Clinical features of gastroesophageal reflux disease and erosive esophagitis: Insights from patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy in resource-limited Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease worldwide with varying clinical presentations and risk factors. Prevalence data for Africa is lacking, but an increasing trend is expected due to demographic and epidemiological transitions. Although endoscopic studies for general gastrointestinal disorders have shown some patients with erosive esophagitis (EE), no studies in Ethiopia have investigated the clinical characteristics, risk factors, and severity of GERD using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). AIM: To assess the clinical features of GERD in Ethiopian patients who underwent EGD and determine the severity and risk factors of EE. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cross-sectional study of 221 patients diagnosed with GERD and endoscopic findings of EE at Trauma Associated Severe Hemorrhage and Amniotic Membrane Stem Cell between January 2019 and August 2022. Data were collected from electronic medical records and phone call interviews. We used descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression analysis with SPSS version 26 to identify the association between variables with a statistical significance set at P value < 0.05. RESULTS: The mean ± SD age of the patients was 44.8 (± 15.9) years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.6:1. The most commonly reported symptom was epigastric pain (80.5%), followed by heartburn (43%). Los Angeles (LA)-A EE was diagnosed in 71.1% of patients, followed by LA-B (14.9%), LA-C (7.7%), and LA-D (5.9%). Multivariate analysis showed that age 50 or above, presence of bleeding, and endoscopic findings of duodenitis/duodenopathy were significantly associated with severe EE (P < 0.05). Stricture and Barrett's esophagus were observed in 4.5% and 1.36% of patients with EE, respectively. CONCLUSION: Most of the patients had milder EE with fewer complications. However, severe EE was more prevalent in older patients and those with duodenitis/duodenopathy.

Current Advances in Diagnosis, Therapeutics, and Surgical Interventions for the Management of Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD): An Update.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic illness characterized by complications arising from the reflux of stomach contents, which significantly lower the quality of life, increase morbidity, and increase medical expenses associated with treating the condition. The main goal of treatment in GERD is symptomatic relief, relapse prevention, and healing of erosive esophagitis. The treatment mainly involves lifestyle changes to control acid production and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as the first line of treatment. Endoscopic interventions or anti-reflux surgery may be beneficial in relieving symptoms in people whose symptoms are triggered by reflux. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology and newer diagnostic and treatment modalities including available surgical management options to manage refractory GERD.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Integrating Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Into Clinical Practice: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to summarize the available evidence and offer expert Best Practice Advice on the integration of potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) in the clinical management of foregut disorders, specifically including gastroesophageal reflux disease, Helicobacter pylori infection, and peptic ulcer disease. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Governing Board and CPU Committee to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership. This CPU expert review underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through the standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were developed based on review of the published literature and expert consensus opinion. Because formal systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Based on nonclinical factors (including cost, greater obstacles to obtaining medication, and fewer long-term safety data), clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as initial therapy for acid-related conditions in which clinical superiority has not been shown. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Based on current costs in the United States, even modest clinical superiority of P-CABs over double-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may not make P-CABs cost-effective as first-line therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. Clinicians may use P-CABs in selected patients with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Although there is currently insufficient evidence for clinicians to use P-CABs as first-line on-demand therapy for patients with heartburn symptoms who have previously responded to antisecretory therapy, their rapid onset of acid inhibition raises the possibility of their utility in this population. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy in patients with milder erosive esophagitis (EE) (Los Angeles classification of erosive esophagitis grade A/B EE). Clinicians may use P-CABs in selected patients with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Clinicians may use P-CABs as a therapeutic option for the healing and maintenance of healing in patients with more severe EE (Los Angeles classification of erosive esophagitis grade C/D EE). However, given the markedly higher costs of the P-CAB presently available in the United States and the lack of randomized comparisons with double-dose PPIs, it is not clear that the benefits in endoscopic outcomes over standard-dose PPIs justify the routine use of P-CABs as first-line therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Clinicians should use P-CABs in place of PPIs in eradication regimens for most patients with H pylori infection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy in the treatment or prophylaxis of peptic ulcer disease. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Although there is currently insufficient evidence for clinicians to use P-CABs as first-line therapy in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata, their rapid and potent acid inhibition raises the possibility of their utility in this population.

