Upper GI Tract

Budesonide orodispersible tablets (BOTs) are highly effective in inducing disease remission in adults with active eosinophilic esophagitis (EOE), according to a study of the tablets versus placebo in European patients.

“A 6-week treatment with 1 mg budesonide twice daily was highly superior over placebo with regard to all predefined primary and secondary outcomes,” wrote Alfredo J. Lucendo, MD, of Hospital General de Tomelloso in Real, Spain, and his coauthors. The study was published in Gastroenterology.

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of BOT in adults with EOE, Dr. Lucendo and his fellow researchers launched a randomized, placebo-controlled trial made up of 88 European adults with active EoE. Patients were assigned to either a group that received BOT twice daily (n = 59) or a group that received placebo (n = 29). The primary endpoint was complete remission.

After 6 weeks, 34 of 59 patients (58%) receiving BOT had achieved complete remission, compared with 0 patients receiving placebo (P less than .0001). After 12 weeks, 50 of 59 patients (85%) in the BOT group had achieved complete remission. BOT was also well tolerated; no serious adverse event was reported, and no differences were observed between groups with regard to commonly reported adverse events.

The coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was designed to demonstrate budesonide’s superiority to placebo at 6 weeks, not to identify the time of its maximal effect. In addition, the researchers did not identify a minimally effective dose; they did, however, note their belief that a lower dose could still achieve similar rates of remission and “a higher dose would not achieve a higher clinico-remission rate.”

The study was funded by Dr. Falk Pharma. The authors reported numerous conflicts of interest, including receiving research funding and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies and foundations.

SOURCE: Lucendo AJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.025.

Budesonide orodispersible tablets (BOTs) are highly effective in inducing disease remission in adults with active eosinophilic esophagitis (EOE), according to a study of the tablets versus placebo in European patients.

“A 6-week treatment with 1 mg budesonide twice daily was highly superior over placebo with regard to all predefined primary and secondary outcomes,” wrote Alfredo J. Lucendo, MD, of Hospital General de Tomelloso in Real, Spain, and his coauthors. The study was published in Gastroenterology.

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of BOT in adults with EOE, Dr. Lucendo and his fellow researchers launched a randomized, placebo-controlled trial made up of 88 European adults with active EoE. Patients were assigned to either a group that received BOT twice daily (n = 59) or a group that received placebo (n = 29). The primary endpoint was complete remission.

After 6 weeks, 34 of 59 patients (58%) receiving BOT had achieved complete remission, compared with 0 patients receiving placebo (P less than .0001). After 12 weeks, 50 of 59 patients (85%) in the BOT group had achieved complete remission. BOT was also well tolerated; no serious adverse event was reported, and no differences were observed between groups with regard to commonly reported adverse events.

The coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was designed to demonstrate budesonide’s superiority to placebo at 6 weeks, not to identify the time of its maximal effect. In addition, the researchers did not identify a minimally effective dose; they did, however, note their belief that a lower dose could still achieve similar rates of remission and “a higher dose would not achieve a higher clinico-remission rate.”

The study was funded by Dr. Falk Pharma. The authors reported numerous conflicts of interest, including receiving research funding and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies and foundations.

SOURCE: Lucendo AJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.025.

Budesonide orodispersible tablets (BOTs) are highly effective in inducing disease remission in adults with active eosinophilic esophagitis (EOE), according to a study of the tablets versus placebo in European patients.

“A 6-week treatment with 1 mg budesonide twice daily was highly superior over placebo with regard to all predefined primary and secondary outcomes,” wrote Alfredo J. Lucendo, MD, of Hospital General de Tomelloso in Real, Spain, and his coauthors. The study was published in Gastroenterology.

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of BOT in adults with EOE, Dr. Lucendo and his fellow researchers launched a randomized, placebo-controlled trial made up of 88 European adults with active EoE. Patients were assigned to either a group that received BOT twice daily (n = 59) or a group that received placebo (n = 29). The primary endpoint was complete remission.

After 6 weeks, 34 of 59 patients (58%) receiving BOT had achieved complete remission, compared with 0 patients receiving placebo (P less than .0001). After 12 weeks, 50 of 59 patients (85%) in the BOT group had achieved complete remission. BOT was also well tolerated; no serious adverse event was reported, and no differences were observed between groups with regard to commonly reported adverse events.

The coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was designed to demonstrate budesonide’s superiority to placebo at 6 weeks, not to identify the time of its maximal effect. In addition, the researchers did not identify a minimally effective dose; they did, however, note their belief that a lower dose could still achieve similar rates of remission and “a higher dose would not achieve a higher clinico-remission rate.”

The study was funded by Dr. Falk Pharma. The authors reported numerous conflicts of interest, including receiving research funding and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies and foundations.

SOURCE: Lucendo AJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.025.

As many as one in five endoscopies in patients with Barrett’s esophagus are not being done according to accepted protocol, say the authors of a study published online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

The Seattle biopsy protocol, which is recommended in nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus to pick up esophageal adenocarcinoma, calls for four-quadrant biopsies at 2-cm intervals in patients without dysplasia and 1-cm intervals in patients with prior dysplasia, as well as targeted biopsies of any mucosal abnormalities.

Sachin Wani, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and coauthors used registry data to examine procedures and outcomes in 58,709 esophagogastroduodenoscopies in 53,541 patients with an endoscopic finding of, or screening indication for, Barrett’s esophagus.

They assessed protocol adherence by dividing the Barrett’s esophagus length by the number of pathology jars. A ratio of two or less was considered adherent, and the authors also allowed for a lenient rounding down, or stringent rounding up.

Just over half the procedures in the study (51.1%) resulted in a recorded, pathology-confirmed diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, and the mean length of Barrett’s esophagus was 2.3 cm.

Overall, 87.8% of endoscopies were adherent according to the lenient criteria, and 82.7% were adherent by the stringent definition.

Patients with longer lengths of Barrett’s esophagus were significantly less likely to be biopsied according to the Seattle biopsy protocol guidelines, with a 31% decrease in odds of adherence with every 1-cm increase in Barrett’s esophagus length. Patients with lengths from 0-4 cm were 76.3%-80.6% adherent to biopsy protocols, but those with lengths greater than 8 cm were only 37.9%-40.6% adherent.

“These results are most concerning because we found that dysplasia detection rates also increase with increasing [Barrett’s esophagus] length,” the authors wrote. “Therefore, per unit length, patients who need it most are being biopsied least.

Older and male patients also were less likely to be biopsied according to the protocol, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of three or above was a predictor of nonadherence.

“These findings may be a reflection of a higher number of comorbidities in these patients with [Barrett’s esophagus] and perceived lack of benefit of surveillance endoscopy,” the authors wrote.

They also noted a geographic effect, such that patients living in the Northeast regions were more likely to be biopsied according to protocol than were those living in Western regions.

The study was funded by the University of Colorado department of medicine. Four authors declared consultancies and research grants from the medical device sector and others.
 

SOURCE: Wani S et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019, June 11.
 

As many as one in five endoscopies in patients with Barrett’s esophagus are not being done according to accepted protocol, say the authors of a study published online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

The Seattle biopsy protocol, which is recommended in nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus to pick up esophageal adenocarcinoma, calls for four-quadrant biopsies at 2-cm intervals in patients without dysplasia and 1-cm intervals in patients with prior dysplasia, as well as targeted biopsies of any mucosal abnormalities.

Sachin Wani, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and coauthors used registry data to examine procedures and outcomes in 58,709 esophagogastroduodenoscopies in 53,541 patients with an endoscopic finding of, or screening indication for, Barrett’s esophagus.

They assessed protocol adherence by dividing the Barrett’s esophagus length by the number of pathology jars. A ratio of two or less was considered adherent, and the authors also allowed for a lenient rounding down, or stringent rounding up.

Just over half the procedures in the study (51.1%) resulted in a recorded, pathology-confirmed diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, and the mean length of Barrett’s esophagus was 2.3 cm.

Overall, 87.8% of endoscopies were adherent according to the lenient criteria, and 82.7% were adherent by the stringent definition.

