The Sulfur Microbial Diet Is Associated With Increased Risk of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Precursors.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Diet may contribute to the increasing incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) before age 50 (early-onset CRC). Microbial metabolism of dietary sulfur produces hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a gastrointestinal carcinogen that cannot be easily measured at scale. As a result, evidence supporting its role in early neoplasia is lacking. METHODS: We evaluated long-term adherence to the sulfur microbial diet, a dietary index defined a priori based on increased abundance of 43 bacterial species involved with sulfur metabolism, with risk of CRC precursors among 59,013 individuals who underwent lower endoscopy in the Nurses' Health Study II (1991-2015), a prospective cohort study with dietary assessment every 4 years through validated food frequency questionnaires and an assessment of dietary intake during adolescence in 1998. The sulfur microbial diet was characterized by intake high in processed meats, foods previously linked to CRC development, and low in mixed vegetables and legumes. Multivariable logistic regression for clustered data was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We documented 2911 cases of early-onset adenoma. After adjusting for established risk factors, higher sulfur microbial diet scores were associated with increased risk for early-onset adenomas (ORquartile [Q]4 vs Q1, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10-1.56, Ptrend = .02), but not serrated lesions. Compared with the lowest, women in the highest quartile of sulfur microbial diet scores had significantly increased risk of early-onset adenomas with greater malignant potential (ORQ4 vs Q1, 1.65 for villous/tubulovillous histology; 95% CI, 1.12-2.43; Ptrend = .04). Similar trends for early-onset adenoma were observed based on diet consumed during adolescence. In contrast, no clear association for adenomas was identified after age 50. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings in a cohort of young women support a role for dietary interactions with gut sulfur-metabolizing bacteria in early-onset colorectal carcinogenesis, possibly beginning in adolescence.

Distinct Clinical Physiologic Phenotypes of Patients With Laryngeal Symptoms Referred for Reflux Evaluation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Heterogeneous presentations and disease mechanisms among patients with laryngeal symptoms account for misdiagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), variations in testing, and suboptimal outcomes. We aimed to derive phenotypes of patients with laryngeal symptoms based on clinical and physiologic data and to compare characteristics across phenotypes. METHODS: A total of 302 adult patients with chronic laryngeal symptoms were prospectively enrolled at 3 centers between January 2018 to October 2020 (age 57.2 ± 15.2 years; 30% male; body mass index 27.2 ± 6.0 kg/m2). Discriminant analysis of principal components (DAPC) was applied to 12 clinical and 11 physiologic variables collected in stable condition to derive phenotypic groups. RESULTS: DAPC identified 5 groups, with significant differences across symptoms, hiatal hernia size, and number of reflux events (P < .01). Group A had the greatest hiatal hernia size (3.1 ± 1.0 cm; P < .001) and reflux events (37.5 ± 51; P < .001), with frequent cough, laryngeal symptoms, heartburn, and regurgitation. Group B had the highest body mass index (28.2 ± 4.6 kg/m2; P < .001) and salivary pepsin (150 ± 157 ng/mL; P = .03), with frequent cough, laryngeal symptoms, globus, heartburn, and regurgitation. Group C frequently reported laryngeal symptoms (93%; P < .001), and had fewest esophageal symptoms (9.6%; P < .001) and reflux events (10.7 ± 11.0; P < .001). Group D commonly reported cough (88%; P < .001) and heartburn. Group E (18%) was oldest (62.9 ± 14.3 years; P < .001) and distinguished by highest integrated relaxation pressure. CONCLUSIONS: DAPC identified distinct clinicophysiologic phenotypes of patients with laryngeal symptoms referred for reflux evaluation: group A, LPR and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with hiatal hernia; group B, mild LPR/GERD; group C, no LPR/No GERD; group D, reflex cough; and group E, mixed/possible obstructive esophagogastric junction. Phenotypic differences may inform targeted clinical trials design and improve outcomes.

Cancer and Risk of COVID-19 Through a General Community Survey.