Experimental drugs for erosive esophagitis: what is in the clinical development pipeline?

INTRODUCTION: Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) has revolutionized the treatment of erosive esophagitis (EE) in the past few decades. However, roughly 30-40% of the patients, especially those with severe EE (Los Angeles Grade C/D), remain poorly responsive to this medication. Novel drugs have been formulated and/or repurposed to address this problem. AREAS COVERED: This review highlights novel drugs that have been investigated for use in EE, such as mucosal protectants, prokinetics, transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) reducers, novel PPIs, and the new potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB). Studies have demonstrated that PCAB has promising results (efficacy and safety) compared to PPI for the healing of EE, especially in severe diseases. EXPERT OPINION: PCAB has gained interest in recent years, with pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics properties surpassing PPI. Although recent data on PCABs, which comprised mainly of Vonoprazan, have shown promising results, more randomized controlled trials for other PCAB drugs are needed to elucidate and confirm the superiority of this drug class to PPI, the current first-line treatment of EE.

Association Between Different Metabolic Obesity Phenotypes and Erosive Esophagitis: A Retrospective Study.

Background and Aim: Obesity is association with elevated risks of erosive esophagitis (EE), and metabolic abnormalities play crucial roles in its development. The aim of the study was to assess the association between metabolic obesity phenotypes and the risk of EE. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 11,599 subjects who had undergone upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2023. The enrolled individuals were grouped into four cohorts based on their metabolic health and obesity profiles, namely, metabolically healthy non-obesity (MHNO; n=2134, 18.4%), metabolically healthy obesity (MHO; n=1736, 15.0%), metabolically unhealthy non-obesity (MUNO; n=4290, 37.0%), and metabolically unhealthy obesity (MUO; n=3439, 29.6%). The relationships of the different phenotypes of metabolic obesity with the risks of developing EE in the different sexes and age groups were investigated by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: The MUNO, MHO, and MUO cohorts exhibited elevated risks of developing EE than the MHNO cohort. The confounding factors were adjusted for, and the findings revealed that the MUO cohort exhibited the greatest risk of EE, with odds ratios (ORs) of 5.473 (95% CI: 4.181-7.165) and 7.566 (95% CI: 5.718-10.010) for males and females, respectively. The frequency of occurrence of EE increased following an increase in proportion of metabolic risk factors. Subgroup analyses showed that the individuals under and over 60 years of age in the MHO, MUNO, and MUO cohorts exhibited elevated risks of developing EE. Further analysis suggested that obesity has a stronger influence on the risks of developing EE compared to metabolic disorders. Conclusion: Metabolic disorders and obesity are both related with an elevated risk of EE, in which obesity has a potentially stronger influence. Clinical interventions should target both obesity and metabolic disorders to reduce EE risk.

Risk of De Novo Barrett's Esophagus Post Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies with Long-Term Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures worldwide. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a major concern in patients undergoing SG and is a risk factor for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the incidence of and analyze predictive factors for post-SG BE. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in April 2024, for studies reporting on incidence of BE, erosive esophagitis (EE), and hiatal hernia (HH) post-SG. Primary outcomes were post-SG pooled rates of de novo BE, EE, GERD symptoms, proton pump inhibitor use, and HH. Meta-regression analysis was performed to assess if patient and post-SG factors influenced the rates of post-SG BE. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with 2046 patients (79% females) were included. Mean age was 42.2 years (standard deviation, 11.1) and follow-up ranged from 2 to 11.4 years. The pooled rate of de novo BE post-SG was 5.6% (confidence interval, 3.5-8.8). Significantly higher pooled rates of EE (risk ratio [RR], 3.37], HH (RR, 2.09), GER/GERD symptoms (RR, 3.32), and proton pump inhibitor use (RR, 3.65) were found among patients post-SG. GER/GERD symptoms post-SG positively influenced the pooled BE rates, whereas age, sex, body mass index, post-SG EE, and HH did not. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that SG results in a significantly increased risk of de novo BE and higher rates of EE, proton pump inhibitor use, and HH. Our findings suggest that clinicians should routinely screen patients with SG for BE and future surveillance intervals should be followed as per societal guidelines.