Patients with longer lengths of Barrett’s esophagus were significantly less likely to be biopsied according to the Seattle biopsy protocol guidelines, with a 31% decrease in odds of adherence with every 1-cm increase in Barrett’s esophagus length. Patients with lengths from 0-4 cm were 76.3%-80.6% adherent to biopsy protocols, but those with lengths greater than 8 cm were only 37.9%-40.6% adherent.

“These results are most concerning because we found that dysplasia detection rates also increase with increasing [Barrett’s esophagus] length,” the authors wrote. “Therefore, per unit length, patients who need it most are being biopsied least.

Older and male patients also were less likely to be biopsied according to the protocol, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of three or above was a predictor of nonadherence.

“These findings may be a reflection of a higher number of comorbidities in these patients with [Barrett’s esophagus] and perceived lack of benefit of surveillance endoscopy,” the authors wrote.

They also noted a geographic effect, such that patients living in the Northeast regions were more likely to be biopsied according to protocol than were those living in Western regions.

The study was funded by the University of Colorado department of medicine. Four authors declared consultancies and research grants from the medical device sector and others.
 

SOURCE: Wani S et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019, June 11.
 

As many as one in five endoscopies in patients with Barrett’s esophagus are not being done according to accepted protocol, say the authors of a study published online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

The Seattle biopsy protocol, which is recommended in nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus to pick up esophageal adenocarcinoma, calls for four-quadrant biopsies at 2-cm intervals in patients without dysplasia and 1-cm intervals in patients with prior dysplasia, as well as targeted biopsies of any mucosal abnormalities.

Sachin Wani, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and coauthors used registry data to examine procedures and outcomes in 58,709 esophagogastroduodenoscopies in 53,541 patients with an endoscopic finding of, or screening indication for, Barrett’s esophagus.

They assessed protocol adherence by dividing the Barrett’s esophagus length by the number of pathology jars. A ratio of two or less was considered adherent, and the authors also allowed for a lenient rounding down, or stringent rounding up.

Just over half the procedures in the study (51.1%) resulted in a recorded, pathology-confirmed diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, and the mean length of Barrett’s esophagus was 2.3 cm.

Overall, 87.8% of endoscopies were adherent according to the lenient criteria, and 82.7% were adherent by the stringent definition.

Patients with longer lengths of Barrett’s esophagus were significantly less likely to be biopsied according to the Seattle biopsy protocol guidelines, with a 31% decrease in odds of adherence with every 1-cm increase in Barrett’s esophagus length. Patients with lengths from 0-4 cm were 76.3%-80.6% adherent to biopsy protocols, but those with lengths greater than 8 cm were only 37.9%-40.6% adherent.

“These results are most concerning because we found that dysplasia detection rates also increase with increasing [Barrett’s esophagus] length,” the authors wrote. “Therefore, per unit length, patients who need it most are being biopsied least.

Older and male patients also were less likely to be biopsied according to the protocol, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of three or above was a predictor of nonadherence.

“These findings may be a reflection of a higher number of comorbidities in these patients with [Barrett’s esophagus] and perceived lack of benefit of surveillance endoscopy,” the authors wrote.

They also noted a geographic effect, such that patients living in the Northeast regions were more likely to be biopsied according to protocol than were those living in Western regions.

The study was funded by the University of Colorado department of medicine. Four authors declared consultancies and research grants from the medical device sector and others.
 

SOURCE: Wani S et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019, June 11.
 

SAN DIEGO – Patients on rivaroxaban had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with those taking apixaban or dabigatran, results from a large population-based study showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This may be due to the fact that rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose as opposed to the other two non–vitamin K anticoagulants [NOACs], which are given twice daily,” lead study author Arnar B. Ingason said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. “This may lead to a greater variance in plasma drug concentration, making these patients more susceptible to bleeding.”

Mr. Ingason, a medical student at the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, said that although several studies have compared warfarin with NOACs, it remains unclear which NOAC has the most favorable GI profile. In an effort to improve the research in this area, he and his associates performed a nationwide, population-based study during March 2014–Jan. 2018 to compare the GI bleeding risk of patients receiving rivaroxaban to that of a combined pool of patients receiving either apixaban or dabigatran. They drew from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, which contains all outpatient drug prescriptions in the country. Next, the researchers linked the personal identification numbers of patients to the Landspitali University diagnoses registry, which includes more than 90% of all patients hospitalized for GI bleeding. They used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score for matching and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression to compare rates of GI bleeding. The study outcome of interest was any clinically relevant GI bleeding.

Mr. Ingason reported that the baseline characteristics were similar between the rivaroxaban group and the apixaban/dabigatran group. They matched for several variables, including age, sex, Charlson score, the proportion being anticoagulant naive, moderate to severe renal disease, moderate to severe liver disease, any prior bleeding, and any prior thrombotic events.

During the study period, 3,473 patients received rivaroxaban, 1,901 received apixaban, and 1,086 received dabigatran. After propensity score matching, the researchers compared 2,635 patients who received rivaroxaban with 2,365 patients who received either apixaban or dabigatran. They found that patients in the rivaroxaban group had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with in the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.2 and. 0.6 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). This yielded a hazard ratio of 2.02, “which means that patients receiving rivaroxaban are twice as likely to get GI bleeding compared to patients on apixaban or dabigatran,” Mr. Ingason said. When the researchers examined the entire unmatched cohort of patients, the rivaroxaban group also had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.0 and 0.6 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.75).

Mr. Ingason and his colleagues observed that patients in the rivaroxaban group had higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group, during the entire follow-up period. At the end of year 4, the rivaroxaban group had a 4% cumulative event rate of GI bleeding, compared with 1.8% for the apixaban/dabigatran group, a highly significant difference at P = .0057).

When a meeting attendee asked Mr. Ingason why patients taking apixaban or dabigatran were combined into one group, he said that it was done to increase the power of their study. “Our theory was that rivaroxaban was different because it is administered as a single daily dose, while the others are given twice daily,” he said. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Patients on rivaroxaban had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with those taking apixaban or dabigatran, results from a large population-based study showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This may be due to the fact that rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose as opposed to the other two non–vitamin K anticoagulants [NOACs], which are given twice daily,” lead study author Arnar B. Ingason said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. “This may lead to a greater variance in plasma drug concentration, making these patients more susceptible to bleeding.”

Mr. Ingason, a medical student at the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, said that although several studies have compared warfarin with NOACs, it remains unclear which NOAC has the most favorable GI profile. In an effort to improve the research in this area, he and his associates performed a nationwide, population-based study during March 2014–Jan. 2018 to compare the GI bleeding risk of patients receiving rivaroxaban to that of a combined pool of patients receiving either apixaban or dabigatran. They drew from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, which contains all outpatient drug prescriptions in the country. Next, the researchers linked the personal identification numbers of patients to the Landspitali University diagnoses registry, which includes more than 90% of all patients hospitalized for GI bleeding. They used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score for matching and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression to compare rates of GI bleeding. The study outcome of interest was any clinically relevant GI bleeding.

Mr. Ingason reported that the baseline characteristics were similar between the rivaroxaban group and the apixaban/dabigatran group. They matched for several variables, including age, sex, Charlson score, the proportion being anticoagulant naive, moderate to severe renal disease, moderate to severe liver disease, any prior bleeding, and any prior thrombotic events.

During the study period, 3,473 patients received rivaroxaban, 1,901 received apixaban, and 1,086 received dabigatran. After propensity score matching, the researchers compared 2,635 patients who received rivaroxaban with 2,365 patients who received either apixaban or dabigatran. They found that patients in the rivaroxaban group had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with in the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.2 and. 0.6 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). This yielded a hazard ratio of 2.02, “which means that patients receiving rivaroxaban are twice as likely to get GI bleeding compared to patients on apixaban or dabigatran,” Mr. Ingason said. When the researchers examined the entire unmatched cohort of patients, the rivaroxaban group also had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.0 and 0.6 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.75).

Mr. Ingason and his colleagues observed that patients in the rivaroxaban group had higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group, during the entire follow-up period. At the end of year 4, the rivaroxaban group had a 4% cumulative event rate of GI bleeding, compared with 1.8% for the apixaban/dabigatran group, a highly significant difference at P = .0057).

