persistently nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus with a lower rate of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, and, based on those findings, the authors suggested lengthening intervals between biopsy surveillance or even stopping surveillance, Dr. Krishnamoorthi and his associates noted. However, that study did not have mutually exclusive groups. “Additional data are required before increasing the interval between surveillance endoscopies based on persistence of nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus,” they concluded.

The study lacked misclassification bias given long-segment Barrett’s esophagus, and specialized gastrointestinal pathologists interpreted all histology specimens, the researchers noted. “The small number of progressors is a potential limitation, reducing power to assess associations,” they added.

The investigators did not report funding sources. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

Patients with at least five biopsies showing nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus were statistically as likely to progress to high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma as patients with a single such biopsy, according to a multicenter prospective registry study reported in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: org/10.1016/j.cgh.2017.02.019).

The findings, which contradict those from another recent multicenter cohort study (Gastroenterology. 2013;145[3]:548-53), highlight the need for more studies before lengthening the time between surveillance biopsies in patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, Rajesh Krishnamoorthi, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., wrote with his associates.

Barrett’s esophagus is the strongest predictor of esophageal adenocarcinoma, but studies have reported mixed results as to whether the risk of this cancer increases over time or wanes with consecutive biopsies that indicate nondysplasia, the researchers noted. Therefore, they studied the prospective, multicenter Mayo Clinic Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Barrett’s Esophagus registry, excluding patients who progressed to adenocarcinoma within 12 months, had missing data, or had no follow-up biopsies. This approach left 480 subjects for analysis. Patients averaged 63 years of age, 78% were male, the mean length of Barrett’s esophagus was 5.7 cm, and the average time between biopsies was 1.8 years, with a standard deviation of 1.3 years.

A total of 16 patients progressed to high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma over 1,832 patient-years of follow-up, for an overall annual risk of progression of 0.87%. Two patients progressed to esophageal adenocarcinoma (annual risk, 0.11%; 95% confidence interval, 0.03% to 0.44%), while 14 patients progressed to high-grade dysplasia (annual risk, 0.76%; 95% CI, 0.45% to 1.29%). Eight patients progressed to one of these two outcomes after a single nondysplastic biopsy, three progressed after two such biopsies, three progressed after three such biopsies, none progressed after four such biopsies, and two progressed after five such biopsies. Statistically, patients with at least five consecutive nondysplastic biopsies were no less likely to progress than were patients with only one nondysplastic biopsy (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.07 to 1.92; P = .32). Hazard ratios for the other groups ranged between 0.0 and 0.85, with no significant difference in estimated risk between groups (P = .68) after controlling for age, sex, and length of Barrett’s esophagus.

The previous multicenter cohort study linked persistently nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus with a lower rate of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, and, based on those findings, the authors suggested lengthening intervals between biopsy surveillance or even stopping surveillance, Dr. Krishnamoorthi and his associates noted. However, that study did not have mutually exclusive groups. “Additional data are required before increasing the interval between surveillance endoscopies based on persistence of nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus,” they concluded.

The study lacked misclassification bias given long-segment Barrett’s esophagus, and specialized gastrointestinal pathologists interpreted all histology specimens, the researchers noted. “The small number of progressors is a potential limitation, reducing power to assess associations,” they added.

The investigators did not report funding sources. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

Patients with at least five biopsies showing nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus were statistically as likely to progress to high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma as patients with a single such biopsy, according to a multicenter prospective registry study reported in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: org/10.1016/j.cgh.2017.02.019).

The findings, which contradict those from another recent multicenter cohort study (Gastroenterology. 2013;145[3]:548-53), highlight the need for more studies before lengthening the time between surveillance biopsies in patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, Rajesh Krishnamoorthi, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., wrote with his associates.