Potassium-competitive acid blockers and proton-pump inhibitors for healing of erosive esophagitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) are recommended for erosive esophagitis (EE), with good safety and tolerance. However, it is unclear which is the best treatment option for EE. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of P-CABs and PPIs for healing EE patients, seeking an appropriate treatment choice in the 4- or 8-week treatment and standard or double dose. Design: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: Relevant databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials of PPIs and P-CABs in the treatment of EE up to 31 May 2023. Studies on standard or double-dose PPIs or P-CABs which were published in English and assessed 4- or 8-week healing effects in EE were included. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of the treatments under the frequentist framework. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses of patients with different baseline EE were also conducted. Results: In all, 34 studies involving 25,054 patients and 9 PPIs, 6 P-CABs, or placebo treatment interventions were included. The pooled 4-week healing rate was significantly statistically lower than the pooled 8-week healing rate for most treatments. Besides, the higher healing rate of double-dose treatment than standard-dose treatment was not observed in the initial treatment of most drugs. The main analysis only included studies conducted for both patients with and without severe EE at baseline, and the proportion of severe EE included in the study was >10%, Keverprazan 20 mg qd ranked best with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of 84.7, followed by Ilaprazole 10 mg qd with a SUCRA value of 82.0, for the healing rate at 8 weeks. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust. Subgroup analysis showed that most P-CABs had higher healing rates than PPIs, particularly for patients with severe EE. And the healing rate of Keverprazan 20 mg qd at 8 weeks ranked best in the subgroup without or with severe EE at baseline. Conclusion: This study showed that an 8-week treatment seemed more effective than the 4-week treatment for healing EE patients. The healing effect of Keverprazan (20 mg qd) ranked best in 8-week treatment, for both severe and non-severe EE patients. Trial registration: The study protocol was registered with INPLASY (registration number INPLASY2023120053).

A review and network meta-analysis of different medications for treating erosive esophagitis: potassium-competitive acid blockers and proton-pump inhibitors Why was the study done? Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) are commonly used to treat Erosive esophagitis (EE) due to their good safety and tolerance. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of P-CABs and PPIs in healing EE patients. We wanted to determine the best treatment choice in terms of the duration of treatment (4 or 8 weeks) and the dosage (standard or double-dose). What did the researchers do? The researchers searched relevant databases for randomized controlled trials that studied the use of PPIs and P-CABs in treating EE up until May 31, 2023. They included studies that evaluated the healing effects of standard or double-dose PPIs or P-CABs over a period of 4 or 8 weeks. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of these treatments. They also conducted sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis to examine the effects on patients with different levels of EE. What did the researchers find? The results showed that the healing rate after 4 weeks of treatment was significantly lower than the healing rate after 8 weeks for most treatments. Additionally, the higher healing rate observed with double-dose treatment compared to standard-dose treatment was not seen in the initial treatment of most drugs. In the main analysis, which included studies with patients both with and without severe EE at the beginning, Keverprazan 20mg qd was ranked as the most effective treatment with a healing rate of 84.7, followed by Ilaprazole 10mg qd with a healing rate of 82.0 at 8 weeks. The results were robust in sensitivity analysis. Subgroup analysis showed that most P-CABs had higher healing rates than PPIs, especially for patients with severe EE. What do the findings mean? Treating EE patients for 8 weeks was more effective than treating them for 4 weeks. Keverprazan (20mg once a day) with the 8-week treatment is the optimal method.

