Citations

INTRODUCTION: Uncontrolled results suggest that diaphragmatic breathing (DB) is effective in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) but the mechanism of action and rigor of proof is lacking. This study aimed to determine the effects of DB on reflux, lower esophageal sphincter (LES), and gastric pressures in patients with upright GERD and controls. METHODS: Adult patients with pH proven upright GERD were studied. During a high-resolution impedance manometry, study patients received a standardized pH neutral refluxogenic meal followed by LES challenge maneuvers (Valsalva and abdominal hollowing) while randomized to DB or sham. After that, patients underwent 48 hours of pH-impedance monitoring, with 50% randomization to postprandial DB during the second day. RESULTS: On examining 23 patients and 10 controls, postprandial gastric pressure was found to be significantly higher in patients compared with that in controls (12 vs 7 mm Hg, P = 0.018). Valsalva maneuver produced reflux in 65.2% of patients compared with 44.4% of controls ( P = 0.035). LES increased during the inspiratory portion of DB (42.2 vs 23.1 mm Hg, P < 0.001) in patients and healthy persons. Postprandial DB reduced the number of postprandial reflux events in patients (0.36 vs 2.60, P < 0.001) and healthy subjects (0.00 vs 1.75, P < 0.001) compared with observation. During 48-hour ambulatory study, DB reduced the reflux episodes on day 2 compared with observation on day 1 in both the patient and control groups ( P = 0.049). In patients, comparing DB with sham, total acid exposure on day 2 was not different (10.2 ± 7.9 vs 9.4 ± 6.2, P = 0.804). In patients randomized to DB, esophageal acid exposure in a 2-hour window after the standardized meal on day 1 vs day 2 reduced from 11.8% ±6.4 to 5.2% ± 5.1, P = 0.015. DISCUSSION: In patients with upright GERD, DB reduces the number of postprandial reflux events pressure by increasing the difference between LES and gastric pressure. These data further encourage studying DB as therapy for GERD.

V. cholerae deploys an arsenal of virulence factors as it attempts to traverse a protective mucus layer and reach the epithelial surface of the distal small intestine. The T6SS used to cull bacterial competition during infection is induced by mucus. We show that this activity may serve an additional purpose by further decreasing motility in the presence of mucin, thereby reducing the probability of speed-dependent, near-perpendicular directional changes. We posit that this encourages cells to maintain course rather than change direction, which may aid those attempting to reach and colonize the epithelial surface.

Background The otic ganglion (OG) provides parasympathetic innervation to the cerebral circulation and cranial structures and may be involved in the pathophysiology of trigeminal autonomic headaches. This structure has never been targeted in any headache disorder. Objective To investigate the safety of injecting onabotulinumtoxin A (BTA) toward the OG in 10 patients with intractable chronic cluster headache and to collect efficacy data. Methods A total of 10 patients with chronic cluster headache were enrolled in this open‐label, multi‐dose pilot safety study. All patients were recruited and treated on an out‐patient basis at St Olav's University Hospital (Norway). In 5 patients each, the OG was the injection target with 12.5 IU of BTA or 25 IU, respectively. The primary outcome measure was adverse events (AEs) and the main secondary outcome was the number of attacks per week measured at baseline and in the second month following injection. Results For the primary endpoint, we analyzed data for all 10 patients. There were a total of 17 AEs in 6 of the 10 patients. All AEs were considered mild and disappeared by the end of follow‐up. The median number of attacks per week at baseline was 17.0 [7.8 to 25.8] vs 14.0 [7.3 to 20.0] in the second month following injection; difference: 3 (95%CI: −0.3 to 7.9), P = .063. Conclusions Injection with BTA toward the OG appears to be safe. We did not find a statistically significant reduction in the number of attacks per week at month 2 after injection compared to the baseline. This study suggests that the OG is not an important target for the treatment of chronic cluster headache. A future study employing more precise targeting of the OG may be indicated.

