DeVault, Kenneth R.

LINKED CONTENTThis article is linked to Grover et al and Elwing & Sayuk papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16591 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16603

Abstract Purpose: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is commonly thought to play an important role in chronic cough and patients are often empirically treated with acid suppression therapy. We sought to investigate the response rate to acid suppression treatment in patients with and without heartburn attending two specialist cough clinics. Methods: A retrospective review of 558 consecutive patients referred to two specialist cough clinics was performed (UK and US). Patients who were treated with acid suppression were included and their documented response to treatment collected. Binary logistic regression was used to ascertain the value of reported heartburn in predicting the response of chronic cough to acid suppression therapy. Results: Of 558 consecutive referrals, 238 patients were excluded due to missing data or cough duration of <8weeks. The remaining 320 patients were predominantly female (76%), mean age 61yrs (±13), 96.8% non-smokers, with chronic cough for 36 (18-117) months. Of 72 patients with heartburn, 20 (28%) noted improvement in their cough with acid suppression, whereas of 248 without heartburn, only 35 (14%) responded. Patients reporting heartburn were 2.7 (95% C.I. 1.3-5.6) times more likely to respond to acid suppression therapy (p=0.007).Conclusion: In specialist cough clinics, few patients report a response of their chronic cough to acid suppression therapy. Nonetheless, heartburn is a useful predictor substantially increasing the likelihood of benefit.

SummaryBackgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients often experience meal‐associated symptoms. However, the underlying mechanisms are unclear.AimTo determine small intestinal mechanisms of lipid‐induced symptoms and rectal hypersensitivity in IBSMethodsWe recruited 26 IBS patients (12 IBS‐C, 14 IBS‐D) and 15 healthy volunteers (HV). In vivo permeability was assessed using saccharide excretion assay. Rectal sensitivity was assessed using a barostat before and after small bowel lipid infusion; symptoms were assessed throughout. Next, an extended upper endoscopy with probe‐based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) was performed with changes induced by lipids. Duodenal and jejunal mucosal biopsies were obtained for transcriptomics.ResultsFollowing lipid infusion, a higher proportion of HV than IBS patients reported no pain, no nausea, no fullness and no urgency (P < 0.05 for all). In a model adjusted for sex and anxiety, IBS‐C and IBS‐D patients had lower thresholds for first rectal sensation (P = 0.0007) and pain (P = 0.004) than HV. In vivo small intestinal permeability and mean pCLE scores were similar between IBS patients and HV. Post‐lipid, pCLE scores were higher than pre‐lipid but were not different between groups. Baseline duodenal transient receptor potential vanilloid (TRPV) 1 and 3 expression was increased in IBS‐D, and TRPV3 in IBS‐C. Duodenal TRPV1 expression correlated with abdominal pain (r = 0.51, FDR = 0.01), and inversely with first rectal sensation (r = −0.48, FDR = 0.01) and pain (r = −0.41, FDR = 0.02) thresholds.ConclusionLipid infusion elicits a greater symptom response in IBS patients than HV, which is associated with small intestinal expression of TRPV channels. TRPV‐mediated small intestinal chemosensitivity may mediate post‐meal symptoms in IBS.

Abstract Background and study aim The clinical impact of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) limited to the distal esophagus (Lim-EE) vs. diffuse involvement (Dif-EE) is unknown. This study compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of Lim-EE vs. Dif-EE. Patients and methods This retrospective, single-center study of patients with EoE between December 2011 and December 2019 evaluated treatment response based on repeated pathology and/or clinical improvement using comparative statistics. Results 479 patients were identified (126 Lim-EE, 353 Dif-EE). Lim-EE patients had a higher incidence of endoscopically identified esophagitis (23.0 % vs. 14.7 %; P = 0.04), were older (50.8 [SD 16.2] vs. 46.4 [SD 15.3] years; P = 0.007), and were more likely to present with iron deficiency anemia (5.6 % vs. 1.7 %; P = 0.05), dyspepsia (15.1 % vs. 8.8 %; P = 0.06) or for Barrett’s surveillance (10.3 % vs. 3.7 %; P = 0.02). Patients with Dif-EE presented more frequently with dysphagia (57.2 % vs. 45.2 %; P = 0.02). Both groups had similar proton pump inhibitor (87.2 % vs. 83.3 %; P = 0.37) and steroid (12.8 % vs. 21.4 %; P = 0.14) use. Patients with Lim-EE had a better clinicopathologic response (61.5 % vs. 44.8 %; P = 0.009). On multivariate analysis, EoE extent predicted treatment response with an odds ratio of 1.89 (95 % confidence interval 1.13–3.20; P = 0.02). However, treatment response based only on repeat biopsy results showed no statistical difference between Lim-EE (52.5 %) and Dif-EE (39.7 %; P = 0.15). Conclusions Lim-EE may represent a distinct phenotype separate from Dif-EE, with more overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease and better treatment response.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroesophageal reflux plays a significant role in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Given the morbidity and mortality associated with IPF, understanding the mechanisms responsible for reflux is essential if patients are to receive optimal treatment and management, especially given the lack of clear benefit of antireflux therapies. Our aim was to understand the inter-relationships between esophageal motility, lung mechanics and reflux (particularly proximal reflux—a prerequisite of aspiration), and pulmonary function in patients with IPF. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 35 patients with IPF (aged 53–75 years; 27 men) who underwent high-resolution impedance manometry and 24-hour pH-impedance, together with pulmonary function assessment. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (63%) exhibited dysmotility, 16 (73%) exhibited ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), and 6 (27%) exhibited esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. Patients with IEM had more severe pulmonary disease (% forced vital capacity: P = 0.032) and more proximal reflux ( P = 0.074) than patients with normal motility. In patients with IEM, intrathoracic pressure inversely correlated with the number of proximal events (r = −0.429; P = 0.098). Surprisingly, inspiratory lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) positively correlated with the percentage of reflux events reaching the proximal esophagus (r = 0.583; P = 0.018), whereas in patients with normal motility, it inversely correlated with the bolus exposure time (r = −0.478; P = 0.098) and number of proximal events (r = −0.542; P = 0.056). % forced vital capacity in patients with IEM inversely correlated with the percentage of reflux events reaching the proximal esophagus (r = −0.520; P = 0.039) and inspiratory LESP (r = −0.477; P = 0.062) and positively correlated with intrathoracic pressure (r = 0.633; P = 0.008). DISCUSSION: We have shown that pulmonary function is worse in patients with IEM which is associated with more proximal reflux events, the latter correlating with lower intrathoracic pressures and higher LESPs.

