The 2018 ISDE achalasia guidelines.

Achalasia is a relatively rare primary motor esophageal disorder, characterized by absence of relaxations of the lower esophageal sphincter and of peristalsis along the esophageal body. As a result, patients typically present with dysphagia, regurgitation and occasionally chest pain, pulmonary complication and malnutrition. New diagnostic methodologies and therapeutic techniques have been recently added to the armamentarium for treating achalasia. With the aim to offer clinicians and patients an up-to-date framework for making informed decisions on the management of this disease, the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus Guidelines proposed and endorsed the Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines (I-GOAL). The guidelines were prepared according the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-REX) tool, accredited for guideline production by NICE UK. A systematic literature search was performed and the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations were graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Given the relative rarity of this disease and the paucity of high-level evidence in the literature, this process was integrated with a three-step process of anonymous voting on each statement (DELPHI). Only statements with an approval rate >80% were accepted in the guidelines. Fifty-one experts from 11 countries and 3 representatives from patient support associations participated to the preparations of the guidelines. These guidelines deal specifically with the following achalasia issues: Diagnostic workup, Definition of the disease, Severity of presentation, Medical treatment, Botulinum Toxin injection, Pneumatic dilatation, POEM, Other endoscopic treatments, Laparoscopic myotomy, Definition of recurrence, Follow up and risk of cancer, Management of end stage achalasia, Treatment options for failure, Achalasia in children, Achalasia secondary to Chagas' disease.

Do recent reports about the adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors change providers' prescription practice?

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are utilized for a variety of indications, including treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and prevention of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Several studies have documented an increasing prevalence of inappropriate PPI use. Furthermore, recent media reports have highlighted new research data suggesting a possible association between chronic PPI use and several adverse medical outcomes, leading to frequent patient inquiries about these associations. Thus, providers face the challenge of counseling patients about the balance of risks and benefits related to PPI use. We aimed to explore providers' knowledge and attitudes toward reported adverse effects of PPI use and compare providers' prescription practices. A comprehensive, non-incentivized electronic survey was sent to all providers (residents, fellows, advanced practice providers, and consultants across 8 internal medicine specialties) at our tertiary academic medical center. The survey contained 21 questions covering provider demographics and responses to challenging clinical scenarios dealing with PPI use. Chi-square was used to compare responses from providers. The survey was distributed to 254 providers, of which 94 (24 GI and 70 non-GI) completed the survey (37% response rate). Among those 94 providers, 48 were consultants, 17 were advanced practice providers, and 29 were trainees. Non-GI providers included cardiology, pulmonary, endocrinology, family medicine, general internal medicine, hematology/oncology, and nephrology. Over half of the providers (51 [54%]) described their practice as outpatient setting, 29 (31%) providers defined their practice as a mixed setting (inpatient and outpatient), while 14 (15%) designated it as inpatient only. Nineteen (80%) GI providers and 48 (69%) non-GI providers discussed the risks and benefits with patients (P = 0.64). Fifteen (63%) GI providers and 33 (47%) non-GI providers indicated that recent reports changed their practice (P = 0.49). More GI providers (5 [21%]) lowered the dose of PPI compared with non-GI (1[1%]) (P = 0.004); 18 (26%) of non-GI and 3 (13%) of GI providers discontinued PPI and substituted it with a histamine 2 (H2) blocker (P = 0.29). A larger but nonsignificant percentage of trainees (8 [28%]) switched PPI to H2 blockers compared with consultants (8 [17%]; P = 0.39). Six (25%) of GI providers and 14 (20%) of non-GI providers were concerned about Clostridium difficile infection (P = 0.58). Twenty-four (34%) of the non-GI were worried about kidney diseases compared with 3 (13%) of the GI providers (P = 0.1). Ten (21%) consultants were concerned about risk of osteoporosis compared with 3 (10%) trainees (P = 0.38), while 8 (28%) trainees were worried about the risk of C. difficile infection compared with 10 (21%) consultants (P = 0.69). Most providers (85 [90%]) agreed that educational activities would be helpful to address these challenges. More GI providers lowered the dose of PPI compared with non-GI; non-GI providers were more likely to discontinue PPI and substitute it with an H2 blocker. Educating patients and providers about potential adverse effects of PPI is imperative.