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI)-based polyp detection systems are used during colonoscopy with the aim of increasing lesion detection and improving colonoscopy quality. Patients and methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials to determine the value of AI-based polyp detection systems for detection of polyps and colorectal cancer. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Independent reviewers screened studies and assessed eligibility, certainty of evidence, and risk of bias. We compared colonoscopy with and without AI by calculating relative and absolute risks and mean differences for detection of polyps, adenomas, and colorectal cancer. Results Five randomized trials were eligible for analysis. Colonoscopy with AI increased adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) compared to colonoscopy without AI (values given with 95 %CI). ADR with AI was 29.6 % (22.2 % – 37.0 %) versus 19.3 % (12.7 % – 25.9 %) without AI; relative risk (RR] 1.52 (1.31 – 1.77), with high certainty. PDR was 45.4 % (41.1 % – 49.8 %) with AI versus 30.6 % (26.5 % – 34.6 %) without AI; RR 1.48 (1.37 – 1.60), with high certainty. There was no difference in detection of advanced adenomas (mean advanced adenomas per colonoscopy 0.03 for each group, high certainty). Mean adenomas detected per colonoscopy was higher for small adenomas (≤ 5 mm) for AI versus non-AI (mean difference 0.15 [0.12 – 0.18]), but not for larger adenomas (> 5 – ≤ 10 mm, mean difference 0.03 [0.01 – 0.05]; > 10 mm, mean difference 0.01 [0.00 – 0.02]; high certainty). Data on cancer are unavailable. Conclusions AI-based polyp detection systems during colonoscopy increase detection of small nonadvanced adenomas and polyps, but not of advanced adenomas.

AbstractBackgroundCardiac troponin T (cTnT) and I (cTnI) concentrations provide strong prognostic information in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Whether the associations between cardiac troponin concentrations and mortality and morbidity differ by sex is not known.ObjectivesTo assess whether men and women have different concentrations and prognostic value of cTnT and cTnI measurements in anticoagulated patients with AF.MethodscTnT and cTnI concentrations were measured with high‐sensitivity (hs) assays in EDTA plasma samples obtained from the multicentre ARISTOTLE trial, which randomized patients with AF and at least one risk factor for stroke or systemic embolic event to warfarin or apixaban. Patients were stratified according to sex and the associations between hs‐troponin concentrations, and all‐cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolic event and major bleeding were assessed in multivariable regression models.ResultsWe found higher cardiac troponin concentrations in men (n = 9649) compared to women (n = 5331), both for hs‐cTnT (median 11.8 [Q1‐3 8.1–18.0] vs. 9.6 [6.7–14.3] ng L−1, P < 0.001) and hs‐cTnI (5.8 [3.4–10.8] vs. 4.9 [3.1–8.8] ng L−1, P < 0.001). Adjusting for baseline demographics, comorbidities and medications, men still had significantly higher hs‐troponin concentrations than women. C‐reactive protein and N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide concentrations were higher in female patients. Both hs‐cTnT and hs‐cTnI concentrations were associated with all clinical outcomes similarly in men and women (p‐value for interaction >0.05 for all end‐points).ConclusionMen have higher hs‐troponin concentrations than women in AF. Regardless of sex, hs‐troponin concentrations remain similarly associated with adverse clinical outcomes in anticoagulated patients with AF.

Abstract Background The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) creatinine equation is routinely used to assess renal function but exhibits varying accuracy depending on patient characteristics and clinical presentation. The overall aim of the present study was to assess if and to what extent glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation based on creatinine can be improved. Methods In a cross-sectional analysis covering the years 2003–17, CKD-EPI was validated against measured GFR (mGFR; using various tracer methods) in patients with high likelihood of chronic kidney disease (CKD; five CKD cohorts, n = 8365) and in patients with low likelihood of CKD (six community cohorts, n = 6759). Comparisons were made with the Lund–Malmö revised equation (LMR) and the Full Age Spectrum equation. Results 7In patients aged 18–39 years old, CKD-EPI overestimated GFR with 5.0–16 mL/min/1.73 m2 in median in both cohort types at mGFR levels &lt;120 mL/min/1.73 m2. LMR had greater accuracy than CKD-EPI in the CKD cohorts (P30, the percentage of estimated GFR within 30% of mGFR, 83.5% versus 76.6%). CKD-EPI was generally the most accurate equation in the community cohorts, but all three equations reached P30 above the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative benchmark of 90%. Conclusions None of the evaluated equations made optimal use of available data. Prospects for improved GFR estimation procedures based on creatinine exist, particularly in young adults and in settings where patients with suspected or manifest CKD are investigated.