When a meeting attendee asked Mr. Ingason why patients taking apixaban or dabigatran were combined into one group, he said that it was done to increase the power of their study. “Our theory was that rivaroxaban was different because it is administered as a single daily dose, while the others are given twice daily,” he said. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Patients on rivaroxaban had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with those taking apixaban or dabigatran, results from a large population-based study showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This may be due to the fact that rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose as opposed to the other two non–vitamin K anticoagulants [NOACs], which are given twice daily,” lead study author Arnar B. Ingason said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. “This may lead to a greater variance in plasma drug concentration, making these patients more susceptible to bleeding.”

Mr. Ingason, a medical student at the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, said that although several studies have compared warfarin with NOACs, it remains unclear which NOAC has the most favorable GI profile. In an effort to improve the research in this area, he and his associates performed a nationwide, population-based study during March 2014–Jan. 2018 to compare the GI bleeding risk of patients receiving rivaroxaban to that of a combined pool of patients receiving either apixaban or dabigatran. They drew from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, which contains all outpatient drug prescriptions in the country. Next, the researchers linked the personal identification numbers of patients to the Landspitali University diagnoses registry, which includes more than 90% of all patients hospitalized for GI bleeding. They used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score for matching and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression to compare rates of GI bleeding. The study outcome of interest was any clinically relevant GI bleeding.

Mr. Ingason reported that the baseline characteristics were similar between the rivaroxaban group and the apixaban/dabigatran group. They matched for several variables, including age, sex, Charlson score, the proportion being anticoagulant naive, moderate to severe renal disease, moderate to severe liver disease, any prior bleeding, and any prior thrombotic events.

During the study period, 3,473 patients received rivaroxaban, 1,901 received apixaban, and 1,086 received dabigatran. After propensity score matching, the researchers compared 2,635 patients who received rivaroxaban with 2,365 patients who received either apixaban or dabigatran. They found that patients in the rivaroxaban group had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with in the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.2 and. 0.6 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). This yielded a hazard ratio of 2.02, “which means that patients receiving rivaroxaban are twice as likely to get GI bleeding compared to patients on apixaban or dabigatran,” Mr. Ingason said. When the researchers examined the entire unmatched cohort of patients, the rivaroxaban group also had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.0 and 0.6 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.75).

Mr. Ingason and his colleagues observed that patients in the rivaroxaban group had higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group, during the entire follow-up period. At the end of year 4, the rivaroxaban group had a 4% cumulative event rate of GI bleeding, compared with 1.8% for the apixaban/dabigatran group, a highly significant difference at P = .0057).

When a meeting attendee asked Mr. Ingason why patients taking apixaban or dabigatran were combined into one group, he said that it was done to increase the power of their study. “Our theory was that rivaroxaban was different because it is administered as a single daily dose, while the others are given twice daily,” he said. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Using daily aspirin treatment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains an individualized decision that needs to balance a person’s risks for ischemic events and bleeding, according to results from a new systematic review of 15 randomized, aspirin-prevention trials, including results from 3 major trials that researchers reported during 2018.

“The findings suggest that the decision to use aspirin for primary prevention should be tailored to the individual patients based on estimated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk and perceived bleeding risk, as well as patient preferences regarding the types of event prevented versus potential bleeding caused,” Jawahar L. Mehta, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published on June 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors also concluded that if a person decides to use aspirin for primary prevention, then a low dose of 100 mg/day or less is recommended.


This new systematic review follows two reviews published earlier in 2019 that reached roughly similar conclusions after analyzing largely the same randomized trial data, including the same three major trials from 2018. One of these prior reviews included data from 13 trials and a total of 164,225 people (JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321[3]:277-87). The second review had data from 11 trials with 157,248 people (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 14;40[7]:607-17). The newly published review used data collected by 15 trials from 165,502 people.

The three 2018 trials that triggered the updated data assessments were the ARRIVE trial, with 12,546 people randomized (Lancet. 2018 Sep 22;392[10152]:1036-46), the ASPREE trial, with 19,114 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1509-18), and the ASCEND trial, with 15,480 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1529-39).

As stated in the new report from Dr. Mehta, a professor of medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and his associates, the recent trial results from 2018 added new data from more than 45,000 additional subjects, a development that warranted a reappraisal of the evidence for aspirin’s efficacy and safety for primary prevention in contemporary practice.

The major findings from the analysis by Dr. Mehta and his associates were that in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease, daily aspirin use reduced the incidence of MIs, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 357; reduced ischemic stroke (NNT, 500), reduced transient ischemic attack (NNT, 370), and reduced the overall, combined rate of all major adverse cardiovascular events (NNT, 263). But on the safety side, daily aspirin led to an increased rate of major bleeding episodes, with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 222, increased intracranial bleeds (NNH, 1,000), and an increase in gastrointestinal bleeds (NNH, 385).

The analysis “demonstrates a potential reduction of net benefit with aspirin in the contemporary era,” the authors concluded. They also noted that the benefits from aspirin prevention were, as expected, “more pronounced” among people with a higher estimated risk from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The systematic review findings came against the backdrop of a recently released primary prevention guideline from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (J Am Coll Card. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010). The guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention “might be considered” for adults aged 40-70 years, but should not be used for people who are older than 70, and also should not be given to people with an increased risk for bleeding. In general, the experts who produced this guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis should be infrequent.

The new analysis also found no reduction in the incidence of cancer or cancer-related death linked with aspirin use for primary prevention. The systematic review published earlier in 2019 in JAMA also found no link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality. The review from the European Heart Journal did not report on the link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality.

Dr. Mehta has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medimmune, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Abdelaziz HK et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.501.




 

Using daily aspirin treatment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains an individualized decision that needs to balance a person’s risks for ischemic events and bleeding, according to results from a new systematic review of 15 randomized, aspirin-prevention trials, including results from 3 major trials that researchers reported during 2018.

“The findings suggest that the decision to use aspirin for primary prevention should be tailored to the individual patients based on estimated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk and perceived bleeding risk, as well as patient preferences regarding the types of event prevented versus potential bleeding caused,” Jawahar L. Mehta, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published on June 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors also concluded that if a person decides to use aspirin for primary prevention, then a low dose of 100 mg/day or less is recommended.


This new systematic review follows two reviews published earlier in 2019 that reached roughly similar conclusions after analyzing largely the same randomized trial data, including the same three major trials from 2018. One of these prior reviews included data from 13 trials and a total of 164,225 people (JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321[3]:277-87). The second review had data from 11 trials with 157,248 people (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 14;40[7]:607-17). The newly published review used data collected by 15 trials from 165,502 people.

The three 2018 trials that triggered the updated data assessments were the ARRIVE trial, with 12,546 people randomized (Lancet. 2018 Sep 22;392[10152]:1036-46), the ASPREE trial, with 19,114 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1509-18), and the ASCEND trial, with 15,480 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1529-39).

As stated in the new report from Dr. Mehta, a professor of medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and his associates, the recent trial results from 2018 added new data from more than 45,000 additional subjects, a development that warranted a reappraisal of the evidence for aspirin’s efficacy and safety for primary prevention in contemporary practice.

The major findings from the analysis by Dr. Mehta and his associates were that in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease, daily aspirin use reduced the incidence of MIs, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 357; reduced ischemic stroke (NNT, 500), reduced transient ischemic attack (NNT, 370), and reduced the overall, combined rate of all major adverse cardiovascular events (NNT, 263). But on the safety side, daily aspirin led to an increased rate of major bleeding episodes, with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 222, increased intracranial bleeds (NNH, 1,000), and an increase in gastrointestinal bleeds (NNH, 385).

The analysis “demonstrates a potential reduction of net benefit with aspirin in the contemporary era,” the authors concluded. They also noted that the benefits from aspirin prevention were, as expected, “more pronounced” among people with a higher estimated risk from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The systematic review findings came against the backdrop of a recently released primary prevention guideline from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (J Am Coll Card. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010). The guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention “might be considered” for adults aged 40-70 years, but should not be used for people who are older than 70, and also should not be given to people with an increased risk for bleeding. In general, the experts who produced this guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis should be infrequent.