Barrett’s esophagus is the strongest predictor of esophageal adenocarcinoma, but studies have reported mixed results as to whether the risk of this cancer increases over time or wanes with consecutive biopsies that indicate nondysplasia, the researchers noted. Therefore, they studied the prospective, multicenter Mayo Clinic Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Barrett’s Esophagus registry, excluding patients who progressed to adenocarcinoma within 12 months, had missing data, or had no follow-up biopsies. This approach left 480 subjects for analysis. Patients averaged 63 years of age, 78% were male, the mean length of Barrett’s esophagus was 5.7 cm, and the average time between biopsies was 1.8 years, with a standard deviation of 1.3 years.

A total of 16 patients progressed to high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma over 1,832 patient-years of follow-up, for an overall annual risk of progression of 0.87%. Two patients progressed to esophageal adenocarcinoma (annual risk, 0.11%; 95% confidence interval, 0.03% to 0.44%), while 14 patients progressed to high-grade dysplasia (annual risk, 0.76%; 95% CI, 0.45% to 1.29%). Eight patients progressed to one of these two outcomes after a single nondysplastic biopsy, three progressed after two such biopsies, three progressed after three such biopsies, none progressed after four such biopsies, and two progressed after five such biopsies. Statistically, patients with at least five consecutive nondysplastic biopsies were no less likely to progress than were patients with only one nondysplastic biopsy (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.07 to 1.92; P = .32). Hazard ratios for the other groups ranged between 0.0 and 0.85, with no significant difference in estimated risk between groups (P = .68) after controlling for age, sex, and length of Barrett’s esophagus.

The previous multicenter cohort study linked persistently nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus with a lower rate of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, and, based on those findings, the authors suggested lengthening intervals between biopsy surveillance or even stopping surveillance, Dr. Krishnamoorthi and his associates noted. However, that study did not have mutually exclusive groups. “Additional data are required before increasing the interval between surveillance endoscopies based on persistence of nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus,” they concluded.

The study lacked misclassification bias given long-segment Barrett’s esophagus, and specialized gastrointestinal pathologists interpreted all histology specimens, the researchers noted. “The small number of progressors is a potential limitation, reducing power to assess associations,” they added.

The investigators did not report funding sources. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

CHICAGO – Persistent reflux symptoms resolved in 93% of patients who underwent laparoscopic deployment of a circlet of magnet beads to the lower esophageal juncture, but in just 9% of those who doubled their dose of omeprazole, Reginald Bell, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

In addition to bolstering positive device data, the results of this ongoing randomized study suggest that it may be time to rethink the treatment algorithm for patients who don’t respond optimally to medical therapy, Dr. Bell said in an interview.

“We found that relatively few patients respond well to the typical doubling of PPIs,” said Dr. Bell of the SOFI SurgOne Foregut Institute, Englewood, Colo. “In light of these strong results, it’s my opinion that we should consider going straight to surgery for at least some of these patients”

The LINX Reflux Management System (TORAX Medical; Shoreview, Minn.) is a small, flexible band of interlinked titanium beads with magnetic cores. The magnetic attraction between the beads keeps them joined when the lower esophageal sphincter is at rest. It exerts just enough resistance, however, to keep the sphincter from opening under gastric pressures of less than about 20 mm Hg, preventing reflux into the esophagus. Reflux typically occurs at an opening pressure of 10-12 mm Hg. Swallowing pressures, however, generally exceed 20 mm Hg, Dr. Bell said, allowing the circlet to expand enough to allow free passage of the bolus. The magnetic forces then bring the beads back together, again keeping the sphincter in a closed position.

This variable pressure is a big advantage over the Nissen fundoplication, which creates a pseudoflap that isn’t as yielding to intragastric pressure, Dr. Bell said. Nissen patients frequently have trouble belching or vomiting, and can experience bloating and distention from a reduced ability to vent gases. That is generally not a problem with LINX patients. And while some do initially experience dysphagia, this is typically transient. In the pivotal trial, bloating occurred in 7% of patients by 24 months.

The study comprised 150 patients with persistent symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), despite at least 8 weeks of taking 20 mg omeprazole daily. These patients were randomized on a 2:1 scheme to either a doubling of omeprazole (20 mg twice a day) or surgery with LINX. Dr. Bell reported 6-month outcomes on 80 patients, 25 of whom had the LINX procedure and 55 of whom began double-dose omeprazole.

