Upper GI Tract

The use of proton pump inhibitors in opened instead of closed capsules was associated with a nearly fourfold shorter median healing time among patients who developed marginal ulcers after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, in a single-center retrospective cohort study.

In contrast, the specific class of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) did not affect healing times, wrote Allison R. Schulman, MD, and her associates at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. The report is in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.10.015). “Given these results and the high prevalence of marginal ulceration in this patient population, further study in a randomized controlled setting is warranted, and use of open-capsule PPIs should be considered as a low-risk, low-cost alternative,” they added.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is one of the most common types of gastric bypass surgeries in the world, and up to 16% of patients develop postsurgical ulcers at the gastrojejunal anastomosis, the investigators noted. Acidity is a prime suspect in these “marginal ulcerations” because bypassing the acid-buffering duodenum exposes the jejunum to acid from the stomach, they added. High-dose PPIs are the main treatment, but there is no consensus on the formulation or dose of therapy. Because Roux-en-Y creates a small gastric pouch and hastens small-bowel transit, closed capsules designed to break down in the stomach “even may make their way to the colon before breakdown occurs,” they wrote.

They reviewed medical charts from patients who developed marginal ulcerations after undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at their hospital from 2000 through 2015. A total of 115 patients received open-capsule PPIs and 49 received intact capsules. All were followed until their ulcers healed.

For the open-capsule group, median time to healing was 91 days, compared with 342 days for the closed-capsule group (P less than .001). Importantly, capsule type was the only independent predictor of healing time (hazard ratio, 6.0; 95% confidence interval, 3.7 to 9.8; P less than .001) in a Cox regression model that included other known correlates of ulcer healing, including age, smoking status, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Helicobacter pylori infection, the length of the gastric pouch, and the presence of fistulae or foreign bodies such as sutures or staples.

The use of sucralfate also did not affect time to ulcer healing, reflecting “many previous studies showing a lack of definitive benefit to this medication,” the researchers said. The findings have “tremendous implications” for health care utilization, they added. Indeed, patients who received open-capsule PPIs needed significantly fewer endoscopic procedures (median, 1.2 versus 1.8; P = .02) and used fewer health care resources overall ($7,206 versus $11,009; P = .05) compared with those prescribed intact PPI capsules.

This study was limited to patients who developed ulcer symptoms and underwent repeated surveillance endoscopies after surgery, the researchers noted. Selection bias is always a concern with retrospective studies, but insurers always covered both types of therapy and the choice of capsule type was entirely up to providers, all of whom consistently prescribed either open- or closed-capsule PPI therapy, they added.

The investigators did not acknowledge external funding sources. Dr. Schulman and four coinvestigators reported having no competing interests. One coinvestigator disclosed ties to Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Covidien.

The use of proton pump inhibitors in opened instead of closed capsules was associated with a nearly fourfold shorter median healing time among patients who developed marginal ulcers after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, in a single-center retrospective cohort study.

In contrast, the specific class of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) did not affect healing times, wrote Allison R. Schulman, MD, and her associates at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. The report is in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.10.015). “Given these results and the high prevalence of marginal ulceration in this patient population, further study in a randomized controlled setting is warranted, and use of open-capsule PPIs should be considered as a low-risk, low-cost alternative,” they added.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is one of the most common types of gastric bypass surgeries in the world, and up to 16% of patients develop postsurgical ulcers at the gastrojejunal anastomosis, the investigators noted. Acidity is a prime suspect in these “marginal ulcerations” because bypassing the acid-buffering duodenum exposes the jejunum to acid from the stomach, they added. High-dose PPIs are the main treatment, but there is no consensus on the formulation or dose of therapy. Because Roux-en-Y creates a small gastric pouch and hastens small-bowel transit, closed capsules designed to break down in the stomach “even may make their way to the colon before breakdown occurs,” they wrote.

They reviewed medical charts from patients who developed marginal ulcerations after undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at their hospital from 2000 through 2015. A total of 115 patients received open-capsule PPIs and 49 received intact capsules. All were followed until their ulcers healed.

For the open-capsule group, median time to healing was 91 days, compared with 342 days for the closed-capsule group (P less than .001). Importantly, capsule type was the only independent predictor of healing time (hazard ratio, 6.0; 95% confidence interval, 3.7 to 9.8; P less than .001) in a Cox regression model that included other known correlates of ulcer healing, including age, smoking status, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Helicobacter pylori infection, the length of the gastric pouch, and the presence of fistulae or foreign bodies such as sutures or staples.

The use of sucralfate also did not affect time to ulcer healing, reflecting “many previous studies showing a lack of definitive benefit to this medication,” the researchers said. The findings have “tremendous implications” for health care utilization, they added. Indeed, patients who received open-capsule PPIs needed significantly fewer endoscopic procedures (median, 1.2 versus 1.8; P = .02) and used fewer health care resources overall ($7,206 versus $11,009; P = .05) compared with those prescribed intact PPI capsules.

This study was limited to patients who developed ulcer symptoms and underwent repeated surveillance endoscopies after surgery, the researchers noted. Selection bias is always a concern with retrospective studies, but insurers always covered both types of therapy and the choice of capsule type was entirely up to providers, all of whom consistently prescribed either open- or closed-capsule PPI therapy, they added.

The investigators did not acknowledge external funding sources. Dr. Schulman and four coinvestigators reported having no competing interests. One coinvestigator disclosed ties to Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Covidien.

The use of proton pump inhibitors in opened instead of closed capsules was associated with a nearly fourfold shorter median healing time among patients who developed marginal ulcers after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, in a single-center retrospective cohort study.

In contrast, the specific class of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) did not affect healing times, wrote Allison R. Schulman, MD, and her associates at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. The report is in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.10.015). “Given these results and the high prevalence of marginal ulceration in this patient population, further study in a randomized controlled setting is warranted, and use of open-capsule PPIs should be considered as a low-risk, low-cost alternative,” they added.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is one of the most common types of gastric bypass surgeries in the world, and up to 16% of patients develop postsurgical ulcers at the gastrojejunal anastomosis, the investigators noted. Acidity is a prime suspect in these “marginal ulcerations” because bypassing the acid-buffering duodenum exposes the jejunum to acid from the stomach, they added. High-dose PPIs are the main treatment, but there is no consensus on the formulation or dose of therapy. Because Roux-en-Y creates a small gastric pouch and hastens small-bowel transit, closed capsules designed to break down in the stomach “even may make their way to the colon before breakdown occurs,” they wrote.

