Miriel, Laura

ABSTRACT Background Patients with gastroparesis (Gp) can have a variety of symptoms. Apart from use of prokinetics, symptomatic therapies for the predominant symptom (PrS) are used. Aims (1) To classify Gp patients based on their PrS; (2) To determine differences in Gp symptoms, gastric emptying (GE), quality of life (QOL), treatments, and symptom improvement among Gp patients with different PrS. Methods Gp patients were enrolled in a multicenter registry and followed for 96‐weeks. Patients recorded their PrS and completed questionnaires assessing symptoms and QOL at enrollment and at follow up visits. Results Of 1013 Gp patients (361 diabetic, 607 idiopathic, 45 post‐fundoplication), the PrS were nausea (31%), vomiting (20%), abdominal pain (20%), bloating (9%), fullness (4%), GERD (4%), constipation (3%). Abdominal pain was more often a PrS in idiopathics, whereas vomiting was more often a PrS in diabetics. QOL scores were lower in the abdominal pain PrS group. PrS was associated with greater use of directed symptomatic treatment (antiemetic agents and gastric electrical stimulation for nausea and vomiting, prokinetic agents for vomiting and fullness, and constipation medications for constipation). Of 555 patients followed over 48 weeks, GCSI improved by ≥ 1 in 26% overall, more often in patients with initial PrS of nausea (32%) and bloating (35%) and less often for initial PrS of fullness (13%) or abdominal pain (15%). Conclusions In Gp patients, the most common PrS were nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. PrS is associated with QOL, treatments utilized, and patient outcomes. Thus, the PrS of a patient with Gp provides useful information about their present condition and future outcome.

IMD0 and WLST were assessed for their clinical utility in assessing patients with symptoms of gastroparesis. Low IMD0 is associated with less gastric retention and less heartburn. Volume of water consumed during WLST, while associated with IMD0, has associations with early satiety, postprandial fullness, loss of appetite, and nausea. IMD0 and WLST appear to overlap somewhat in their assessment of gastric physiology in adults with symptoms of gastroparesis but relate to different dyspeptic symptoms.

Summary Background Patients with gastroparesis and related disorders have symptoms including early satiety, postprandial fullness and bloating. Buspirone, a 5‐HT 1 receptor agonist, may improve fundic accommodation. Aim To determine if buspirone treatment improves early satiety and postprandial fullness in patients with symptoms of gastroparesis. Methods This 4‐week multi‐centre clinical trial randomised patients with symptoms of gastroparesis and moderate‐to‐severe symptoms of fullness (Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index [GCSI] early satiety/postprandial fullness subscore [ES/PPF]) to buspirone (10 mg orally) or placebo three times per day. The primary outcome was a change in the ES/PPF from baseline to 4 weeks. The primary analysis was per protocol intention‐to‐treat ANCOVA of between‐group baseline vs. 4‐week differences (DoD) in ES/PPF adjusted for baseline ES/PPF. Results are reported using both nominal and Bonferroni (BF) p values. Results and conclusions Ninety‐six patients (47 buspirone, 49 placeboes; 92% female, 50% delayed gastric emptying, 39% diabetic) were enrolled. There was no between‐groups difference in the 4‐week ES/PPF primary outcome: −1.16 ± 1.25 (SD) on buspirone vs −1.03 ± 1.29 (SD) on placebo (mean DoD: −0.11 [95% CI: −0.68, 0.45]; p = 0.69). Buspirone performed better than placebo in patients with severe‐to‐very severe bloating at baseline compared to patients with none to moderate: (ES/PPF DoD = −0.65 vs. 1.58, p TX*GROUP = 0.003; p BF = 0.07). Among individual GCSI symptoms, only bloating appeared to improve with buspirone vs. placebo. Conclusions Patients with moderate‐to‐severe early satiety/postprandial fullness and other symptoms of gastroparesis did not benefit from buspirone treatment to improve the ES/PPF primary outcome compared with placebo. There was a suggestion of the benefit of buspirone in patients with more severe bloating. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0358714285.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with gastroparesis (Gp) may need enteral nutrition (EN) or exclusive parenteral nutrition (PN). Among patients with Gp, we aimed to (1) identify the frequency of EN and exclusive PN use and (2) explore characteristics of patients using EN and/or exclusive PN compared with those using oral nutrition (ON), including changes over 48 weeks.MethodsPatients with Gp underwent history and physical examination, gastric emptying scintigraphy, water load satiety testing (WLST), and questionnaires assessing gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life (QOL). Patients were observed 48 weeks.ResultsOf 971 patients with Gp (idiopathic, 579; diabetic, 336; post–Nissen fundoplication, 51), 939 (96.7%) were using ON only, 14 (1.4%) using exclusive PN, and 18 (1.9%) using EN. Compared with patients receiving ON, patients receiving exclusive PN and/or EN were younger, had lower body mass index, and had greater symptom severity. Patients receiving exclusive PN and/or EN had lower physical QOL but not mental QOL or Gp‐related QOL scores. Patients receiving exclusive PN and/or EN ingested less water during WLST but did not have worse gastric emptying. Of those who had been receiving exclusive PN and/or EN, 50% and 25%, respectively, resumed ON at 48‐week follow‐up.ConclusionsThis study describes patients with Gp requiring exclusive PN and/or EN for nutrition support, who represent a small (3.3%) but important subset of patients with Gp. Unique clinical and physiological parameters are associated with this subset and provide insight into the use of nutrition support in Gp.