These patients were a mean of 47 years old, and had used a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for a mean of 8 years. Baseline work-ups confirmed moderate to severe GERD, with about 12% of gastric measurement times at less than pH 4. The mean DeMeester Score was about 40. On the GERD Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire, patients scored about 24 while on medical therapy and 31 while off. They reported moderate to severe heartburn and regurgitation.

The study’s primary endpoint was relief of moderate to severe regurgitation. This was reached in 93% of the LINX group and 9% of the double-dose PPI group – a significant difference. Significantly more LINX patients also achieved at least a 50% reduction in their baseline GERD-HRQL score (90% vs.7%). The mean score dropped from about 32-5 in the LINX group and 30-24 in the PPI group.

Mean scores on the Reflux Disease Questionnaire improved significantly more in the LINX group than in the PPI group, including regurgitation (4.2.-1.4; 4.4 at both time points), and heartburn (3.4-1.6; 3.6-3.9).

An independent, blinded laboratory conducted pH/impedance testing on the cohort; the normal values were less than 57 reflux episodes/24 hours. At 6 months, the LINX group experienced a mean of 30 episodes vs. 70 in the PPI group.

When the investigators examined a combined measure of the number of reflux episodes and the change in DeMeester scores, they found normal reflux in 92% of the LINX group and 36% of the PPI group.

There was one adverse event related to the LINX procedure. A 66-year-old man was hospitalized and medically treated for esophageal spasms. The incident resolved with no sequelae, Dr. Bell said. So far, one LINX patient has needed to add PPI therapy; other studies typically show that 2%-3% of patients with the device do so.

Dr. Bell disclosed that he is a consultant for TORAX.

Digestive Disease Week^® is jointly sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

[email protected]

On Twitter @Alz_gal

CHICAGO – Persistent reflux symptoms resolved in 93% of patients who underwent laparoscopic deployment of a circlet of magnet beads to the lower esophageal juncture, but in just 9% of those who doubled their dose of omeprazole, Reginald Bell, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

In addition to bolstering positive device data, the results of this ongoing randomized study suggest that it may be time to rethink the treatment algorithm for patients who don’t respond optimally to medical therapy, Dr. Bell said in an interview.

“We found that relatively few patients respond well to the typical doubling of PPIs,” said Dr. Bell of the SOFI SurgOne Foregut Institute, Englewood, Colo. “In light of these strong results, it’s my opinion that we should consider going straight to surgery for at least some of these patients”

The LINX Reflux Management System (TORAX Medical; Shoreview, Minn.) is a small, flexible band of interlinked titanium beads with magnetic cores. The magnetic attraction between the beads keeps them joined when the lower esophageal sphincter is at rest. It exerts just enough resistance, however, to keep the sphincter from opening under gastric pressures of less than about 20 mm Hg, preventing reflux into the esophagus. Reflux typically occurs at an opening pressure of 10-12 mm Hg. Swallowing pressures, however, generally exceed 20 mm Hg, Dr. Bell said, allowing the circlet to expand enough to allow free passage of the bolus. The magnetic forces then bring the beads back together, again keeping the sphincter in a closed position.

This variable pressure is a big advantage over the Nissen fundoplication, which creates a pseudoflap that isn’t as yielding to intragastric pressure, Dr. Bell said. Nissen patients frequently have trouble belching or vomiting, and can experience bloating and distention from a reduced ability to vent gases. That is generally not a problem with LINX patients. And while some do initially experience dysphagia, this is typically transient. In the pivotal trial, bloating occurred in 7% of patients by 24 months.

The study comprised 150 patients with persistent symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), despite at least 8 weeks of taking 20 mg omeprazole daily. These patients were randomized on a 2:1 scheme to either a doubling of omeprazole (20 mg twice a day) or surgery with LINX. Dr. Bell reported 6-month outcomes on 80 patients, 25 of whom had the LINX procedure and 55 of whom began double-dose omeprazole.