Vonoprazan causes symptomatic improvement in non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan therapy as compared to conventional proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or no vonoprazan for non-erosive esophagitis. METHODS: A thorough search was conducted across databases. The primary outcome was to determine the mean variance in the gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) score after vonoprazan treatment. Secondary outcomes comprised alterations in the scores for epigastric pain and post-prandial distress, the proportion of patients displaying improvement, and the occurrence of adverse events. Pooled mean differences and relative risks were determined utilizing random effects models. RESULTS: A total of 1,944 articles were screened and nine of them were included. As compared to PPI or no vonoprazan therapy, vonoprazan treatment led to a significant reduction in the GERD score [mean difference: -3.88 (95 % CI: -5.48, -2.28), p < 0.01, i2=95 %]. As compared to PPI or no vonoprazan therapy, vonoprazan treatment led to a significant reduction in the epigastric pain score [mean difference: -3.02 (95 % CI: -5.41, -0.63), p = 0.01, i2=75 %] and post-prandial distress score [mean difference: -2.82 (95 % CI: -3.51, -2.12), p < 0.01, i2=0 %] (all moderate GRADE evidence). Vonoprazan therapy was found to be safe. CONCLUSION: Treatment with vonoprazan could significantly improve symptoms in patients with non-erosive esophagitis or non-erosive GERD.

Prevalence and Costs of Esophageal Strictures in the United States.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Esophageal strictures are a leading cause of dysphagia, but data regarding the epidemiology of esophageal strictures are limited. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence, health care utilization, and financial burden of esophageal strictures in the United States. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using 2 large national insurance claims databases (MarketScan and Medicare). Using International Classification of Diseases-9 and -10 diagnostic codes, annual prevalence was calculated for both cohorts overall, and stratified by age and sex strata. Most common diagnostic and procedural codes associated with esophageal strictures were extracted and analyzed to estimate health care utilization. Direct annual medical costs of esophageal strictures were calculated. RESULTS: The annual prevalence of esophageal strictures in MarketScan in 2021 was 203.14 cases/100,000 people, whereas the annual prevalence in Medicare cohort in 2017 was 1123.47 cases/100,000. Although rates were relatively stable over time, esophageal stricture prevalence increased with advancing age. No prevalence differences were noticed between males and females. Gastroesophageal reflux disease/erosive esophagitis was the top diagnostic code associated with esophageal strictures, although an increase in the proportion of eosinophilic esophagitis codes was noted over time. Esophageal dilation codes were present in ∼50% of stricture cases. The total health care costs associated with esophageal strictures were estimated at $1.39 billion in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal strictures are common, affecting between 1/100 and 1/1000 patients in the United States, with the highest rates seen in patients aged 75 years and older. Accordingly, strictures have a significant financial burden on the health care system, with costs greater than $1 billion annually.

A systematic review with meta-analysis: Efficacy and safety of potassium-competitive acid blocker compared with proton pump inhibitor in the maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis.

Introduction: Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is the mainstay therapy for the maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis (EE). It is unknown whether potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) are more efficacious and safer than PPIs. Methods: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCABs to PPIs in the maintenance of healing rates of endoscopically proven healed EE and indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until 3 February 2024, were included. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis was performed to pool primary efficacy outcome (maintenance of healing rates at week 24) and safety data (any treatment-emergent adverse event or TEAE). The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool. Results: Four RCTs with a total of 2554 patients were eligible for inclusion. All trials were of low risk of bias. Compared to lansoprazole 15 mg, the maintenance rates of healed EE at week 24 were significantly higher with vonoprazan 10 mg (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.07-1.19) and vonoprazan 20 mg (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.10-1.21). Likewise, compared to lansoprazole 15 mg, any TEAEs were significantly greater with vonoprazan 20 mg (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.01-1.20) but not vonoprazan 10 mg. Conclusion: Vonoprazan 10 and 20 mg were superior to lansoprazole 15 mg in the maintenance of the healing of EE. Any TEAEs were greater with vonoprazan 20 mg.