Individuals with cancer may be at high risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and adverse outcomes. However, evidence from large population-based studies examining whether cancer and cancer-related therapy exacerbates the risk of COVID-19 infection is still limited. Data were collected from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application since March 29 through May 8, 2020. Among 23,266 participants with cancer and 1,784,293 without cancer, we documented 10,404 reports of a positive COVID-19 test. Compared with participants without cancer, those living with cancer had a 60% increased risk of a positive COVID-19 test. Among patients with cancer, current treatment with chemotherapy or immunotherapy was associated with a 2.2-fold increased risk of a positive test. The association between cancer and COVID-19 infection was stronger among participants >65 years and males. Future studies are needed to identify subgroups by tumor types and treatment regimens who are particularly at risk for COVID-19 infection and adverse outcomes.

Coexisting Abnormal Esophageal Body Motility Predicts Clinical Symptoms and Bolus Transit in Patients With Esophagogastric Junction Outflow Obstruction (EGJOO).

GOAL: The goal of this study was to compare the clinical presentations of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) with coexisting abnormal esophageal body motility (EBM) to isolated EGJOO. BACKGROUND: The clinical significance and management of EGJOO remain debated, as patients may have varied to no symptoms. The effect of coexisting abnormal EBM in EGJOO is unclear. We hypothesized that a concomitant EBM disorder is associated with clinical symptoms of EGJOO. STUDY: This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adults diagnosed with EGJOO on high-resolution impedance-manometry (HRIM) at 2 academic centers in March 2018 to September 2018. Patients with prior treatment for achalasia, foregut surgery, or evidence of obstruction were excluded. Subjects were divided into EGJOO with abnormal EBM per Chicago classification v3.0 and isolated EGJOO. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher-exact or Student t test (univariate) and logistic or linear regression (multivariate). RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (72% women, age 61.1±10.7 y) were included. Thirty-one (37.8%) had abnormal EBM, including 16 (19.5%) ineffective esophageal motility and 15 (18.2%) hypercontractile esophagus. Esophageal symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation, chest pain, dysphagia) were more prevalent among those with abnormal EBM (90.3% vs. 64.7%, P=0.01). On logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, and opioid use, abnormal EBM remained predictive of esophageal symptoms (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.51, P=0.007). On separate models constructed, HE was associated with chest pain (aOR 7.45, P=0.01) and regurgitation (aOR 4.06, P=0.046), while ineffective esophageal motility was predictive of heartburn (aOR 5.84, P=0.009) and decreased complete bolus transit (ß-coefficient -0.177, P=0.04). CONCLUSION: Coexisting abnormal EBM is associated with esophageal symptoms and bolus transit in patients with EGJOO.

Prevalence and clinical significance of esophageal motility disorders in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophageal motor dysfunction may underlie impaired bolus/refluxate clearance in laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, the prevalence of esophageal dysmotility and its correlation with reflux parameters and symptoms in LPR is not well established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of coexisting esophageal dysmotility among patients with suspected LPR. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 194 consecutive patients with LPR symptoms referred for high-resolution manometry (HRM) and combined hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH testing at a tertiary center in March 2018 to August 2019. Validated symptom surveys were prospectively collected at time of testing, including Reflux Symptom Index, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire, dominant symptom intensity, and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey. HRM findings were categorized using Chicago Classification v3.0. RESULTS: Abnormal findings on HRM were identified in 84 (43.3%) patients, with ineffective esophageal motility (n = 60, 30.9%) as the most common diagnosis. A disorder of esophagogastric junction outflow or a major disorder of peristalsis was identified in 26 (13.4%) patients, including 2 (1%) with achalasia and 7 (3.6%) with jackhammer esophagus. Reflux burden (distal, proximal, or pharyngeal) on combined hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH testing did not differ across HRM findings. Patients reporting esophageal symptoms were more likely to have a primary motility disorder (odds ratio 2.34, P = 0.04). However, no significant differences in Reflux Symptom Index, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire, or 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey were noted across HRM diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Esophageal motility disorders are prevalent among patients with LPR symptoms, including up to one in seven with esophagogastric junction outflow or major peristaltic disorder. Patients with abnormal motility more likely report esophageal symptoms. Clinicians should be aware of these coexisting conditions, particularly in those with refractory symptoms.