These patients were a mean of 47 years old, and had used a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for a mean of 8 years. Baseline work-ups confirmed moderate to severe GERD, with about 12% of gastric measurement times at less than pH 4. The mean DeMeester Score was about 40. On the GERD Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire, patients scored about 24 while on medical therapy and 31 while off. They reported moderate to severe heartburn and regurgitation.

The study’s primary endpoint was relief of moderate to severe regurgitation. This was reached in 93% of the LINX group and 9% of the double-dose PPI group – a significant difference. Significantly more LINX patients also achieved at least a 50% reduction in their baseline GERD-HRQL score (90% vs.7%). The mean score dropped from about 32-5 in the LINX group and 30-24 in the PPI group.

Mean scores on the Reflux Disease Questionnaire improved significantly more in the LINX group than in the PPI group, including regurgitation (4.2.-1.4; 4.4 at both time points), and heartburn (3.4-1.6; 3.6-3.9).

An independent, blinded laboratory conducted pH/impedance testing on the cohort; the normal values were less than 57 reflux episodes/24 hours. At 6 months, the LINX group experienced a mean of 30 episodes vs. 70 in the PPI group.

When the investigators examined a combined measure of the number of reflux episodes and the change in DeMeester scores, they found normal reflux in 92% of the LINX group and 36% of the PPI group.

There was one adverse event related to the LINX procedure. A 66-year-old man was hospitalized and medically treated for esophageal spasms. The incident resolved with no sequelae, Dr. Bell said. So far, one LINX patient has needed to add PPI therapy; other studies typically show that 2%-3% of patients with the device do so.

Dr. Bell disclosed that he is a consultant for TORAX.

Digestive Disease Week^® is jointly sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

[email protected]

On Twitter @Alz_gal

CHICAGO – Persistent reflux symptoms resolved in 93% of patients who underwent laparoscopic deployment of a circlet of magnet beads to the lower esophageal juncture, but in just 9% of those who doubled their dose of omeprazole, Reginald Bell, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

In addition to bolstering positive device data, the results of this ongoing randomized study suggest that it may be time to rethink the treatment algorithm for patients who don’t respond optimally to medical therapy, Dr. Bell said in an interview.

“We found that relatively few patients respond well to the typical doubling of PPIs,” said Dr. Bell of the SOFI SurgOne Foregut Institute, Englewood, Colo. “In light of these strong results, it’s my opinion that we should consider going straight to surgery for at least some of these patients”

The LINX Reflux Management System (TORAX Medical; Shoreview, Minn.) is a small, flexible band of interlinked titanium beads with magnetic cores. The magnetic attraction between the beads keeps them joined when the lower esophageal sphincter is at rest. It exerts just enough resistance, however, to keep the sphincter from opening under gastric pressures of less than about 20 mm Hg, preventing reflux into the esophagus. Reflux typically occurs at an opening pressure of 10-12 mm Hg. Swallowing pressures, however, generally exceed 20 mm Hg, Dr. Bell said, allowing the circlet to expand enough to allow free passage of the bolus. The magnetic forces then bring the beads back together, again keeping the sphincter in a closed position.

This variable pressure is a big advantage over the Nissen fundoplication, which creates a pseudoflap that isn’t as yielding to intragastric pressure, Dr. Bell said. Nissen patients frequently have trouble belching or vomiting, and can experience bloating and distention from a reduced ability to vent gases. That is generally not a problem with LINX patients. And while some do initially experience dysphagia, this is typically transient. In the pivotal trial, bloating occurred in 7% of patients by 24 months.

The study comprised 150 patients with persistent symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), despite at least 8 weeks of taking 20 mg omeprazole daily. These patients were randomized on a 2:1 scheme to either a doubling of omeprazole (20 mg twice a day) or surgery with LINX. Dr. Bell reported 6-month outcomes on 80 patients, 25 of whom had the LINX procedure and 55 of whom began double-dose omeprazole.

