Tack, Jan

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.

Clinical history, questionnaire data and response to antisecretory therapy are insufficient to make a conclusive diagnosis of GERD in isolation, but are of value in determining need for further investigation. Conclusive evidence for reflux on oesophageal testing include advanced grade erosive oesophagitis (LA grades C and D), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal oesophageal acid exposure time (AET) >6% on ambulatory pH or pH-impedance monitoring. A normal endoscopy does not exclude GERD, but provides supportive evidence refuting GERD in conjunction with distal AET <4% and <40 reflux episodes on pH-impedance monitoring off proton pump inhibitors. Reflux-symptom association on ambulatory reflux monitoring provides supportive evidence for reflux triggered symptoms, and may predict a better treatment outcome when present. When endoscopy and pH or pH-impedance monitoring are inconclusive, adjunctive evidence from biopsy findings (histopathology scores, dilated intercellular spaces), motor evaluation (hypotensive lower oesophageal sphincter, hiatus hernia and oesophageal body hypomotility on high-resolution manometry) and novel impedance metrics (baseline impedance, postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index) can add confidence for a GERD diagnosis; however, diagnosis cannot be based on these findings alone. An assessment of anatomy, motor function, reflux burden and symptomatic phenotype will therefore help direct management. Future GERD management strategies should focus on defining individual patient phenotypes based on the level of refluxate exposure, mechanism of reflux, efficacy of clearance, underlying anatomy of the oesophagogastric junction and psychometrics defining symptomatic presentations.

Background and aims The functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) are extremely common conditions associated with a considerable personal, social and health economic burden. Managing FGIDs in clinical practice is challenging because of the uncertainty of symptom-based diagnosis, the high frequency of overlap between these conditions and the limited efficacy of available therapies. It has often been argued that successful drug development and management of FGIDs requires knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology. Numerous and highly variable candidate pathophysiological mechanisms have been implicated in the generation of FGID symptoms, but there is no current consensus on how to best define the relevance of these disturbances. Methods A group of international experts on FGIDs developed plausibility criteria that should be fulfilled by relevant pathophysiological mechanisms in FGIDs. Results Five criteria are proposed: (1) the presence of the abnormality in a subset of patients, (2) temporal association between proposed mechanism and symptom(s), (3) correlation between the level of impairment of the mechanism and symptom(s), (4) induction of the symptom(s) by provoking the pathophysiological abnormality in healthy subjects and (5) treatment response by a therapy specifically correcting the underlying disorder or congruent natural history of symptoms and dysfunction in the absence of specific therapy. Based on strength of evidence for these five criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, a plausibility score can be calculated for each mechanism. Conclusion Evaluation of the strength of evidence for candidate pathophysiological abnormalities fulfilling these five plausibility criteria will help to identify the most relevant mechanisms to target for novel diagnostic approaches and for the development of new therapies.

AbstractBackgroundAn international group of experts evaluated and revised recommendations for ambulatory reflux monitoring for the diagnosis of gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD).MethodsLiterature search was focused on indications and technical recommendations for GERD testing and phenotypes definitions. Statements were proposed and discussed during several structured meetings.Key ResultsReflux testing should be performed after cessation of acid suppressive medication in patients with a low likelihood of GERD. In this setting, testing can be either catheter‐based or wireless pH‐monitoring or pH‐impedance monitoring. In patients with a high probability of GERD (esophagitis grade C and D, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, peptic stricture, previous positive pH monitoring) and persistent symptoms, pH‐impedance monitoring should be performed on treatment. Recommendations are provided for data acquisition and analysis. Esophageal acid exposure is considered as pathological if acid exposure time (AET) is greater than 6% on pH testing. Number of reflux episodes and baseline impedance are exploratory metrics that may complement AET. Positive symptom reflux association is defined as symptom index (SI) >50% or symptom association probability (SAP) >95%. A positive symptom‐reflux association in the absence of pathological AET defines hypersensitivity to reflux.Conclusions and InferencesThe consensus group determined that grade C or D esophagitis, peptic stricture, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, and esophageal acid exposure greater >6% are sufficient to define pathological GERD. Further testing should be considered when none of these criteria are fulfilled.