Patients with delayed and normal gastric emptying (GE) had similar symptom profiles during gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES). Idiopathic patients with symptoms of gastroparesis had less gastric retention by GES; but more symptoms after GES meal and after water load satiety test (WLST) compared with diabetic patients. In patients with symptoms of gastroparesis, symptoms after WLST increased with decreasing water consumption. Early satiety and loss of appetite were associated with decreased water consumption during WLST. Thus, impaired accommodation and perhaps visceral hypersensitivity are important in explaining postprandial symptoms in gastroparesis.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with gastroparesis (GP) and functional dyspepsia (FD) have similar symptoms, but the pathophysiology of postprandial symptoms remains uncertain.AimsTo compare symptoms and gastric myoelectrical activity (GMA) after liquid and solid test meals in patients with GP and FD.MethodsPatients enrolled in the Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium Registry were studied. Clinical characteristics were measured with standard questionnaires. GP was determined by 4‐h solid‐phase gastric scintigraphy. GMA was measured using electrogastrography before and after ingestion of a water load or nutrient bar on separate days. Symptoms were measured on visual analog scales. GMA responses to the water load for individual patients were also determined.Results284 patients with GP and 113 with FD were identified who ingested both test meals. Patients with GP and FD had similar maximal tolerated volumes of water [mean (SD) 378 (218) ml vs. 402 (226) ml,p = 0.23] and reported similar intensity of fullness, nausea, bloating, and abdominal discomfort after the test meals. Twenty‐six percent and 19% of the patients with GP and FD, respectively, ingested subthreshold (<238 ml) volumes of water (p = 0.15). Gastric dysrhythmias were recorded in 66% of the GP and 65% of the FD patients after the water load. Symptoms and GMA were similar in both groups after ingestion of the nutrient bar.ConclusionThe similarity in GMA responses and symptoms after ingestion of solid or liquid test meals suggests GP and FD are closely related gastric neuromuscular disorders.

AbstractBackgroundAutoimmunity may play a role in the pathogenesis of gastroparesis in a subset of patients. Antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing is often used to screen for autoimmune disorders.Aims1) Determine prevalence of a positive ANA in patients with gastroparesis; 2) Describe characteristics of idiopathic gastroparesis patients with positive ANA.MethodsPatients were assessed with gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES), symptom assessment via Patient Assessment of Upper GI Symptoms [PAGI‐SYM], and blood tests—ANA, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C‐reactive protein (CRP).ResultsPositive ANA was seen in 148 of 893 (17%) patients with gastroparesis, being similar in idiopathic (16% of 536 patients), T1DM (16% of 162), T2DM (18% of 147), and postfundoplication (19% of 48 patients) gastroparesis. Among 536 patients with idiopathic gastroparesis, ANA titer 1:40–1:80 was seen in 33 (6%) patients, 1:160–1:320 in 36 (7%) patients, and ≥1:640 in 17 (3%) patients. Increasing ANA titer was associated with female gender (p = 0.05), Hispanic ethnicity (p = 0.02), comorbid rheumatoid arthritis (p = 0.02), systemic sclerosis (p = 0.004), and elevated ESR (p = 0.007). ANA positivity was associated with lower total GCSI (p = 0.007) and lower nausea/vomiting subscale (p = 0.0005), but not related to gastric emptying.ConclusionsThe prevalence of a positive ANA in patients with gastroparesis was high at ~17% and did not differ significantly based on etiology. In idiopathic patients, ANA positivity was associated with rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, and elevated ESR. ANA‐positive gastroparesis represents a subset who often have other autoimmune symptoms or disorders, but less severe nausea and vomiting.