These patients were a mean of 47 years old, and had used a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for a mean of 8 years. Baseline work-ups confirmed moderate to severe GERD, with about 12% of gastric measurement times at less than pH 4. The mean DeMeester Score was about 40. On the GERD Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire, patients scored about 24 while on medical therapy and 31 while off. They reported moderate to severe heartburn and regurgitation.

The study’s primary endpoint was relief of moderate to severe regurgitation. This was reached in 93% of the LINX group and 9% of the double-dose PPI group – a significant difference. Significantly more LINX patients also achieved at least a 50% reduction in their baseline GERD-HRQL score (90% vs.7%). The mean score dropped from about 32-5 in the LINX group and 30-24 in the PPI group.

Mean scores on the Reflux Disease Questionnaire improved significantly more in the LINX group than in the PPI group, including regurgitation (4.2.-1.4; 4.4 at both time points), and heartburn (3.4-1.6; 3.6-3.9).

An independent, blinded laboratory conducted pH/impedance testing on the cohort; the normal values were less than 57 reflux episodes/24 hours. At 6 months, the LINX group experienced a mean of 30 episodes vs. 70 in the PPI group.

When the investigators examined a combined measure of the number of reflux episodes and the change in DeMeester scores, they found normal reflux in 92% of the LINX group and 36% of the PPI group.

There was one adverse event related to the LINX procedure. A 66-year-old man was hospitalized and medically treated for esophageal spasms. The incident resolved with no sequelae, Dr. Bell said. So far, one LINX patient has needed to add PPI therapy; other studies typically show that 2%-3% of patients with the device do so.

Dr. Bell disclosed that he is a consultant for TORAX.

Digestive Disease Week^® is jointly sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

[email protected]

On Twitter @Alz_gal

CHICAGO – Misoprostol could be a treatment option for healing intestinal bleeding that is associated with regular aspirin use, a small study showed.

Compared with placebo, it was superior in healing small bowel ulcers. A total of 12 patients who received misoprostol had complete healing at 8 weeks, compared with 4 in the placebo group (P = .017).

“Among patients with overt bleeding or anemia from small bowel lesions who receive continuous aspirin therapy, misoprostol is superior to placebo in achieving complete mucosal healing,” said lead author Francis Chan, MD, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

Millions of individuals use low-dose aspirin daily to lower their risk of stroke and cardiovascular events, but they face a risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. In fact, Dr. Chan pointed out, continuous aspirin use has been associated with a threefold risk of a lower GI bleed.

“But to date, there is no effective pharmacological treatment for small bowel ulcers that are associated with use of low-dose aspirin,” he said.

Misoprostol is a synthetic prostaglandin E1 analog that is indicated for reducing the risk of NSAID–induced gastric ulcers in individuals who are at high risk of complications from gastric ulcers. In their study, Dr. Chan and his colleagues assessed the efficacy of misoprostol for healing small bowel ulcers in patients with GI bleeding who were using continuous aspirin therapy.

The primary endpoint was complete mucosal healing in 8 weeks, and secondary endpoints included changes in the number of GI erosions.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 35 patients assigned to misoprostol and 37 to placebo. All patients were on regular aspirin (at least 160 mg/day) for established cardiothrombotic diseases and had either overt bleeding of the small bowel or anemia. No bleeding source was identified on gastroscopy and colonoscopy. They had a score of 3 (more than four erosions) or 4 (large erosion or ulcer) that was confirmed by capsule endoscopy.

Those randomized to the active therapy arm received 200 mg misoprostol four times daily, and all patients continued aspirin 80 mg/day for the duration of the trial. During the study period, concomitant NSAIDs, proton pump inhibitors, sucralfate, rebamipide, antibiotics, corticosteroids, or iron supplement was prohibited.

A follow-up capsule endoscopy was performed at 8 weeks to assess mucosal healing, and all images were evaluated by a blinded panel.

The intention-to-treat population included all patients who took at least one dose of the study drug and returned for follow-up capsule endoscopy (n = 72).

