Clarke, John O.

AbstractBackgroundAutonomic dysfunction can be present in patients with idiopathic and diabetic gastroparesis. The role of autonomic dysfunction relating to gastric emptying and upper gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with gastroparesis and chronic unexplained nausea and vomiting (CUNV) remains unclear. The aim of our study is to evaluate autonomic function in patients with gastroparesis and CUNV with respect to etiology, gastric emptying and symptom severity.MethodsWe studied 242 patients with chronic gastroparetic symptoms recruited at eight centers. All patients had a gastric emptying scintigraphy within 6 months of the study. Symptom severity was assessed using the gastroparesis cardinal symptom index. Autonomic function testing was performed at baseline enrollment using the ANX 3.0 autonomic monitoring system which measures heart rate variability and respiratory activity measurements.Key ResultsLow sympathetic response to challenge (Valsalva or standing) was the most common abnormality seen impacting 89% diabetic and 74% idiopathic patients. Diabetics compared to idiopathics, exhibited greater global hypofunction with sympathetic (OR = 4.7, 95% CI 2.2‐10.3; P < .001) and parasympathetic (OR = 7.2, 95% CI 3.4‐15.0; P < .001) dysfunction. Patients with delayed gastric emptying were more likely to have paradoxic parasympathetic excessive during sympathetic challenge [(Valsalva or standing) 40% vs. 26%, P = .05]. Patients with more severe symptoms exhibited greater parasympathetic dysfunction compared to those with mild‐moderate symptoms: resting sympathovagal balance [LFa/RFa 1.8 (1.0‐3.1) vs. 1.2 (0.6‐2.3), P = .006)] and standing parasympathetic activity [0.4 (0.1‐0.8) vs. 0.6 (0.2‐1.7); P = .03].ConclusionsAutonomic dysfunction was common in patients with gastroparesis and CUNV. Parasympathetic dysfunction was associated with delayed gastric emptying and more severe upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Conversely, sympathetic hypofunction was associated with milder symptoms.InferencesGastroparesis and CUNV may be a manifestation of GI autonomic dysfunction or imbalance, such that sympathetic dysfunction occurs early on in the manifestation of chronic upper GI symptoms, while parasympathetic dysfunction results in more severe symptoms and delayed gastric emptying.

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended for patient use, encouraging patients to ask questions to facilitate their consultation with their physician. Aim: The aim of this study was to develop a QPL specific to adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), created by esophageal experts. Methods: The QPL content (78 questions) was derived through a modified Delphi method consisting of 2 rounds. In round 1, 18 esophageal experts provided 5 answers to the prompt “What you wish your patients would ask” and “What questions do patients often not ask, that I wish they would ask?” In round 2, the experts rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale, and responses rated as “essential” or “important,” determined by an a priori threshold of ≥4.0, were accepted for the QPL. Results: Twelve esophageal experts participated. Of 143 questions from round 1, 110 (76.9%) were accepted for inclusion in the QPL, meeting a median value of ≥4.0, and, subsequently, it reduced to 78, minimizing redundancy. Median values ranged between 4.0 and 5.0, with the highest agreement median (5.0) for questions asking dosing and timing of proton pump inhibitor therapy, and surveillance in Barrett’s. Questions were categorized into the following categories: “What does this illness mean,” “lifestyle modifications,” “general treatment,” “treatment with proton pump inhibitors,” “What I should expect for my future,” and “Barrett’s.” The largest number of questions covered lifestyle modifications (21.8%), with the highest agreement median (5.0) for “How helpful are lifestyle modifications in GERD?” Conclusions: A preliminary GERD-specific QPL, the first of its kind, was developed by esophageal experts. Modification after more patient consultation and feedback is planned in subsequent versions to create a GERD-QPL for eventual use in clinical gastroenterology.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetic gastroparesis (Gp) occurs more often in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) than in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Other diabetic end-organ complications include peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy (together termed triopathy ). This study determines the prevalence of diabetic complications (retinopathy, nephropathy, and peripheral neuropathy) in diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp, assessing the differences between T1DM and T2DM and delayed and normal gastric emptying (GE). METHODS: Diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp underwent history and physical examination, GE scintigraphy, electrogastrography with water load, autonomic function testing, and questionnaires assessing symptoms and peripheral neuropathy. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp were studied: 59 with T1DM and 74 with T2DM and 103 with delayed GE and 30 without delayed GE. The presence of retinopathy (37% vs 24%; P = 0.13), nephropathy (19% vs 11%; P = 0.22), and peripheral neuropathy (53% vs 39%; P = 0.16) was not significantly higher in T1DM than in T2DM; however, triopathies (all 3 complications together) were seen in 10% of T1DM and 3% of T2DM ( P = 0.04). Diabetic patients with delayed GE had increased prevalence of retinopathy (36% vs 10%; P = 0.006) and number of diabetic complications (1.0 vs 0.5; P = 0.009); however, 39% of diabetic patients with delayed GE did not have any diabetic complications. DISCUSSION: In diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp, delayed GE was associated with the presence of retinopathy and the total number of diabetic complications. Only 10% of patients with T1DM and 3% of those with T2DM had triopathy of complications, and 39% of diabetic patients with Gp did not have any diabetic complications. Thus, the presence of diabetic complications should raise awareness for Gp in either T1DM or T2DM; however, diabetic Gp frequently occurs without other diabetic complications.