They reviewed medical charts from patients who developed marginal ulcerations after undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at their hospital from 2000 through 2015. A total of 115 patients received open-capsule PPIs and 49 received intact capsules. All were followed until their ulcers healed.

For the open-capsule group, median time to healing was 91 days, compared with 342 days for the closed-capsule group (P less than .001). Importantly, capsule type was the only independent predictor of healing time (hazard ratio, 6.0; 95% confidence interval, 3.7 to 9.8; P less than .001) in a Cox regression model that included other known correlates of ulcer healing, including age, smoking status, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Helicobacter pylori infection, the length of the gastric pouch, and the presence of fistulae or foreign bodies such as sutures or staples.

The use of sucralfate also did not affect time to ulcer healing, reflecting “many previous studies showing a lack of definitive benefit to this medication,” the researchers said. The findings have “tremendous implications” for health care utilization, they added. Indeed, patients who received open-capsule PPIs needed significantly fewer endoscopic procedures (median, 1.2 versus 1.8; P = .02) and used fewer health care resources overall ($7,206 versus $11,009; P = .05) compared with those prescribed intact PPI capsules.

This study was limited to patients who developed ulcer symptoms and underwent repeated surveillance endoscopies after surgery, the researchers noted. Selection bias is always a concern with retrospective studies, but insurers always covered both types of therapy and the choice of capsule type was entirely up to providers, all of whom consistently prescribed either open- or closed-capsule PPI therapy, they added.

The investigators did not acknowledge external funding sources. Dr. Schulman and four coinvestigators reported having no competing interests. One coinvestigator disclosed ties to Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Covidien.

New clinical practice advice has been issued for use of the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) to assess disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract, with the main takeaway being the device’s potency in diagnosing achalasia.

“Although the strongest data appear to be focused on the management of achalasia, emerging evidence supports the clinical relevance of FLIP in the assessment of disease severity and as an outcome measure in [eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE)] intervention trials,” wrote the authors of the update, led by John E. Pandolfino, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago. The report is in the March issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.
10.022).

*This story updated on 3/9/2017.

[email protected]

New clinical practice advice has been issued for use of the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) to assess disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract, with the main takeaway being the device’s potency in diagnosing achalasia.

“Although the strongest data appear to be focused on the management of achalasia, emerging evidence supports the clinical relevance of FLIP in the assessment of disease severity and as an outcome measure in [eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE)] intervention trials,” wrote the authors of the update, led by John E. Pandolfino, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago. The report is in the March issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.
10.022).

*This story updated on 3/9/2017.

[email protected]

New clinical practice advice has been issued for use of the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) to assess disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract, with the main takeaway being the device’s potency in diagnosing achalasia.

“Although the strongest data appear to be focused on the management of achalasia, emerging evidence supports the clinical relevance of FLIP in the assessment of disease severity and as an outcome measure in [eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE)] intervention trials,” wrote the authors of the update, led by John E. Pandolfino, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago. The report is in the March issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.
10.022).

*This story updated on 3/9/2017.

[email protected]

Updated best practice statements regarding the use of proton pump inhibitors first detail what types of patients should be using short and long-term PPIs.

“When PPIs are appropriately prescribed, their benefits are likely to outweigh their risks [but] when PPIs are inappropriately prescribed, modest risks become important because there is no potential benefit,” wrote the authors of the updated guidance, published in the March issue of Gastroenterology.

“There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend specific strategies for mitigating PPI adverse effects,” noted Daniel E. Freedberg, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and his colleagues.

PPIs should be used on a short-term basis for individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or conditions such as erosive esophagitis. These patients can also use PPIs for maintenance and occasional symptom management, but those with uncomplicated GERD should be weaned off PPIs if they respond favorably to them.

If a patient is unable to be weaned off PPIs, then ambulatory esophageal pH and impedance monitoring should be done, as this will allow clinicians to determine if the patient has a functional syndrome or GERD. Lifelong PPI treatment should not be considered until this step is taken, according to the new best practice statements.

“Short-term PPIs are highly effective for uncomplicated GERD [but] because patients who cannot reduce PPIs face lifelong therapy, we would consider testing for an acid-related disorder in this situation,” the authors explained. “However, there is no high-quality evidence on which to base this recommendation.”

Patients who have symptomatic GERD or Barrett’s esophagus, either symptomatic or asymptomatic, should be on long-term PPI treatment. Patients who are at a higher risk for NSAID-induced ulcer bleeding should be taking PPIs if they continue to take NSAIDs.

When recommending long-term PPI treatment for a patient, the patient need not use probiotics on a regular basis; there appears to be no need to routinely check the patient’s bone mineral density, serum creatinine, magnesium, or vitamin B₁₂ level on a regular basis. In addition, they need not consume more than the Recommended Dietary Allowance of calcium, magnesium, or vitamin B₁₂.

Finally, the authors state that “specific PPI formulations should not be selected based on potential risks.” This is because no evidence has been found indicating that PPI formulations can be ranked in any way based on risk.

These recommendations come from the AGA’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee, which pored through studies published through July 2016 in the PubMed, EMbase, and Cochrane library databases. Expert opinions and quality assessments on each study contributed to forming these best practice statements.

“In sum, the best current strategies for mitigating the potential risks of long-term PPIs are to avoid prescribing them when they are not indicated and to reduce them to their minimum dose when they are indicated,” Dr. Freedberg and his colleagues concluded.

The researchers did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

Updated best practice statements regarding the use of proton pump inhibitors first detail what types of patients should be using short and long-term PPIs.

“When PPIs are appropriately prescribed, their benefits are likely to outweigh their risks [but] when PPIs are inappropriately prescribed, modest risks become important because there is no potential benefit,” wrote the authors of the updated guidance, published in the March issue of Gastroenterology.

“There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend specific strategies for mitigating PPI adverse effects,” noted Daniel E. Freedberg, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and his colleagues.

PPIs should be used on a short-term basis for individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or conditions such as erosive esophagitis. These patients can also use PPIs for maintenance and occasional symptom management, but those with uncomplicated GERD should be weaned off PPIs if they respond favorably to them.

If a patient is unable to be weaned off PPIs, then ambulatory esophageal pH and impedance monitoring should be done, as this will allow clinicians to determine if the patient has a functional syndrome or GERD. Lifelong PPI treatment should not be considered until this step is taken, according to the new best practice statements.