Systemic glucocorticoids are the principal treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), which remains the major cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, there are no validated biomarkers that measure a patient's response to glucocorticoid therapy, and thus response is evaluated by the change in clinical symptom severity. A major weakness in the predictive power of clinical responses is that changes to all organs are weighted equally even though the major driver of NRM is irreversible damage to the crypts of the GI tract. Recent studies from the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) have validated an algorithm probability (MAP) that combines serum concentrations of two biomarkers of GVHD (REG3α and ST2) to generate an estimated probability of 6 month NRM for individual patients. The MAP has been considered a "liquid biopsy" that estimates the damage caused by GVHD to crypts throughout the lower GI tract (Hartwell et al., JCI Insight, 2017; Major-Monfried et al., Blood, 2018). We hypothesized that the change in MAP between start of treatment and 28 days later could serve as a response biomarker for GVHD and might compare favorably to the change in clinical symptoms that measures response to GVHD treatment, which is widely used as a surrogate for long term survival and is the primary endpoint in most GVHD treatment trials (Martin et al., BBMT, 2009; MacMillan et al., Blood, 2010). We prospectively collected serum samples and clinical staging from 368 sequential HCT patients who received systemic treatment for acute GVHD in one of 20 MAGIC centers between January 2016 and February 2018. We measured the serum concentrations of REG3α and ST2 before and after systemic therapy for acute GVHD and computed MAPs, the changes in MAPs, and clinical responses for each patient. MAPs of patients who experienced 6 month NRM showed significantly greater increases than MAPs of patients who survived (p=0.0004). In patients whose MAPs at the start of treatment were low (Ann Arbor 1, MAP &lt; 0.141) or intermediate (Ann Arbor 2, 0.141 ≤ MAP ≤ 0.290), 6 month NRM clustered among those who had the greatest increases in MAP after 28 days (Fig 1A,B). In patients with high MAPs at the start of treatment (Ann Arbor 3, MAP &gt; 0.290), those who survived tended to have the largest decreases in MAP (Fig 1C). These changes in MAP suggested crossing a single threshold could predict risk of mortality. We found that patients whose MAPs rose above a threshold MAP of 0.290 (5% of Ann Arbor 1, 27% of Ann Arbor 2) had significantly worse survival compared to those who remained below it, whereas the large number patients with initially high MAPs that remained above the threshold (66% of Ann Arbor 3) had a large increases in mortality (Fig 2). When measured at day 28, the MAP was significantly more accurate in predicting NRM than the gold standard of the clinical response, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.86 and 0.70, respectively (p&lt;0.0001). An algorithm that combined clinical response with biomarkers generated the same AUC as the MAP alone (0.83 v 0.86, p = NS). We next tested whether the same MAP threshold of 0.290 could predict risk within clinical response subsets. A significant minority (10%) of clinical responders had high MAPs and experienced three-fold greater NRM than those with low MAPs (40% v 12%, p&lt;0.0001) whereas the majority (57%) of non-responders had low MAPs and experienced almost three-fold lower NRM than those with high MAPs (24% v 65%, p&lt;0.0001) (Fig 3). Thus the MAP provides important prognostic information over and above the change in clinical symptoms, further stratifying both responders and non-responders at four weeks of treatment. The MAP threshold classified patients both with and without significant lower GI symptoms because the MAP is a more specific measure of irreversible cryptic damage in patients with copious diarrhea and more sensitive in patients with less than 0.5 liters of daily diarrhea (Fig 4). We conclude that the MAP is, to our knowledge, the first validated laboratory test to serve as response biomarker for the treatment for acute GVHD and a more accurate predictor of survival than clinical response after four weeks of treatment. The MAP may serve as a novel endpoint and an important complement to changes in clinical symptom severity in future trials of GVHD treatment. Disclosures Srinagesh: National Institutes of Health: Research Funding. Ozbek:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: Biomarker Patent. Ayuk:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Aziz:Doris Duke Charitable Foundation: Research Funding. Defilipp:Incyte: Research Funding. Grupp:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; CBMG: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Adaptimmune: Other: study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Cure Genetics: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy. Hexner:novartis: Research Funding. Kitko:Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mielke:EBMT/EHA: Other: Travel support; ISCT: Other: Travel support; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel and speakers fee (via institution), Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; IACH: Other: Travel support; Kiadis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support (via institution), Speakers Bureau; DGHO: Other: Travel support; Bellicum: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel (via institution); GILEAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel (via institution), Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support (via institution), Speakers Bureau. Merli:Sobi: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bellicum: Consultancy. Pulsipher:Amgen: Other: Lecture; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Bellicum: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Other: Education for employees; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria. Qayed:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Reshef:Pfizer: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding. Levine:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biogen: Other: non-financial support; Viracor: Patents & Royalties: biomarker patent; Ironwood: Honoraria; bluebird bio: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Kamada: Research Funding. Ferrara:National Institutes of Health: Research Funding; ViraCor: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kamada: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; Enlivex: Consultancy; Xenikos: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy.