When is proton pump inhibitor use appropriate?

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is commonly used outside of Food and Drug Administration indication for a broad range of conditions such as extra-esophageal reflux and PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia. While this may be appropriate in some scenarios, it has also resulted in widespread inappropriate PPI use. At the same time, data suggesting adverse effects of long-term PPI therapy are multiplying, albeit mainly from low quality studies. The systematic review by Scarpignato et al. (BMC Med 14:179, 2016) addresses this dilemma with a comprehensive analysis of the risks and benefits of PPI use. The authors concluded that, while PPIs are highly efficacious in erosive acid-peptic disorders, efficacy is not equaled in other conditions. In some instances, they found no supportive evidence of benefit. With respect to side effects, they indicated that the questionable harms associated with PPI therapy do not outweigh the benefits afforded by appropriate PPI use. However, inappropriate PPI use results in increased healthcare costs and unnecessary exposure to potential adverse effects. Ideally, PPI therapy should be personalized, based on indication, effectiveness, patient preference, and risk assessment.Please see related article: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0718-z

Emerging dilemmas in the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common, but less so than widely reported because of inconsistencies in definition. In clinical practice, the diagnosis is usually based on a symptom assessment without testing, and the extent of diagnostic testing pursued should be limited to that which guides management or which protects the patient from the risks of a potentially morbid treatment or an undetected early (or imminent) esophageal adenocarcinoma or which does both. When testing is pursued, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is the most useful initial diagnostic test because it evaluates for the major potential morbidities (Barrett’s, stricture, and cancer) associated with GERD and facilitates the identification of some alternative diagnostic possibilities such as eosinophilic esophagitis. However, endoscopy is insensitive for diagnosing GERD because most patients with GERD have non-erosive reflux disease, a persistent diagnostic dilemma. Although many studies have tried to objectify the diagnosis of GERD with improved technology, this is ultimately a pragmatic diagnosis based on response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, and, in the end, response to PPI therapy becomes the major indication for continued PPI therapy. Conversely, in the absence of objective criteria for GERD and the absence of apparent clinical benefit, PPI therapy is not indicated and should be discontinued. PPIs are well tolerated and safe, but nothing is perfectly safe, and in the absence of measurable benefit, even a miniscule risk dominates the risk-benefit assessment

Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0©

Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high-resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty-two diverse international experts separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two-years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ

Video-based Assessments of Colonoscopy Inspection Quality Correlate with Quality Metrics and Highlight Areas for Improvement

Background & Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) vary significantly among colonoscopists. Colonoscopy inspection quality (CIQ) is the quality with which a colonoscopist inspects for polyps and may explain some of this variation. We aimed to determine the relationship between CIQ and historical ADRs and SDRs in a cohort of colonoscopists and assess whether there is variation in CIQ components (fold examination, cleaning, and luminal distension) among colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study to assess CIQ among 17 high-volume colonoscopists at an academic medical center. Over 6 weeks, we video-recorded >28 colonoscopies per colonoscopist and randomly selected 7 colonoscopies per colonoscopist for evaluation. Six raters graded CIQ using an established scale, with a maximum whole colon score of 75. Results We evaluated 119 colonoscopies. The median whole-colon CIQ score was 50.1/75. Whole-colon CIQ score (r=0.71; P<.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.74; cleaning r=0.67; distension r=0.77; all P<.01) correlated with ADR. Proximal colon CIQ score (r=0.67; P<.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.71; cleaning r=0.62; distension r=0.65; all P<.05) correlated with SDR. CIQ component scores differed significantly between colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs for most of the CIQ skills. Conclusion In a prospective observational study, we found CIQ and CIQ components to correlate with ADR and SDR. Colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs differ in their performance of the 3 CIQ components—specific, actionable feedback might improve colonoscopy technique

Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy versus Pneumatic Dilation in Achalasia: Dissecting the Randomized Controlled Trial.

Ponds FA, Fockens P, Lei A, et al. Effect of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs pneumatic dilation on symptom severity and treatment outcomes among treatment-naive patients with achalasia