AbstractBackgroundIneffective esophageal motility (IEM) is a heterogenous minor motility disorder diagnosed when ≥50% ineffective peristaltic sequences (distal contractile integral <450 mm Hg cm s) coexist with normal lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (integrated relaxation pressure < upper limit of normal) on esophageal high‐resolution manometry (HRM). Ineffective esophageal motility is not consistently related to disease states or symptoms and may be seen in asymptomatic healthy individuals.PurposeA 1‐day symposium of esophageal experts reviewed existing literature on IEM, and this review represents the conclusions from the symposium. Severe IEM (>70% ineffective sequences) is associated with higher esophageal reflux burden, particularly while supine, but milder variants do not progress over time or consistently impact quality of life. Ineffective esophageal motility can be further characterized using provocative maneuvers during HRM, especially multiple rapid swallows, where augmentation of smooth muscle contraction defines contraction reserve. The presence of contraction reserve may predict better prognosis, lesser reflux burden and confidence in a standard fundoplication for surgical management of reflux. Other provocative maneuvers (solid swallows, standardized test meal, rapid drink challenge) are useful to characterize bolus transit in IEM. No effective pharmacotherapy exists, and current managements target symptoms and concurrent reflux. Novel testing modalities (baseline and mucosal impedance, functional lumen imaging probe) show promise in elucidating pathophysiology and stratifying IEM phenotypes. Specific prokinetic agents targeting esophageal smooth muscle need to be developed for precision management.

Abstract Background Wireless motility capsule ( WMC ) findings are incompletely defined in suspected gastroparesis. We aimed to characterize regional WMC transit and contractility in relation to scintigraphy, etiology, and symptoms in patients undergoing gastric emptying testing. Methods A total of 209 patients with gastroparesis symptoms at NIDDK Gastroparesis Consortium centers underwent gastric scintigraphy and WMC s on separate days to measure regional transit and contractility. Validated questionnaires quantified symptoms. Key Results Solid scintigraphy and liquid scintigraphy were delayed in 68.8% and 34.8% of patients; WMC gastric emptying times ( GET ) were delayed in 40.3% and showed 52.8% agreement with scintigraphy; 15.5% and 33.5% had delayed small bowel ( SBTT ) and colon transit ( CTT ) times. Transit was delayed in ≥2 regions in 23.3%. Rapid transit was rarely observed. Diabetics had slower GET but more rapid SBTT versus idiopathics ( P ≤ .02). GET delays related to greater scintigraphic retention, slower SBTT , and fewer gastric contractions ( P ≤ .04). Overall gastroparesis symptoms and nausea/vomiting, early satiety/fullness, bloating/distention, and upper abdominal pain subscores showed no relation to WMC transit. Upper and lower abdominal pain scores ( P ≤ .03) were greater with increased colon contractions. Constipation correlated with slower CTT and higher colon contractions ( P = .03). Diarrhea scores were higher with delayed SBTT and CTT ( P ≤ .04). Conclusions & Inferences Wireless motility capsules define gastric emptying delays similar but not identical to scintigraphy that are more severe in diabetics and relate to reduced gastric contractility. Extragastric transit delays occur in >40% with suspected gastroparesis. Gastroparesis symptoms show little association with WMC profiles, although lower symptoms relate to small bowel or colon abnormalities.

