Clarke, J

ABSTRACT Introduction Chronic gastroduodenal disorders remain challenging to manage, and new diagnostic approaches are needed to better delineate underlying causes and guide therapeutic decisions. Body Surface Gastric Mapping (BSGM) technologies combine high‐resolution gastric myoelectrical activity measurements with symptom and psychological profiling to provide mechanistic insights into gastric motor and sensory dysfunction. An International Working Group convened to derive the first consensus classification of BSGM phenotypes (the “Auckland Classification”). Methods A Technical Group conducted a systematic literature and clinical database review to identify objective test biomarkers and candidate disease mechanisms. Evidence was synthesized across 50 studies (primarily in gastroparesis, chronic nausea and vomiting, and functional dyspepsia), and BSGM phenotypes were mapped to existing treatment guidelines. Subsequently, iterative review and development of consensus was performed by a Consensus Group composed of international clinical experts familiar with BSGM. Eleven statements underlying the classification were then derived and circulated as a final survey to establish agreement. Results Six BSGM phenotypes were endorsed: three defined by myoelectrical abnormalities (Dysrhythmic, High Frequency, and Low Meal Response) and three by characteristic symptom associations (Sensorimotor, Continuous, and Delayed Onset Symptoms). Published studies plausibly linked these phenotypes to mechanisms including interstitial cell of Cajal depletion, vagal impairment, hypomotility, visceral hypersensitivity, gut‐brain dysregulation, and small bowel dysfunction. Phenotypes were also mapped to existing mechanism‐based treatment guidelines. Ten out of the eleven statements had > 80% agreement. Conclusions The Auckland Classification, derived by international consensus, presents a structured framework for BSGM‐defined patient phenotypes. Evidence and mechanism‐based treatment options are suggested for each phenotype to provide a foundation for research, further validation, and a pathway for integrating BSGM into clinical care.

Background Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) occurs in most (∼75%) patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and significantly impacts quality of life. Current recommendations lack depth and therefore our aim was to produce practical, consensus-based recommendations for refractory SSc-related GORD. Methods An international, multidisciplinary steering board (SB) was assembled (n=19) consisting of clinicians (rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, gastrointestinal surgeons), an expert methodologist and patient representation. After reviewing the latest definitions of GORD and refractory GORD in the published literature, the SB collectively devised a practical definition of SSc refractory-GORD. Initial recommendations were drafted/agreed on by the SB based on review of the existing guidelines, published literature and expert opinion. Two online voting rounds were conducted to determine whether items should be accepted, with >75% and >60% SB agreement required for first and second rounds, respectively. Results There was a good response/completion rate for the initial (74%) and final (84%) voting rounds. The SB agreed on all 36 draft recommendations. The majority (n=34) were approved in the first round. Recommendations were organised according to the following categories: general approach to management (n=5), assessment (n=6), non-pharmacological (n=2) and pharmacological (n=10) management, endoscopic and surgical treatment (n=3), and special circumstances including refractory GORD and SSc-interstitial lung disease (n=3), myositis and SSc connective tissue disease-overlap (n=3) and perilung transplant (n=4). Conclusion The group of experts has drafted extended and practical recommendations for the management of SSc refractory-GORD. The necessity of a structured approach and a patient assessment is highlighted in order to provide a multidisciplinary approach to the tailored choice of the treatment. Our work also has also identified significant unmet needs and has provided a research agenda to advance the field.

