Citations

Background: Although diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) can be cured using immuno-chemotherapy, 40% of patients experience relapse or refractory disease. Large-scale profiling studies have mainly focused on DLBCL at diagnosis, resolving different outcome groups based on gene expression (e.g. cell-of-origin (COO) or molecular high grade), MYC/BCL2 translocations (double-hit lymphoma) or gene mutations and copy number aberrations (Schmitz et al, NEJM 2018; Chapuy et al, NatureMedicine 2018). In comparison, longitudinal studies have been hindered by the limited availability of sequential biopsy samples. To date, the relapse-specific gene mutations identified are limited and inconsistent across studies. In our study, we have focussed attention on the changes in gene expression profile (GEP) accompanying DLBCL relapse. Methods: We retrospectively collected archival paired diagnostic/relapse formalin fixed paraffin embedded tumor biopsies from 38 de novo DLBCL patients collected from multiple UK sites treated with rituximab-based immuno-chemotherapy, where partial or complete remission was reported following treatment. COO classification was performed by the Lymph2Cx assay on NanoString to distinguish activated B-cell-like (ABC) and germinal center B-cell-like (GCB) subtypes. The Ion AmpliSeq™ Transcriptome Human Gene Expression Kit was used to measure the expression levels of > 20,000 genes on the paired samples. Results: COO remained stable from diagnosis to relapse in 17 ABC-ABC pairs, 11 GCB-GCB pairs and 4 unclassified (UNC)-UNC pairs. Frank COO switching was observed in 6 cases (1 ABC-GCB, 2 ABC-UNC, 2 GCB-UNC, 1 UNC-ABC). Pairs with stable COO were taken forward for further analysis. Gene expression analysis using the limma R package identified 163 and 136 genes as differentially expressed (DE) (p <= 0.01 and absolute log2FC > 1) between the diagnostic and relapse biopsies in ABC and GCB tumors respectively, with only a one gene overlap. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis further suggested that ABC and GCB relapses are mediated via different mechanisms, with tumor growth and proliferation signatures enriched in ABC relapses, whilst adaptive immunity-related signatures accompanied GCB relapses. Next, we aimed to utilise our relapse-specific genes to identify outcome predictors at diagnosis using publicly available GEP datasets. In order to increase our discovery power and accuracy, a larger set of DE genes from the paired differential analysis (796 genes in ABC pairs and 387 from GCB pairs) were selected (p <= 0.05) and subsequently used in a training cohort (GEP from Reddy et al, Cell 2017). The Prediction Analysis for Microarrays R (PAMR) algorithm identified a 30-gene signature within DE genes from ABC pairs (Fig1.A), capable of separating the 249 ABC cases into 136 low and 113 high-risk cases with significantly inferior overall survival (Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.89, log-rank p=0.0017, measure of goodness-of-fit C-index=0.71; Fig1.B). No equivalent signature was found in the GCB cases using this approach. The prognostic significance of this 30-gene discriminator was successfully validated using a linear predictor in two independent GEP datasets: 1) a population-based cohort (Lenz et al, NEJM 2008) with 93 R-CHOP-treated ABC cases identifying 47 low and 46 high-risk cases (HR=1.92, p=0.046, C-index=0.77; Fig1.C) and 2) a clinical trial dataset (REMoDL-B, Davies et al, Lancet Oncol 2019) with 255 ABC cases identifying 110 low and 145 high-risk ABC cases (HR=1.95, p=0.0051, C-index=0.70; Fig1.D). Conclusions: Here we describe a 30-gene discriminator in ABC-DLBCL, derived from genes differentially expressed between diagnosis and relapse, that allowed the definition of clinically distinct high and low risk subgroups in ABC-DLBCLs at diagnosis. The clinical translation of such a tool may be useful to guide therapy for this unfavourable subgroup of ABC-DLBCLs. Validation of this signature is currently underway in additional datasets and further study is required to understand the contribution of these genes in DLBCL pathology. Disclosures Korfi: Roche: Consultancy. Burton:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rule:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Napp: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Crosbie:Janssen: Honoraria. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Rimsza:NanoSting: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution]. Davies:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioInvent: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys AG: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gribben:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Okosun:Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Research Funding. Johnson:Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Genmab: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria. Fitzgibbon:Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Purpose Obesity is associated with alterations in appetite, gastrointestinal hormone levels and excessive fat mass. We previously published a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, 16-week trial on effects of once-daily glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog, liraglutide on weight, satiation, and gastric functions in obese volunteers. The aim of this substudy is to compare to placebo the effects of liraglutide on appetite, taste preference, regional body fat stores, and anthropometric measurements. Methods Forty obese adults received standard instruction for weight management, monthly behavioral intervention utilizing motivational interviews, and 16-week treatment of once-daily liraglutide (escalated to 3 mg SQ daily). At baseline and 16 weeks, the following were measured: appetite and taste preferences rated every 30 min for 5 h after ingesting 300 mL Ensure®; maximal tolerated volume (MTV) with a nutrient drink test; fasting and postprandial bioactive GLP-1 (7–36) and peptide YY (PYY) levels; total and regional body fat with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and waist and hip circumference. Results Thirty-five participants (17 liraglutide; 18 placebo) completed the trial. Compared to placebo group, liraglutide group had significant reductions in MTV; prospective food consumption score; desire to eat something sweet, salty, savory or fatty; and an increase in perceived fullness. Postprandial plasma levels of GLP-1 decreased and PYY levels increased with liraglutide relative to baseline. Significant reductions in total body, trunk, and upper and lower body fat without reduction in lean body mass were observed. Conclusion Liraglutide 3 mg SQ modulates appetite, taste preference, gut hormones, and regional body fat stores in adults with obesity without reduction in lean body mass.

AbstractBackgroundThe relationship between cardiovascular and gastrointestinal (ie, plasma pancreatic polypeptide [PP] response to modified sham feeding [MSF]) indices of vagal function is unclear. Hyperglycemia inhibits PP secretion via vagally mediated mechanisms. Our aims were to (a) compare the PP response, (b) its relationship with glycemia, and (c) the relationship between PP response to MSF, gastric emptying (GE) of solids, and symptoms during GE study in healthy controls, patients with diabetic gastroenteropathy (DM), and non‐ulcer dyspepsia (NUD).MethodsIn 24 healthy controls, 40 DM, and 40 NUD patients, we measured plasma PP concentrations during MSF, cardiovagal functions, GE, and symptoms during a GE study.Key ResultsBaseline PP concentrations were higher in DM than in controls and NUD (P = .01), and in type 2 than in type 1 DM patients (P < .01). The PP increment during MSF was normal (≥20 pg/mL) in 70% of controls, 54% of DM, and 47% of NUD patients. Overall, the PP response and cardiovagal tests were concordant (P = .01). Among patients with a reduced PP increment with MSF, 7/10 of T1DM and 1/7 of T2DM patients had moderate or severe cardiovagal dysfunctions (P < .05). The PP response to MSF was not associated with GE.Conclusions & InferencesUp to 30% of healthy controls have a reduced PP increment during MSF, limiting the utility of this test to detect vagal injury. The PP response is more useful when it is normal than abnormal. A reduced PP response is more likely to be associated with cardiovagal dysfunctions in T1DM than in T2DM.

The development of multiple highly effective and safe direct-acting antivirals to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) has resulted in greater ease and confidence in managing HCV infection in transplant recipients that in turn has impacted the solid organ transplant community as well. In the United States, the opioid epidemic has increased the number of overdose deaths with a concomitant increase in younger HCV viremic donors after brain death being identified. At the same time, a decrease in HCV viremic transplant candidates has led to a growing interest in exploring the use of HCV viremic liver and kidney donor allografts in HCV-negative recipients. To date, experience with the use of HCV viremic liver and kidney allografts in HCV-negative recipients is limited to a few small prospective research trials, case series, and case reports. There are also limited data on recipient and donor selection for HCV viremic liver and kidney allografts. In response to this rapidly changing landscape in the United States, experts in the field of viral hepatitis and liver and kidney transplantation convened a meeting to review current data on liver and kidney recipient selection and developed consensus opinions related specifically to recipient and donor selection of HCV viremic liver and kidney allografts.

