Risk factors associated with functional esophageal disorders (FED) versus gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

INTRODUCTION: Despite the high prevalence of typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), approximately 30% of patients have functional esophageal disorders (FED) on ambulatory reflux monitoring, which may include reflux hypersensitivity (RH; defined as physiologic acid exposure but temporally correlated symptoms of reflux), or functional heartburn (FH; defined as physiologic acid exposure and negative symptom correlation). There are limited epidemiological data characterizing these conditions. We investigated demographic and socioeconomic factors as well as medical comorbidities which may predispose to FED versus pathologic GERD. METHODS: Adult patients with reflux symptoms for at least 3 months were studied with 24-h pH-impedance testing from 11/2019 to 3/2021. Participants were categorized into pathologic GERD, FH, or RH using pH-impedance data and reported symptom correlation. Demographic data, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, zip code, insurance status, and medical comorbidity data were retrospectively retrieved from the electronic medical record on all participants. RESULTS: 229 patients were included. Non-Hispanic Asian ethnicity (OR 5.65; p = 0.01), underweight BMI (OR 7.33; p = 0.06), chronic pain (OR 2.33; p < 0.01), insomnia (OR 2.83; p = 0.06), and allergic rhinitis (OR 3.90; p < 0.01) were associated with a greater risk for FED. Overweight BMI (OR 0.48; p = 0.03) and alcohol use (OR 0.57; p = 0.06) were associated with a decreased risk for FED. DISCUSSION: This is the first report of a greater risk of FED in patients with underweight BMI, insomnia, chronic pain, allergic rhinitis, or of Asian or Hispanic ethnicities. The weak associations between female gender and anxiety are corroborated in other studies. Our findings enable clinicians to better screen patients with reflux for this disorder.

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Vedolizumab to Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonist Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We aimed to compare safety and effectiveness of vedolizumab to tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-antagonist therapy in ulcerative colitis in routine practice. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study (May 2014 to December 2017) of ulcerative colitis patients treated with vedolizumab or TNF-antagonist therapy. Propensity score weighted comparisons for development of serious adverse events and achievement of clinical remission, steroid-free clinical remission, and steroid-free deep remission. A priori determined subgroup comparisons in TNF-antagonist-naïve and -exposed patients, and for vedolizumab against infliximab and subcutaneous TNF-antagonists separately. RESULTS: A total of 722 (454 vedolizumab, 268 TNF antagonist) patients were included. Vedolizumab-treated patients were more likely to achieve clinical remission (hazard ratio [HR], 1.651; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.229-2.217), steroid-free clinical remission (HR, 1.828; 95% CI, 1.135-2.944), and steroid-free deep remission (HR, 2.819; 95% CI, 1.496-5.310) than those treated with TNF antagonists. Results were consistent across subgroup analyses in TNF-antagonist-naïve and -exposed patients, and for vedolizumab vs infliximab and vs subcutaneous TNF-antagonist agents separately. Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of serious adverse events (HR, 0.899; 95% CI, 0.502-1.612) or serious infections (HR, 1.235; 95% CI, 0.608-2.511) between vedolizumab-treated and TNF-antagonist-treated patients. However, in TNF-antagonist-naïve patients, vedolizumab was less likely to be associated with serious adverse events than TNF antagonists (HR, 0.192; 95% CI, 0.049-0.754). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of ulcerative colitis with vedolizumab is associated with higher rates of remission than treatment with TNF-antagonist therapy in routine practice, and lower rates of serious adverse events in TNF-antagonist-naïve patients.

Development and Validation of Clinical Scoring Tool to Predict Outcomes of Treatment With Vedolizumab in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We created and validated a clinical decision support tool (CDST) to predict outcomes of vedolizumab therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: We performed logistic regression analyses of data from the GEMINI 1 trial, from 620 patients with UC who received vedolizumab induction and maintenance therapy (derivation cohort), to identify factors associated with corticosteroid-free remission (full Mayo score of 2 or less, no subscore above 1). We used these factors to develop a model to predict outcomes of treatment, which we called the vedolizumab CDST. We evaluated the correlation between exposure and efficacy. We validated the CDST in using data from 199 patients treated with vedolizumab in routine practice in the United States from May 2014 through December 2017. RESULTS: Absence of exposure to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist (+3 points), disease duration of 2 y or more (+3 points), baseline endoscopic activity (moderate vs severe) (+2 points), and baseline albumin concentration (+0.65 points per 1 g/L) were independently associated with corticosteroid-free remission during vedolizumab therapy. Patients in the derivation and validation cohorts were assigned to groups of low (CDST score, 26 points or less), intermediate (CDST score, 27-32 points), or high (CDST score, 33 points or more) probability of vedolizumab response. We observed a statistically significant linear relationship between probability group and efficacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.65), as well as drug exposure (P < .001) in the derivation cohort. In the validation cohort, a cutoff value of 26 points identified patients who did not respond to vedolizumab with high sensitivity (93%); only the low and intermediate probability groups benefited from reducing intervals of vedolizumab administration due to lack of response (P = .02). The vedolizumab CDST did not identify patients with corticosteroid-free remission during TNF antagonist therapy. CONCLUSIONS: We used data from a trial of patients with UC to develop a scoring system, called the CDST, which identified patients most likely to enter corticosteroid-free remission during vedolizumab therapy, but not anti-TNF therapy. We validated the vedolizumab CDST in a separate cohort of patients in clinical practice. The CDST identified patients most likely to benefited from reducing intervals of vedolizumab administration due to lack of initial response. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00783718.

