Spechler, Stuart Jon

ABSTRACT Background Patients with erosive oesophagitis, and those with persistent symptomatic non‐erosive gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease, require long‐term maintenance treatment with acid‐suppressing agents. Aim To evaluate the safety of vonoprazan, a potassium‐competitive acid blocker, in an integrated analysis of data from clinical trials in adults. Methods We included 14 clinical trials of vonoprazan conducted in multiple countries. Mean duration of exposure in person‐years to vonoprazan ( n = 5318) was 2068, to comparators lansoprazole ( n = 1925) or esomeprazole ( n = 86) was 751, and to placebo ( n = 779) was 59. We report adverse events, serum gastrin, and liver enzyme levels as the main outcomes. Post‐marketing safety data from December 26, 2014 (date of commercialisation in Japan) to December 25, 2023, are also provided. Results Nasopharyngitis was the only adverse event reported by at least 5.0% of patients (6.94% vonoprazan, 5.07% proton pump inhibitor (PPI), 4.49% placebo). Incidence rates per 100 person‐years for serious adverse events were 10.39 for vonoprazan, 10.65 for PPIs, and 1.69 for placebo. One patient each on vonoprazan and lansoprazole was diagnosed with gastric cancer. Mean serum gastrin levels were higher on vonoprazan than lansoprazole but normalised by 4 weeks after discontinuation. Elevated liver enzyme levels were infrequent and of low magnitude with no differences between vonoprazan and PPIs. There were four deaths; none was considered related to study drug. Conclusions Vonoprazan was well tolerated. Its safety profile from both clinical trial and post‐marketing data were consistent and comparable to that of its PPI comparators with respect to treatment‐emergent adverse events.

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.

Summary Background Optimal ambulatory reflux monitoring methodology in symptomatic reflux patients continues to be debated. Aims To utilise published literature and expert opinion to develop recommendation statements addressing use of ambulatory reflux monitoring in clinical practice Methods The RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM) was utilised among 17 experts with discussion, revision and two rounds of ranking of recommendation statements. Ambulatory reflux monitoring protocol, methodology and thresholds ranked as appropriate by ≥80% of panellists met the criteria for appropriateness. Results Prolonged (96‐h recommended) wireless pH monitoring off proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was identified as the appropriate diagnostic tool to assess the need for acid suppression in patients with unproven gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and persisting typical reflux symptoms despite once‐daily PPI. Acid exposure time (AET) <4.0% on all days of monitoring with negative reflux‐symptom association excludes GERD and does not support ongoing PPI treatment. Conversely, AET >6.0% across ≥2 days is conclusive evidence for GERD and supports treatment for GERD, while AET >10% across ≥2 days identifies severe acid burden that supports escalation of anti‐reflux treatment. In previously proven GERD, impedance‐pH monitoring on PPI is helpful in defining refractory GERD and mechanisms of continued symptoms; the presence of <40 reflux events, AET <2.0% and a negative reflux‐symptom association does not support escalation of anti‐reflux treatment. In contrast, AET > 4.0% and positive reflux‐symptom association support escalation of anti‐reflux treatment, including use of invasive therapeutics. Conclusions Statements meeting appropriateness for average clinical care have been identified when utilising reflux monitoring in patients with typical reflux symptoms and PPI non‐response.

INTRODUCTION: Functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) panometry can evaluate esophageal motility in response to sustained esophageal distension at the time of sedated endoscopy. This study aimed to describe a classification of esophageal motility using FLIP panometry and evaluate it against high-resolution manometry (HRM) and Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0). METHODS: Five hundred thirty-nine adult patients who completed FLIP and HRM with a conclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis were included in the primary analysis. Thirty-five asymptomatic volunteers (“controls”) and 148 patients with an inconclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis or systemic sclerosis were also described. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening and the contractile response (CR) to distension (i.e., secondary peristalsis) were evaluated with a 16-cm FLIP during sedated endoscopy and analyzed using a customized software program. HRM was classified according to CCv4.0. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 156 patients (29%) had normal motility on FLIP panometry, defined by normal EGJ opening and a normal or borderline CR; 95% of these patients had normal motility or ineffective esophageal motility on HRM. Two hundred two patients (37%) had obstruction with weak CR, defined as reduced EGJ opening and absent CR or impaired/disordered CR, on FLIP panometry; 92% of these patients had a disorder of EGJ outflow per CCv4.0. DISCUSSION: Classifying esophageal motility in response to sustained distension with FLIP panometry parallels the swallow-associated motility evaluation provided with HRM and CCv4.0. Thus, FLIP panometry serves as a well-tolerated method that can complement, or in some cases be an alternative to HRM, for evaluating esophageal motility disorders.