Abstract Background: Patients on systemic therapy for cancer are at varying risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its consequences. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended in hospitalized medical and surgical cancer patients, but most VTE occurs in ambulatory cancer patients where risk can be estimated with a validated score. However, the benefit of extended outpatient thromboprophylaxis is uncertain with heparins and has not been tested with direct oral anticoagulants. Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study in adult ambulatory patients with various cancers initiating a new systemic regimen and at increased risk for VTE (defined as Khorana score ≥ 2). Enrolled subjects were screened for deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and if none found randomized 1:1 to rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily or placebo up to day 180. Subjects were screened with lower extremity ultrasounds every 8 weeks on study. Primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of objectively confirmed symptomatic or asymptomatic lower-extremity proximal DVT, symptomatic upper- or lower-extremity distal DVT, symptomatic or incidental pulmonary embolism and VTE-related death. ISTH-defined major bleeding was the primary safety endpoint. All endpoints were adjudicated by blinded independent committees. Analyses for efficacy endpoints were conducted for intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients) for the up-to-day 180 observation period (primary) and the on-treatment period (supportive). Safety analyses were conducted for on-treatment period only for patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Results: Of 1,080 patients who provided consent, 49 (4.53%) had DVT on baseline screening and another 190 screen-failed due to other reasons. Of 841 randomized patients, 274 (32.6%) had pancreatic cancer; 698 (83%) were white and 428 (50.9%) were male. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 25 of 420 patients (5.95%) and 37 of 421 patients (8.79%) (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.09; p=0.101) in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups respectively (number needed to treat, NNT=35) in the up-to-day 180 observation period (Figure 1A). Of all patients with VTE, 38.70% experienced events after discontinuing study drug. In a pre-specified analysis of all randomized patients during the on-treatment period, the primary endpoint occurred in 11 of 420 patients (2.62%) and 27 of 421 (6.41%) in rivaroxaban and placebo groups respectively (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.80, p=0.007) (NNT=26) (Figure 1B). Major bleeding occurred in 8 of 405 (1.98%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 4 of 404 (0.99%) patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.59 to 6.49; p=0.265) (number needed to harm, NNH=101). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 2.72% and 1.98% of rivaroxaban and placebo groups, respectively (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.54 to 3.32; p=0.53) (NNH=135). Adverse events were comparable between groups. For secondary efficacy endpoints, a pre-specified analysis of the composite of primary endpoint with addition of arterial and visceral thromboembolic events in the up-to-day 180 observation period showed significantly fewer events in rivaroxaban versus placebo group (6.90% versus 10.70% respectively; HR, 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.99; p=0.04). All-cause mortality occurred in 20.0% of patients in rivaroxaban group and 23.8% in placebo group (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.62, 1.11; p=0.213). A pre-specified composite of the primary endpoint with all-cause mortality occurred in 23.1% of patients in rivaroxaban group and 29.5% in placebo group (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; p=0.03) (Figure 1C). Conclusions: Rivaroxaban significantly reduced VTE and VTE-related death during the on-treatment period but not during the full study period; over one-third of events occurred post discontinuation of study drug. The incidence of major bleeding was low. The Khorana risk score cut-off of ≥2 identified cancer patients at high risk of thrombotic events both at baseline (4.53%) and during study (8.79% with additional 1.66% arterial events in placebo group). These results should inform future recommendations regarding thromboprophylaxis in at-risk ambulatory cancer patients. (Funded by Janssen; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02555878) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Khorana: Parexel: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Sanofi: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; TriSalus: Other: Personal fees; Halozyme: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Seattle Genetics: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; AngioDynamics: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; LEO Pharma: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Medscape/WebMD: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Pharmacyclics: Other: Personal fees; PharmaCyte: Other: Personal fees; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel. Soff:Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Kakkar:Bayer AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo Europe: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi S.A.: Consultancy; Verseon: Consultancy. Vadhan-Raj:AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Other: received funding from Amag to support clinical trial; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Riess:Janssen Scientific Affairs: Other: Travel reimbursement; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wun:Eli Lilly, Inc.: Research Funding; Emmaus, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Streiff:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Other: outcome adjudication committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding. Garcia:Shingoi: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Retham Technologies LLC: Consultancy; Genzyme Corporation: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Liebman:Janssen (Johnson & Johnson): Other: steering committee of the CASSINI trial during the conduct of the study. Belani:Janssen: Consultancy. O'Reilly:3DMed, Agios, AlignMed, Amgen, Antengene, Aptus, ASLAN, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bioline, BMS, Boston Scientific, Bridgebio, CARsgen, Celgene, CASI, Cipla, CytomX, Daiichi, Debio, Delcath, Eisai, Exelixis, Genoscience, Gilead, Halozyme: Consultancy; Hengrui, Incyte, Inovio, Ipsen, Jazz, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LAM, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, Mina, NewLink Genetics, Novella, Onxeo, PCI Biotech, Pfizer, PharmaCyte, Pharmacyclics, Pieris, QED, RedHill, Sanofi, Servier, Silenseed, Sillajen, Sobi, Targovax: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Acta Biologica, Agios, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, CASI, Celgene, Exelixis, Genentech, Halozyme, Incyte, Lilly, MabVax, Novartis, OncoQuest, Polaris Puma, QED, and Roche: Research Funding; Tekmira, twoXAR, Vicus, Yakult, and Yiviva: Consultancy. Patel:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Yimer:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Equity Ownership; Clovis Oncology: Equity Ownership; Puma Biotechnology: Equity Ownership. Wildgoose:Janssen Scientific Affairs: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Burton:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Vijapurkar:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Kaul:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Eikelboom:AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, sanofi-aventis, and Eli Lilly: Honoraria, Research Funding; Heart and Stroke Foundation: Other: Personnel award. Bauer:Janssen: Consultancy. Kuderer:Celldex: Consultancy; Mylan: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Myriad Genetics: Consultancy; Halozyme: Consultancy; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Lyman:Halozyme; G1 Therapeutics; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy; Generex Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Other: Research support.

INTRODUCTION: Reduced gastric accommodation (GA) or accelerated or delayed gastric emptying (GE) contributes to pathophysiology in functional dyspepsia (FD). Secretin is an endogenous hormone secreted postprandially from the duodenal mucosa. Our objective was to determine the effects of secretin in human gastric motor functions and satiation in health and FD. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial in 10 healthy participants and 10 patients with FD by Rome IV criteria. Subjects were randomized to IV secretin or normal saline with a 1-4 week washout period. We measured GA using validated 99m Tc-single photon emission computed tomography with a standardized 300 mL meal of 111 In radiolabeled Ensure®. We measured GE using scintigraphy of the same meal and symptoms 30 minutes post meal based on 100 mm visualized analog scale (VAS). To measure volume to fullness (VTF) and maximum tolerated volume (MTV), we performed Ensure® nutrient drink test (NDT) and recorded symptoms 30 min post-MTV. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used for comparison within healthy and FD groups and ANCOVA modeling was used for intention to treat comparison between groups, adjusting for age, sex, and treatment arm (secretin vs. placebo). Study drug was provided by ChiroClin, Inc. RESULTS: The median age for healthy volunteers (HV) was 45.0 years [IQR: 38.0, 49.0 (80% female)] and for FD was 50.5 years [42.0, 55.0 (70% female)]. There was no statistical difference in either group for secretin vs. placebo for GA. Secretin delayed GE in both HV and FD (Table 1). There was decrease in GE for secretin vs. placebo in HV at 20 minutes [-10% (-13, -7), P = 0.008] and 30 minutes [-11% (-16, -4), P = 0.004]. This finding was also seen in the FD group for GE at 25 minutes [-5% (-9, 0), P = 0.047] and 30 minutes [-8% (-9, 0), P = 0.03]. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms for VTF or MTV in either HV or FD. On ANCOVA analysis, there were statistically significant increases in nausea at 30 minutes ( P = 0.0016) and fullness at 30 minutes ( P = 0.0002) for secretin vs. placebo in FD compared to HV. CONCLUSION: Secretin delayed GE in both healthy volunteers and FD without significantly altering GA, VTF, or MTV. Secretin receptor stimulation deserves further study in FD patients with accelerated GE.