The new analysis also found no reduction in the incidence of cancer or cancer-related death linked with aspirin use for primary prevention. The systematic review published earlier in 2019 in JAMA also found no link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality. The review from the European Heart Journal did not report on the link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality.

Dr. Mehta has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medimmune, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Abdelaziz HK et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.501.




 

Using daily aspirin treatment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains an individualized decision that needs to balance a person’s risks for ischemic events and bleeding, according to results from a new systematic review of 15 randomized, aspirin-prevention trials, including results from 3 major trials that researchers reported during 2018.

“The findings suggest that the decision to use aspirin for primary prevention should be tailored to the individual patients based on estimated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk and perceived bleeding risk, as well as patient preferences regarding the types of event prevented versus potential bleeding caused,” Jawahar L. Mehta, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published on June 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors also concluded that if a person decides to use aspirin for primary prevention, then a low dose of 100 mg/day or less is recommended.


This new systematic review follows two reviews published earlier in 2019 that reached roughly similar conclusions after analyzing largely the same randomized trial data, including the same three major trials from 2018. One of these prior reviews included data from 13 trials and a total of 164,225 people (JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321[3]:277-87). The second review had data from 11 trials with 157,248 people (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 14;40[7]:607-17). The newly published review used data collected by 15 trials from 165,502 people.

The three 2018 trials that triggered the updated data assessments were the ARRIVE trial, with 12,546 people randomized (Lancet. 2018 Sep 22;392[10152]:1036-46), the ASPREE trial, with 19,114 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1509-18), and the ASCEND trial, with 15,480 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1529-39).

As stated in the new report from Dr. Mehta, a professor of medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and his associates, the recent trial results from 2018 added new data from more than 45,000 additional subjects, a development that warranted a reappraisal of the evidence for aspirin’s efficacy and safety for primary prevention in contemporary practice.

The major findings from the analysis by Dr. Mehta and his associates were that in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease, daily aspirin use reduced the incidence of MIs, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 357; reduced ischemic stroke (NNT, 500), reduced transient ischemic attack (NNT, 370), and reduced the overall, combined rate of all major adverse cardiovascular events (NNT, 263). But on the safety side, daily aspirin led to an increased rate of major bleeding episodes, with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 222, increased intracranial bleeds (NNH, 1,000), and an increase in gastrointestinal bleeds (NNH, 385).

The analysis “demonstrates a potential reduction of net benefit with aspirin in the contemporary era,” the authors concluded. They also noted that the benefits from aspirin prevention were, as expected, “more pronounced” among people with a higher estimated risk from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The systematic review findings came against the backdrop of a recently released primary prevention guideline from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (J Am Coll Card. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010). The guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention “might be considered” for adults aged 40-70 years, but should not be used for people who are older than 70, and also should not be given to people with an increased risk for bleeding. In general, the experts who produced this guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis should be infrequent.

The new analysis also found no reduction in the incidence of cancer or cancer-related death linked with aspirin use for primary prevention. The systematic review published earlier in 2019 in JAMA also found no link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality. The review from the European Heart Journal did not report on the link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality.

Dr. Mehta has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medimmune, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Abdelaziz HK et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.501.




 

SAN DIEGO – A new scoring system based on a set of 18 informative genes was sufficient to diagnose cases of eosinophilic gastritis, results from a molecular analysis showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The system, known as EG diagnostic panel 18 (EGDP₁₈), “can provide clinicians with a better diagnostic classification of ambiguous cases of eosinophilic gastritis, indicating a strong correlation with disease severity,” lead study author Tetsuo Shoda, MD, PhD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.“The EG molecular profile also strongly correlates with particular endoscopic and histological features, thus providing insight into pathogenesis for EG.”

In an effort to develop an EG diagnostic panel, to validate its utility for EG diagnosis and management, and to better understand disease pathogenesis, Dr. Shoda and his colleagues used RNA sequencing to generate genome-wide gene expression profiles from gastric biopsies. Next, they developed an EG diagnostic panel focusing on a set of 48 informative genes, and analyzed its performance in a discovery cohort (55 EG and 39 controls) and subsequently an independent validation cohort (67 EG and 27 controls). The EGDP score was calculated by summation of delta CT values of the most highly dysregulated 18 genes. For diagnosis, the researchers calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and used Spearman correlation to analyze associations.

Dr. Shoda, a research fellow at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, reported that the EGDP₁₈ score identified active EG patients in both cohorts (P less than .0001, AUC equal to or greater than 0.95). In the discovery cohort, a score of less than zero resulted in a sensitivity of 95.2%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 95.8%. In the validation cohort, a score of less than zero resulted in a sensitivity of 88.9%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 94.1%.

The researchers observed a significant inverse correlation between the EGDP₁₈ score and gastric eosinophil counts cross-sectionally and longitudinally. The score also showed comparable levels and high correlation between the gastric antrum and body. In addition, when analyzed by EGDP₁₈ score, 63% of ambiguous tissue eosinophils were found to be molecularly equivalent to active EG, “suggesting the capacity to offer an objective cutoff for EG diagnosis,” Dr. Shoda said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shoda T et al. DDW 2019, Abstract 165. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)36878-7.

SAN DIEGO – A new scoring system based on a set of 18 informative genes was sufficient to diagnose cases of eosinophilic gastritis, results from a molecular analysis showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The system, known as EG diagnostic panel 18 (EGDP₁₈), “can provide clinicians with a better diagnostic classification of ambiguous cases of eosinophilic gastritis, indicating a strong correlation with disease severity,” lead study author Tetsuo Shoda, MD, PhD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.“The EG molecular profile also strongly correlates with particular endoscopic and histological features, thus providing insight into pathogenesis for EG.”

In an effort to develop an EG diagnostic panel, to validate its utility for EG diagnosis and management, and to better understand disease pathogenesis, Dr. Shoda and his colleagues used RNA sequencing to generate genome-wide gene expression profiles from gastric biopsies. Next, they developed an EG diagnostic panel focusing on a set of 48 informative genes, and analyzed its performance in a discovery cohort (55 EG and 39 controls) and subsequently an independent validation cohort (67 EG and 27 controls). The EGDP score was calculated by summation of delta CT values of the most highly dysregulated 18 genes. For diagnosis, the researchers calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and used Spearman correlation to analyze associations.

Dr. Shoda, a research fellow at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, reported that the EGDP₁₈ score identified active EG patients in both cohorts (P less than .0001, AUC equal to or greater than 0.95). In the discovery cohort, a score of less than zero resulted in a sensitivity of 95.2%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 95.8%. In the validation cohort, a score of less than zero resulted in a sensitivity of 88.9%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 94.1%.

The researchers observed a significant inverse correlation between the EGDP₁₈ score and gastric eosinophil counts cross-sectionally and longitudinally. The score also showed comparable levels and high correlation between the gastric antrum and body. In addition, when analyzed by EGDP₁₈ score, 63% of ambiguous tissue eosinophils were found to be molecularly equivalent to active EG, “suggesting the capacity to offer an objective cutoff for EG diagnosis,” Dr. Shoda said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shoda T et al. DDW 2019, Abstract 165. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)36878-7.

SAN DIEGO – A new scoring system based on a set of 18 informative genes was sufficient to diagnose cases of eosinophilic gastritis, results from a molecular analysis showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The system, known as EG diagnostic panel 18 (EGDP₁₈), “can provide clinicians with a better diagnostic classification of ambiguous cases of eosinophilic gastritis, indicating a strong correlation with disease severity,” lead study author Tetsuo Shoda, MD, PhD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.“The EG molecular profile also strongly correlates with particular endoscopic and histological features, thus providing insight into pathogenesis for EG.”