Impaired Proximal Esophageal Contractility Predicts Pharyngeal Reflux in Patients With Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Symptoms.

OBJECTIVES: The pathophysiology of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) remains incompletely understood. Proximal esophageal motor dysfunction may impair bolus clearance, increasing the risk of pharyngeal refluxate exposure. We aimed to evaluate the association of proximal esophageal contractility with objective reflux metrics. METHODS: We evaluated adults with LPR symptoms undergoing high-resolution manometry (HRM) and combined hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH testing at a tertiary center between March 2018 and August 2019. Routine parameters per Chicago classification were obtained on HRM. Proximal esophageal contractility was evaluated using proximal contractile integral (PCI), which quantifies contractile pressure >20 mm Hg for the region spanning the distal margin of the upper esophageal sphincter and transition zone. Univariate (Kendall correlation and Student t test) and multivariable (general linear regression and logistic regression) analyses were performed. RESULTS: We enrolled 138 patients (66.7% women, mean age 57.1 years) in this study. Lower PCI was associated with an elevated risk of increased pharyngeal reflux (adjusted odds ratio 0.83 per 100 mm Hg-s-cm change in PCI, 95% confidence interval: 0.69-0.98), with a trend toward increased bolus exposure time and total reflux events, after multivariable adjustment. The relationship between PCI and pharyngeal reflux was strongest among participants without a primary motility disorder on HRM (adjusted odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.85, P interaction = 0.04). Among continuously expressed reflux parameters, lower PCI was significantly associated with more distal acid reflux events (ß = -0.0094, P = 0.03) and total reflux events (ß = -0.0172, P = 0.05), after adjusting for confounders. DISCUSSION: Reduced proximal esophageal contractility as assessed by decreased PCI on HRM independently predicted increased pharyngeal reflux in patients with LPR symptoms, particularly among those without a coexisting motility disorder.

The Sulfur Microbial Diet and Risk of Colorectal Cancer by Molecular Subtypes and Intratumoral Microbial Species in Adult Men.

INTRODUCTION: We recently described the sulfur microbial diet, a pattern of intake associated with increased gut sulfur-metabolizing bacteria and incidence of distal colorectal cancer (CRC). We assessed whether this risk differed by CRC molecular subtypes or presence of intratumoral microbes involved in CRC pathogenesis (Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bifidobacterium spp.). METHODS: We performed Cox proportional hazards modeling to examine the association between the sulfur microbial diet and incidence of overall and distal CRC by molecular and microbial subtype in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2012). RESULTS: We documented 1,264 incident CRC cases among 48,246 men, approximately 40% of whom had available tissue data. After accounting for multiple hypothesis testing, the relationship between the sulfur microbial diet and CRC incidence did not differ by subtype. However, there was a suggestion of an association by prostaglandin synthase 2 (PTGS2) status with a multivariable adjusted hazard ratio for highest vs lowest tertile of sulfur microbial diet scores of 1.31 (95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.74, Ptrend = 0.07, Pheterogeneity = 0.04) for PTGS2-high CRC. The association of the sulfur microbial diet with distal CRC seemed to differ by the presence of intratumoral Bifidobacterium spp. with an adjusted hazard ratio for highest vs lowest tertile of sulfur microbial diet scores of 1.65 (95% confidence interval: 1.14-2.39, Ptrend = 0.01, Pheterogeneity = 0.03) for Bifidobacterium-negative distal CRC. We observed no apparent heterogeneity by other tested molecular markers. DISCUSSION: Greater long-term adherence to the sulfur microbial diet could be associated with PTGS2-high and Bifidobacterium-negative distal CRC in men. Additional studies are needed to further characterize the role of gut microbial sulfur metabolism and CRC.

Risk of COVID-19 among frontline healthcare workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study.