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing rates of obesity have led to increased numbers of bariatric surgeries performed world-wide. However, some patients do not achieve significant weight loss or develop weight regain following these procedures. Other than estimating the size of the gastric remnant at endoscopy or transaxial imaging, there are limited approaches to quantitate the function of the post-surgical stomach in order to evaluate the disparate weight patterns, or to develop strategy for future treatments, e.g., pharmacotherapy or endoscopic intervention. We hypothesize that altered gastric function in the pre- and post-surgical periods may offer an explanation. Studies performed thus far are difficult to interpret due to heterogeneity in approaches to diagnostic evaluation. The aims of this project were: to assess the feasibility of a new protocol for simultaneous evaluation of gastric accommodation and gastric emptying in the post-bariatric state; and to report normative values in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Methods: We utilized single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and gamma scintigraphy to concurrently study postprandial gastric accommodation responses and gastric emptying rates of a limited size meal designed for subsequent use in post-bariatric patients. The standard meal consisted of 1 egg and 1 extra egg yolk scrambled with 111 Indium-activated charcoal (∼130kcal, 9.5g fat) and 120mL 2% milk (130kcal, 4.4g fat). Gastric accommodation was measured using 99m Technetium-SPECT. SPECT imaging was obtained concomitant with gastric emptying of the 111 In-labeled meal. Anterior and posterior scans of the abdomen were obtained for estimating gastric emptying parameters every 15 minute until 90 minutes, and then in 30-minute intervals until 240 minutes or complete emptying. RESULTS: Data on 28/30 healthy volunteers (35.7% men; 67% Caucasian) with completed studies to date are shown in the Table 1 (data presented as mean ± standard deviation). Gastric emptying proportion at 1, 2, and 4 hours, T 1/2 , and gastric volumes including accommodation are graphically depicted in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSION: Discussion: This study has demonstrated feasibility of simultaneous measurement of gastric emptying and accommodation and provides normal values; this sets the stage for future baseline and post-operative scans on patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy.

This prospective cohort study aimed to improve hospital outcomes through geographic location of hospitalist patients and conducting daily multidisciplinary team rounds—Goal-directed Achievements through Geographic Location (GAGL). Patients were admitted to a geographic (GAGL) study unit where daily multidisciplinary rounds took place among nursing, case management, a hospitalist, pharmacy, physical and occupational therapy, respiratory therapy, and nutrition services. A total of 985 (56.4%) patients were admitted to the GAGL study unit and 760 patients (43.6%) were admitted to non-GAGL units. Patients admitted to the GAGL study unit had a shorter average length of stay (3.64 days vs 4.35 days, P = .0001) and a lower number of risk events (91 [9.2%] vs 93 [12.2%], P = .038). There was no significant difference in 30-day readmissions, avoidable day events, or code blue team activations. GAGL provides a framework for hospital organizations to improve provider communication, hospital efficiency, and patient safety.

AbstractBackgroundNon‐ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) is a heterogeneous disorder, which is characterized by upper gastrointestinal symptoms and sensorimotor disturbances, including abnormal gastric emptying (GE) and increased intestinal chemosensitivity, and associated with greater plasma glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) levels during duodenal lipid infusion. However, the relationship(s) between these disturbances and daily symptoms in NUD is variable. We hypothesize that abnormal GE and symptoms during a GE study and during duodenal lipid infusion are associated with the severity of daily symptoms and that GLP‐1 mediates symptoms during duodenal lipid infusion in NUD.MethodsGastric emptying of solids, symptoms during the GE study and duodenal lipid infusion, and daily gastrointestinal symptoms (2 week diary) were measured in 24 healthy controls and 40 NUD patients. During duodenal lipid infusion, participants received the GLP‐1 antagonist exendin 9‐39 or placebo.Key ResultsIn controls and patients, GE of solids was normal in 75% and 75%, delayed in 8% and 12.5%, or rapid in 17% and 12.5%, respectively. No controls but 26 patients (65%) had severe symptoms during the GE study. During lipid infusion, gastrointestinal symptoms were greater (P = .001) in patients and not affected by exendin. Symptoms during GE study and lipid infusion accounted for respectively 62% and 37% of variance in daily symptom severity.ConclusionsIn NUD, symptoms during a GE study and to a lesser extent during lipid infusion explain the variance in daily symptoms. Intestinal chemosensitivity is not reduced by GLP‐1 antagonist. Assessment of symptoms during a GE study may provide a useful biomarker for NUD in research and clinical practice.