In an effort to develop an EG diagnostic panel, to validate its utility for EG diagnosis and management, and to better understand disease pathogenesis, Dr. Shoda and his colleagues used RNA sequencing to generate genome-wide gene expression profiles from gastric biopsies. Next, they developed an EG diagnostic panel focusing on a set of 48 informative genes, and analyzed its performance in a discovery cohort (55 EG and 39 controls) and subsequently an independent validation cohort (67 EG and 27 controls). The EGDP score was calculated by summation of delta CT values of the most highly dysregulated 18 genes. For diagnosis, the researchers calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and used Spearman correlation to analyze associations.

Dr. Shoda, a research fellow at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, reported that the EGDP₁₈ score identified active EG patients in both cohorts (P less than .0001, AUC equal to or greater than 0.95). In the discovery cohort, a score of less than zero resulted in a sensitivity of 95.2%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 95.8%. In the validation cohort, a score of less than zero resulted in a sensitivity of 88.9%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 94.1%.

The researchers observed a significant inverse correlation between the EGDP₁₈ score and gastric eosinophil counts cross-sectionally and longitudinally. The score also showed comparable levels and high correlation between the gastric antrum and body. In addition, when analyzed by EGDP₁₈ score, 63% of ambiguous tissue eosinophils were found to be molecularly equivalent to active EG, “suggesting the capacity to offer an objective cutoff for EG diagnosis,” Dr. Shoda said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shoda T et al. DDW 2019, Abstract 165. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)36878-7.

SAN DIEGO – Coffee, tea, and soda consumption are all associated with increased risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), according to a new prospective cohort study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an interview following the oral presentation, Raaj S. Mehta, MD, said that patients in his primary care panel at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he’s a senior resident, frequently came to him with GERD. In addition to questions about diet, patients frequently wanted to know which beverages might provoke or exacerbate their GERD.

Vidyard Video

In trying to help his patients, Dr. Mehta said he realized that there wasn’t a prospective evidence base to answer their questions about beverages and GERD, so he and his colleagues used data from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), a prospective cohort study, to look at the association between various beverages and the incidence of GERD.

“What’s exciting is that we were able to find that coffee, tea, and soda – all three – increase your risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease,” Dr. Mehta said in a video interview. “At the highest quintile level, so looking at people who consume six or more cups per day, you’re looking at maybe a 25%-35% increase in risk of reflux disease.”

There was a dose-response relationship as well: “You do see a slight increase as you go from one cup, to two, to three, and so on, all the way up to six cups” of the offending beverages, said Dr. Mehta.

Overall, the risk for GERD rose from 1.17 to 1.34 with coffee consumption as servings per day increased from less than one to six or more (P for trend less than .0001). Tea consumption was associated with increased GERD risk ranging from 1.08 to 1.26 as consumption rose (P for trend .001). For soda, the increased risk went from 1.12 at less than one serving daily, to 1.41 at four to five servings daily, and then fell to 1.29 at six or more daily servings (P for trend less than .0001).

Whether the beverages were caffeinated or not, said Dr. Mehta, only made a “minimal difference” in GERD risk.

“In contrast, we didn’t see an association for beverages like water, juice, and milk,” he said – reassuring findings in light of fruit juice’s anecdotal status as a GERD culprit.

The NHS II collected data every 2 years from 48,308 female nurses aged 42-62 years at the beginning of the study. Every 4 years dietary information was collected, and on the opposite 4-year cycle, participants answered questions about GERD. Medication use, including the incident use of proton pump inhibitors, was collected every 2 years.

Patients with baseline GERD or use of PPIs or H₂ receptor antagonists were excluded from participation.

The quantity and type of beverages were assessed by food frequency questionnaires; other demographic, dietary, and medication variables were also gathered and used to adjust the statistical analysis.

A substitution analysis answered the “what-if” question of the effect of substituting two glasses of plain water daily for either coffee, tea, or soda. Dr. Mehta and colleagues saw a modest reduction in risk for GERD with this strategy.

In addition to the prospective nature of the study (abstract 514, doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)37044-1), the large sample size, high follow-up rates, and well validated dietary data were all strengths, said Dr. Mehta. However, the study’s population is relatively homogeneous, and residual confounding couldn’t be excluded. Also, GERD was defined by self-report, though participants were asked to respond to clear, validated criteria.

For Dr. Mehta, he’s glad to have a clear answer to a common clinic question. “I think that this is one additional thing that I can recommend as a primary care provider to my patients when they come into my office,” he said.

Dr. Mehta reported no conflicts of interest.

Encourage your patients to visit the AGA GI Patient Center for education by specialists for patients about GERD symptoms and treatments at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-gerd.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Coffee, tea, and soda consumption are all associated with increased risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), according to a new prospective cohort study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an interview following the oral presentation, Raaj S. Mehta, MD, said that patients in his primary care panel at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he’s a senior resident, frequently came to him with GERD. In addition to questions about diet, patients frequently wanted to know which beverages might provoke or exacerbate their GERD.

Vidyard Video

In trying to help his patients, Dr. Mehta said he realized that there wasn’t a prospective evidence base to answer their questions about beverages and GERD, so he and his colleagues used data from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), a prospective cohort study, to look at the association between various beverages and the incidence of GERD.

“What’s exciting is that we were able to find that coffee, tea, and soda – all three – increase your risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease,” Dr. Mehta said in a video interview. “At the highest quintile level, so looking at people who consume six or more cups per day, you’re looking at maybe a 25%-35% increase in risk of reflux disease.”

There was a dose-response relationship as well: “You do see a slight increase as you go from one cup, to two, to three, and so on, all the way up to six cups” of the offending beverages, said Dr. Mehta.

Overall, the risk for GERD rose from 1.17 to 1.34 with coffee consumption as servings per day increased from less than one to six or more (P for trend less than .0001). Tea consumption was associated with increased GERD risk ranging from 1.08 to 1.26 as consumption rose (P for trend .001). For soda, the increased risk went from 1.12 at less than one serving daily, to 1.41 at four to five servings daily, and then fell to 1.29 at six or more daily servings (P for trend less than .0001).

Whether the beverages were caffeinated or not, said Dr. Mehta, only made a “minimal difference” in GERD risk.

“In contrast, we didn’t see an association for beverages like water, juice, and milk,” he said – reassuring findings in light of fruit juice’s anecdotal status as a GERD culprit.

The NHS II collected data every 2 years from 48,308 female nurses aged 42-62 years at the beginning of the study. Every 4 years dietary information was collected, and on the opposite 4-year cycle, participants answered questions about GERD. Medication use, including the incident use of proton pump inhibitors, was collected every 2 years.

Patients with baseline GERD or use of PPIs or H₂ receptor antagonists were excluded from participation.

The quantity and type of beverages were assessed by food frequency questionnaires; other demographic, dietary, and medication variables were also gathered and used to adjust the statistical analysis.

A substitution analysis answered the “what-if” question of the effect of substituting two glasses of plain water daily for either coffee, tea, or soda. Dr. Mehta and colleagues saw a modest reduction in risk for GERD with this strategy.

In addition to the prospective nature of the study (abstract 514, doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)37044-1), the large sample size, high follow-up rates, and well validated dietary data were all strengths, said Dr. Mehta. However, the study’s population is relatively homogeneous, and residual confounding couldn’t be excluded. Also, GERD was defined by self-report, though participants were asked to respond to clear, validated criteria.

For Dr. Mehta, he’s glad to have a clear answer to a common clinic question. “I think that this is one additional thing that I can recommend as a primary care provider to my patients when they come into my office,” he said.

Dr. Mehta reported no conflicts of interest.

Encourage your patients to visit the AGA GI Patient Center for education by specialists for patients about GERD symptoms and treatments at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-gerd.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Coffee, tea, and soda consumption are all associated with increased risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), according to a new prospective cohort study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an interview following the oral presentation, Raaj S. Mehta, MD, said that patients in his primary care panel at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he’s a senior resident, frequently came to him with GERD. In addition to questions about diet, patients frequently wanted to know which beverages might provoke or exacerbate their GERD.

Vidyard Video

In trying to help his patients, Dr. Mehta said he realized that there wasn’t a prospective evidence base to answer their questions about beverages and GERD, so he and his colleagues used data from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), a prospective cohort study, to look at the association between various beverages and the incidence of GERD.