ABSTRACT Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of reflux disease were the central focus of the inaugural Gatherings in Esophagology (GiE), which convened experts across gastroenterology, surgery, otolaryngology, pulmonology, and basic research. The sessions highlighted innovations in reflux monitoring—including high‐resolution manometry, wireless pH monitoring, and novel salivary biomarkers—while critically evaluating their diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility. Presentations explored the limitations of traditional proton‐pump inhibitor therapy, the emergence of potassium‐competitive acid blockers as a new class of acid suppressants, and the evolving role of adjunctive treatments such as mucosal protectants, reflux reducers, and neuromodulators for refractory symptoms. The discourse extended to advanced interventional procedures, including transoral incisionless fundoplication, magnetic sphincter augmentation, and the RefluxStop device, with discussion of patient selection, efficacy, and complication management. Discussants emphasized the pathophysiology and management of extraesophageal manifestations of reflux, the interplay between reflux and pulmonary disease, and the diagnostic challenges in pediatric populations. The meeting also addressed the integration of behavioral therapies, the role of the microbiome, and the application of artificial intelligence in reflux diagnostics. Collectively, these insights underscore a shift toward precision medicine in reflux disease, emphasizing individualized diagnostic strategies and tailored therapeutic approaches to improve patient outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic gastroduodenal disorders are highly prevalent and encompass heterogeneous pathophysiology. Autonomic dysfunction may contribute, but its relative contribution to disease pathophysiology and symptoms is unclear. This study aimed to clarify the contributions of autonomic dysfunction in gastroduodenal disorders and symptom associations using multimodal testing, hypothesizing that distinct disorder subgroups would be revealed. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study included 80 patients with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms. Participants underwent expert clinician-led autonomic evaluation, body surface gastric mapping (BSGM; Gastric Alimetry, New Zealand), and gastric emptying scintigraphy testing. BSGM phenotyping, gastric emptying cutoffs, and autonomic criteria followed standard criteria. RESULTS: Gastroparesis was diagnosed in 27 (33.8%) patients. Autonomic dysfunction was present in 21 (26.3%) patients, and abnormal BSGM in 20 (25%). Autonomic dysfunction and abnormal BSGM were both more prevalent in gastroparesis (51.9% vs 13.2%, P = 0.001; and 44.4% vs 15.1%, P = 0.005, respectively). However, these diagnoses tended not to overlap, with patients having autonomic dysfunction generally exhibiting normal BSGM tests. Autonomic dysfunction independently predicted delayed gastric emptying (OR 13.8, P < 0.001) and was associated with earlier meal responses (higher meal response ratio, P = 0.04) and worse postprandial distress symptoms ( P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Autonomic dysfunction independently predicted delayed gastric emptying and revealed a gastroparesis mechanism distinct from gastric myoelectrical impairment. Autonomic dysfunction altered the postprandial gastric motor response and was associated with a greater symptom burden. Multimodal physiological testing including autonomic profiling reveals distinct mechanistic subgroups in patients with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms.

Goals: This study aimed to assess perspectives and practices among expert gastroenterologists regarding the screening, diagnosis, and management of BE. Background: Significant variability in the management of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) persists among physicians despite the development and dissemination of several clinical practice guidelines. Study: An online survey was conducted with 38 expert gastroenterologists specializing in BE management. The 38-question survey evaluated demographics, medical management, and attitudes toward endoscopic treatment, with responses analyzed for trends and variations. Results: Of the 38 experts, 34 (89%) responded. Respondents were primarily male (85%), with 82% affiliated with academic hospitals and 53% clinically focused on BE. Half discussed BE risks during initial consultations for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Most (61.8%) agreed BE should be considered in women with chronic GERD, and 88.2% regularly used narrow-band imaging (NBI). However, 44% were neutral or disagreed with diagnosing BE based solely on community gastroenterologist biopsies, and acceptance of Wide-Area Transepithelial Sampling with 3D Analysis (WATS-3D) for Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis and surveillance was limited. Fifty-three percent recommended ablation for nondysplastic BE. Fifty-two percent recommended indefinite daily PPI therapy after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CEIM), regardless of symptoms. When encountering cardia intestinal metaplasia after endoscopic eradication, 38% recommended ablation, while 47% continued surveillance. Conclusion: This study highlights substantial variations in the management of BE among expert gastroenterologists, despite the existence of updated guidelines. Identifying these discrepancies is crucial for optimizing care. Further efforts are needed to standardize practices and enhance the implementation of evidence-based guidelines in clinical settings.

Goals: Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). Background: IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging. Study: Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process. Results: All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2’s virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient’s presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning. Conclusion: Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.

