Disease Burden and Unmet Need in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease of increasing prevalence, characterized by symptoms of dysphagia and reduced quality of life. A dysregulated type 2 immune response to food and aeroallergen leads to barrier dysfunction, chronic esophageal inflammation, remodeling, and fibrosis. Patients with EoE have impaired quality of life because of dysphagia and other symptoms. They may also suffer social and psychological implications of food-related illness and expensive out-of-pocket costs associated with treatment. Disease burden in EoE is often compounded by the presence of comorbid type 2 inflammatory diseases. Current conventional treatments include elimination diet, proton pump inhibitors, and swallowed topical corticosteroids, as well as esophageal dilation in patients who have developed strictures. These treatments demonstrate variable response rates and may not always provide long-term disease control. There is an unmet need for long-term histologic, endoscopic, and symptomatic disease control; for targeted therapies that can normalize the immune response to triggers, reduce chronic inflammation, and limit or prevent remodeling and fibrosis; and for earlier diagnosis, defined treatment outcomes, and a greater understanding of patient perspectives on treatment. In addition, healthcare professionals need a better understanding of the patient perspective on disease burden, the disconnect between symptoms and disease activity, and the progressive nature of EoE and the need for continuous monitoring and maintenance treatment. In this review, we explore the progression of disease over the patient's lifespan, highlight the patient perspective on disease, and discuss the unmet need for effective long-term treatments.

Reliability and responsiveness of endoscopic disease activity assessment in eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic outcomes have become important measures of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity, including as an endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated the operating properties of endoscopic measures for use in EoE RCTs. METHODS: Modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methods and a panel of 15 international EoE experts identified endoscopic items and definitions with face validity that were used in a 2-round voting process to define simplified (all items graded as absent or present) and expanded versions (additional grades for edema, furrows, and/or exudates) of the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS). Inter- and intrarater reliability of these instruments (expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]) were evaluated using paired endoscopy video assessments of 2 blinded central readers in patients before and after 8 weeks of proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical corticosteroids, or dietary elimination. Responsiveness was measured using the standardized effect size (SES). RESULTS: The appropriateness of 41 statements relevant to EoE endoscopic activity (endoscopic items, item definitions and grading, and other considerations relevant for endoscopy) was considered. The original and expanded EREFS demonstrated moderate-to-substantial inter-rater reliability (ICCs of .472-.736 and .469-.763, respectively) and moderate-to-almost perfect intrarater reliability (ICCs of .580-.828 and .581-.828, respectively). Strictures were least reliably assessed (ICC, .072-.385). The original EREFS was highly responsive (SES, 1.126 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .757-1.534]), although both expanded versions of EREFS, scored based on worst affected area, were numerically most responsive to treatment (expanded furrows: SES, 1.229 [95% CI, .858-1.643]; all items expanded: SES, 1.252 [95% CI, .880-1.667]). The EREFS and its modifications were not more reliably scored by segment and also not more responsive when proximal and distal EREFSs were summed. CONCLUSIONS: EREFS and its modifications were reliable and responsive, and the original or expanded versions of the EREFS may be preferred in RCTs. Disease activity scored based on the worst affected area optimizes reliability and responsiveness.

Development of quality indicators for the diagnosis and management of achalasia.

BACKGROUND: The management of achalasia has improved due to diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. However, variability in care delivery remains and no established measures defining quality of care for this population exist. We aimed to use formal methodology to establish quality indicators for achalasia patients. METHODS: Quality indicator concepts were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines and clinical experts. Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method, experts in achalasia independently ranked proposed concepts in a two-round modified Delphi process based on 1) importance, 2) scientific acceptability, 3) usability, and 4) feasibility. Highly valid measures required strict agreement (≧ 80% of panelists) in the range of 7-9 for across all four categories. KEY RESULTS: There were 17 experts who rated 26 proposed quality indicator topics. In round one, 2 (8%) quality measures were rated valid. In round two, 19 measures were modified based on panel suggestions, and experts rated 10 (53%) of these measures as valid, resulting in a total of 12 quality indicators. Two measures pertained to patient education and five to diagnosis, including discussing treatment options with risk and benefits and using the most recent version of the Chicago Classification to define achalasia phenotypes, respectively. Other indicators pertained to treatment options, such as the use of botulinum toxin for those not considered surgical candidates and management of reflux following achalasia treatment. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Using a robust methodology, achalasia quality indicators were identified, which can form the basis for establishing quality gaps and generating fully specified quality measures.