“What’s exciting is that we were able to find that coffee, tea, and soda – all three – increase your risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease,” Dr. Mehta said in a video interview. “At the highest quintile level, so looking at people who consume six or more cups per day, you’re looking at maybe a 25%-35% increase in risk of reflux disease.”

There was a dose-response relationship as well: “You do see a slight increase as you go from one cup, to two, to three, and so on, all the way up to six cups” of the offending beverages, said Dr. Mehta.

Overall, the risk for GERD rose from 1.17 to 1.34 with coffee consumption as servings per day increased from less than one to six or more (P for trend less than .0001). Tea consumption was associated with increased GERD risk ranging from 1.08 to 1.26 as consumption rose (P for trend .001). For soda, the increased risk went from 1.12 at less than one serving daily, to 1.41 at four to five servings daily, and then fell to 1.29 at six or more daily servings (P for trend less than .0001).

Whether the beverages were caffeinated or not, said Dr. Mehta, only made a “minimal difference” in GERD risk.

“In contrast, we didn’t see an association for beverages like water, juice, and milk,” he said – reassuring findings in light of fruit juice’s anecdotal status as a GERD culprit.

The NHS II collected data every 2 years from 48,308 female nurses aged 42-62 years at the beginning of the study. Every 4 years dietary information was collected, and on the opposite 4-year cycle, participants answered questions about GERD. Medication use, including the incident use of proton pump inhibitors, was collected every 2 years.

Patients with baseline GERD or use of PPIs or H₂ receptor antagonists were excluded from participation.

The quantity and type of beverages were assessed by food frequency questionnaires; other demographic, dietary, and medication variables were also gathered and used to adjust the statistical analysis.

A substitution analysis answered the “what-if” question of the effect of substituting two glasses of plain water daily for either coffee, tea, or soda. Dr. Mehta and colleagues saw a modest reduction in risk for GERD with this strategy.

In addition to the prospective nature of the study (abstract 514, doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)37044-1), the large sample size, high follow-up rates, and well validated dietary data were all strengths, said Dr. Mehta. However, the study’s population is relatively homogeneous, and residual confounding couldn’t be excluded. Also, GERD was defined by self-report, though participants were asked to respond to clear, validated criteria.

For Dr. Mehta, he’s glad to have a clear answer to a common clinic question. “I think that this is one additional thing that I can recommend as a primary care provider to my patients when they come into my office,” he said.

Dr. Mehta reported no conflicts of interest.

Encourage your patients to visit the AGA GI Patient Center for education by specialists for patients about GERD symptoms and treatments at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-gerd.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – There is no significant increased risk of dementia among patients who use proton pump inhibitors, compared with those who don’t, results from a systematic meta-analysis suggest.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding runs counter to recent studies, including a large pharmacoepidemiological claims data analysis from Germany, that propose an association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and the development of dementia (JAMA Neurol. 2016;73[4]:410-6). “The issue with these studies is that they’re based on retrospective claims data and pharmacoepidemiological studies and insurance databases that don’t really give you a good causality basis,” lead study author Saad Alrajhi, MD, said in an interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an effort to better characterize the association between PPI exposure and dementia, Dr. Alrajhi, a gastroenterology fellow at McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of all fully published randomized clinical trials or observational studies comparing use of PPIs and occurrence of dementia. The researchers queried Embase, MEDLINE, and ISI Web of Knowledge for relevant studies that were published from 1995 through September 2018. Next, they assessed the quality of the studies by using the Cochrane risk assessment tool for RCTs or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.

As the primary outcome, the researchers compared dementia incidence after PPI exposure (experimental group) versus no PPI exposure (control group). Development of Alzheimer’s dementia was a secondary outcome. Sensitivity analyses consisted of excluding one study at a time, and assessing results among studies of highest qualities. Subgroup analyses included stratifying patients by age. To report odds ratios, Dr. Alrajhi and colleagues used fixed or random effects models based on the absence or presence of heterogeneity.


Of 549 studies assessed, 5 met the criteria for inclusion in the final analysis: 3 case-control studies and 2 cohort studies, with a total of 472,933 patients. All of the studies scored 8 or 9 on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, indicating high quality. Significant heterogeneity was noted for all analyses. The researchers found that the incidence of dementia was not significantly increased among patients in the PPI-exposed group (odd ratio, 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.20; P = .18). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Subgroup analysis showed no between-group differences among studies that included a minimum age above 65 years (three studies) or less than age 65 (two studies). PPI exposure was not associated with the development of Alzheimer’s dementia (two studies) (OR, 1.32 (95% CI, 0.80-2.17; P = .27).

“In the absence of randomized trial evidence, a PPI prescribing approach based on appropriate utilization of guideline-based prescription should be done without the extra fear of the association of dementia,” Dr. Alrajhi said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – There is no significant increased risk of dementia among patients who use proton pump inhibitors, compared with those who don’t, results from a systematic meta-analysis suggest.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding runs counter to recent studies, including a large pharmacoepidemiological claims data analysis from Germany, that propose an association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and the development of dementia (JAMA Neurol. 2016;73[4]:410-6). “The issue with these studies is that they’re based on retrospective claims data and pharmacoepidemiological studies and insurance databases that don’t really give you a good causality basis,” lead study author Saad Alrajhi, MD, said in an interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an effort to better characterize the association between PPI exposure and dementia, Dr. Alrajhi, a gastroenterology fellow at McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of all fully published randomized clinical trials or observational studies comparing use of PPIs and occurrence of dementia. The researchers queried Embase, MEDLINE, and ISI Web of Knowledge for relevant studies that were published from 1995 through September 2018. Next, they assessed the quality of the studies by using the Cochrane risk assessment tool for RCTs or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.

As the primary outcome, the researchers compared dementia incidence after PPI exposure (experimental group) versus no PPI exposure (control group). Development of Alzheimer’s dementia was a secondary outcome. Sensitivity analyses consisted of excluding one study at a time, and assessing results among studies of highest qualities. Subgroup analyses included stratifying patients by age. To report odds ratios, Dr. Alrajhi and colleagues used fixed or random effects models based on the absence or presence of heterogeneity.


Of 549 studies assessed, 5 met the criteria for inclusion in the final analysis: 3 case-control studies and 2 cohort studies, with a total of 472,933 patients. All of the studies scored 8 or 9 on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, indicating high quality. Significant heterogeneity was noted for all analyses. The researchers found that the incidence of dementia was not significantly increased among patients in the PPI-exposed group (odd ratio, 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.20; P = .18). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Subgroup analysis showed no between-group differences among studies that included a minimum age above 65 years (three studies) or less than age 65 (two studies). PPI exposure was not associated with the development of Alzheimer’s dementia (two studies) (OR, 1.32 (95% CI, 0.80-2.17; P = .27).

“In the absence of randomized trial evidence, a PPI prescribing approach based on appropriate utilization of guideline-based prescription should be done without the extra fear of the association of dementia,” Dr. Alrajhi said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – There is no significant increased risk of dementia among patients who use proton pump inhibitors, compared with those who don’t, results from a systematic meta-analysis suggest.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding runs counter to recent studies, including a large pharmacoepidemiological claims data analysis from Germany, that propose an association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and the development of dementia (JAMA Neurol. 2016;73[4]:410-6). “The issue with these studies is that they’re based on retrospective claims data and pharmacoepidemiological studies and insurance databases that don’t really give you a good causality basis,” lead study author Saad Alrajhi, MD, said in an interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an effort to better characterize the association between PPI exposure and dementia, Dr. Alrajhi, a gastroenterology fellow at McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of all fully published randomized clinical trials or observational studies comparing use of PPIs and occurrence of dementia. The researchers queried Embase, MEDLINE, and ISI Web of Knowledge for relevant studies that were published from 1995 through September 2018. Next, they assessed the quality of the studies by using the Cochrane risk assessment tool for RCTs or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.

As the primary outcome, the researchers compared dementia incidence after PPI exposure (experimental group) versus no PPI exposure (control group). Development of Alzheimer’s dementia was a secondary outcome. Sensitivity analyses consisted of excluding one study at a time, and assessing results among studies of highest qualities. Subgroup analyses included stratifying patients by age. To report odds ratios, Dr. Alrajhi and colleagues used fixed or random effects models based on the absence or presence of heterogeneity.


Of 549 studies assessed, 5 met the criteria for inclusion in the final analysis: 3 case-control studies and 2 cohort studies, with a total of 472,933 patients. All of the studies scored 8 or 9 on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, indicating high quality. Significant heterogeneity was noted for all analyses. The researchers found that the incidence of dementia was not significantly increased among patients in the PPI-exposed group (odd ratio, 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.20; P = .18). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Subgroup analysis showed no between-group differences among studies that included a minimum age above 65 years (three studies) or less than age 65 (two studies). PPI exposure was not associated with the development of Alzheimer’s dementia (two studies) (OR, 1.32 (95% CI, 0.80-2.17; P = .27).

“In the absence of randomized trial evidence, a PPI prescribing approach based on appropriate utilization of guideline-based prescription should be done without the extra fear of the association of dementia,” Dr. Alrajhi said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Gastroesophageal reflux disease refractory to proton pump inhibitors may affect nearly half of those treated, according to the findings of a population-based sample of more than 70,000 Americans.

As part of the National Institutes of Health GI Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (NIH GI-PROMIS) questionnaire, respondents could download a free app called “My GI Health,” which led them through a series of questions about GI diseases. Sean Delshad, MD, MBA, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles, and his colleagues examined data on symptom responses about GERD and heartburn.

Their somewhat surprising findings were that 44% of respondents had ever had GERD and that 70% of those respondents had symptoms in the past week. GERD seemed to be more common in women than in men, and in non-Hispanic whites more than other demographic groups. The rate of proton pump inhibitor–refractory GERD was reported at 54%.

Dr. Delshad discussed the implications of the study results for treatment and research in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.
 

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Gastroesophageal reflux disease refractory to proton pump inhibitors may affect nearly half of those treated, according to the findings of a population-based sample of more than 70,000 Americans.

As part of the National Institutes of Health GI Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (NIH GI-PROMIS) questionnaire, respondents could download a free app called “My GI Health,” which led them through a series of questions about GI diseases. Sean Delshad, MD, MBA, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles, and his colleagues examined data on symptom responses about GERD and heartburn.

Their somewhat surprising findings were that 44% of respondents had ever had GERD and that 70% of those respondents had symptoms in the past week. GERD seemed to be more common in women than in men, and in non-Hispanic whites more than other demographic groups. The rate of proton pump inhibitor–refractory GERD was reported at 54%.

Dr. Delshad discussed the implications of the study results for treatment and research in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.
 

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Gastroesophageal reflux disease refractory to proton pump inhibitors may affect nearly half of those treated, according to the findings of a population-based sample of more than 70,000 Americans.

As part of the National Institutes of Health GI Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (NIH GI-PROMIS) questionnaire, respondents could download a free app called “My GI Health,” which led them through a series of questions about GI diseases. Sean Delshad, MD, MBA, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles, and his colleagues examined data on symptom responses about GERD and heartburn.

Their somewhat surprising findings were that 44% of respondents had ever had GERD and that 70% of those respondents had symptoms in the past week. GERD seemed to be more common in women than in men, and in non-Hispanic whites more than other demographic groups. The rate of proton pump inhibitor–refractory GERD was reported at 54%.

Dr. Delshad discussed the implications of the study results for treatment and research in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.
 

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Years of experience and an academic medical center affiliation predicted the accuracy of pathologists reviewing biopsies from patients with Barrett’s esophagus, according to the results of a multinational study.

Those with 5 or more years of experience were less likely to make major diagnostic errors in reviewing Barrett’s esophagus biopsies (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.74). Pathologists who worked in nonacademic settings were more likely to make a major diagnostic error (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.15-2.69) when reviewing hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides alone, but the addition of p53 immunostaining greatly improved accuracy.

Current guidelines recommend expert evaluation of Barrett’s esophagus biopsies that show dysplasia, but exact determination of expert review status had been lacking, according to Marnix Jansen, MD, a pathologist at University College London.

“The guidelines say that biopsies with dysplasia need to be reviewed by an expert pathologist, but don’t define what makes an expert pathologist,” Dr. Jansen said in an interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

“We wanted to advance the field by for the first time creating objective and quantitative standards” to delineate the characteristics of an expert pathologist in reviewing Barrett’s esophagus tissue samples, said Dr. Jansen. The study’s first author is Myrtle J. van der Wel, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

More than 6,000 individual case diagnoses were used in the study, which included pathologists from more than 20 countries. Before the pathologists began reviewing the case set, they answered a questionnaire about training, practice context, years of experience, case volume, and other demographic characteristics.

“We then sent those biopsies around the world to ... 55 pathologists in the U.S., in Europe, Japan, Australia, even some in South America – so really around the whole globe,” explained Dr. Jansen. Biopsies were assessed by each pathologist before and after p53 immunostaining.

“Once we had the final dataset – which is massive, because we had 6,000 case diagnoses within our dataset – we could then regress those variables back onto the consensus data,” providing a first-ever look at “clear predictors of what the pathologist looks like that will score on a par with where the experts are,” said Dr. Jansen.

The results? “You need at least 5 years of experience. On top of that, if you are a pathologist working in a [nonacademic center], you are at a slightly increased risk of making major diagnostic errors,” said Dr. Jansen. However, the analysis convincingly showed that the addition of p53 immunostaining neutralized the risk for these pathologists – a strength of having such a large dataset, he said.

The study also affirmed the safety of digital pathology for expert review, said Dr. Jansen: “One of the reassuring points of our study was that we found that the best concordance was for nondysplastic Barrett’s, and high-grade dysplasia, which really replicates known glass slide characteristics. So we can really say that digital pathology is safe for this application – which is very relevant for pathologists that are taking in cases from outside for expert review.”

Concordance rates for nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus and high-grade dysplasia were over 70%; for low-grade dysplasia, rates were intermediate at 42%.

Going forward, the study can inform the next iteration of guidelines for pathologist review of Barrett’s dysplasia, said Dr. Jansen. Rather than just recommending expert review, the guidelines can include a quantitative assessment of what’s needed. “You need to have to have at least 5 years of experience, and if you work in a [community hospital], to use a p53, and that is collectively what amounts to expertise in Barrett’s pathology.”

A follow-up study with a similar design is planned within the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States. This study, which Dr. Jansen said would enroll hundreds of pathologists, will include an intervention arm that administers a tutorial with the aim of improving concordance scoring.

Dr. Jansen reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Years of experience and an academic medical center affiliation predicted the accuracy of pathologists reviewing biopsies from patients with Barrett’s esophagus, according to the results of a multinational study.

Those with 5 or more years of experience were less likely to make major diagnostic errors in reviewing Barrett’s esophagus biopsies (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.74). Pathologists who worked in nonacademic settings were more likely to make a major diagnostic error (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.15-2.69) when reviewing hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides alone, but the addition of p53 immunostaining greatly improved accuracy.

Current guidelines recommend expert evaluation of Barrett’s esophagus biopsies that show dysplasia, but exact determination of expert review status had been lacking, according to Marnix Jansen, MD, a pathologist at University College London.

“The guidelines say that biopsies with dysplasia need to be reviewed by an expert pathologist, but don’t define what makes an expert pathologist,” Dr. Jansen said in an interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

“We wanted to advance the field by for the first time creating objective and quantitative standards” to delineate the characteristics of an expert pathologist in reviewing Barrett’s esophagus tissue samples, said Dr. Jansen. The study’s first author is Myrtle J. van der Wel, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

More than 6,000 individual case diagnoses were used in the study, which included pathologists from more than 20 countries. Before the pathologists began reviewing the case set, they answered a questionnaire about training, practice context, years of experience, case volume, and other demographic characteristics.

“We then sent those biopsies around the world to ... 55 pathologists in the U.S., in Europe, Japan, Australia, even some in South America – so really around the whole globe,” explained Dr. Jansen. Biopsies were assessed by each pathologist before and after p53 immunostaining.