Longitudinal outcomes of radiofrequency ablation versus surveillance endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus with low-grade dysplasia.

Radiofrequency ablation of Barrett's esophagus with low-grade dysplasia is recommended in recent American College of Gastroenterology guidelines, with endoscopic surveillance considered a reasonable alternative. Few studies have directly compared outcomes of radiofrequency ablation to surveillance and those that have are limited by short duration of follow-up. This study aims to compare the long-term effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation versus endoscopic surveillance in a large, longitudinal cohort of patients with Barrett's esophagus, and low-grade dysplasia.We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with confirmed low-grade dysplasia at a single academic medical center from 1991 to 2014. Patients progressing to high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma within one year of index LGD endoscopy were defined as missed dysplasia and excluded. Risk factors for progression were assessed via Cox proportional hazards model. Comparison of progression risk was conducted using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. Subset analyses were conducted to examine the effect of reintroducing early progressors and excluding patients diagnosed prior to the advent of ablative therapy. Of 173 total patients, 79 (45.7%) underwent radiofrequency ablation while 94 (54.3%) were untreated, with median follow up of 90 months. Seven (8.9%) patients progressed to high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma despite ablation, compared with 14 (14.9%) undergoing surveillance (P = 0.44). This effect was preserved when patients diagnosed prior to the introduction of radiofrequency ablation were excluded (8.9% vs 13%, P = 0.68). Reintroduction of patients progressing within the first year of follow-up resulted in a trend toward significance for ablation versus surveillance (11.1% vs 23.8%, P = 0.053).In conclusion, progression to high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma was not significantly reduced in the radiofrequency ablation cohort when compared to surveillance. Despite recent studies suggesting the superiority of radiofrequency ablation in reducing progression, diligent endoscopic surveillance may provide similar long-term outcomes.

Management strategies for achalasia.

Treatment options for achalasia include oral pharmacologic therapy, endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin, pneumatic dilation, and myotomy (conventionally by laparoscopy, but more recently by an endoscopic approach). Oral pharmacologic agents have fallen out of use because of insufficient efficacy and frequent side effects. Endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin is safe and has good short-term effectiveness, but as the effect invariably wears off after a few months, this treatment is reserved for patients who are not candidates for more definitive treatments. Pneumatic dilation and surgical myotomy are currently considered the most effective treatments, with similar effectiveness in randomized controlled trials with follow-up of up to 2 years. The risk/benefit ratio and choice of therapy depend on patient characteristics (age, comorbidities, disease stage, prior treatments), patient's preference, and locally available expertise. Treatment of patients who fail or relapse after initial therapy is challenging and the success rate of pneumatic dilation or myotomy in this group is lower compared with previously untreated patients. The recently developed peroral endoscopic approach to myotomy has achieved excellent results in early uncontrolled studies, but high-quality randomized trials are needed to ensure widespread adoption is reasonable. Finally, retrospective data suggest that achalasia subtypes as defined by high-resolution esophageal pressure topography may guide treatment choice, but confirmation in prospective outcome studies is awaited.