“Short-term PPIs are highly effective for uncomplicated GERD [but] because patients who cannot reduce PPIs face lifelong therapy, we would consider testing for an acid-related disorder in this situation,” the authors explained. “However, there is no high-quality evidence on which to base this recommendation.”

Patients who have symptomatic GERD or Barrett’s esophagus, either symptomatic or asymptomatic, should be on long-term PPI treatment. Patients who are at a higher risk for NSAID-induced ulcer bleeding should be taking PPIs if they continue to take NSAIDs.

When recommending long-term PPI treatment for a patient, the patient need not use probiotics on a regular basis; there appears to be no need to routinely check the patient’s bone mineral density, serum creatinine, magnesium, or vitamin B₁₂ level on a regular basis. In addition, they need not consume more than the Recommended Dietary Allowance of calcium, magnesium, or vitamin B₁₂.

Finally, the authors state that “specific PPI formulations should not be selected based on potential risks.” This is because no evidence has been found indicating that PPI formulations can be ranked in any way based on risk.

These recommendations come from the AGA’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee, which pored through studies published through July 2016 in the PubMed, EMbase, and Cochrane library databases. Expert opinions and quality assessments on each study contributed to forming these best practice statements.

“In sum, the best current strategies for mitigating the potential risks of long-term PPIs are to avoid prescribing them when they are not indicated and to reduce them to their minimum dose when they are indicated,” Dr. Freedberg and his colleagues concluded.

The researchers did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

Updated best practice statements regarding the use of proton pump inhibitors first detail what types of patients should be using short and long-term PPIs.

“When PPIs are appropriately prescribed, their benefits are likely to outweigh their risks [but] when PPIs are inappropriately prescribed, modest risks become important because there is no potential benefit,” wrote the authors of the updated guidance, published in the March issue of Gastroenterology.

“There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend specific strategies for mitigating PPI adverse effects,” noted Daniel E. Freedberg, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and his colleagues.

PPIs should be used on a short-term basis for individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or conditions such as erosive esophagitis. These patients can also use PPIs for maintenance and occasional symptom management, but those with uncomplicated GERD should be weaned off PPIs if they respond favorably to them.

If a patient is unable to be weaned off PPIs, then ambulatory esophageal pH and impedance monitoring should be done, as this will allow clinicians to determine if the patient has a functional syndrome or GERD. Lifelong PPI treatment should not be considered until this step is taken, according to the new best practice statements.

“Short-term PPIs are highly effective for uncomplicated GERD [but] because patients who cannot reduce PPIs face lifelong therapy, we would consider testing for an acid-related disorder in this situation,” the authors explained. “However, there is no high-quality evidence on which to base this recommendation.”

Patients who have symptomatic GERD or Barrett’s esophagus, either symptomatic or asymptomatic, should be on long-term PPI treatment. Patients who are at a higher risk for NSAID-induced ulcer bleeding should be taking PPIs if they continue to take NSAIDs.

When recommending long-term PPI treatment for a patient, the patient need not use probiotics on a regular basis; there appears to be no need to routinely check the patient’s bone mineral density, serum creatinine, magnesium, or vitamin B₁₂ level on a regular basis. In addition, they need not consume more than the Recommended Dietary Allowance of calcium, magnesium, or vitamin B₁₂.

Finally, the authors state that “specific PPI formulations should not be selected based on potential risks.” This is because no evidence has been found indicating that PPI formulations can be ranked in any way based on risk.

These recommendations come from the AGA’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee, which pored through studies published through July 2016 in the PubMed, EMbase, and Cochrane library databases. Expert opinions and quality assessments on each study contributed to forming these best practice statements.

“In sum, the best current strategies for mitigating the potential risks of long-term PPIs are to avoid prescribing them when they are not indicated and to reduce them to their minimum dose when they are indicated,” Dr. Freedberg and his colleagues concluded.

The researchers did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

The January 2009 issue of GI & Hepatology News (GIHN) featured an article on the potential drug interaction between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and clopidogrel.

In the study of interest, researchers retrospectively reviewed 16,000 patients prescribed clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and found that those patients also on a PPI were 1.5 times as likely to suffer from a myocardial infarction, stroke, or be hospitalized for angina as those not on a PPI. A second study mentioned in the GIHN article, a post hoc analysis of the CREDO trial, found a higher rate of ischemic events in patients on a PPI, but this increase was seen whether the patient was on clopidogrel or not. The conflicting data presented a management challenge for cardiologists and gastroenterologists alike.

Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, is associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.; a faculty member at the Duke Clinical Research Institute; and an Associate Editor of GI & Hepatology News.

The January 2009 issue of GI & Hepatology News (GIHN) featured an article on the potential drug interaction between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and clopidogrel.

In the study of interest, researchers retrospectively reviewed 16,000 patients prescribed clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and found that those patients also on a PPI were 1.5 times as likely to suffer from a myocardial infarction, stroke, or be hospitalized for angina as those not on a PPI. A second study mentioned in the GIHN article, a post hoc analysis of the CREDO trial, found a higher rate of ischemic events in patients on a PPI, but this increase was seen whether the patient was on clopidogrel or not. The conflicting data presented a management challenge for cardiologists and gastroenterologists alike.

Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, is associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.; a faculty member at the Duke Clinical Research Institute; and an Associate Editor of GI & Hepatology News.

The January 2009 issue of GI & Hepatology News (GIHN) featured an article on the potential drug interaction between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and clopidogrel.

In the study of interest, researchers retrospectively reviewed 16,000 patients prescribed clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and found that those patients also on a PPI were 1.5 times as likely to suffer from a myocardial infarction, stroke, or be hospitalized for angina as those not on a PPI. A second study mentioned in the GIHN article, a post hoc analysis of the CREDO trial, found a higher rate of ischemic events in patients on a PPI, but this increase was seen whether the patient was on clopidogrel or not. The conflicting data presented a management challenge for cardiologists and gastroenterologists alike.

Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, is associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.; a faculty member at the Duke Clinical Research Institute; and an Associate Editor of GI & Hepatology News.

Budesonide oral suspension (BOS) was safe and significantly outperformed placebo on validated measures of eosinophilic esophagitis, according to a first-in-kind, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II trial presented in the March issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.11.021).

The novel topical corticosteroid formulation yielded a significant histologic response and was associated with 3 fewer days of dysphagia over 2 weeks compared with placebo, reported Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and his associates. “There were no unexpected safety signals, and compliance with medication was high, suggesting that this formulation can be reliably used,” they wrote. Their findings earned BOS (SHP621) an FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation in June 2016. Although corticosteroids are first-line therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis, symptom response in other studies has been mixed, and the Food and Drug Administration had approved neither fluticasone nor budesonide for this disease, the researchers noted. They formulated BOS to adhere better to the esophageal mucosa in order to enhance esophageal delivery while decreasing unwanted pulmonary deposition.

For the study, they randomly assigned 93 patients aged 11-40 years with eosinophilic esophagitis to receive either placebo or 2 mg BOS twice daily. By week 12, Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire scores had fallen by 14.3 points with BOS group and by 7.5 points with placebo (P = .001). Endoscopic severity scores dropped by 3.8 points with BOS and rose by 0.4 points with placebo (P less than .0001). Rates of histologic response were 39% and 3%, respectively (P less than .0001). Nonresponders averaged 10 kg more body weight than responders, and had been diagnosed about 21 months earlier (average disease duration, 46 months and 25 months, respectively).

Rates of reported adverse effects were similar with BOS (47%) and placebo (50%). Individual rates of nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infections, and oropharyngeal pain also were comparable between groups, but one patient stopped BOS after developing dyspnea, nausea, and vomiting that were considered treatment related. Esophageal candidiasis developed in two BOS recipients – a rate similar rate to that in a prior study of BOS (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Jan 13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.05.02), and a lower percentage than in other studies of topical steroids for eosinophilic esophagitis, according to the researchers. Morning cortisol levels were similar between groups, and there were no adverse laboratory effects, they added.

Patients in this trial had severe symptoms and histology and were highly compliant with treatment. They filled out at least 70% of their symptom diary, had at least 15 eosinophils per high-power frame from at least two esophageal levels on screening endoscopy, and reported at least 4 days of dysphagia during the second half of a 4-week, blinded placebo run-in period. Researchers should consider using these strict inclusion criteria in future trials of eosinophilic esophagitis, especially because previous studies have failed to show a treatment benefit for topical steroid therapy, the investigators noted.

Meritage Pharma, which is now a part of the Shire group, makes budesonide oral suspension and sponsored the study. Dr. Dellon disclosed ties to Meritage, Receptos, Regeneron, Aptalis, Banner Life Sciences, Novartis, and Roche. All five coinvestigators disclosed ties to industry, including Meritage, Shire, Receptos, Regeneron, and Biogen Idec.

Budesonide oral suspension (BOS) was safe and significantly outperformed placebo on validated measures of eosinophilic esophagitis, according to a first-in-kind, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II trial presented in the March issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.11.021).

The novel topical corticosteroid formulation yielded a significant histologic response and was associated with 3 fewer days of dysphagia over 2 weeks compared with placebo, reported Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and his associates. “There were no unexpected safety signals, and compliance with medication was high, suggesting that this formulation can be reliably used,” they wrote. Their findings earned BOS (SHP621) an FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation in June 2016. Although corticosteroids are first-line therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis, symptom response in other studies has been mixed, and the Food and Drug Administration had approved neither fluticasone nor budesonide for this disease, the researchers noted. They formulated BOS to adhere better to the esophageal mucosa in order to enhance esophageal delivery while decreasing unwanted pulmonary deposition.

For the study, they randomly assigned 93 patients aged 11-40 years with eosinophilic esophagitis to receive either placebo or 2 mg BOS twice daily. By week 12, Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire scores had fallen by 14.3 points with BOS group and by 7.5 points with placebo (P = .001). Endoscopic severity scores dropped by 3.8 points with BOS and rose by 0.4 points with placebo (P less than .0001). Rates of histologic response were 39% and 3%, respectively (P less than .0001). Nonresponders averaged 10 kg more body weight than responders, and had been diagnosed about 21 months earlier (average disease duration, 46 months and 25 months, respectively).

Rates of reported adverse effects were similar with BOS (47%) and placebo (50%). Individual rates of nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infections, and oropharyngeal pain also were comparable between groups, but one patient stopped BOS after developing dyspnea, nausea, and vomiting that were considered treatment related. Esophageal candidiasis developed in two BOS recipients – a rate similar rate to that in a prior study of BOS (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Jan 13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.05.02), and a lower percentage than in other studies of topical steroids for eosinophilic esophagitis, according to the researchers. Morning cortisol levels were similar between groups, and there were no adverse laboratory effects, they added.

Patients in this trial had severe symptoms and histology and were highly compliant with treatment. They filled out at least 70% of their symptom diary, had at least 15 eosinophils per high-power frame from at least two esophageal levels on screening endoscopy, and reported at least 4 days of dysphagia during the second half of a 4-week, blinded placebo run-in period. Researchers should consider using these strict inclusion criteria in future trials of eosinophilic esophagitis, especially because previous studies have failed to show a treatment benefit for topical steroid therapy, the investigators noted.

Meritage Pharma, which is now a part of the Shire group, makes budesonide oral suspension and sponsored the study. Dr. Dellon disclosed ties to Meritage, Receptos, Regeneron, Aptalis, Banner Life Sciences, Novartis, and Roche. All five coinvestigators disclosed ties to industry, including Meritage, Shire, Receptos, Regeneron, and Biogen Idec.

Budesonide oral suspension (BOS) was safe and significantly outperformed placebo on validated measures of eosinophilic esophagitis, according to a first-in-kind, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II trial presented in the March issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.11.021).

The novel topical corticosteroid formulation yielded a significant histologic response and was associated with 3 fewer days of dysphagia over 2 weeks compared with placebo, reported Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and his associates. “There were no unexpected safety signals, and compliance with medication was high, suggesting that this formulation can be reliably used,” they wrote. Their findings earned BOS (SHP621) an FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation in June 2016. Although corticosteroids are first-line therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis, symptom response in other studies has been mixed, and the Food and Drug Administration had approved neither fluticasone nor budesonide for this disease, the researchers noted. They formulated BOS to adhere better to the esophageal mucosa in order to enhance esophageal delivery while decreasing unwanted pulmonary deposition.

For the study, they randomly assigned 93 patients aged 11-40 years with eosinophilic esophagitis to receive either placebo or 2 mg BOS twice daily. By week 12, Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire scores had fallen by 14.3 points with BOS group and by 7.5 points with placebo (P = .001). Endoscopic severity scores dropped by 3.8 points with BOS and rose by 0.4 points with placebo (P less than .0001). Rates of histologic response were 39% and 3%, respectively (P less than .0001). Nonresponders averaged 10 kg more body weight than responders, and had been diagnosed about 21 months earlier (average disease duration, 46 months and 25 months, respectively).