Introduction Visceral obesity is associated with GERD and, traditionally, it has been assumed that visceral fat predisposes to GERD primarily by increasing intra‐abdominal pressure. However, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of esophageal biopsies from obese individuals without GERD exhibit dilated intercellular spaces (DIS) and, in earlier studies, we found that substances secreted by mature adipocytes in visceral fat from obese patients impair esophageal epithelial barrier function, induce DIS and reduce transepithelial resistance (TER). There is a fat pad at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) that is in intimate contact with the distal esophagus. We now explore whether whole GEJ fat tissue of obese individuals secretes substances that impair esophageal barrier function. Methods We obtained GEJ fat from 3 obese (BMI 46, 60, 74) and 3 non‐obese (BMI 24, 26, 27) patients having foregut surgery. Human esophageal squamous cells were seeded into transwells and grown to confluence for 3 days. On day 4, cells were raised to an air‐liquid interface (ALI) to allow for differentiation, stratification, and esophageal barrier formation. ALI cultures were exposed to conditioned media (CM) from GEJ fat or to control medium beginning at day 4. TER was measured on days 4, 6, and 8 using the EVOM2 Epithelial Volt/Ohm Meter. On day 8, ALI cultures were stained with H&E and Ki‐67 and imaged; barrier permeability was assessed by a biotinylation reagent applied to the ALI surface. TEM of ALIs and of esophageal biopsies from 2 non‐obese and 2 obese patients without GERD were assessed. Results CM from all 3 obese patients significantly reduced TER on days 6 and 8; CM from 2 non‐obese patients did not reduce TER whereas CM from 1 non‐obese patient induced a slight reduction in TER at day 8 (Table 1). Marked DIS were found only in ALI cultures grown with CM from obese patients. In ALIs grown with CM from non‐obese patients, the biotinylation reagent stopped at the superficial layers of esophageal cells. In contrast, the biotinylation reagent diffused through all cell layers in ALIs grown with obese patient CM. Increases in basaloid cells and in Ki‐67 were found in ALIs grown with obese patient CM. TEMs of ALIs grown with non‐obese patient CM demonstrated well‐oriented cell‐cell junctions similar to TEMs of non‐obese patient esophageal biopsies. In contrast, ALIs grown with obese patient CM demonstrated cell‐cell junctional structures that were disorganized, aggregated, and floating within the DIS, similar in appearance to TEMs of the obese patients’ esophageal biopsies. Conclusion Substances produced by GEJ fat of obese patients impair esophageal epithelial barrier integrity, cause basal cell hyperplasia and DIS, and disrupt intercellular connections. These findings in ALI cultures recapitulate abnormalities seen by TEM in esophageal biopsies of obese patients.

AbstractBackgroundCompetent interpretation of esophageal high‐resolution manometry (HRM) is integral to a quality study. Currently, methods to assess physician competency for the interpretation of esophageal HRM do not exist. The aim of this study was to use formal techniques to (i) develop an HRM interpretation exam, and (ii) establish minimum competence benchmarks for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level.MethodsA total of 29 physicians from 8 academic centers participated in the study: 9 content experts separated into 2 study groups—expert test‐takers (n=7) and judges (n=2), and 20 HRM inexperienced trainees (“trainee test‐taker”; n=20). We designed the HRM interpretation exam based on expert consensus. Expert and trainee test‐takers (n=27) completed the exam. According to the modified Angoff method, the judges reviewed the test‐taker performance and established minimum competency cut scores for HRM interpretation skills.Key ResultsThe HRM interpretation exam consists of 22 HRM cases with 8 HRM interpretation skills per case: identification of pressure inversion point, hiatal hernia >3 cm, integrated relaxation pressure, distal contractile integral, distal latency, peristaltic integrity, pressurization pattern, and diagnosis. Based on the modified Angoff method, minimum cut scores for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level ranged from 65–80%, 85–90% (with the exception of peristaltic integrity), and 90–95%, respectively.Conclusions & InferencesUsing a formal standard setting technique, we established minimum cut scores for eight HRM interpretation skills across interpreter levels. This examination and associated cut scores can be applied in clinical practice to judge competency.

Consensus diagnostic recommendations to distinguish GORD from eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) by response to a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) unexpectedly uncovered an entity called ‘PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia’ (PPI-REE). PPI-REE refers to patients with clinical and histological features of EoE that remit with PPI treatment. Recent and evolving evidence, mostly from adults, shows that patients with PPI-REE and patients with EoE at baseline are clinically, endoscopically and histologically indistinguishable and have a significant overlap in terms of features of Th2 immune-mediated inflammation and gene expression. Furthermore, PPI therapy restores oesophageal mucosal integrity, reduces Th2 inflammation and reverses the abnormal gene expression signature in patients with PPI-REE, similar to the effects of topical steroids in patients with EoE. Additionally, recent series have reported that patients with EoE responsive to diet/topical steroids may also achieve remission on PPI therapy. This mounting evidence supports the concept that PPI-REE represents a continuum of the same immunological mechanisms that underlie EoE. Accordingly, it seems counterintuitive to differentiate PPI-REE from EoE based on a differential response to PPI therapy when their phenotypic, molecular, mechanistic and therapeutic features cannot be reliably distinguished. For patients with symptoms and histological features of EoE, it is reasonable to consider PPI therapy not as a diagnostic test, but as a therapeutic agent. Due to its safety profile, ease of administration and high response rates (up to 50%), PPI can be considered a first-line treatment before diet and topical steroids. The reasons why some patients with EoE respond to PPI, while others do not, remain to be elucidated.