Citations

Abstract Rationale Hospital readmission within 30 days poses challenges for healthcare providers, policymakers, and patients because of its impact on care quality, costs, and outcomes. Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) are particularly affected by readmission, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and reduced quality of life. Because small sample sizes have hindered previous studies, this study seeks to address this gap in knowledge by examining a large-scale dataset. Objective To determine the rate and probability of 30-day all-cause readmission and secondary outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) or ILD admitted to the hospital. Methods This study is a nested cohort study that used the PearlDiver patient records database. Adult patients (age ⩾18 yr) who were admitted to hospitals in 28 states in the United States with COVID-19 or ILD diagnoses were included. We defined and analyzed two separate cohorts in this study. The first cohort consisted of patients with COVID-19 and was later divided into two groups with or without a history of ILD. The second cohort consisted of patients with ILD and was later divided into groups with COVID-19 or with a non–COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosis at admission. We also studied two other subcohorts of patients with and without idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis within the second cohort. Propensity score matching was employed to match confounders between groups. The Kaplan-Meier log rank test was applied to compare the probabilities of outcomes. Results We assessed the data of 2,286,775 patients with COVID-19 and 118,892 patients with ILD. We found that patients with COVID-19 with preexisting ILD had an odds ratio of 1.6 for 30-day all-cause readmission. Similarly, an odds ratio of 2.42 in readmission rates was observed among hospitalized individuals with ILD who contracted COVID-19 compared with those who were hospitalized for non–COVID-19 pneumonia. Our study also found a significantly higher probability of intensive care admission among patients in both cohorts. Conclusions Patients with ILD face heightened rates of hospital readmissions, particularly when ILD is combined with COVID-19, resulting in adverse outcomes such as decreased quality of life and increased healthcare expenses. It is imperative to prioritize preventive measures against COVID-19 and establish effective postdischarge care strategies for patients with ILD.

AbstractBackgroundThe functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) evaluates esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening and esophageal contractility. Both post hoc and real‐time analyses are possible, but reproducibility and reliability of analysis remain undefined. This study assesses inter‐ and intra‐rater agreement of normative FLIP measurements among novice and experienced users.MethodsEight motility experts from different institutions independently evaluated de‐identified video recordings from 27 asymptomatic healthy subjects using FLIP. Interpretation methods simulating a post‐procedure and a live procedure setting were tested. Novice FLIP users (n = 3) received training prior to post‐procedure interpretation. Experienced FLIP users (n = 5) interpreted using both methods. Users recorded maximum EGJ and distal esophageal body diameter, distensive pressure, and EGJ distensibility index (EGJ‐DI), at balloon fill volumes of 50‐, 60‐, and 70 ml, as well as repetitive antegrade contractions (RACs). Inter‐ and intra‐rater agreements of diameters, distensive pressure and EGJ‐DI were assessed by intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC). Percentage agreement evaluated inter‐ and intra‐rater reliability for RACs.Key ResultsNovice and experienced users acquired normative FLIP metrics. Good‐to‐excellent inter‐ and intra‐rater reliability were achieved for all variables at 60 ml balloon fill volumes. Median parameters at 60 ml balloon fill volume were as follows: EGJ‐DI 5.5 mm2/mmHg, maximum EGJ diameter 18.6 mm, distensive pressure at maximum EGJ diameter 48.1 mmHg, and distal esophageal body diameter 19.5 mm.Conclusions and InferencesNormative FLIP parameters can be reliably extracted from FLIP videos using both real‐time and post hoc analyses, with high reliability between experienced and novice users.

SummaryBackgroundAchalasia is a debilitating major motor disorder of the oesophagus. Hypervigilance and symptom‐specific anxiety substantially impact dysphagia symptom reporting, and quality of life is a critical patient outcome. Earlier achalasia symptom scales did not consider these constructs in their psychometric development.AimTo develop a new symptom measure, the Achalasia Patient‐Reported Outcomes (APRO) QuestionnaireMethodsFour gastroenterologists with achalasia expertise generated preliminary items. Patients reviewed items via cognitive interviews. Patients undergoing high‐resolution manometry completed the APRO with Oesophageal Hypervigilance and Anxiety Scale, Northwestern Oesophageal Quality of Life Scale, and three measures of reflux and dysphagia. Full APRO psychometric assessment (reliability, validity, factor structure) was done. Cluster analysis evaluated APRO + symptom‐anxiety/hypervigilance patient phenotypes.ResultsWe included 961 patients with normal motility and 296 with achalasia. The APRO yielded three subscales: dysphagia, reflux, chest pain with two items for weight change and diet modifications. Reliability and validity were excellent. Twenty‐five percent of achalasia patients may have high levels of anxiety/hypervigilance despite low symptoms, while 8% may report severe symptoms with low anxiety/hypervigilance. The APRO significantly predicted quality of life, but less cognitive‐affective processes.ConclusionsThe APRO is a reliable and valid measure of achalasia symptoms that addresses the limitations of existing questionnaires. Symptom anxiety and hypervigilance moderate the relationship between APRO and quality of life; 33% of patients with achalasia exhibit concerning patterns in symptom severity, anxiety and hypervigilance that may contribute to poorer outcomes.

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.

