Clinical outcomes of anti-reflux mucosal ablation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: An international bi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) is an emerging endoscopic treatment aimed at enhancing the gastroesophageal junction flap valve. This study aimed to evaluate its feasibility, effectiveness, and safety. METHODS: Between May 2018 and December 2022, patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms refractory to acid suppression medications or those dependent on such medications were enrolled for ARMA. This retrospective analysis utilized prospectively collected data from an international bi-center study. GERD questionnaire, upper endoscopy, and 24-h pH monitoring were conducted at 2-6 months and 12 months post-ARMA. Clinical success was defined as a > 50% reduction in a validated GERD questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients underwent ARMA. Definitive GERD was diagnosed in 44 (64.7%) patients, while 24 (35.3%) exhibited reflux hypersensitivity. Clinical success rates at 2-6 months and 1 year post-ARMA were 60% (39/65) and 70% (21/30), respectively. The median GERD-health-related quality of life score significantly improved from 26 to 11 at 2-6 months (P < 0.001). Among the 51 patients (71.8%) who underwent 24-h pH monitoring, the median acid exposure time decreased from 5.3% to 0.7% (P = 0.003), accompanied by a significant reduction in esophagitis rates (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis did not identify predictors of short-term success. Nine (13.2%) patients experienced transient stenosis requiring balloon dilation. CONCLUSIONS: ARMA demonstrates both technical feasibility and reproducibility as a safe procedure that effectively ameliorates GERD symptoms in approximately two-thirds of patients during short-term follow up. Both reflux hypersensitivity and confirmed GERD patients, regardless of their response to acid suppression medication, may be suitable candidates.

Anti-Hu-mediated paraneoplastic chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction associated with extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma.

Chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (CIPO) is characterized by symptoms and signs of bowel obstruction in the absence of an anatomical cause. Almost 50 % of cases are secondary to systemic diseases of neurological, paraneoplastic, autoimmune, metabolic, or infectious origin.

Sensitivity and specificity of the Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire in diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire (GSFQ) is a questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) diagnosis, with a version in Spanish language, not yet compared to an objective test. AIMS: To establish GSFQ diagnostic performance against 24-hour pH monitoring carried out in two tertiary care hospitals. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients with typical GERD symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation) referred for pH monitoring fulfilled the GSFQ (score range 0-30, proportional to probability of GERD). Diagnosis of GERD was established when acid exposure time in distal esophagus was superior to 4.5% or symptom association probability was greater than 95%. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated and best cut-off score determined, with corresponding sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios (LR) (95% confidence interval for each). RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-two patients were included (59.9% women, age 47.9 ± 13.9; 97.4% heartburn; 71.3% regurgitation). pH monitoring was abnormal in 65.8%. Mean GSFQ score was 11.2 ± 6. Area under ROC was 56.5% (47.0-65.9%). Optimal cut-off score was 13 or greater: sensitivity 40% (30.3-50.3%), specificity 71.2% (56.9-82.9%), positive LR 1.39 (0.85-2.26) and negative LR 0.84 (0.67-1.07). Exclusion of questions 1 and 3 of the original GSFQ, easily interpreted as referred to dyspepsia and not GERD, improved only marginally the diagnostic performance: AUROC 59.1%. CONCLUSION: The GSFQ does not predict results of pH monitoring in patients with typical symptoms in a tertiary care setting.

Swallowed topical corticosteroids for eosinophilic esophagitis: Utilization and real-world efficacy from the EoE CONNECT registry.

BACKGROUND: Swallowed topical corticosteroids (tC) are common therapy for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Widely heterogeneous results have occurred due to their active ingredients, formulations and doses. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of topical corticosteroid therapy for EoE in real-world practice. METHODS: Cross-sectional study analysis of the multicentre EoE CONNECT registry. Clinical remission was defined as a decrease of ≥50% in dysphagia symptom scores; histological remission was defined as a peak eosinophil count below 15 per high-power field. The effectiveness in achieving clinico-histological remission (CHR) was compared for the main tC formulations. RESULTS: Overall, data on 1456 prescriptions of tC in monotherapy used in 866 individual patients were assessed. Of those, 904 prescriptions with data on formulation were employed for the induction of remission; 234 reduced a previously effective dose for maintenance. Fluticasone propionate formulations dominated the first-line treatment, while budesonide was more common in later therapies. A swallowed nasal drop suspension was the most common formulation of fluticasone propionate. Doses ≥0.8 mg/day provided a 65% CHR rate and were superior to lower doses. Oral viscous solution prepared by a pharmacist was the most common prescription of budesonide; 4 mg/day provided no benefit over 2 mg/day (CHR rated being 72% and 80%, respectively). A multivariate analysis revealed budesonide orodispersible tablets as the most effective therapy (OR 18.9, p < 0.001); use of higher doses (OR 4.3, p = 0.03) and lower symptom scores (OR 0.9, p = 0.01) were also determinants of effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Reduced symptom severity, use of high doses, and use of budesonide orodispersible tablets particularly were all independent predictors of tC effectiveness.

Endoscopic anti-reflux therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease has an increasing incidence and prevalence worldwide. A significant proportion of patients have a suboptimal response to proton pump inhibitors or are unwilling to take lifelong medication due to concerns about long-term adverse effects. Endoscopic anti-reflux therapies offer a minimally invasive option for patients unwilling to undergo surgical treatment or take lifelong medication. The best candidates are those with a good response to proton pump inhibitors and without a significant sliding hiatal hernia. Transoral incisionless fundoplication and nonablative radiofrequency are the techniques with the largest body of evidence and that have been tested in several randomized clinical trials. Band-assisted ligation techniques, anti-reflux mucosectomy, anti-reflux mucosal ablation, and new plication devices have yielded promising results in recent noncontrolled studies. Nonetheless, the role of endoscopic procedures remains controversial due to limited long-term and comparative data, and no consensus exists in current clinical guidelines. This review provides an updated summary focused on the patient selection, technical details, clinical success, and safety of current and future endoscopic anti-reflux techniques.

Do patients with iron deficiency without anemia benefit from an endoscopic examination?

OBJECTIVE: The need for endoscopic investigation in patients with iron deficiency without anemia (ID) is not established. METHODS: Data from patients with ID (serum ferritin ≤20 ng/mL, normal hemoglobin) studied with upper and lower endoscopies were retrospectively analyzed. Patients evaluated for iron deficiency anemia (IDA) served as controls, matched by sex and age in the proportion of 2:1. The groups were compared for the presence, type, location and age distribution of endoscopic findings. RESULTS: Altogether 109 patients (55% women; mean age 59.6 ± 13.5 years; aged <50 years [27.5%]; 50-69 years [43.1%]; ≥70 years [29.4%]) were included in the ID group and 218 matched controls in the IDA group. Lesions were found in a similar proportion of patients (53.2% in the ID group vs 49.1% in the IDA group, P = 0.48) irrespective of age (P = 0.92). The colonoscopy diagnostic yield was low in both the ID and IDA subgroups of aged <50 years (6.3% vs 4.2%, P = 0.76). Multivariate analysis revealed a significant relationship between age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.06) and male sex (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.18-4.39) with a positive colonoscopy. Malignancy was significantly less frequent in the ID group (1.8% vs 14.2%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of gastrointestinal lesions in patients with and without anemia was similar but malignancy was eight times less frequent in the ID group. Systematic endoscopic evaluation in patients with ID is therefore questionable.