BACKGROUND & AIMS: Efforts to assess and improve the effectiveness of Barretts esophagus (BE) screening and surveillance are ongoing in the United States. Currently, there are limited population-based data in the United States to guide these efforts. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans in the United States from 2004 - 2019. We identified individuals with BE and analyzed the proportion who developed EAC. EACs were classified as prevalent EAC (diagnosed within 30 days of index endoscopy), post-endoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (PEEC, diagnosed 30 - 365 days after index endoscopy), and incident EAC (diagnosed 365 days or more after index endoscopy). Using this cohort, we performed a nested case-control study to identify factors associated with prevalent EAC at BE diagnosis and study healthcare utilization prior to BE diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 50,817 individuals with incident BE. Of the 366 who developed EAC, 67.2%, 13.7%, and 19.1% were diagnosed with prevalent EAC, PEEC, and incident EAC respectively. Factors positively associated with prevalent EAC versus BE without prevalent EAC included male sex, dysphagia, weight loss, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score. In those with prevalent EAC, most patients with dysphagia or weight loss had their symptoms first recorded within three months of EAC diagnosis. Healthcare utilization rates were similar between those with and without prevalent EAC. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of EACs among individuals with BE are diagnosed at the time of BE diagnosis. Additionally, PEEC accounts for 14% of these EACs. These results may guide future research studies that investigate novel BE diagnostic strategies that reduce the morbidity and mortality of EAC.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Barretts esophagus (BE) screening is not highly utilized in the United States, and there are few data describing providers approach to screening. To fill this gap and guide the implementation of future BE screening strategies, we studied evaluation practice patterns for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) by nongastroenterologists. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with chronic GERD using health claims data from the United States between 2005 and 2019. We used up to 5 years of data after the diagnosis of chronic GERD to determine patient factors associated with completion of a gastroenterology encounter. We also identified patient factors associated with whether the first gastroenterology encounter was a direct-access upper endoscopy or an office visit. RESULTS: We identified 484,023 patients diagnosed with chronic GERD by a nongastroenterology provider. The cumulative incidence of completing a gastroenterology encounter within 5 years was 38.7%. Gastrointestinal symptoms, such as dysphagia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 2.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.94-2.30), abdominal pain (aHR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.85-1.94), and melena (aHR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.65-1.82), were strongly associated with completion of a gastroenterology encounter. The patient factors strongly associated with direct-access upper endoscopy included dysphagia (aHR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.52-1.85), weight loss (aHR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.28-1.63), and melena (aHR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.28-1.56). CONCLUSION: A total of 38.7% of patients with chronic GERD complete a gastroenterology encounter within 5 years of diagnosis, and gastrointestinal alarm symptoms are the most strongly associated factors for receiving gastroenterology care. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating primary care providers in the development of new BE screening programs.

INTRODUCTION: Despite best practice recommendations for managing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), variation in care exists. METHODS: We used established methodology for quality indicator development to identify metrics to define quality for the treatment of EoE. RESULTS: Among 29 proposed quality indicator statements, 9 (31%) were adopted as highly valid across all categories. Two (22%) of these statements were identified as having existing or suspected quality gaps. DISCUSSION: We identified highly valid EoE quality indicators for adult gastroenterologists, which can be used for quality improvement with resulting benefits for patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Identification of postendoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (PEEC) among Barretts esophagus (BE) patients presents an opportunity to improve survival of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to estimate the proportion of PEEC within the first year after BE diagnosis. METHODS: Multiple databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases) were searched until September 2020 for original studies with at least 1-year follow-up evaluation that reported EAC and/or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in the first year after index endoscopy in nondysplastic BE, low-grade dysplasia, or indefinite dysplasia. The proportions of PEEC defined using EAC alone and EAC+HGD were calculated by dividing EAC or EAC+HGD in the first year over the total number of EAC or EAC+HGD, respectively. RESULTS: We included 52 studies with 145,726 patients and a median follow-up period of 4.8 years. The proportion of PEEC (EAC) was 21% (95% CI, 13-31) and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 26% (95% CI, 19-34). Among studies with nondysplastic BE only, the PEEC (EAC) proportion was 17% (95% CI, 11-23) and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 14% (95% CI, 8-19). Among studies with 5 or more years of follow-up evaluation, the PEEC (EAC) proportion was 10% and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 19%. Meta-regression analysis showed a strong inverse relationship between PEEC and incident EAC (P < .001). The PEEC (EAC) proportion increased from 5% in studies published before 2000 to 30% after 2015. Substantial heterogeneity was observed for most analyses. CONCLUSIONS: PEEC accounts for a high proportion of HGD/EACs and is proportional to reduction in incident EAC. Using best endoscopic techniques now and performing future research on improving neoplasia detection through implementation of quality measures and educational tools is needed to reduce PEEC.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Barretts esophagus (BE), defined by the presence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) on histology, is thought to be the only identifiable precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Recent studies have suggested the possibility of an alternate, non-IM associated EAC that is a more aggressive form of EAC with worse survival. Among EAC patients, we aimed to compare survival of patients with and without IM at the time of diagnosis. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients with histologic confirmed EAC evaluated at a tertiary care center from 2013 to 2019. Cases were categorized according to the presence or absence of IM on histologic specimens (Group I-IM-EAC and Group II-non-IM-EAC). We compared demographic characteristics, clinical stage, therapy, and survival between the 2 groups using the Chi-square and ANOVA tests (for categorical and continuous variables, respectively). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to determine the association of IM with overall survival, adjusting for sex, age at diagnosis, tumor location, histologic grade, and clinical stage. RESULTS: A total of 475 patients were included in this analysis (mean age 64.8 years [SD 10.8], 89% white) and 109 (23.0%) had no evidence of IM. Compared with IM-EAC (Group I), individuals in the non-IM-EAC group were younger (P = .01) and had a greater proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced disease (49.5 vs 20.2% for stage 4, P < .001). These patients were less likely to undergo endoscopic therapy alone (0.92% vs 29.78%, P < .001) or surgery alone (0 vs 9.84%, P = .001). On multivariable analysis, the presence of IM-EAC was associated with improved overall survival compared to non-IM-EAC (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96). Additional factors associated with poor survival was increasing stage of diagnosis (HR 6.49: 95% CI 3.77-11.15 for stage 4, HR 2.19: 95% CI 1.25-3.84 for stage 3, HR 2.04: 95% CI 0.98-4.25 for stage 2 compared to stage 1) and more advanced histologic stage (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.26-3.19) for poorly/undifferentiated compared to well differentiated). CONCLUSIONS: EAC without the presence of IM on histology was associated with worse survival compared to those with IM. Future prospective studies with detailed molecular sequencing are required to clarify if 2 separate phenotypes of EAC exist (IM-EAC and non-IM-EAC). If confirmed, this may have significant implications for screening and management strategies.

