Clinical Features and Treatment Response to Topical Steroids in Ethnic and Racial Minority Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Differences in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) presentation and outcomes by ethnicity or race remain understudied. We aimed to determine whether EoE patients of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity or non-White race have differences in presentation at diagnosis or response to topical corticosteroid (tCS) treatment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included subjects of any age with a new diagnosis of EoE and documentation of ethnicity or race. For those who had treatment with tCS and follow-up endoscopy/biopsy, we assessed histologic response (<15 eosinophils/hpf), global symptom response, and endoscopic response. Hispanic EoE patients were compared with non-Hispanics at baseline and before and after treatment. The same analyses were repeated for White vs non-Whites. RESULTS: Of 1,026 EoE patients with ethnicity data, just 23 (2%) were Hispanic. Most clinical features at presentation were similar to non-Hispanic EoE patients but histologic response to tCS was numerically lower (38% vs 57%). Non-White EoE patients (13%) were younger at diagnosis and had less insurance, lower zip code-level income, shorter symptom duration, more vomiting, less dysphagia and food impaction, fewer typical endoscopic features, and less dilation. Of 475 patients with race data treated with tCS, non-Whites had a significantly lower histologic response rate (41% vs 59%; P = 0.01), and odds of histologic response remained lower after controlling for potential confounders (adjusted odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence intervals: 0.19-0.87). DISCUSSION: Few EoE patients at our center were Hispanic, and they had similar clinical presentations as non-Hispanics. The non-White EoE group was larger, and presentation was less dysphagia-specific. Non-White patients were also less than half as likely to respond to tCS.

Low Prevalence of Endoscopic Screening for Barrett's Esophagus in a Screening-Eligible Primary Care Population.

INTRODUCTION: Despite societal recommendations supporting Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening, it is unknown what proportion of eligible patients is screened in primary care. We assessed the proportion of BE screening- eligible patients evaluated in the primary care setting receiving upper esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and identified factors associated with undergoing EGD. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of BE screening-eligible patients, as defined by the American College of Gastroenterology's BE guidelines, in a multipractice healthcare network consisting of 64 internal medicine practices and 94 family medicine (FM) practices. The proportion undergoing EGD, prevalence of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in this group, and patient and provider factors associated with undergoing EGD were assessed. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of undergoing EGD. RESULTS: Of 1,127 screening-eligible patients, the mean age was 65.2 ± 8.6 years; 45% were obese; and 61% were smokers. Seventy-three percent were seeing FM; 94% were on proton pump inhibitors; and 44% took ≥1 gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) medication. Only 39% of patients (n = 436) had undergone EGD. The overall prevalence of BE or EAC was 9.9%. Of 39 (9%) referred for BE screening as the primary indication, BE/EAC prevalence was 35.1%. Factors associated with increased odds of having EGD were symptomatic GERD despite treatment (odds ratio [OR] 12.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-16.3), being on ≥1 GERD medication (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.9), and being an FM patient (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1). DISCUSSION: In this large, primary care population, only 39% of screening-eligible patients underwent EGD. Most of the examinations were triggered by refractory symptoms rather than screening referrals, highlighting a need for improved dissemination and implementation of BE screening.

Same Day Infusion of Iron Therapy Is Associated With No Increased Risk for Adverse Events Among Patients Receiving Biological Infusions for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

GOALS: The goal of this study was to compare the relative safety of administering iron infusions on the same day as intravenous (IV) biological therapy to the administration of these treatments on different days in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). BACKGROUND: IV iron therapy is often required in patients with IBD. Many patients with IBD who receive IV iron therapy in the outpatient setting also receive biological infusion therapy for treatment of their IBD. STUDY: Patients with IBD who received IV iron therapy at a single infusion center were included. We compared documented infusion-related reactions in patients with patients receiving an iron infusion on the same day as their biological infusion to those who received their iron infusion on a different day. RESULTS: Among 481 patients, 129 received an iron infusion on the same day as a biologic infusion. There was no significant difference in the incidence of infusion reaction when comparing patients who received biological infusion therapy in the same session as the iron infusion to those patients who received a biological infusion on a different day (5% vs. 7%, P =0.246) or any IBD-related therapy (5% vs. 8%, P =0.206). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency and type of infusion reactions in patients receiving IV iron therapy on the same day after IV therapy with biologics was not increased compared with patients who received a biological infusion on a different day. A sequential infusion of biological therapy followed by IV iron therapy may be a safe and cost-effective approach.