AbstractBackgroundThe classic clinical picture of gastroparesis is a symptomatic patient losing weight. In addition, a number of patients with delayed gastric emptying are obese and/or gaining weight. Our aim was to investigate the factors impacting body weight in patients with idiopathic gastroparesis.MethodsIn patients with idiopathic gastroparesis, detailed history and weight were acquired at enrollment and after 48 weeks. Questionnaires assessed symptoms, food intake, physical activity, and quality of life. Patients underwent laboratory testing, gastric emptying scintigraphy, and water load testing.ResultsOf 138 patients with idiopathic gastroparesis, 10% were underweight (BMI < 18.5), 39% were normal weight (BMI 18.5‐25), 20% were overweight with BMI 25 to 30 kg/m2, and 29% were obese with BMI > 30 kg/m2. Body weight at enrollment was positively associated with oral caloric consumption (P < .001), following a gastroparesis diet (P = .04), nutrition consultation (P = .001), upper abdominal pain (P = .01); and negatively associated with energy expenditure (P = .05), alcohol use (P = .003) and severity of bloating (P < .001). When followed over 48 weeks, 53% patients stayed stable (within 5% of baseline weight), 30% gained, and 17% lost weight. Weight gain over 48 weeks was positively associated with oral caloric consumption (P = .003) and constipation severity (P = .005) at enrollment, and negatively associated with lower abdominal pain severity (P = .007) at enrollment, and associated with improvement in inability to finish meal score (P < .001) at 48 weeks.ConclusionsIn this series of patients with idiopathic gastroparesis, 10% were underweight whereas 29% were obese. Over 48 weeks, 30% of patients increased their body weight ≥ 5%. Diet, activity, and symptoms are important factors associated with body weight in patients with idiopathic gastroparesis.

AbstractBackgroundUnderstanding factors that impair quality of life (QOL) in gastroparesis is important for clinical management. Aims: (a) Determine QOL in patients with gastroparesis; (b) Determine factors that impair QOL.MethodsGastroparetic patientsAQ6 underwent history and questionnaires assessing symptoms (PAGI‐SYM and Rome III), QOL (SF‐36v2 and PAGI‐QOL), depression (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI]), and anxiety (State Trait Anxiety InventoryAQ7).Key Results715 gastroparesis patients (256 diabetic (DG), 459 idiopathic (IG)) were evaluated. SF‐36 physical component (PC) score averaged 33.3 ± 10.5; 41% had impaired score <30. SF‐36 PC scores were similar between diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis. Impaired SF‐36 PC associated with increased nausea/vomiting and upper abdominal pain subscores, acute onset of symptoms, higher number of comorbidities, use of narcotic pain medications, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). SF‐36 mental component (MC) score averaged 38.9 ± 13.0; 26% had impaired score <30. Poor SF‐36 MC associated with diabetic etiology, higher Beck depression inventory, and state anxiety scores. PAGI‐QOL score averaged 2.6 ± 1.1; 50% had a score of <2.6. Low PAGI‐QOL associated with higher fullness, bloating, and upper abdominal pain subscores, more depression and Trait anxiety, smoking cigarettes, need for nutritional support, progressively worsening symptoms and periodic exacerbations.Conclusions & InferencesMultiple measures show poor QOL present in gastroparesis. Several areas impacted on reduced QOL: (a) Symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as IBS; (b) Etiology and acute onset and progressively worsening symptoms; (c) Comorbidities and psychological factors such as anxiety and depression; (d) Patient‐related factors such as smoking. Targeting the modifiable factors may improve patient outcomes in gastroparesis.