Management of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: Practice-oriented answers to clinical questions

: Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition which is frequently faced by primary care physicians and gastroenterologists. Improving management of GERD is crucial to maximise both patient care and resource utilization. In fact, the management of patients with GERD is complex and poses several questions to the clinician who faces them in clinical practice. For instance, many aspects should be considered, including the appropriateness of indication to endoscopy, the quality of the endoscopic examination, the use and interpretation of ambulatory reflux testing, and the choice and management of anti-reflux treatments, i.e., proton-pump inhibitors and surgery. Aim of the present review was to provide a comprehensive update on the clinical management of patients with GERD, through a literature review on the diagnosis and management of patients with GER symptoms. In details, we provide practice-oriented concise answers to clinical questions, with the aim of optimising patient management and healthcare resource use

Standard Bismuth Quadruple Therapy versus Concomitant Therapy for the First-Line Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

(1) Background: Whether standard bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT) is superior to concomitant therapy for the first-line treatment of Helicobacter (H.) pylori infection is unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of standard BQT versus concomitant therapy for H. pylori eradication in subjects naive to treatment. (2) Methods: Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. We pooled risk ratio (RR) of individual studies for dichotomous outcomes using a random-effect model. (3) Results: Six studies with 1810 adults were included. Overall intention-to-treat (ITT) eradication rate was 87.4% with BQT and 85.2% with concomitant therapy (RR 1.01, 95%CI:0.94-1.07). Subgroup analysis of five Asian studies showed a small but significant superiority of BQT over concomitant therapy (87.5% vs. 84.5%; RR 1.04, 95%CI:1.01-1.08). Pooling four studies at low risk of bias yielded a similar result (88.2% vs. 84.5%; RR 1.05, 95%CI:1.01-1.09). There was no difference between the regimens in the frequency of adverse events (RR = 0.97, 95%CI:0.79-1.2). (4) Conclusions: The efficacy of BQT seems to be similar to concomitant therapy, with similar side effect profile. However, BQT showed a small but significant benefit over concomitant therapy in Asian populations and in studies at low risk of bias

Comparative performance and external validation of three different scores in predicting inadequate bowel preparation among Greek inpatients undergoing colonoscopy

Background Predictive scores aim to predict bowel preparation adequacy among hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy. We evaluated the comparative efficacy of these scores in predicting inadequate bowel cleansing in a cohort of Greek inpatients. Methods We performed a post hoc analysis of data generated from a cohort of inpatients undergoing colonoscopy in 4 tertiary Greek centers to validate the 3 models currently available (models A, B and C). We used the Akaike information criterion to quantify the performance of each model, while Harrell's C-index, as the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), verified the discriminative ability to predict inadequate bowel prep. Primary endpoint was the comparison of performance among models for predicting inadequate bowel cleansing. 70.7 +/- 15.4 years-were included in the analysis. Model B showed the highest performance (Harrell's C-index: AUC 77.2% vs. 72.6% and 57.5%, compared to models A and C, respectively). It also achieved higher performance for the subgroup of mobilized inpatients (Harrell's C-index: AUC 72.21% vs. 64.97% and 59.66%, compared to models A and C, respectively). Model B also performed better in predicting patients with incomplete colonoscopy due to inadequate bowel preparation (Harrell's C-index: AUC 74.23% vs. 69.07% and 52.76%, compared to models A and C, respectively).Conclusions Predictive model B outperforms its comparators in the prediction of inpatients with inadequate bowel preparation. This model is particularly advantageous when used to evaluate mobilized inpatients

Lumen-apposing metal stent through the meshes of duodenal metal stents for palliation of malignant jaundice

Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard procedure for malignant jaundice palliation; however, it can be challenging when a duodenal self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is already in place. Patients and methods The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of the placement of a lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS) through the mesh (TTM) of duodenal stents. The secondary aims were to evaluate clinical outcomes and adverse events (AEs) related to the procedures. Results Data from 23 patients (11 F and 12 M; mean age: 69.5 ± 11 years old) were collected. In 17 patients (73.9 %) TTM LAMS placement was performed as first intention, while in six patients (26.1 %) it was performed after a failed ERCP. Thirteen patients (56.5 %) underwent the procedure due to advanced pancreatic head neoplasia. One technical failure was experienced (4.3 %). The TTM LAMS placement led to a significant decrease in the serum levels of bilirubin, ALP, GGT, WBC and CRP. No cases of duodenal SEMS occlusion occurred and no other AEs were observed during the follow-up. Conclusions Concomitant malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction is a challenging condition. Palliation of jaundice using TTM LAMS in patients already treated with duodenal stent is associated to promising technical and clinical outcomes