Changes in Vedolizumab Utilization Across US Academic Centers and Community Practice Are Associated With Improved Effectiveness and Disease Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Vedolizumab effectiveness estimates immediately after Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are limited by use in refractory populations. We aimed to compare treatment patterns and outcomes of vedolizumab in 2 time frames after FDA approval. METHODS: We used 2 data sets for time trend analysis, an academic multicenter vedolizumab consortium (VICTORY) and the Truven MarketScan database, and 2 time periods, May 2014-June 2015 (Era 1) and July 2015-June 2017 (Era 2). VICTORY cumulative 12-month clinical remission, corticosteroid-free remission, and mucosal healing rates, and Truven 12-month hospitalization and surgery rates, were compared between Eras 1 and 2 using time-to-event analyses. RESULTS: A total of 3661 vedolizumab-treated patients were included (n = 1087 VICTORY, n = 2574 Truven). In both cohorts, CD and UC patients treated during Era 2 were more likely to be biologic naïve. Compared with Era 1, Era 2 CD patients in the VICTORY consortium had higher rates of clinical remission (31% vs 40%, P = 0.03) and mucosal healing (42% vs 58%, P < 0.01). These trends were not observed for UC. In the Truven database, UC patients treated during Era 2 had lower rates of inflammatory bowel disease-related hospitalization (22.4% vs 9.6%, P < 0.001) and surgery (17.2% vs 9.4%, P = 0.008), which was not observed for CD. CONCLUSION: Since FDA approval, remission and mucosal healing rates have increased for vedolizumab-treated CD patients, and vedolizumab-treated UC patients have had fewer hospitalizations and surgeries. This is likely due to differences between patient populations treated immediately after drug approval and those treated later.

Shorter Disease Duration Is Associated With Higher Rates of Response to Vedolizumab in Patients With Crohn's Disease But Not Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with Crohn's disease (CD), but not ulcerative colitis (UC), of shorter duration have higher rates of response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists than patients with longer disease duration. Little is known about the association between disease duration and response to other biologic agents. We aimed to evaluate response of patients with CD or UC to vedolizumab, stratified by disease duration. METHODS: We analyzed data from a retrospective, multicenter, consortium of patients with CD (n = 650) or UC (n = 437) treated with vedolizumab from May 2014 through December 2016. Using time to event analyses, we compared rates of clinical remission, corticosteroid-free remission (CSFR), and endoscopic remission between patients with early-stage (≤2 years duration) and later-stage (>2 years) CD or UC. We used Cox proportional hazards models to identify factors associated with outcomes. RESULTS: Within 6 months initiation of treatment with vedolizumab, significantly higher proportions of patients with early-stage CD, vs later-stage CD, achieved clinical remission (38% vs 23%), CSFR (43% vs 14%), and endoscopic remission (29% vs 13%) (P < .05 for all comparisons). After adjusting for disease-related factors including previous exposure to TNF antagonists, patients with early-stage CD were significantly more likely than patients with later-stage CD to achieve clinical remission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.59; 95% CI, 1.02-2.49), CSFR (aHR, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.66-6.92), and endoscopic remission (aHR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06-3.39). In contrast, disease duration was not a significant predictor of response among patients with UC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CD for 2 years or less are significantly more likely to achieve a complete response, CSFR, or endoscopic response to vedolizumab than patients with longer disease duration. Disease duration does not associate with response vedolizumab in patients with UC.

Endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies: Another tool for the management of diabetes and obesity.

Endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) have sparked significant interest as minimally invasive therapeutic options for weight loss. Although bariatric surgery remains an effective option for sustained weight loss and improvement in the metabolic syndrome, access and utilization are limited. Various EBMTs have been designed to emulate the physiologic effects of established surgical interventions, including space-occupying and non-space-occupying gastric therapies, gastric remodeling procedures, and small bowel therapies. This review discusses the safety and efficacy of available US Food and Drug Administration-approved minimally invasive endoscopic bariatric interventions, as well as those currently under investigation. In addition, the role of endoscopic revision after failed surgical intervention is discussed.

Diagnosis and Management of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors.

The incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has increased by almost ten-fold over the past 30 years. There has been a heightened awareness of the malignant potential of rectal NETs. Fortunately, many rectal NETs are discovered at earlier stages due to colon cancer screening programs. Endoscopic ultrasound is useful in assessing both residual tumor burden after retrospective diagnosis and tumor characteristics to help guide subsequent management. Current guidelines suggest endoscopic resection of rectal NETs ≤10 mm as a safe therapeutic option given their low risk of metastasis. Although a number of endoscopic interventions exist, the best technique for resection has not been identified. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has high complete and en-bloc resection rates, but also an increased risk of complications including perforation. In addition, ESD is only performed at tertiary centers by experienced advanced endoscopists. Endoscopic mucosal resection has been shown to have variable complete resection rates, but modifications to the technique such as the addition of band ligation have improved outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to further compare the available endoscopic interventions, and to elucidate the most appropriate course of management of rectal NETs.