How to select patients for antireflux surgery? The ICARUS guidelines (international consensus regarding preoperative examinations and clinical characteristics assessment to select adult patients for antireflux surgery).

OBJECTIVE: Antireflux surgery can be proposed in patients with GORD, especially when proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use leads to incomplete symptom improvement. However, to date, international consensus guidelines on the clinical criteria and additional technical examinations used in patient selection for antireflux surgery are lacking. We aimed at generating key recommendations in the selection of patients for antireflux surgery. DESIGN: We included 35 international experts (gastroenterologists, surgeons and physiologists) in a Delphi process and developed 37 statements that were revised by the Consensus Group, to start the Delphi process. Three voting rounds followed where each statement was presented with the evidence summary. The panel indicated the degree of agreement for the statement. When 80% of the Consensus Group agreed (A+/A) with a statement, this was defined as consensus. All votes were mutually anonymous. RESULTS: Patients with heartburn with a satisfactory response to PPIs, patients with a hiatal hernia (HH), patients with oesophagitis Los Angeles (LA) grade B or higher and patients with Barrett's oesophagus are good candidates for antireflux surgery. An endoscopy prior to antireflux surgery is mandatory and a barium swallow should be performed in patients with suspicion of a HH or short oesophagus. Oesophageal manometry is mandatory to rule out major motility disorders. Finally, oesophageal pH (±impedance) monitoring of PPI is mandatory to select patients for antireflux surgery, if endoscopy is negative for unequivocal reflux oesophagitis. CONCLUSION: With the ICARUS guidelines, we generated key recommendations for selection of patients for antireflux surgery.

Advances in the physiological assessment and diagnosis of GERD.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.130.

Expert consensus document: Advances in the physiological assessment and diagnosis of GERD.

GERD is a common condition worldwide. Key mechanisms of disease include abnormal oesophagogastric junction structure and function, and impaired oesophageal clearance. A therapeutic trial of acid-suppressive PPI therapy is often the initial management, with endoscopy performed in the setting of alarm symptoms and to exclude other conditions. If symptoms persist and endoscopy does not reveal evidence of GERD, oesophageal function tests are performed, including oesophageal manometry and ambulatory reflux monitoring. However, reflux episodes can be physiological, and some findings on endoscopy and manometry can be encountered in asymptomatic individuals without GERD symptoms. The diagnosis of GERD on the basis of functional oesophageal testing has been previously reported, but no updated expert recommendations on indications and the interpretation of oesophageal function testing in GERD has been made since the Porto consensus over a decade ago. In this Consensus Statement, we aim to describe modern oesophageal physiological tests and their analysis with an emphasis on establishing indications and consensus on interpretation parameters of oesophageal function testing for the evaluation of GERD in clinical practice. This document reflects the collective conclusions of the international GERD working group, incorporating existing data with expert consensus opinion.

Impaired health-related quality of life in patients with excessive supragastric belching.

BACKGROUND: Excessive supragastric belching, sometimes called aerophagia, is a rare behavioural disorder in which patients belch frequently, up to 20 times a minute. This is perceived by the patients as disturbing and interferes with social functioning and is likely to affect quality of life. METHODS: Twenty-one patients [11 male, aged 49 (28-78) years] with supragastric belching were asked to fill in questionnaires regarding the presence and severity of their symptoms, quality of life (short form-36) and the hospital anxiety and depression scale. RESULTS: The most frequently reported symptoms were belching, epigastric discomfort and fullness whereas heartburn, epigastric burning, retrosternal pain, early satiety, nausea and vomiting were hardly mentioned. Compared with normative values, patients showed a decreased health-related quality of life for the domains social functioning (64.3 ± 17.8), mental health (67.4 ± 16.5), vitality (47.6 ± 20.3), bodily pain (58.9 ± 21.7) and general health (44.8 ± 19.8) but not for physical functioning (75.5 ± 21.5) and physical (63.1 ± 40.0) and emotional role (81.0 ± 35.9). The hospital anxiety and depression scale for anxiety (3 iqr 2-4) and/or depression (2 iqr 1-4) were not elevated. CONCLUSION: In patients with excessive supragastric belching, health-related quality of life is significantly impaired, in particular because of impairment of social function and vitality. Furthermore, the symptom pattern observed in these patients does not resemble that of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or functional dyspepsia and anxiety disorders and depression are not prevalent in these patients.