In this population, 33% of patients in the misoprostol group and 10.5% on placebo had complete mucosal healing at 8 weeks.

“For the secondary endpoint of changes in small bowel erosions, there was a significant difference between the misoprostol group and placebo group with a P value of .025,” said Dr. Chan.

The study was supported by a competitive grant from the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong. Dr. Chan reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, and Takeda.

CHICAGO – Misoprostol could be a treatment option for healing intestinal bleeding that is associated with regular aspirin use, a small study showed.

Compared with placebo, it was superior in healing small bowel ulcers. A total of 12 patients who received misoprostol had complete healing at 8 weeks, compared with 4 in the placebo group (P = .017).

“Among patients with overt bleeding or anemia from small bowel lesions who receive continuous aspirin therapy, misoprostol is superior to placebo in achieving complete mucosal healing,” said lead author Francis Chan, MD, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

Millions of individuals use low-dose aspirin daily to lower their risk of stroke and cardiovascular events, but they face a risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. In fact, Dr. Chan pointed out, continuous aspirin use has been associated with a threefold risk of a lower GI bleed.

“But to date, there is no effective pharmacological treatment for small bowel ulcers that are associated with use of low-dose aspirin,” he said.

Misoprostol is a synthetic prostaglandin E1 analog that is indicated for reducing the risk of NSAID–induced gastric ulcers in individuals who are at high risk of complications from gastric ulcers. In their study, Dr. Chan and his colleagues assessed the efficacy of misoprostol for healing small bowel ulcers in patients with GI bleeding who were using continuous aspirin therapy.

The primary endpoint was complete mucosal healing in 8 weeks, and secondary endpoints included changes in the number of GI erosions.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 35 patients assigned to misoprostol and 37 to placebo. All patients were on regular aspirin (at least 160 mg/day) for established cardiothrombotic diseases and had either overt bleeding of the small bowel or anemia. No bleeding source was identified on gastroscopy and colonoscopy. They had a score of 3 (more than four erosions) or 4 (large erosion or ulcer) that was confirmed by capsule endoscopy.

Those randomized to the active therapy arm received 200 mg misoprostol four times daily, and all patients continued aspirin 80 mg/day for the duration of the trial. During the study period, concomitant NSAIDs, proton pump inhibitors, sucralfate, rebamipide, antibiotics, corticosteroids, or iron supplement was prohibited.

A follow-up capsule endoscopy was performed at 8 weeks to assess mucosal healing, and all images were evaluated by a blinded panel.

The intention-to-treat population included all patients who took at least one dose of the study drug and returned for follow-up capsule endoscopy (n = 72).

In this population, 33% of patients in the misoprostol group and 10.5% on placebo had complete mucosal healing at 8 weeks.

“For the secondary endpoint of changes in small bowel erosions, there was a significant difference between the misoprostol group and placebo group with a P value of .025,” said Dr. Chan.

The study was supported by a competitive grant from the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong. Dr. Chan reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, and Takeda.

CHICAGO – Misoprostol could be a treatment option for healing intestinal bleeding that is associated with regular aspirin use, a small study showed.

Compared with placebo, it was superior in healing small bowel ulcers. A total of 12 patients who received misoprostol had complete healing at 8 weeks, compared with 4 in the placebo group (P = .017).

“Among patients with overt bleeding or anemia from small bowel lesions who receive continuous aspirin therapy, misoprostol is superior to placebo in achieving complete mucosal healing,” said lead author Francis Chan, MD, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

Millions of individuals use low-dose aspirin daily to lower their risk of stroke and cardiovascular events, but they face a risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. In fact, Dr. Chan pointed out, continuous aspirin use has been associated with a threefold risk of a lower GI bleed.

“But to date, there is no effective pharmacological treatment for small bowel ulcers that are associated with use of low-dose aspirin,” he said.

Misoprostol is a synthetic prostaglandin E1 analog that is indicated for reducing the risk of NSAID–induced gastric ulcers in individuals who are at high risk of complications from gastric ulcers. In their study, Dr. Chan and his colleagues assessed the efficacy of misoprostol for healing small bowel ulcers in patients with GI bleeding who were using continuous aspirin therapy.