INTRODUCTION: High-resolution manometry using the Chicago Classification is standard in the evaluation of esophageal motility. When the relaxation of the esophagogastric junction is impaired and achalasia excluded, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJ-OO) is diagnosed and the esophageal body is essentially ignored. We sought to characterize the function of the esophageal body in consecutive patients with EGJ-OO. METHODS: Retrospective review of the esophageal manometry findings in consecutive patients where there was computer recognition of EGJ-OO collected over a 2-month period. In each case, the esophageal body was reviewed manually and results reported independent of the suggested computer diagnosis. RESULTS: 116 patients underwent manometry over a 2-month period and 30 (26%) were identified as having EGJ-OO. The indications for testing included chronic cough (n = 5), GERD (n = 8), dysphagia (n = 9) and esophageal evaluation associated with severe lung disease or transplantation (n = 8). The mean IRP was 20.8 (range 16-33.6) and did not vary depending on indication ( P = 0.381). Computer interpretation was EGJ-OO in all patients without mention of the esophageal body. After review, 11 (37%) had an additional esophageal diagnosis. In effective esophageal motility (IEM) was the most prevalent among them (IEM-8, achalasia-2, jackhammer esophagus-1; P = 0.020). The frequency of an additional esophageal diagnosis was significantly different between GERD (0%) and dysphagia (66%; P = 0.004), but not between other groups (i.e. 40% in cough and 37.5% in transplant group). An esophageal body diagnosis was significantly more likely in patients with IRP > 25 (80%) compared with those with IRP < 25 (28%; P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: 1-EGJ-OO is common in patients referred for esophageal manometry. 2-An additional esophageal body diagnosis is common in those with EGJ-OO.3-Esophageal diagnoses are more common in patients with dysphagia and in those with a very high IRP. The body of the esophagus is important in cases of EGJ-OO and should be reported independent of the computer-generated interpretation of the Chicago Classification.

Goals: To assess the effect of unilateral versus bilateral lung transplantation (LTx) on esophageal motility and gastroesophageal reflux, and the association with the development of obstructive chronic lung allograft dysfunction (o-CLAD). Background: We have shown that esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, incomplete bolus transit, and proximal reflux are all independent risk factors for the development of chronic allograft failure. However, it remains unclear whether these factors are influenced by the type of surgery and how this relates to allograft failure. Study: Patients post-LTx (n=48, 24 female; aged 20 to 73 y) completed high-resolution impedance manometry and 24-hour pH/impedance. Results: Patients who had undergone unilateral LTx were more likely to exhibit esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (47% vs. 18%; P=0.046) and less likely to exhibit hypocontractility (0% vs. 21%; P=0.058) than those who had undergone bilateral LTx. Although the proportion of patients exhibiting gastroesophageal reflux was no different between groups (33% vs. 39%; P=0.505), those undergoing bilateral LTx were more likely to exhibit proximal reflux (8% vs. 37%; P=0.067). Univariate Cox proportion hazards regression analysis did not show a difference between unilateral versus bilateral LTx in the development of o-CLAD (hazard ratio=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-2.85; P=0.723). Conclusion: The type of LTx performed seems to lead to different risk factors for the development of o-CLAD. Physicians should be aware of these differences, as they may need to be taken into account when managing patient’s post-LTx.