“Once we had the final dataset – which is massive, because we had 6,000 case diagnoses within our dataset – we could then regress those variables back onto the consensus data,” providing a first-ever look at “clear predictors of what the pathologist looks like that will score on a par with where the experts are,” said Dr. Jansen.

The results? “You need at least 5 years of experience. On top of that, if you are a pathologist working in a [nonacademic center], you are at a slightly increased risk of making major diagnostic errors,” said Dr. Jansen. However, the analysis convincingly showed that the addition of p53 immunostaining neutralized the risk for these pathologists – a strength of having such a large dataset, he said.

The study also affirmed the safety of digital pathology for expert review, said Dr. Jansen: “One of the reassuring points of our study was that we found that the best concordance was for nondysplastic Barrett’s, and high-grade dysplasia, which really replicates known glass slide characteristics. So we can really say that digital pathology is safe for this application – which is very relevant for pathologists that are taking in cases from outside for expert review.”

Concordance rates for nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus and high-grade dysplasia were over 70%; for low-grade dysplasia, rates were intermediate at 42%.

Going forward, the study can inform the next iteration of guidelines for pathologist review of Barrett’s dysplasia, said Dr. Jansen. Rather than just recommending expert review, the guidelines can include a quantitative assessment of what’s needed. “You need to have to have at least 5 years of experience, and if you work in a [community hospital], to use a p53, and that is collectively what amounts to expertise in Barrett’s pathology.”

A follow-up study with a similar design is planned within the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States. This study, which Dr. Jansen said would enroll hundreds of pathologists, will include an intervention arm that administers a tutorial with the aim of improving concordance scoring.

Dr. Jansen reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Years of experience and an academic medical center affiliation predicted the accuracy of pathologists reviewing biopsies from patients with Barrett’s esophagus, according to the results of a multinational study.

Those with 5 or more years of experience were less likely to make major diagnostic errors in reviewing Barrett’s esophagus biopsies (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.74). Pathologists who worked in nonacademic settings were more likely to make a major diagnostic error (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.15-2.69) when reviewing hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides alone, but the addition of p53 immunostaining greatly improved accuracy.

Current guidelines recommend expert evaluation of Barrett’s esophagus biopsies that show dysplasia, but exact determination of expert review status had been lacking, according to Marnix Jansen, MD, a pathologist at University College London.

“The guidelines say that biopsies with dysplasia need to be reviewed by an expert pathologist, but don’t define what makes an expert pathologist,” Dr. Jansen said in an interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

“We wanted to advance the field by for the first time creating objective and quantitative standards” to delineate the characteristics of an expert pathologist in reviewing Barrett’s esophagus tissue samples, said Dr. Jansen. The study’s first author is Myrtle J. van der Wel, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

More than 6,000 individual case diagnoses were used in the study, which included pathologists from more than 20 countries. Before the pathologists began reviewing the case set, they answered a questionnaire about training, practice context, years of experience, case volume, and other demographic characteristics.

“We then sent those biopsies around the world to ... 55 pathologists in the U.S., in Europe, Japan, Australia, even some in South America – so really around the whole globe,” explained Dr. Jansen. Biopsies were assessed by each pathologist before and after p53 immunostaining.

“Once we had the final dataset – which is massive, because we had 6,000 case diagnoses within our dataset – we could then regress those variables back onto the consensus data,” providing a first-ever look at “clear predictors of what the pathologist looks like that will score on a par with where the experts are,” said Dr. Jansen.

The results? “You need at least 5 years of experience. On top of that, if you are a pathologist working in a [nonacademic center], you are at a slightly increased risk of making major diagnostic errors,” said Dr. Jansen. However, the analysis convincingly showed that the addition of p53 immunostaining neutralized the risk for these pathologists – a strength of having such a large dataset, he said.

The study also affirmed the safety of digital pathology for expert review, said Dr. Jansen: “One of the reassuring points of our study was that we found that the best concordance was for nondysplastic Barrett’s, and high-grade dysplasia, which really replicates known glass slide characteristics. So we can really say that digital pathology is safe for this application – which is very relevant for pathologists that are taking in cases from outside for expert review.”

Concordance rates for nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus and high-grade dysplasia were over 70%; for low-grade dysplasia, rates were intermediate at 42%.

Going forward, the study can inform the next iteration of guidelines for pathologist review of Barrett’s dysplasia, said Dr. Jansen. Rather than just recommending expert review, the guidelines can include a quantitative assessment of what’s needed. “You need to have to have at least 5 years of experience, and if you work in a [community hospital], to use a p53, and that is collectively what amounts to expertise in Barrett’s pathology.”

A follow-up study with a similar design is planned within the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States. This study, which Dr. Jansen said would enroll hundreds of pathologists, will include an intervention arm that administers a tutorial with the aim of improving concordance scoring.

Dr. Jansen reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – A button battery lodged in a child’s esophagus is an acknowledged emergency, but there is less evidence about retrieval of button batteries that have passed to the stomach. Observation alone has been recommended when an x-ray determines that the button battery has passed to the stomach within 2 hours of ingestion, when the battery is less than 20 mm, and the child is aged at least 5 years.

At the annual Digestive Disease Week, Racha Khalaf, MD, and Thomas Walker, MD, both of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, presented data that call this approach into question. Their retrospective cohort study of 4 years’ worth of records from four pediatric centers in the United States identified 68 cases in which a pediatric gastroenterologist had endoscopically removed the button battery. In 60% of those cases, the battery had already caused mucosal damage varying from minor to deep necrosis and perforation.

Further, the degree of injury was not correlated with symptoms, strengthening the recommendation for retrieving the button battery from the stomach.

In our exclusive video interview, Dr. Khalaf and Dr. Walker discussed the impact of their findings for guidelines for pediatric gastroenterologists and Poison Control Center advice to parents about ingestion of button batteries.

Their study was partly supported by a Cystic Fibrosis Foundational Grant Award and by National Institutes of Health Training Grants.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – A button battery lodged in a child’s esophagus is an acknowledged emergency, but there is less evidence about retrieval of button batteries that have passed to the stomach. Observation alone has been recommended when an x-ray determines that the button battery has passed to the stomach within 2 hours of ingestion, when the battery is less than 20 mm, and the child is aged at least 5 years.

At the annual Digestive Disease Week, Racha Khalaf, MD, and Thomas Walker, MD, both of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, presented data that call this approach into question. Their retrospective cohort study of 4 years’ worth of records from four pediatric centers in the United States identified 68 cases in which a pediatric gastroenterologist had endoscopically removed the button battery. In 60% of those cases, the battery had already caused mucosal damage varying from minor to deep necrosis and perforation.

Further, the degree of injury was not correlated with symptoms, strengthening the recommendation for retrieving the button battery from the stomach.

In our exclusive video interview, Dr. Khalaf and Dr. Walker discussed the impact of their findings for guidelines for pediatric gastroenterologists and Poison Control Center advice to parents about ingestion of button batteries.

Their study was partly supported by a Cystic Fibrosis Foundational Grant Award and by National Institutes of Health Training Grants.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – A button battery lodged in a child’s esophagus is an acknowledged emergency, but there is less evidence about retrieval of button batteries that have passed to the stomach. Observation alone has been recommended when an x-ray determines that the button battery has passed to the stomach within 2 hours of ingestion, when the battery is less than 20 mm, and the child is aged at least 5 years.

At the annual Digestive Disease Week, Racha Khalaf, MD, and Thomas Walker, MD, both of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, presented data that call this approach into question. Their retrospective cohort study of 4 years’ worth of records from four pediatric centers in the United States identified 68 cases in which a pediatric gastroenterologist had endoscopically removed the button battery. In 60% of those cases, the battery had already caused mucosal damage varying from minor to deep necrosis and perforation.

Further, the degree of injury was not correlated with symptoms, strengthening the recommendation for retrieving the button battery from the stomach.

In our exclusive video interview, Dr. Khalaf and Dr. Walker discussed the impact of their findings for guidelines for pediatric gastroenterologists and Poison Control Center advice to parents about ingestion of button batteries.

Their study was partly supported by a Cystic Fibrosis Foundational Grant Award and by National Institutes of Health Training Grants.

[email protected]