AbstractBackgroundQuestion prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease‐specific questions, intended to encourage question‐asking by patients and enhance patient‐physician communication. To date, a dysphagia‐specific QPL has not been developed for patients with esophageal dysphagia symptoms. We aim to develop a dysphagia‐specific QPL incorporating both esophageal expert and patient perspectives, applying rigorous methodology.MethodsThe QPL content was generated applying a two‐round modified Delphi (RAND/UCLA) method among 11 experts. In round one, experts provided five answers to the prompts: “What general questions should patients ask when being seen for dysphagia?” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking but, given my experience, I believe they should be asking?” In round two, experts rated proposed questions on a 5‐point Likert scale. Responses rated as “essential” or “important”, determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥4.0, were accepted for inclusion. Subsequently, 20 patients from Stanford Health Care were enrolled to modify the preliminary QPL, to incorporate their perspectives and opinions. Patients independently rated questions applying the same 5‐point Likert scale. At the end, patients were encouraged to propose additional questions to incorporate into the QPL by open‐endedly asking “Are there questions we didn't ask, that you think we should?”Key ResultsEleven experts participated in both voting rounds. Of 85 questions generated from round one, 60 (70.6%) were accepted for inclusion, meeting a median value of ≥4.0. Questions were combined to reduce redundancy, narrowing down to 44 questions. Questions were categorized into the following six themes: 1. “What is causing my dysphagia?”; 2. “Associated symptoms”; 3. “Testing for dysphagia”; 4. “Lifestyle modifications”; 5. “Treatment for dysphagia”; and 6. “Prognosis”. The largest number of questions covered “What is causing my dysphagia” (27.3%). Twenty patients participated and modified the QPL. Of the 44 questions experts agreed were important, only 30 questions (68.2%) were accepted for inclusion. Six patients proposed 10 additional questions and after incorporating the suggested questions, the final dysphagia‐specific QPL created by esophageal experts and modified by patients consisted of 40 questions.Conclusions & InferencesIncorporating expert and patient perspectives, we developed a dysphagia‐specific QPL to enhance patient‐physician communication. Our study highlights importance of incorporating patient perspective when developing such a communication tool. Further studies will measure the impact of this communication tool on patient engagement.

INTRODUCTION: High-resolution manometry (HRM) and functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) are primary and/or complementary diagnostic tools for the evaluation of esophageal motility. We aimed to assess the interrater agreement and accuracy of HRM and FLIP interpretations. METHODS: Esophageal motility specialists from multiple institutions completed the interpretation of 40 consecutive HRM and 40 FLIP studies. Interrater agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous variables and Fleiss' κ statistics for nominal variables. Accuracies of rater interpretation were assessed using the consensus of 3 experienced raters as the reference standard. RESULTS: Fifteen raters completed the HRM and FLIP studies. An excellent interrater agreement was seen in supine median integral relaxation pressure (ICC 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95–0.98), and a good agreement was seen with the assessment of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow, peristalsis, and assignment of a Chicago Classification version 4.0 diagnosis using HRM (κ = 0.71, 0.75, and 0.70, respectively). An excellent interrater agreement for EGJ distensibility index and maximum diameter (0.91 [0.90–0.94], 0.92 [0.89–0.95]) was seen, and a moderate-to-good agreement was seen in the assignment of EGJ opening classification, contractile response pattern, and motility classification (κ = 0.68, 0.56, and 0.59, respectively) on FLIP. Rater accuracy for Chicago Classification version 4.0 diagnosis on HRM was 82% (95% confidence interval 78%–84%) and for motility diagnosis on FLIP Panometry was 78% (95% confidence interval 72%–81%). DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates high levels of interrater agreement and accuracy in the interpretation of HRM and FLIP metrics and moderate-to-high levels for motility classification in FLIP, supporting the use of these approaches for primary or complementary evaluation of esophageal motility disorders.

Background Methods: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?” Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as “essential” or “important” were included in Barrett’s esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). Results: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. Conclusions: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.