AbstractBackgroundEarly satiety (ES) and postprandial fullness (PPF) are often present in gastroparesis, but the importance of these symptoms in gastroparesis has not been well‐described. The aims were: (i) Characterize ES and PPF in patients with gastroparesis. (ii) Assess relationships of ES and PPF with etiology of gastroparesis, quality of life, body weight, gastric emptying, and water load testing.MethodsGastroparetic patients filled out questionnaires assessing symptoms (PAGI‐SYM) and quality of life (PAGI‐QOL, SF‐36v2). Patients underwent gastric emptying scintigraphy and water load testing.Key Results198 patients with gastroparesis (134 IG, 64 DG) were evaluated. Early satiety was severe or very severe in 50% of patients. Postprandial fullness was severe or very severe in 60% of patients. Severity scores for ES and PPF were similar between idiopathic and diabetic gastroparesis. Increasing severity of ES and PPF were associated with other gastroparesis symptoms including nausea/vomiting, satiety/early fullness, bloating, and upper abdominal pain and GERD subscores. Increasing severity of ES and PPF were associated with increasing gastroparesis severity, decreased BMI, decreased quality of life from PAGI‐QOL and SF‐36 physical health. Increasing severity of ES and PPF were associated with increasing gastric retention of a solid meal and decreased volume during water load test.Conclusions & InferencesEarly satiety and PPF are commonly severe symptoms in both diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis. Early satiety and PPF severity are associated with other gastroparesis symptom severities, body weight, quality of life, gastric emptying, and water load testing. Thus, ES and PPF are important symptoms characterizing gastroparesis. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT NCT01696747.

AbstractBackgroundNausea and vomiting are classic symptoms of gastroparesis. It remains unclear if characteristics of nausea and vomiting are similar in different etiologies of gastroparesis. The aims of this article were as follows: to describe characteristics of nausea and vomiting in patients with gastroparesis and to determine if there are differences in nausea and vomiting in diabetic (DG) and idiopathic gastroparesis (IG).MethodsGastroparetic patients enrolling in the NIDDK Gastroparesis Registry underwent assessment with history and questionnaires assessing symptoms, quality of life, and a questionnaire characterizing nausea and vomiting.Key ResultsOf 159 gastroparesis patients (107 IG, 52 DG), 96% experienced nausea, whereas 65% experienced vomiting. Nausea was predominant symptom in 28% and vomiting was predominant in 4%. Nausea was severe or very severe in 41%. PAGI‐SYM nausea/vomiting subscore was greater with increased vomiting severity, but not nausea severity in DG than IG. Nausea was related to meals in 71%; lasting most of the day in 41%. Increasing nausea severity was related to decreased quality of life. Nausea often preceded vomiting in 82% of patients and vomiting often relieved nausea in 30%. Vomiting was more common in DG (81%) compared to IG (57%; p = 0.004). Diabetic patients more often had vomiting in the morning before eating, during the night, and when not eating.Conclusions & InferencesNausea is present in essentially all patients with gastroparesis irrespective of cause and associated with decreased quality of life. In contrast, vomiting was more prevalent, more severe, and occurred more often in DG than IG. Thus, characteristics of vomiting differ in IG vs DG.

This paper presents commentaries on whether Starling's law applies to the esophagus; whether erythromycin affects esophageal motility; the relationship between hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter and vigorous achalasia; whether ethnic‐ and gender‐based norms affect diagnosis and treatment of esophageal motor disorders; health care and epidemiology of chest pain; whether normal pH excludes esophageal pain; the role of high‐resolution manometry in noncardiac chest pain; whether pH–impedance should be included in the evaluation of noncardiac chest pain; whether there are there alternative therapeutic options to PPI for treating noncardiac chest pain; and the usefulness of psychological treatment and alternative medicine in noncardiac chest pain.

The following paper on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and Barrett's esophagus (BE) includes commentaries on defining esophageal landmarks; new techniques for evaluating upper esophageal sphincter (UES) tone; differential diagnosis of GERD, BE, and hiatal hernia (HH); the use of high‐resolution manometry for evaluation of reflux; the role of fundic relaxation in reflux; the use of 24‐h esophageal pH–impedance testing in differentiating acid from nonacid reflux and its potential inclusion in future Rome criteria; classification of endoscopic findings in GERD; the search for the cell origin that generates BE; and the relationship between BE, Barrett's carcinoma, and obesity.