Abstract Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), gastritis (EG), and/or duodenitis (EoD) are associated with accumulation and activation of eosinophils and mast cells in the esophagus, stomach, and/or duodenum, respectively. Lirentelimab (AK002), an antibody against siglec-8, depletes eosinophils and inhibits mast cells. We performed an open-label extension (OLE) study of subjects who completed ENIGMA (a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study of lirentelimab in adults with symptomatic, biopsy-confirmed EG and/or EoD, with or without EoE) to evaluate long-term responses. Methods Subjects who received 4 monthly infusions of lirentelimab or placebo during ENIGMA (n = 59) were eligible for the OLE; they received monthly, escalating doses of lirentelimab (0.3 or 1 mg/kg escalating to 3 mg/kg). Symptoms were assessed weekly using an electronic daily patient-reported outcome questionnaire and total symptom scores (TSS) were calculated. Patients underwent upper endoscopy with biopsy at screening and at the end of ENIGMA (day 99, week 16, blinded); in the OLE, endoscopies were performed on day 323 (30 weeks after the first dose in the OLE). Histopathology was assessed by a single pathologist. Results Fifty-eight subjects entered the OLE; 45 completed ≥52 weeks lirentelimab (including exposure during ENIGMA) and 29 completed 70 weeks. Mean TSS improved through week 70 (Figure 1). Subjects receiving 70 weeks lirentelimab (ENIGMA+OLE) had further improvements in TSS from baseline (mean reductions: 68% at weeks 29–30, 70% at weeks 51–52, 75% at weeks 69–70). Symptom scores (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, early satiety, appetite loss, abdominal cramping, bloating, diarrhea) decreased significantly from baseline. Treatment response was not associated with concomitant EoE. The most common adverse event was mild to moderate infusion-related reactions, usually with the first infusion. Conclusion In the OLE of the ENIGMA study, patients with EG and or EoD (with or without concomitant EoE) who received lirentelimab had sustained tissue eosinophil depletion and significant long-term symptom improvement. Symptoms continued to improve with duration of treatment. Lirentelimab appears to be a promising targeted treatment for EG and/or EoD.

Abstract The recommended diagnostic criteria for achalasia have been recently updated by Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0), the widely accepted classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high‐resolution manometry (HRM). CCv4.0 continued upon prior versions by subtyping achalasia into type I, type II, and type III on HRM. The achalasia subgroup of the CCv4.0 Working Group developed both conclusive and inconclusive statements for the HRM diagnoses of achalasia subtypes. Conclusive achalasia on HRM is defined as an abnormal median integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) in the primary position of wet swallows along with 100% failed peristalsis, with type I achalasia having 100% failed peristalsis without panesophageal pressurization (PEP), type II achalasia with PEP in at least 20% of swallows, and type III achalasia having at least 20% of swallows premature with no appreciable peristalsis. An inconclusive HRM diagnosis of achalasia can arise when there is an integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) that is borderline or at the upper limit of normal in at least one position, there is an abnormal IRP in both positions but evidence of peristalsis with PEP or premature swallows, or there is peristalsis in the secondary position after apparent achalasia in the primary position. In patients with dysphagia and an inconclusive HRM diagnosis of achalasia, supportive testing beyond HRM such as a timed barium esophagram (TBE) for functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) is recommended. The review recommends a diagnostic algorithm for achalasia, discusses therapeutic options for the disease, and outlines future needs on this topic.

Over the past decade, there have been remarkable advances in understanding the signaling pathways involved in cancer development. It is well-established that cancer is caused by the dysregulation of cellular pathways involved in proliferation, cell cycle, apoptosis, cell metabolism, migration, cell polarity, and differentiation. Besides, growing evidence indicates that extracellular matrix signaling, cell surface proteoglycans, and angiogenesis can contribute to cancer development. Given the genetic instability and vast intra-tumoral heterogeneity revealed by the single-cell sequencing of tumoral cells, the current approaches cannot eliminate the mutating cancer cells. Besides, the polyclonal expansion of tumor-infiltrated lymphocytes in response to tumoral neoantigens cannot elicit anti-tumoral immune responses due to the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Nevertheless, the data from the single-cell sequencing of immune cells can provide valuable insights regarding the expression of inhibitory immune checkpoints/related signaling factors in immune cells, which can be used to select immune checkpoint inhibitors and adjust their dosage. Indeed, the integration of the data obtained from the single-cell sequencing of immune cells with immune checkpoint inhibitors can increase the response rate of immune checkpoint inhibitors, decrease the immune-related adverse events, and facilitate tumoral cell elimination. This study aims to review key pathways involved in tumor development and shed light on single-cell sequencing. It also intends to address the shortcomings of immune checkpoint inhibitors, i.e., their varied response rates among cancer patients and increased risk of autoimmunity development, via applying the data from the single-cell sequencing of immune cells.

AbstractBackgroundThe management of achalasia has improved due to diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. However, variability in care delivery remains and no established measures defining quality of care for this population exist. We aimed to use formal methodology to establish quality indicators for achalasia patients.MethodsQuality indicator concepts were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines and clinical experts. Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method, experts in achalasia independently ranked proposed concepts in a two‐round modified Delphi process based on 1) importance, 2) scientific acceptability, 3) usability, and 4) feasibility. Highly valid measures required strict agreement (≧ 80% of panelists) in the range of 7–9 for across all four categories.Key ResultsThere were 17 experts who rated 26 proposed quality indicator topics. In round one, 2 (8%) quality measures were rated valid. In round two, 19 measures were modified based on panel suggestions, and experts rated 10 (53%) of these measures as valid, resulting in a total of 12 quality indicators. Two measures pertained to patient education and five to diagnosis, including discussing treatment options with risk and benefits and using the most recent version of the Chicago Classification to define achalasia phenotypes, respectively. Other indicators pertained to treatment options, such as the use of botulinum toxin for those not considered surgical candidates and management of reflux following achalasia treatment.Conclusions & InferencesUsing a robust methodology, achalasia quality indicators were identified, which can form the basis for establishing quality gaps and generating fully specified quality measures.