BACKGROUND: Optimal ambulatory reflux monitoring methodology in symptomatic reflux patients continues to be debated. AIMS: To utilise published literature and expert opinion to develop recommendation statements addressing use of ambulatory reflux monitoring in clinical practice METHODS: The RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM) was utilised among 17 experts with discussion, revision and two rounds of ranking of recommendation statements. Ambulatory reflux monitoring protocol, methodology and thresholds ranked as appropriate by ≥80% of panellists met the criteria for appropriateness. RESULTS: Prolonged (96-h recommended) wireless pH monitoring off proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was identified as the appropriate diagnostic tool to assess the need for acid suppression in patients with unproven gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and persisting typical reflux symptoms despite once-daily PPI. Acid exposure time (AET) <4.0% on all days of monitoring with negative reflux-symptom association excludes GERD and does not support ongoing PPI treatment. Conversely, AET >6.0% across ≥2 days is conclusive evidence for GERD and supports treatment for GERD, while AET >10% across ≥2 days identifies severe acid burden that supports escalation of anti-reflux treatment. In previously proven GERD, impedance-pH monitoring on PPI is helpful in defining refractory GERD and mechanisms of continued symptoms; the presence of <40 reflux events, AET <2.0% and a negative reflux-symptom association does not support escalation of anti-reflux treatment. In contrast, AET > 4.0% and positive reflux-symptom association support escalation of anti-reflux treatment, including use of invasive therapeutics. CONCLUSIONS: Statements meeting appropriateness for average clinical care have been identified when utilising reflux monitoring in patients with typical reflux symptoms and PPI non-response.

Background & aims

Agents are being developed for treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, it is not clear what outcome measures would best determine the efficacy and safety of these agents in clinical trials. We performed a systematic review of outcomes used in randomized placebo-controlled trials of EoE and we estimate the placebo response and rates of remission.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register from inception through February 20, 2018 for randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic therapies for EoE. Efficacy outcome definitions, measurement tools, and the proportion of patients responding to placebo were collected and stratified by based on histologic, endoscopic, and patient-reported outcomes.

Results

We analyzed data from 22 placebo-controlled trials, comprising 1112 patients with EoE. Ten additional active registered trials were identified. Most published trials evaluated topical corticosteroid therapy (13/22, 59.1%). Histologic outcomes measuring eosinophil density and patient-reported outcomes were reported in 21/22 published trials (95.5%). No consistently applied definitions of histologic or patient-reported response or remission were identified. Endoscopic outcomes were described in 60% (12/20) of published trials. The EoE Endoscopic Reference Score is the most commonly applied tool for describing changes in endoscopic appearance. The median histologic response to placebo was 3.7% (range, 0%-31.6%) and the median rate of remission in patients given placebo was 0.0% (range, 0%-11.0%). The median patient-reported response to placebo was 14.4% (range, 8.6%-77.8%) and rate of remission in patients given placebo was 26.2% (range, 13.2%-35.7%).

Conclusions

In a systematic review of the literature, we found that no standardized definitions of histologic, endoscopic, or patient-reported outcomes are used to determine whether pharmacologic agents produce a response or remission in patients with EoE. A core outcome set is needed to reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting and facilitate trial interpretation and comparison of results from trials.

Background & aims

As many as one-half of all patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do not derive benefit from acid suppression. This review outlines a personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approach to GERD symptoms.

Methods

The Best Practice Advice statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with extensive discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was not the intent of this clinical practice update. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians should develop a care plan for investigation of symptoms suggestive of GERD, selection of therapy (with explanation of potential risks and benefits), and long-term management, including possible de-escalation, in a shared-decision making model with the patient. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians should provide standardized educational material on GERD mechanisms, weight management, lifestyle and dietary behaviors, relaxation strategies, and awareness about the brain-gut axis relationship to patients with reflux symptoms. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should emphasize safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the treatment of GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should provide patients presenting with troublesome heartburn, regurgitation, and/or non-cardiac chest pain without alarm symptoms a 4- to 8-week trial of single-dose PPI therapy. With inadequate response, dosing can be increased to twice a day or switched to a more effective acid suppressive agent once a day. When there is adequate response, PPI should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: If PPI therapy is continued in a patient with unproven GERD, clinicians should evaluate the appropriateness and dosing within 12 months after initiation, and offer endoscopy with prolonged wireless reflux monitoring off PPI therapy to establish appropriateness of long-term PPI therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: If troublesome heartburn, regurgitation, and/or non-cardiac chest pain do not respond adequately to a PPI trial or when alarm symptoms exist, clinicians should investigate with endoscopy and, in the absence of erosive reflux disease (Los Angeles B or greater) or long-segment (≥3 cm) Barrett's esophagus, perform prolonged wireless pH monitoring off medication (96-hour preferred if available) to confirm and phenotype GERD or to rule out GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Complete endoscopic evaluation of GERD symptoms includes inspection for erosive esophagitis (graded according to the Los Angeles classification when present), diaphragmatic hiatus (Hill grade of flap valve), axial hiatus hernia length, and inspection for Barrett's esophagus (graded according to the Prague classification and biopsied when present). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Clinicians should perform upfront objective reflux testing off medication (rather than an empiric PPI trial) in patients with isolated extra-esophageal symptoms and suspicion for reflux etiology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In symptomatic patients with proven GERD, clinicians should consider ambulatory 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring on PPI as an option to determine the mechanism of persisting esophageal symptoms despite therapy (if adequate expertise exists for interpretation). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Clinicians should personalize adjunctive pharmacotherapy to the GERD phenotype, in contrast to empiric use of these agents. Adjunctive agents include alginate antacids for breakthrough symptoms, nighttime H2 receptor antagonists for nocturnal symptoms, baclofen for regurgitation or belch predominant symptoms, and prokinetics for coexistent gastroparesis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Clinicians should provide pharmacologic neuromodulation, and/or referral to a behavioral therapist for hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies in patients with functional heartburn or reflux disease associated with esophageal hypervigilance reflux hypersensitivity and/or behavioral disorders. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: In patients with proven GERD, laparoscopic fundoplication and magnetic sphincter augmentation are effective surgical options, and transoral incisionless fundoplication is an effective endoscopic option in carefully selected patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: In patients with proven GERD, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is an effective primary anti-reflux intervention in obese patients, and a salvage option in non-obese patients, whereas sleeve gastrectomy has potential to worsen GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Candidacy for invasive anti-reflux procedures includes confirmatory evidence of pathologic GERD, exclusion of achalasia, and assessment of esophageal peristaltic function.

Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high-resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty-two diverse international experts separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two-years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Over the last decade, clinical experiences and research studies raised concerns regarding use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as part of the diagnostic strategy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to clarify the use of PPIs in the evaluation and treatment of children and adults with suspected EoE to develop updated international consensus criteria for EoE diagnosis. METHODS: A consensus conference was convened to address the issue of PPI use for esophageal eosinophilia using a process consistent with standards described in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II. Pediatric and adult physicians and researchers from gastroenterology, allergy, and pathology subspecialties representing 14 countries used online communications, teleconferences, and a face-to-face meeting to review the literature and clinical experiences. RESULTS: Substantial evidence documented that PPIs reduce esophageal eosinophilia in children, adolescents, and adults, with several mechanisms potentially explaining the treatment effect. Based on these findings, an updated diagnostic algorithm for EoE was developed, with removal of the PPI trial requirement. CONCLUSIONS: EoE should be diagnosed when there are symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (or approximately 60 eosinophils per mm2) on esophageal biopsy and after a comprehensive assessment of non-EoE disorders that could cause or potentially contribute to esophageal eosinophilia. The evidence suggests that PPIs are better classified as a treatment for esophageal eosinophilia that may be due to EoE than as a diagnostic criterion, and we have developed updated consensus criteria for EoE that reflect this change.