Rates of reported adverse effects were similar with BOS (47%) and placebo (50%). Individual rates of nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infections, and oropharyngeal pain also were comparable between groups, but one patient stopped BOS after developing dyspnea, nausea, and vomiting that were considered treatment related. Esophageal candidiasis developed in two BOS recipients – a rate similar rate to that in a prior study of BOS (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Jan 13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.05.02), and a lower percentage than in other studies of topical steroids for eosinophilic esophagitis, according to the researchers. Morning cortisol levels were similar between groups, and there were no adverse laboratory effects, they added.

Patients in this trial had severe symptoms and histology and were highly compliant with treatment. They filled out at least 70% of their symptom diary, had at least 15 eosinophils per high-power frame from at least two esophageal levels on screening endoscopy, and reported at least 4 days of dysphagia during the second half of a 4-week, blinded placebo run-in period. Researchers should consider using these strict inclusion criteria in future trials of eosinophilic esophagitis, especially because previous studies have failed to show a treatment benefit for topical steroid therapy, the investigators noted.

Meritage Pharma, which is now a part of the Shire group, makes budesonide oral suspension and sponsored the study. Dr. Dellon disclosed ties to Meritage, Receptos, Regeneron, Aptalis, Banner Life Sciences, Novartis, and Roche. All five coinvestigators disclosed ties to industry, including Meritage, Shire, Receptos, Regeneron, and Biogen Idec.

Among patients on low-dose aspirin at risk for recurrent GI bleeding, there were slightly fewer GI bleeds or ulcers when patients were on the proton pump inhibitor rabeprazole (Aciphex) instead of the histamine₂-receptor antagonist famotidine (Pepcid), but the difference was not statistically significant according to a study reported in the January issue of Gastroenterology.

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association

In a 270-subject, double-blind, randomized trial in Hong Kong and Japan led by Francis Chan, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, investigators found, “Among high-risk aspirin users, the incidence of recurrent bleeding is comparable with either use of PPI [proton pump inhibitor] or H₂RA [H₂-receptor antagonist].” However, “since a small difference in efficacy cannot be excluded, PPI probably remains the preferred treatment for long-term protection against upper GI bleeding in high-risk aspirin users” (Gastroenterology. 2016 Sep 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.09.006).

Even so, “our findings suggest that famotidine may be a reasonable alternative option for aspirin users who disfavor long-term PPI therapy,” they said.

Because of concerns about the long-term safety of PPIs, including the association between PPIs and increased risk of serious cardiovascular events in patients on clopidogrel (Plavix), clinicians have been looking for alternatives. The findings reassure that H₂RAs are a reasonable choice; many clinicians have already turned to them.

All 270 subjects had previously had endoscopically confirmed ulcer bleeding while on low-dose aspirin (325 mg or less per day). “Considering clinicians will be most concerned with the adequacy of gastroprotective treatment effect in aspirin users with the highest risk, we exclusively enrolled patients with endoscopy-proven upper GI bleeding,” Dr. Chan and his colleagues said.

After the ulcers healed, the subjects resumed aspirin (80 mg) daily and were randomized to either famotidine 40 mg once daily (n = 132) or rabeprazole 20 mg daily (n = 138) for up to 12 months. Helicobacter pylori was eradicated prior to randomization in patients who tested positive. Subjects were evaluated every 2 months, with repeat endoscopy for symptoms of upper GI bleeding or significant drops in hemoglobin, as well as at the end of the study.

During the 12-month study period, upper GI bleeding recurred in one patient receiving rabeprazole (0.7%) and four receiving famotidine (3.1%; P = .16). The composite endpoint of recurrent bleeding or endoscopic ulcers at month 12 was reached by nine patients in the rabeprazole group (7.9%) and 13 receiving famotidine (12.4%; P = .26).

“Our findings indicate that both treatments are comparable in preventing recurrent upper GI bleeding in high-risk aspirin users, although a small difference in efficacy cannot be excluded,” the investigators said.

Over two-thirds of the subjects were men, and the mean age was 73 years. About a quarter in the PPI group and almost 40% in the H₂RA group had H. pylori cleared before randomization.

The Research Grant Council of Hong Kong funded the work. Dr. Chan has served as a consultant to Pfizer, Eisai, Takeda, and Otsuka, and has received research grants from Pfizer and lecture fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda. Several other authors reported similar industry disclosures.

[email protected]

Among patients on low-dose aspirin at risk for recurrent GI bleeding, there were slightly fewer GI bleeds or ulcers when patients were on the proton pump inhibitor rabeprazole (Aciphex) instead of the histamine₂-receptor antagonist famotidine (Pepcid), but the difference was not statistically significant according to a study reported in the January issue of Gastroenterology.

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association

In a 270-subject, double-blind, randomized trial in Hong Kong and Japan led by Francis Chan, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, investigators found, “Among high-risk aspirin users, the incidence of recurrent bleeding is comparable with either use of PPI [proton pump inhibitor] or H₂RA [H₂-receptor antagonist].” However, “since a small difference in efficacy cannot be excluded, PPI probably remains the preferred treatment for long-term protection against upper GI bleeding in high-risk aspirin users” (Gastroenterology. 2016 Sep 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.09.006).

Even so, “our findings suggest that famotidine may be a reasonable alternative option for aspirin users who disfavor long-term PPI therapy,” they said.

Because of concerns about the long-term safety of PPIs, including the association between PPIs and increased risk of serious cardiovascular events in patients on clopidogrel (Plavix), clinicians have been looking for alternatives. The findings reassure that H₂RAs are a reasonable choice; many clinicians have already turned to them.

All 270 subjects had previously had endoscopically confirmed ulcer bleeding while on low-dose aspirin (325 mg or less per day). “Considering clinicians will be most concerned with the adequacy of gastroprotective treatment effect in aspirin users with the highest risk, we exclusively enrolled patients with endoscopy-proven upper GI bleeding,” Dr. Chan and his colleagues said.

After the ulcers healed, the subjects resumed aspirin (80 mg) daily and were randomized to either famotidine 40 mg once daily (n = 132) or rabeprazole 20 mg daily (n = 138) for up to 12 months. Helicobacter pylori was eradicated prior to randomization in patients who tested positive. Subjects were evaluated every 2 months, with repeat endoscopy for symptoms of upper GI bleeding or significant drops in hemoglobin, as well as at the end of the study.

During the 12-month study period, upper GI bleeding recurred in one patient receiving rabeprazole (0.7%) and four receiving famotidine (3.1%; P = .16). The composite endpoint of recurrent bleeding or endoscopic ulcers at month 12 was reached by nine patients in the rabeprazole group (7.9%) and 13 receiving famotidine (12.4%; P = .26).

“Our findings indicate that both treatments are comparable in preventing recurrent upper GI bleeding in high-risk aspirin users, although a small difference in efficacy cannot be excluded,” the investigators said.

Over two-thirds of the subjects were men, and the mean age was 73 years. About a quarter in the PPI group and almost 40% in the H₂RA group had H. pylori cleared before randomization.

The Research Grant Council of Hong Kong funded the work. Dr. Chan has served as a consultant to Pfizer, Eisai, Takeda, and Otsuka, and has received research grants from Pfizer and lecture fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda. Several other authors reported similar industry disclosures.

[email protected]

Among patients on low-dose aspirin at risk for recurrent GI bleeding, there were slightly fewer GI bleeds or ulcers when patients were on the proton pump inhibitor rabeprazole (Aciphex) instead of the histamine₂-receptor antagonist famotidine (Pepcid), but the difference was not statistically significant according to a study reported in the January issue of Gastroenterology.

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association

In a 270-subject, double-blind, randomized trial in Hong Kong and Japan led by Francis Chan, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, investigators found, “Among high-risk aspirin users, the incidence of recurrent bleeding is comparable with either use of PPI [proton pump inhibitor] or H₂RA [H₂-receptor antagonist].” However, “since a small difference in efficacy cannot be excluded, PPI probably remains the preferred treatment for long-term protection against upper GI bleeding in high-risk aspirin users” (Gastroenterology. 2016 Sep 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.09.006).

Even so, “our findings suggest that famotidine may be a reasonable alternative option for aspirin users who disfavor long-term PPI therapy,” they said.

Because of concerns about the long-term safety of PPIs, including the association between PPIs and increased risk of serious cardiovascular events in patients on clopidogrel (Plavix), clinicians have been looking for alternatives. The findings reassure that H₂RAs are a reasonable choice; many clinicians have already turned to them.

All 270 subjects had previously had endoscopically confirmed ulcer bleeding while on low-dose aspirin (325 mg or less per day). “Considering clinicians will be most concerned with the adequacy of gastroprotective treatment effect in aspirin users with the highest risk, we exclusively enrolled patients with endoscopy-proven upper GI bleeding,” Dr. Chan and his colleagues said.

After the ulcers healed, the subjects resumed aspirin (80 mg) daily and were randomized to either famotidine 40 mg once daily (n = 132) or rabeprazole 20 mg daily (n = 138) for up to 12 months. Helicobacter pylori was eradicated prior to randomization in patients who tested positive. Subjects were evaluated every 2 months, with repeat endoscopy for symptoms of upper GI bleeding or significant drops in hemoglobin, as well as at the end of the study.

During the 12-month study period, upper GI bleeding recurred in one patient receiving rabeprazole (0.7%) and four receiving famotidine (3.1%; P = .16). The composite endpoint of recurrent bleeding or endoscopic ulcers at month 12 was reached by nine patients in the rabeprazole group (7.9%) and 13 receiving famotidine (12.4%; P = .26).

“Our findings indicate that both treatments are comparable in preventing recurrent upper GI bleeding in high-risk aspirin users, although a small difference in efficacy cannot be excluded,” the investigators said.

Over two-thirds of the subjects were men, and the mean age was 73 years. About a quarter in the PPI group and almost 40% in the H₂RA group had H. pylori cleared before randomization.

The Research Grant Council of Hong Kong funded the work. Dr. Chan has served as a consultant to Pfizer, Eisai, Takeda, and Otsuka, and has received research grants from Pfizer and lecture fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda. Several other authors reported similar industry disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients with normal platelet counts who have a GI bleed while on antiplatelets were almost six times more likely to die in the hospital if they had a platelet transfusion in a retrospective cohort study from the Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Ten of the 14 deaths in the 204 transfused patients – versus none of the 3 deaths in the 204 nontransfused patients - were due to bleeding, so it’s possible that the mortality difference was simply because patients with worse bleeding were more likely to get transfused. “On the other hand, the adjusted [odds ratios] for mortality (4.5-6.8 with different sensitivity analyses) [were] large, increasing the likelihood of a cause-and-effect relationship,” said investigators led by gastroenterologist Liam Zakko, MD, now at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul 25. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.07.017).

Current guidelines suggest platelet transfusions are an option for antiplatelet patients with serious GI bleeds, but the Yale team found that they did not reduce rebleeding. “The observation of increased mortality without documentation of clinical benefit suggests a very cautious approach to the use of platelet transfusion. ... We do not support the use of platelet transfusions in patients with GI [bleeds] who are taking antiplatelet agents,” the investigators wrote.

Subjects in the two groups were matched for sex, age, and GI bleed location, and all had platelet counts above 100 × 10⁹/L. Almost everyone was on aspirin for cardiovascular protection, and 30% were on also on clopidogrel.

Just over half in both groups had upper GI bleeds, and about 40% in each group had colonic bleeds. Transfused patients had more-severe bleeding, with overall lower blood pressure and lower hemoglobin; a larger proportion was admitted to the ICU.

On univariate analyses, platelet patients had more cardiovascular events (23% vs. 13%) while in the hospital. They were also more likely to stay in the hospital for more than 4 days (47% vs. 33%) and more likely to die while there (7% vs. 1%). On multivariable analysis, only the greater risk for death during admission remained statistically significant (odds ratio, 5.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-27.1). The adjusted odds ratio for recurrent bleeding was not significant.

Four patients in the platelet group died from cardiovascular causes. One patient in the control group had a fatal cardiovascular event.

Although counterintuitive, the authors said that it’s possible that platelet transfusions might actually increase the risk of severe and fatal GI bleeding. “Mechanisms by which platelet transfusion would increase mortality or [GI bleeding]–related mortality are not clear,” but “platelet transfusions are reported to be proinflammatory and alter recipient immunity,” they said.

At least for now, “the most prudent way to manage patients on antiplatelet agents with [GI bleeding] is to follow current evidence-based recommendations,” including early endoscopy, endoscopic hemostatic therapy for high-risk lesions, and intensive proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with ulcers and high-risk endoscopic features.

“Although not based on high-quality evidence, we believe that hemostatic techniques that do not cause significant tissue damage (e.g., clips rather than thermal devices or sclerosants) should be used in patients on antiplatelet agents, especially if patients are expected to remain on these agents in the future,” they said.

The mean age in the study was 74 years, and about two-thirds of the subjects were men.

The authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients with normal platelet counts who have a GI bleed while on antiplatelets were almost six times more likely to die in the hospital if they had a platelet transfusion in a retrospective cohort study from the Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Ten of the 14 deaths in the 204 transfused patients – versus none of the 3 deaths in the 204 nontransfused patients - were due to bleeding, so it’s possible that the mortality difference was simply because patients with worse bleeding were more likely to get transfused. “On the other hand, the adjusted [odds ratios] for mortality (4.5-6.8 with different sensitivity analyses) [were] large, increasing the likelihood of a cause-and-effect relationship,” said investigators led by gastroenterologist Liam Zakko, MD, now at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul 25. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.07.017).

Current guidelines suggest platelet transfusions are an option for antiplatelet patients with serious GI bleeds, but the Yale team found that they did not reduce rebleeding. “The observation of increased mortality without documentation of clinical benefit suggests a very cautious approach to the use of platelet transfusion. ... We do not support the use of platelet transfusions in patients with GI [bleeds] who are taking antiplatelet agents,” the investigators wrote.

Subjects in the two groups were matched for sex, age, and GI bleed location, and all had platelet counts above 100 × 10⁹/L. Almost everyone was on aspirin for cardiovascular protection, and 30% were on also on clopidogrel.

Just over half in both groups had upper GI bleeds, and about 40% in each group had colonic bleeds. Transfused patients had more-severe bleeding, with overall lower blood pressure and lower hemoglobin; a larger proportion was admitted to the ICU.

On univariate analyses, platelet patients had more cardiovascular events (23% vs. 13%) while in the hospital. They were also more likely to stay in the hospital for more than 4 days (47% vs. 33%) and more likely to die while there (7% vs. 1%). On multivariable analysis, only the greater risk for death during admission remained statistically significant (odds ratio, 5.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-27.1). The adjusted odds ratio for recurrent bleeding was not significant.

Four patients in the platelet group died from cardiovascular causes. One patient in the control group had a fatal cardiovascular event.

Although counterintuitive, the authors said that it’s possible that platelet transfusions might actually increase the risk of severe and fatal GI bleeding. “Mechanisms by which platelet transfusion would increase mortality or [GI bleeding]–related mortality are not clear,” but “platelet transfusions are reported to be proinflammatory and alter recipient immunity,” they said.

At least for now, “the most prudent way to manage patients on antiplatelet agents with [GI bleeding] is to follow current evidence-based recommendations,” including early endoscopy, endoscopic hemostatic therapy for high-risk lesions, and intensive proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with ulcers and high-risk endoscopic features.

“Although not based on high-quality evidence, we believe that hemostatic techniques that do not cause significant tissue damage (e.g., clips rather than thermal devices or sclerosants) should be used in patients on antiplatelet agents, especially if patients are expected to remain on these agents in the future,” they said.

The mean age in the study was 74 years, and about two-thirds of the subjects were men.

The authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients with normal platelet counts who have a GI bleed while on antiplatelets were almost six times more likely to die in the hospital if they had a platelet transfusion in a retrospective cohort study from the Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Ten of the 14 deaths in the 204 transfused patients – versus none of the 3 deaths in the 204 nontransfused patients - were due to bleeding, so it’s possible that the mortality difference was simply because patients with worse bleeding were more likely to get transfused. “On the other hand, the adjusted [odds ratios] for mortality (4.5-6.8 with different sensitivity analyses) [were] large, increasing the likelihood of a cause-and-effect relationship,” said investigators led by gastroenterologist Liam Zakko, MD, now at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul 25. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.07.017).

Current guidelines suggest platelet transfusions are an option for antiplatelet patients with serious GI bleeds, but the Yale team found that they did not reduce rebleeding. “The observation of increased mortality without documentation of clinical benefit suggests a very cautious approach to the use of platelet transfusion. ... We do not support the use of platelet transfusions in patients with GI [bleeds] who are taking antiplatelet agents,” the investigators wrote.

Subjects in the two groups were matched for sex, age, and GI bleed location, and all had platelet counts above 100 × 10⁹/L. Almost everyone was on aspirin for cardiovascular protection, and 30% were on also on clopidogrel.

Just over half in both groups had upper GI bleeds, and about 40% in each group had colonic bleeds. Transfused patients had more-severe bleeding, with overall lower blood pressure and lower hemoglobin; a larger proportion was admitted to the ICU.

On univariate analyses, platelet patients had more cardiovascular events (23% vs. 13%) while in the hospital. They were also more likely to stay in the hospital for more than 4 days (47% vs. 33%) and more likely to die while there (7% vs. 1%). On multivariable analysis, only the greater risk for death during admission remained statistically significant (odds ratio, 5.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-27.1). The adjusted odds ratio for recurrent bleeding was not significant.

Four patients in the platelet group died from cardiovascular causes. One patient in the control group had a fatal cardiovascular event.

Although counterintuitive, the authors said that it’s possible that platelet transfusions might actually increase the risk of severe and fatal GI bleeding. “Mechanisms by which platelet transfusion would increase mortality or [GI bleeding]–related mortality are not clear,” but “platelet transfusions are reported to be proinflammatory and alter recipient immunity,” they said.

At least for now, “the most prudent way to manage patients on antiplatelet agents with [GI bleeding] is to follow current evidence-based recommendations,” including early endoscopy, endoscopic hemostatic therapy for high-risk lesions, and intensive proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with ulcers and high-risk endoscopic features.

“Although not based on high-quality evidence, we believe that hemostatic techniques that do not cause significant tissue damage (e.g., clips rather than thermal devices or sclerosants) should be used in patients on antiplatelet agents, especially if patients are expected to remain on these agents in the future,” they said.

The mean age in the study was 74 years, and about two-thirds of the subjects were men.

The authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) was associated with significantly increased risk of having a first ischemic stroke in a large nationwide Danish cohort study, Thomas S. Sehested, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The relationship was dose dependent. At the lowest available dose of each of the four PPIs studied there was no significantly increased risk. At the intermediate doses of three of the four PPIs studied, the increased risk of ischemic stroke became statistically significant. And the highest dose of each drug was associated with the greatest ischemic stroke risk.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) was associated with significantly increased risk of having a first ischemic stroke in a large nationwide Danish cohort study, Thomas S. Sehested, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The relationship was dose dependent. At the lowest available dose of each of the four PPIs studied there was no significantly increased risk. At the intermediate doses of three of the four PPIs studied, the increased risk of ischemic stroke became statistically significant. And the highest dose of each drug was associated with the greatest ischemic stroke risk.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) was associated with significantly increased risk of having a first ischemic stroke in a large nationwide Danish cohort study, Thomas S. Sehested, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The relationship was dose dependent. At the lowest available dose of each of the four PPIs studied there was no significantly increased risk. At the intermediate doses of three of the four PPIs studied, the increased risk of ischemic stroke became statistically significant. And the highest dose of each drug was associated with the greatest ischemic stroke risk.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – The American Gastroenterological Association, the Food and Drug Administration, pharmaceutical companies, and patient advocacy groups came together for a first-of-its-kind meeting, a program of the AGA Center for Diagnostics and Therapeutics, to discuss new and emerging drugs for the treatment of four key GI diseases, highlighting the promise that these treatments show and the hurdles they face to gain approval.

“If we look at the AGA’s Burden of GI Disease Survey, published a few years ago in Gastroenterology, [you] can see that there are millions of visits to primary care and specialists for a variety of upper gastrointestinal symptoms, so clearly upper GI disorders still pose a major burden to our health care environment,” explained Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Center for Diagnostics and Therapeutics from the University of Tennessee in Memphis.

Deepak Chitnis/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Howden disclosed that he is a consultant for Aralez, Ironwood, Allergan, Otsuka, and SynteractHCR; an expert witness for Allergan; and coeditor of Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. Dr. Spechler disclosed that he is a consultant for Interpace Diagnostics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pasricha disclosed that he is the cofounder of Neurogastrx, OrphoMed, and ETX Pharma, and is a consultant for Vanda and Allergan. Dr. Tack disclosed that he is a consultant for Abide, Allergan, AstraZeneca, Danone, El Pharma, Menarini, Novartis, Ono, Shire, Takeda, Theravance, Tsumura, and Zeria, as well as being on several of their advisory boards and speakers bureaus. Dr. Vela is a consultant for Medtronic and Torax.*

*Additions were made to the story on 11/8/2016 and 11/18/2016.
 

WASHINGTON – The American Gastroenterological Association, the Food and Drug Administration, pharmaceutical companies, and patient advocacy groups came together for a first-of-its-kind meeting, a program of the AGA Center for Diagnostics and Therapeutics, to discuss new and emerging drugs for the treatment of four key GI diseases, highlighting the promise that these treatments show and the hurdles they face to gain approval.

“If we look at the AGA’s Burden of GI Disease Survey, published a few years ago in Gastroenterology, [you] can see that there are millions of visits to primary care and specialists for a variety of upper gastrointestinal symptoms, so clearly upper GI disorders still pose a major burden to our health care environment,” explained Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Center for Diagnostics and Therapeutics from the University of Tennessee in Memphis.

Deepak Chitnis/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Howden disclosed that he is a consultant for Aralez, Ironwood, Allergan, Otsuka, and SynteractHCR; an expert witness for Allergan; and coeditor of Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. Dr. Spechler disclosed that he is a consultant for Interpace Diagnostics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pasricha disclosed that he is the cofounder of Neurogastrx, OrphoMed, and ETX Pharma, and is a consultant for Vanda and Allergan. Dr. Tack disclosed that he is a consultant for Abide, Allergan, AstraZeneca, Danone, El Pharma, Menarini, Novartis, Ono, Shire, Takeda, Theravance, Tsumura, and Zeria, as well as being on several of their advisory boards and speakers bureaus. Dr. Vela is a consultant for Medtronic and Torax.*

*Additions were made to the story on 11/8/2016 and 11/18/2016.
 

WASHINGTON – The American Gastroenterological Association, the Food and Drug Administration, pharmaceutical companies, and patient advocacy groups came together for a first-of-its-kind meeting, a program of the AGA Center for Diagnostics and Therapeutics, to discuss new and emerging drugs for the treatment of four key GI diseases, highlighting the promise that these treatments show and the hurdles they face to gain approval.

“If we look at the AGA’s Burden of GI Disease Survey, published a few years ago in Gastroenterology, [you] can see that there are millions of visits to primary care and specialists for a variety of upper gastrointestinal symptoms, so clearly upper GI disorders still pose a major burden to our health care environment,” explained Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Center for Diagnostics and Therapeutics from the University of Tennessee in Memphis.

Deepak Chitnis/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Howden disclosed that he is a consultant for Aralez, Ironwood, Allergan, Otsuka, and SynteractHCR; an expert witness for Allergan; and coeditor of Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. Dr. Spechler disclosed that he is a consultant for Interpace Diagnostics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pasricha disclosed that he is the cofounder of Neurogastrx, OrphoMed, and ETX Pharma, and is a consultant for Vanda and Allergan. Dr. Tack disclosed that he is a consultant for Abide, Allergan, AstraZeneca, Danone, El Pharma, Menarini, Novartis, Ono, Shire, Takeda, Theravance, Tsumura, and Zeria, as well as being on several of their advisory boards and speakers bureaus. Dr. Vela is a consultant for Medtronic and Torax.*

*Additions were made to the story on 11/8/2016 and 11/18/2016.
 

The therapeutic endoscopic procedure per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is safe and has a high clinical success rate at 2 years in patients with the rare esophageal motility disorder achalasia, according to results of the longest follow-up study to date.

The research team said that achalasia is characterized by the loss of enteric neurons, which results in impaired relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter and absence of esophageal peristalsis.

Eraxion/Thinkstock.com

The therapeutic endoscopic procedure per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is safe and has a high clinical success rate at 2 years in patients with the rare esophageal motility disorder achalasia, according to results of the longest follow-up study to date.

The research team said that achalasia is characterized by the loss of enteric neurons, which results in impaired relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter and absence of esophageal peristalsis.

Eraxion/Thinkstock.com

The therapeutic endoscopic procedure per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is safe and has a high clinical success rate at 2 years in patients with the rare esophageal motility disorder achalasia, according to results of the longest follow-up study to date.

The research team said that achalasia is characterized by the loss of enteric neurons, which results in impaired relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter and absence of esophageal peristalsis.

Eraxion/Thinkstock.com