Vonoprazan is superior to lansoprazole for healing of severe but not mild erosive esophagitis: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Healing rates of severe erosive esophagitis (EE; Los Angeles [LA] Grade C/D) in patients treated with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is suboptimal (~60-70%). Vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker, is suggested to have better healing rates in patients with severe EE. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan 20 mg versus lansoprazole 30 mg daily in healing EE, specifically in those with LA Grade C/D. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL on May 24, 2023. Studies that randomized EE patients to vonoprazan 20 mg daily or lansoprazole 30 mg daily and compared healing rates were included. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool. The fixed-effect model was used to obtain the pooled efficacy and safety outcomes. Subgroup analysis was done to compare healing rates in mild (LA Grade A/B) versus severe EE and based on study location. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with low risks of bias comprising 2208 participants were included. Vonoprazan 20 mg was superior to lansoprazole 30 mg daily in healing severe EE at all weeks (Week 2 RR 1.294 [95% CI 1.169-1.433], Week 4 1.160 [1.059-1.270], and Week 8 1.175 [95% CI 1.107-1.247]), but was similar for mild EE at all weeks (P-interaction < 0.01). Vonoprazan 20 mg was more efficacious than lansoprazole 30 mg at Week 8 in Western versus Asian studies (P-interaction < 0.01). Any, serious, and drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Vonoprazan 20 mg is superior to lansoprazole 30 mg for healing severe EE but not mild EE. Vonoprazan 20 mg daily has a similar safety profile to lansoprazole 30 mg daily.

Impact of metabolic unhealthiness and its changes on the risk of erosive esophagitis: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: We aimed to compare the risk of erosive esophagitis (EE) among individuals with different phenotypes based on metabolic health status and obesity and investigate the role of changes in metabolic health in EE risk. METHODS: A cohort of 258 892 asymptomatic adults without EE at baseline who underwent ollow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were categorized into the following four groups according to metabolic health and obesity status: (i) metabolically healthy (MH) non-obese; (ii) metabolically unhealthy (MU) non-obese; (iii) MH obese; and (iv) MU obese. EE was defined as the presence of grade A or higher mucosal breaks on EGD. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the incidence rates of EE were 0.6/103 person-years (PY), 1.7/103 PY, 1.7/103 PY, and 3.1/103 PY in the MH non-obese, MU non-obese, MH obese, and MU obese groups, respectively. The multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for developing EE comparing the MH obese, MU non-obese, and MU obese groups with the MH non-obese group were 1.49 (1.29-1.71), 1.56 (1.25-1.94), and 2.18 (1.90-2.49), respectively. The multivariable-adjusted HR (95% CI) comparing the progression of MH to MU, regression of MU to MH, and persistent MU with the persistent MH group were 1.39 (1.10-1.76), 1.39 (1.09-1.77), and 1.86 (1.56-2.21), respectively. The increased risk of EE among the persistent MU group was consistently observed in individuals without obesity or abdominal obesity. CONCLUSION: Metabolic unhealthiness and obesity were independent risk factors for the development of EE, suggesting that maintaining both normal weight and metabolic health may help reduce the risk of EE.