Background: Data for frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited and whether personal protective equipment (PPE) mitigates this risk is unknown. We evaluated risk for COVID-19 among frontline HCWs compared to the general community and the influence of PPE. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study of the general community, including frontline HCWs, who reported information through the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application beginning on March 24 (United Kingdom, U.K.) and March 29 (United States, U.S.) through April 23, 2020. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of a positive COVID-19 test. Findings: Among 2,035,395 community individuals and 99,795 frontline HCWs, we documented 5,545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34,435,272 person-days. Compared with the general community, frontline HCWs had an aHR of 11·6 (95% CI: 10·9 to 12·3) for reporting a positive test. The corresponding aHR was 3·40 (95% CI: 3·37 to 3·43) using an inverse probability weighted Cox model adjusting for the likelihood of receiving a test. A symptom-based classifier of predicted COVID-19 yielded similar risk estimates. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE, the aHRs for reporting a positive test were 1·46 (95% CI: 1·21 to 1·76) for those reporting PPE reuse and 1·31 (95% CI: 1·10 to 1·56) for reporting inadequate PPE. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE who did not care for COVID-19 patients, HCWs caring for patients with documented COVID-19 had aHRs for a positive test of 4·83 (95% CI: 3·99 to 5·85) if they had adequate PPE, 5·06 (95% CI: 3·90 to 6·57) for reused PPE, and 5·91 (95% CI: 4·53 to 7·71) for inadequate PPE. Interpretation: Frontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, highest among HCWs who reused PPE or had inadequate access to PPE. However, adequate supplies of PPE did not completely mitigate high-risk exposures. Funding: Zoe Global Ltd., Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, NIH, NIOSH, Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.

Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data for front-line health-care workers and risk of COVID-19 are limited. We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk. METHODS: We did a prospective, observational cohort study in the UK and the USA of the general community, including front-line health-care workers, using self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application (app) from March 24 (UK) and March 29 (USA) to April 23, 2020. Participants were voluntary users of the app and at first use provided information on demographic factors (including age, sex, race or ethnic background, height and weight, and occupation) and medical history, and subsequently reported any COVID-19 symptoms. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of our primary outcome, which was a positive COVID-19 test. The COVID Symptom Study app is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04331509. FINDINGS: Among 2 035 395 community individuals and 99 795 front-line health-care workers, we recorded 5545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34 435 272 person-days. Compared with the general community, front-line health-care workers were at increased risk for reporting a positive COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 11·61, 95% CI 10·93-12·33). To account for differences in testing frequency between front-line health-care workers and the general community and possible selection bias, an inverse probability-weighted model was used to adjust for the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 3·40, 95% CI 3·37-3·43). Secondary and post-hoc analyses suggested adequacy of PPE, clinical setting, and ethnic background were also important factors. INTERPRETATION: In the UK and the USA, risk of reporting a positive test for COVID-19 was increased among front-line health-care workers. Health-care systems should ensure adequate availability of PPE and develop additional strategies to protect health-care workers from COVID-19, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds. Additional follow-up of these observational findings is needed. FUNDING: Zoe Global, Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institutes of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.

The COronavirus Pandemic Epidemiology (COPE) Consortium: A Call to Action.

The rapid pace of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19) pandemic presents challenges to the real-time collection of population-scale data to inform near-term public health needs as well as future investigations. We established the COronavirus Pandemic Epidemiology (COPE) consortium to address this unprecedented crisis on behalf of the epidemiology research community. As a central component of this initiative, we have developed a COVID Symptom Study (previously known as the COVID Symptom Tracker) mobile application as a common data collection tool for epidemiologic cohort studies with active study participants. This mobile application collects information on risk factors, daily symptoms, and outcomes through a user-friendly interface that minimizes participant burden. Combined with our efforts within the general population, data collected from nearly 3 million participants in the United States and United Kingdom are being used to address critical needs in the emergency response, including identifying potential hot spots of disease and clinically actionable risk factors. The linkage of symptom data collected in the app with information and biospecimens already collected in epidemiology cohorts will position us to address key questions related to diet, lifestyle, environmental, and socioeconomic factors on susceptibility to COVID-19, clinical outcomes related to infection, and long-term physical, mental health, and financial sequalae. We call upon additional epidemiology cohorts to join this collective effort to strengthen our impact on the current health crisis and generate a new model for a collaborative and nimble research infrastructure that will lead to more rapid translation of our work for the betterment of public health.