Diagnostic Yield and Miss Rate of EndoRings in an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: the SMART (Study Methodology for ADR-Related Technology) Trial

Background and aims The add-on EndoRings has been claimed to improve adenoma detection at colonoscopy, but available data are inconsistent. When testing a new technology, parallel and crossover methodologies measure different outcomes, leaving uncertainty on their correspondence. Aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic yield and miss rate of the EndoRings for colorectal neoplasia. Methods Consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within organized screening program in 7 Italian centers, were randomized between a parallel (EndoRings or Standard) or a crossover (EndoRings/Standard or Standard/EndoRings) methodology. Outcomes measures were the detection rates of (advanced) adenomas (A-)ADR in the parallel arms and miss rate of adenomas in the crossover arms. Results Of 958 eligible subjects, 927 (317 EndoRings; 317 Standard; 142 EndoRings/Standard; 151 Standard/Endorings) were included in the final analysis. In the parallel arms (mean ADR: 51.3%; mean AADR: 25.4%), no difference between Standard and EndoRings was found for both ADR (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.95-1.28) and A-ADR (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.88-1.51), as well as for the mean number of adenomas and advanced adenomas per patient (EndoRings: 1.9±1.3 and 1.0±1.2; Standard 2.1±1.5 and 1.0±1.2; p=NS for both comparisons). In the crossover arms, no difference in miss rate for adenomas between EndoRings and Standard was found at per-polyp (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.97-2.10), as well as at per-patient analysis (24% vs 26%; p=0.76). Conclusions No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield and miss rate between EndoRings and Standard colonoscopy was detected in FIT+ patients. A clinically relevant correspondence between miss and detection rates was shown, supporting a cause-effect relationship

Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background & Aims Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. Methods In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Results In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98–1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87–1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02–1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12–1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20–1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. Conclusions Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance

Proton pump inhibitor-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: Current diagnosis & management

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is the mainstay of treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, up to 30% of patients with reflux symptoms report inadequate symptom control with PPI therapy. PPI-refractory GERD should be suspected when troublesome reflux symptoms persist after 4-week standard dosage and 8-week high-dosage PPI therapy. Impedance-pH monitoring represents the gold standard for investigating the mechanism(s) of PPI refractoriness and for distinguishing patients with reflux-related from those with reflux-unrelated PPI-refractory syndromes. New impedance parameters, namely the postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index and mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI), have significantly increased the diagnostic yield of impedance-pH monitoring. Currently, laparoscopic fundoplication in experienced hands represents a treatment modality of documented efficacy in patients with PPI-refractory GERD

Editorial: post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave in eosinophilic oesophagitis-more questions than answers? Authors' reply

No abstract availabl

Eosinophilic esophagitis: definition, epidemiology and quality of life

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a clinicopathological disease defined by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and 215 eosinophils/HPF after excluding other causes of esophageal eosinophilia. Increasing attention has been paid by clinicians and researchers after its first description in 1978. Many consensuses and guidelines have been issued over the years, as gastroenterologists did not reach an agreement on EoE definition, especially regarding the controversial responsiveness to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. Of note, recent evidence suggests that the incidence and prevalence of EoE have been increasing through the years: many risk factors have been advocated as possible reasons for this, although further studies are needed. In this brief review, we will first cover the history of EoE in the literature, with a focus on its varying definition throughout the years. Then, we will discuss EoE epidemiology, emphasizing potential risk factors explaining its increasing incidence and prevalence. Last, we will deal with the quality of life of adult and pediatric patients with EoE. (Cite this article as: Frazzoni L, Tolone S. Eosinophilic esophagitis: definition, epidemiology and quality of life. Minerva Gastroenterol 2022;68:60-8. DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5985.20.02798-1