Comparison of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy and percutaneous drainage for distal biliary obstruction: A multicenter cohort study.

Background and Objectives: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD) are alternate therapies to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with stent placement for biliary decompression. The primary outcome of this study is to compare the technical and clinical success of PTBD to EUS-CD in patients with distal biliary obstruction. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), need for reintervention, and survival. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study from three different centers was performed. Cox regression was used to compare time to reintervention and survival and logistic regression to compare technical and clinical success and AE rates. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Results: A total of 86 patients (58 PTBD and 28 EUS-CD) were included. The two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, and cause of biliary obstruction, with malignancy being the most common etiology (80.2%). EUS-CD utilized lumen-apposing metal stents in 15 patients and self-expandable metal biliary stents in 13 patients. Technical success was similar been EUS-CD (100%) and PTBD (96.6%; P = 0.3). EUS-CD was associated with higher clinical success compared to PTBD (84.6% vs. 62.1%; P = 0.04). There was a trend toward lower rates of AEs with EUS-CD 14.3% versus PTBD 29.3%, odds ratio: 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12-1.33, P = 0.14). The need for reintervention was significantly lower among patients who underwent EUS-CD (10.7%) compared to PTBD (77.6%) (hazard ratio: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02-0.24; P < 0.001). A sensitivity analysis of only patients with MBO demonstrated similar rate of reintervention between the groups in individuals who survived 50 days or less after the biliary decompression. However, reintervention rates were lower for EUS-CD in those with longer survival. Conclusion: EUS-CD is a technically and clinically highly successful procedure with a trend toward lower AEs compared to PTBD. EUS-CD minimizes the need for reintervention, which may enhance end-of-life quality in patients with MBO and expected survival longer than 50 days.

Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Is Feasible, Safe, and Effective in a Non-academic Setting: Short-Term Outcomes from a Community Gastroenterology Practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) has demonstrated promising weight loss results with fewer adverse events and less new-onset gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Publications on ESG have exclusively described the experience at large academic medical centers with little known about the implementation and outcomes of this procedure in community practice. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent ESG at a private, community-based gastroenterology practice. Total body weight loss (TBWL), procedure duration, improvement in metabolic comorbidities, and adverse event (AE) rate and severity were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred patients underwent ESG (86 women, mean age 45 ± 9 years) and were analyzed. Procedure duration was 59 ± 33 min with an improvement in procedural efficiency from the first quartile (mean 105 min) to the fourth quartile (mean 38 min). Mean 12-month TBWL was 29.80 ± 11.46 kg (23.1 ± 7.5%), with excess weight loss of 66.1 ± 21.5%. Over this time period, mean change in BMI was 9.43 ± 0.22. A multiple linear regression model found that higher starting weight (P < 0.05) and absence of suture reinforcement (P = 0.037) were associated with increased TBWL at 3 months. Fourteen of 20 cases of hypertension, and 5 of 10 cases of dyslipidemia, were in complete remission by post-procedure month 3. CONCLUSIONS: ESG performed in a community gastroenterology practice demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes to large tertiary referral centers. TBWL and excess body weight loss either met or exceeded previously reported data from these centers.

Challenges of inpatient blood glucose monitoring: standards, methods, and devices to measure blood glucose.

Glucose control in the hospital setting is very important. There is a high incidence of hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability in hospitalized patients. Safe insulin delivery and glucose control is dependent on reliable glucose meters and monitoring systems in the hospital. Different glucose monitoring systems use arterial, venous, central venous, and capillary blood samples. It is important for clinicians to be aware that there are limitations of specific point-of-care (POC) glucose meters and that situations exist whereby POC glucose meters as the sole measurement device should be avoided. POC meter devices are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in critical care, although POC meter devices are commonly used in critical care settings and elsewhere. This review focuses on glucose assay principles, instrument technology, influences on glucose measurement, standards for glucose measurement, and an evaluation of different methods to measure blood glucose in the hospital setting.