Association of self-reported and objective sleep disturbance with the spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The relationship between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is complex. We aimed to determine the association of self-reported and objective sleep parameters with diverse manifestations of the GERD spectrum. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 561 individuals who underwent an electrocardiogram-based cardiopulmonary coupling for OSA screening during a health check-up. All participants received the Reflux Disease Questionnaire and an upper endoscopy to determine the presence of troublesome reflux symptoms and erosive esophagitis (EE). Sleep quality was evaluated by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and sleep dysfunction was defined as a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score > 5. OSA was defined as a cardiopulmonary coupling-derived apnea-hypopnea index exceeding 15 events/h. Comparisons were made between participants on the GERD spectrum with respect to their various self-reported and objective sleep parameters. RESULTS: Among the 277 patients with GERD (49.4%), 198 (35.3%) had EE. Patients with GERD had higher PSQI scores (6.99 ± 3.97 vs 6.07 ± 3.73, P = .005) and a higher prevalence of sleep dysfunction (60.6% vs 49.6%, P = .009). Patients with EE had a higher prevalence of OSA (42.9% vs 33.9%, P = .034). Along the GERD spectrum, symptomatic patients with EE had the highest PSQI scores and prevalence of sleep dysfunction (70.7%), while asymptomatic patients with EE had the highest prevalence of OSA (44%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate a high prevalence of sleep dysfunction among individuals with GERD. Furthermore, patients on the GERD spectrum are prone to experiencing a range of self-reported and objective sleep disturbances. CITATION: Hu K-Y, Tseng P-H, Hsu W-C, et al. Association of self-reported and objective sleep disturbance with the spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Clin Sleep Med. 2024;20(6):911-920.

Obesity is associated with higher prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease and reflux related complications: A global healthcare database study.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have demonstrated that obesity may be associated with the development of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and GERD-related complications. However, such association has never been assessed in a global-wide real-world patient population. METHODS: The TriNetX electronic health records network, which involves 92 healthcare organizations in 12 countries, was utilized for this multicenter global health research network study. The cohort with obesity comprised adult patients with body mass index (BMI) of more than 30 kg/m2. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching to decrease confounders effects. The prevalence of GERD and GERD-related complications including erosive esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus (BE), BE with dysplasia, and esophageal adenocarcinoma were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 2,356,548 patients were included in the obesity and non-obesity groups after propensity score matching. In the group with obesity, patients had a significantly higher prevalence of GERD (30% vs. 24%, OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.34-1.36) compared to the group without obesity. Further analysis showed a higher prevalence of GERD-related complications in the group with obesity with statistical significance: Erosive esophagitis (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05-1.08), Barrett's esophagus (1.08, 1.05-1.10), BE with dysplasia (1.11, 1.04-1.18), esophageal cancer (1.32, 1.15-1.51). CONCLUSION: Globally, obesity was associated with a higher prevalence of GERD and GERD-related complications.

A Linked Electronic Medical Record-Claims Analysis of the Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Patients Coded for Erosive Esophagitis in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Erosive esophagitis (EE) is a severe form of gastroesophageal reflux disease commonly treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The aim of this retrospective, observational cohort study was to describe the characteristics and healthcare burden of patients with EE. METHODS: We identified adults in the USA with an EE diagnosis between January  1, 2016 and February 28, 2019 in a linked dataset containing electronic health records (EHR) from the Veradigm Network EHR and claims data from Komodo Health. Patients were required to have 1 year of baseline data and 3 years of follow-up data. Patients were stratified by the number of PPI lines of therapy (LOT) during the 4-year study period. We descriptively captured patient characteristics and treatment patterns, along with all-cause and EE-related healthcare utilization and costs. RESULTS: Among the 158,347 qualifying adults with EE, 71,958 (45.4%) had 1 PPI LOT, 14,985 (9.5%) had 2 LOTs, 15,129 (9.6%) had 3+ LOTs, and 56,275 (35.5%) did not fill a PPI prescription. Omeprazole and pantoprazole comprised more than 70% of any LOT, with patients commonly switching between the two. Mean (standard deviation) annualized all-cause and EE-related healthcare costs in the follow-up period were $16,853 ($70,507) and $523 ($3659), respectively. Both all-cause and EE-related healthcare costs increased with LOTs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with EE are commonly treated with prescription PPIs; however, 19.0% of patients cycled through multiple PPIs. Higher PPI use was associated with a higher comorbidity burden and higher healthcare costs compared to 0 PPI use.

Vaping Induced Severe Erosive Esophagitis.