AbstractBackgroundPrucalopride is a high‐affinity 5‐HT4 receptor agonist for the treatment of chronic constipation. The aims of this study were to investigate the relationship between health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms of constipation, and to assess the response of HRQoL to treatment using integrated data from three phase III trials of prucalopride.MethodsThis was an integrated analysis of data from three pivotal multicenter, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00488137, NCT00483886 and NCT00485940). Relationships were investigated between Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC‐QOL) scores, Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC‐SYM) scores, bowel movement frequency (assessed using daily diaries), and treatment.Key ResultsPatients treated with prucalopride 2 mg (n = 659) and placebo (n = 661) were included in the analysis. An improvement in PAC‐SYM scores correlated well with an improvement in PAC‐QOL overall score (r = 0.711) and satisfaction subscale score (r = 0.589). After 12 weeks, PAC‐QOL overall score and satisfaction subscale score significantly (p < 0.001) improved by ≥1 point (clinically relevant) in 36.5% and 44.1% of patients treated with prucalopride, compared with 18.5% and 22.4% with placebo respectively. Moreover, 39.0% of patients with an improvement in satisfaction of ≥1 point achieved ≥3 spontaneous complete bowel movements/week, compared with 7.4% of those with no improvement in satisfaction (<1 point).Conclusions & InferencesImprovements in PAC‐QOL overall score and satisfaction score were associated with improvements in symptoms of chronic constipation. Compared with placebo, treatment with prucalopride significantly improved HRQoL.

BackgroundPrucalopride is a selective, high‐affinity, 5‐hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) type 4 (5‐HT4) receptor agonist with gastrointestinal prokinetic activities. This integrated analysis of data from three double‐blind phase III trials (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00488137, NCT00483886, NCT00485940) compared the efficacy and safety of prucalopride 2 mg once daily in women with chronic constipation [≤2 spontaneous complete bowel movements (SCBM) per week] in whom laxatives had failed to provide adequate relief with that in the all‐patient (AP) population of men and women with chronic constipation who had or had not obtained relief from laxatives.MethodsPatients received prucalopride 2 mg or placebo once‐daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy endpoints included an average of ≥3 SCBM/week and average increases of ≥1 SCBM/week and ≥1 SBM/week over this period. A response on any of these three endpoints was considered to be clinically relevant, and an overall response rate was derived for patients satisfying any of these endpoints.ResultsOf the AP population (n = 1318), 936 were women in whom laxatives had failed to provide adequate relief (WLF). More patients on prucalopride 2 mg than placebo had an average of ≥3 SCBM/week (AP 24.4 vs 11.0%; WLF 24.7 vs 9.2%), an average increase of ≥1 SCBM/week (AP 43.5 vs 24.8%; WLF 44.2 vs 22.6%), and an average increase of ≥1 SBM/week (AP 66.7 vs 38.4%; WLF 68.3 vs 37.0%) (all p < 0.001). Significant differences from placebo were evident in week 1 and sustained thereafter. Overall response rates in the AP and WLF populations, respectively, were 69.7 and 71.0% with prucalopride 2 mg and 44.5 and 41.6% with placebo (p < 0.001). Early (weeks 1–4) response predicted ultimate response over time. Common (>10%) adverse events were abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea, and headache.ConclusionsPrucalopride 2 mg once daily is effective in WLF. The efficacy and safety profile observed in WLF was similar to that in the total evaluated population of patients with chronic constipation who had or had not obtained adequate relief from laxatives.

Summary Background The nonselective 5‐ HT 4 receptor agonists, cisapride and tegaserod have been associated with cardiovascular adverse events ( AEs ). Aim To perform a systematic review of the safety profile, particularly cardiovascular, of 5‐ HT 4 agonists developed for gastrointestinal disorders, and a nonsystematic summary of their pharmacology and clinical efficacy. Methods Articles reporting data on cisapride, clebopride, prucalopride, mosapride, renzapride, tegaserod, TD ‐5108 (velusetrag) and ATI ‐7505 (naronapride) were identified through a systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and Toxfile. Abstracts from UEGW 2006–2008 and DDW 2008–2010 were searched for these drug names, and pharmaceutical companies approached to provide unpublished data. Results Retrieved articles on pharmacokinetics, human pharmacodynamics and clinical data with these 5‐ HT 4 agonists, are reviewed and summarised nonsystematically. Articles relating to cardiac safety and tolerability of these agents, including any relevant case reports, are reported systematically. Two nonselective 5‐ HT 4 agonists had reports of cardiovascular AEs : cisapride ( QT prolongation) and tegaserod (ischaemia). Interactions with, respectively, the hERG cardiac potassium channel and 5‐ HT 1 receptor subtypes have been suggested to account for these effects. No cardiovascular safety concerns were reported for the newer, selective 5‐ HT 4 agonists prucalopride, velusetrag, naronapride, or for nonselective 5‐HT 4 agonists with no hERG or 5‐ HT 1 affinity (renzapride, clebopride, mosapride). Conclusions 5‐ HT 4 agonists for GI disorders differ in chemical structure and selectivity for 5‐ HT 4 receptors. Selectivity for 5‐ HT 4 over non‐5‐ HT 4 receptors may influence the agent's safety and overall risk–benefit profile. Based on available evidence, highly selective 5‐ HT 4 agonists may offer improved safety to treat patients with impaired GI motility.