Poor sleep quality and obstructive sleep apnea in patients with GERD and Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) reduces sleep quality. Whether Barrett's esophagus (BE) affects sleep differently is unknown. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) often coexists with GERD and may disrupt sleep; whether GERD reduces sleep quality independently of OSA is unknown. Our aims were to compare the effect of GERD and BE on sleep quality, and assess the impact of OSA on this association. METHODS: Validated questionnaires for GERD symptoms, sleep quality, and OSA risk were prospectively administered to subjects undergoing upper endoscopy. GERD was defined by erosive esophagitis and/or reflux symptoms >1/week. BE was defined histologically. Controls had normal endoscopy and were asymptomatic. Poor sleep quality was defined by a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score >5. Risk of OSA was defined by a positive Berlin Questionnaire. The risk poor sleep quality in GERD, BE, and controls was evaluated in multivariate models. KEY RESULTS: 83 GERD, 63 BE, and 75 controls were included. OSA and poor sleep quality were significantly more frequent in GERD (65% and 60%) but not BE (52% and 46%) compared with controls (48% and 39%). Controlling for age, race, gender, smoking, body mass index, and hypertension, the risk of poor sleep quality was significantly increased in GERD compared with controls (odds ratio [OR] = 2.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-6.80), significance was lost after adding OSA to the model (OR = 2.27, 95% CI: 0.87-5.85). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: GERD but not BE increases the risk of poor sleep quality. This association is not independent of OSA.

Systematic review: Proton pump inhibitor-associated acute interstitial nephritis.

BACKGROUND: A number of recent case reports and case series suggest that proton pump inhibitors may cause acute interstitial nephritis. AIM: To establish the nature of the relationship (cause or association) between proton pump inhibitor use and development of interstitial nephritis. DATA COLLECTION: Two researchers independently searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, GOOGLE, LILACS, COCHRANE) for articles from 1970 to 2006, including all study designs, populations and languages. Two independent reviewers assessed study quality and collected the data. SELECTION CRITERIA: absence of baseline renal failure, development of interstitial nephritis after proton pump inhibitor exposure, nephritis confirmed by creatinine plus either renal biopsy or recurrence upon reinitiating proton pump inhibitor. RESULTS: Sixty four cases (60% females, mean age 78 years) of proton pump inhibitor-associated interstitial nephritis were found, 60 included in this review (59 confirmed by renal biopsy, one by recurrence upon reinitiating proton pump inhibitor). The most common symptoms were non-specific. The mean proton pump inhibitor treatment duration before diagnosing nephritis was 13 weeks, average recovery time was 35.5 weeks, one patient required permanent dialysis, there were no deaths. CONCLUSION: Proton pump inhibitor-related interstitial nephritis is rare, idiosyncratic and difficult to predict. It requires a high level of clinical suspicion. While there is not sufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship with certainty, there does appear to be a low-prevalence association.

Maximal acid reflux control for Barrett's oesophagus: feasible and effective.

UNLABELLED: The treatment of patients with Barrett's oesophagus is controversial. Debate exists regarding the use and value of high dose acid suppression as the standard of practice. Despite prolonged use of high dose proton pump inhibitors (40 mg omeprazole, 60 mg lansoprazole), most studies have shown no convincing evidence of significant regression of Barrett's length. These studies, however, have used fixed doses of proton pump inhibitors and did not regularly document control of oesophageal acid exposure. AIM: To determine whether regression of Barrett's epithelium can be achieved with documented maximal acid suppression. METHODS: We have prospectively followed nine patients with Barrett's oesophagus (eight male; mean age 60 years) for more than 1 year. They were all treated using medical therapy with pH monitoring documenting oesophageal acid exposure over 24 h < 1.6% of the time, and with two or more esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed by the same endoscopist. RESULTS: Acid control was individually tailored and achieved with proton pump inhibitor b.d. (omeprazole 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg) and ranitidine at bedtime (HS) (Ran) if necessary. All nine patients (100%) showed some evidence of regression. All nine patients (100%) showed a decrease in Barrett's length (mean 2 cm, range 1-3 cm). Six out of nine (66.67%) patients showed evidence of squamous islands on the last oesophagogastroduodenoscopy. The mean total distal oesophageal acid exposure was 0.38% (range: 0-1.5%). The mean follow-up of patients was 54 months (range: 13-118 months). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent and individually tailored maximal acid suppression documented by pH-metry is achievable and may result in decreased length and development of squamous islands in patients with Barrett's epithelium. This approach should be further evaluated as potentially the preferred medical treatment for these patients.