Esophagitis can be attributed to several etiologies including gastroesophageal reflux disease, caustic ingestion, medication or pill induced, radiotherapy, infectious or eosinophilic disease. There are also new consumer items on the market which can cause harmful side effects, including erosive esophagitis. In this case, we present an otherwise healthy teenage male with a history of daily vape usage with a clinical presentation of odynophagia, who was subsequently diagnosed with vaping associated esophagitis. There is currently little to no data available on the occurrence of vaping-associated esophagitis, particularly in adolescents.

GERD as a Complication of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for the Treatment of Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of obesity is increasing in developed societies, and surgical treatment is one treatment option. The most common surgical treatment for obesity is laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a complication of both obesity and the surgical treatment of obesity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, the PubMed database was searched using the keywords "GERD" and "bariatric surgery", and 987 papers published between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2022 were retrieved. RESULTS: Nine papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The articles were analyzed for the de novo occurrence of GERD after the treatment of its symptoms, the occurrence of erosive esophagitis, and Barrett's esophagus. In addition, interesting conclusions are presented from the papers that did not meet the inclusion criteria but shed light on the pathophysiology of GERD in obese patients undergoing LSG. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the authors draw attention to the need for endoscopic surveillance in patients undergoing LSG, even in the absence of clinical signs of GERD.

Network meta-analysis of multiple doses of vonoprazan for the treatment of erosive esophagitis.

Aim: 20 mg of vonoprazan (VPZ20) is recommended in most countries to treat erosive esophagitis (EE). Whether other doses of vonoprazan, such as 5 mg (VPZ5), 10 mg (VPZ10), 20 mg (VPZ20), and 40 mg (VPZ40) are more effective is unknown. Materials & methods: Three databases were electronically searched to identify studies published before November 2021. Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 14.0. Results: VPZ20 and VPZ40 were comparable to PPI, VPZ5 and VPZ10 in 4- and 8-week healing rates, and this was also detected in patients with refractory EE. All regimens resulted in similar treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). However, VPZ40 ranked first for healing rate and TEAEs; however, VPZ20 ranked worst for TEAEs. Conclusion: Different doses of VPZ are comparable in efficacy and safety, but VPZ40 may be best in both effectiveness and safety.

Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole in erosive esophagitis - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the mainstay of treatment in erosive esophagitis (EE). An alternative to PPIs in EE is Vonoprazan, a potassium competitive acid blocker. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vonoprazan to lansoprazole. METHODS: Multiple databases searched through November 2022. Meta-analysis was performed to assess endoscopic healing at two, four and eight weeks, including for patients with severe EE (Los Angeles C/D). Serious adverse events (SAE) leading to drug discontinuation were assessed. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Four RCTs with 2208 patients were included in the final analysis. Vonoprazan 20 mg once-daily was compared to lansoprazole 30 mg once-daily dosing. Among all patients, at two and eight weeks post-treatment, vonoprazan resulted in significantly higher rates of endoscopic healing as compared to lansoprazole, risk ratios (RR) 1.1, p<0.001 and RR 1.04, p=0.03. The same effect was not observed at four weeks, RR 1.03 (CI 0.99-1.06, I2=0%) following therapy. Among patients with severe EE, vonoprazan resulted in higher rates of endoscopic healing at two weeks, RR 1.3 (1.2-1.4, I2=47%), p=<0.001, at four weeks, RR 1.2 (1.1-1.3, I2=36%), p=<0.001 and at eight weeks post-treatment, RR 1.1 (CI 1.03-1.3, I2=79%), p=0.009. We found no significant difference in the overall pooled rate of SAE and pooled rate of adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. Finally, the overall certainty of evidence for our main summary estimates was rated as high (grade A). CONCLUSION: Based on limited number of published non-inferiority RCTs, our analysis demonstrates that among patients with EE, vonoprazan 20 mg once-daily dosing achieves comparable and in those with severe EE, higher endoscopic healing rates as compared to lansoprazole 30 mg once-daily dosing. Both drugs have a comparable safety profile.