The primary endpoint was complete mucosal healing in 8 weeks, and secondary endpoints included changes in the number of GI erosions.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 35 patients assigned to misoprostol and 37 to placebo. All patients were on regular aspirin (at least 160 mg/day) for established cardiothrombotic diseases and had either overt bleeding of the small bowel or anemia. No bleeding source was identified on gastroscopy and colonoscopy. They had a score of 3 (more than four erosions) or 4 (large erosion or ulcer) that was confirmed by capsule endoscopy.

Those randomized to the active therapy arm received 200 mg misoprostol four times daily, and all patients continued aspirin 80 mg/day for the duration of the trial. During the study period, concomitant NSAIDs, proton pump inhibitors, sucralfate, rebamipide, antibiotics, corticosteroids, or iron supplement was prohibited.

A follow-up capsule endoscopy was performed at 8 weeks to assess mucosal healing, and all images were evaluated by a blinded panel.

The intention-to-treat population included all patients who took at least one dose of the study drug and returned for follow-up capsule endoscopy (n = 72).

In this population, 33% of patients in the misoprostol group and 10.5% on placebo had complete mucosal healing at 8 weeks.

“For the secondary endpoint of changes in small bowel erosions, there was a significant difference between the misoprostol group and placebo group with a P value of .025,” said Dr. Chan.

The study was supported by a competitive grant from the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong. Dr. Chan reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, and Takeda.

PHILADELPHIA – Particularly in adults, there are three conditions that produce symptoms consistent with idiopathic gastroparesis and should be specifically considered in a detailed history conducted before advanced diagnostic tests, according to a clinical update at the Fourth Annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances meeting, held by Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The three disorders “are very important, because we see them missed all the time,” reported Anthony J. Lembo, MD, director of the GI Motility Laboratory, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

PHILADELPHIA – Particularly in adults, there are three conditions that produce symptoms consistent with idiopathic gastroparesis and should be specifically considered in a detailed history conducted before advanced diagnostic tests, according to a clinical update at the Fourth Annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances meeting, held by Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The three disorders “are very important, because we see them missed all the time,” reported Anthony J. Lembo, MD, director of the GI Motility Laboratory, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

PHILADELPHIA – Particularly in adults, there are three conditions that produce symptoms consistent with idiopathic gastroparesis and should be specifically considered in a detailed history conducted before advanced diagnostic tests, according to a clinical update at the Fourth Annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances meeting, held by Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The three disorders “are very important, because we see them missed all the time,” reported Anthony J. Lembo, MD, director of the GI Motility Laboratory, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

PHILADELPHIA – Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) responsive to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) has been characterized as PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE), but there is no compelling evidence that it is a distinct EoE subgroup, according to an expert who updated current thinking about this disease at Digestive Diseases: New Advances.

“Multivariate analyses have not identified any feature that distinguishes PPI-REE from EoE. Why? Because they are probably the same disorder,” reported Stuart J. Spechler, MD, AGAF, codirector of the center for esophageal diseases at Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas.

PHILADELPHIA – Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) responsive to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) has been characterized as PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE), but there is no compelling evidence that it is a distinct EoE subgroup, according to an expert who updated current thinking about this disease at Digestive Diseases: New Advances.

“Multivariate analyses have not identified any feature that distinguishes PPI-REE from EoE. Why? Because they are probably the same disorder,” reported Stuart J. Spechler, MD, AGAF, codirector of the center for esophageal diseases at Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas.

PHILADELPHIA – Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) responsive to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) has been characterized as PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE), but there is no compelling evidence that it is a distinct EoE subgroup, according to an expert who updated current thinking about this disease at Digestive Diseases: New Advances.

“Multivariate analyses have not identified any feature that distinguishes PPI-REE from EoE. Why? Because they are probably the same disorder,” reported Stuart J. Spechler, MD, AGAF, codirector of the center for esophageal diseases at Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas.