Search

Background: The American Foregut Society (AFS) is dedicated to advancing patient care and digestive health within the realm of foregut disease. One of the most common and debilitating esophageal conditions is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Hill grade is an endoscopic classification of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) based on the appearance of the gastroesophageal flap valve from a retroflexed view of the hiatus. This endoscopic classification provides insight into the anatomic disruption of the EGJ which has been shown to correlate with GERD. However, clinical utilization of this classification by endoscopists has been limited due to the perceived relevance and subjectivity of the classification. With the advent of endoscopic treatment options for GERD, there is renewed enthusiasm to develop a grading system of the EGJ that can objectively define anatomical impairment and reduce interobserver grading variability. Methods: The AFS convened a 13-member working group tasked with reviewing the Hill grade classification and formulating a proposal for its revision utilizing a modified Delphi method. This white paper summarizes the output from this working group. Results: The working group concluded that all components of the antireflux barrier—the lower esophageal sphincter and its sling fibers, the crural diaphragm, and the gastroesophageal flap valve—contribute to EGJ integrity. Using defined objective parameters of extent of hiatal axial herniation and crural disruption and presence or absence of a flap valve, the new AFS classification stratifies EGJ integrity from normal (grade 1) to increasing degrees of EGJ disruption (grade 2-4) beginning with loss of the flap valve and progressing to increasing degrees of crural disruption and hiatus hernia. This AFS classification also stipulates appropriate endoscopic methodology to utilize in making the assessment and provides a basic nomenclature for communication among endoscopists. Conclusions: The AFS endoscopic classification of the EGJ expands on the Hill classification by including assessment of axial hiatal hernia length (L), hiatal aperture diameter (D), and presence or absence of the flap valve (F) making it more comprehensive - LDF components. Future directions include validation studies correlating the ability of the AFS classification in predicting the presence and severity of GERD.

Background : The spread of duodenoscope-related infections has led to the recognition that reprocessing of duodenoscopes using high-level disinfection (HLD), if done perfectly, narrowly meets the advised thresholds of endoscope decontamination. In 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended a transition to duodenoscopes designed to pose less risk, including the use of disposable duodenoscopes. The EXALT Model-D™ single-use duodenoscope (EXALT) has been shown to be substantially equivalent to reusable duodenoscopes for clinical use. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of EXALT in the United States Healthcare system. Methods : A cost-effectiveness model was developed comparing HLD, culture-and-quarantine (CQ), Ethylene oxide sterilization (ETO), and EXALT in a simulated cohort undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis. Published information was leveraged describing clinical estimates, infectious outbreaks, and hospital costs. Results : In a base analysis, HLD was the least costly ($962), and EXALT was the costliest ($3,000), but yielded the most QALYs (0.0172 incremental QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $38,461 for ETO gas sterilization and $62,185 for EXALT. However, with the availability of device-specific reimbursement for EXALT in the US in the form of transitional pass-through payment (TPT) and new technology add-on payment (NTAP), EXALT provided the highest cost-savings to the hospital versus alternative strategies by maintaining QALY gains while decreasing estimated net costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed EXALT to be preferred compared to HLD over a range of willingness-to-pay. Conclusion : EXALT is a viable and cost-effective strategy that should be strongly considered for ERCP.

Poultry coccidiosis is an important devitalizing enteric protozoan disease caused by a group of obligatory intracellular apicomplexan parasites of the Genus Eimeria contributing to major economic loss in commercial poultry worldwide. As the current method of chemotherapeutic control using Ionophores in feed had led to development of drug resistant isolates, the need for development of prophylactic vaccines is the most viable alternate and eco-friendly control strategy as on date. Of the several candidate vaccines, the EmGam 56 is one of the most promising candidates which protect the birds against E.maxima, E.tenella and E.acervulina, the three most pathogenic coccidian species infecting commercial chicken.EmGam56 is a major wall forming component of macrogametocyte of E.maxima and a candidate with high immunogenicity and low virulence. Based on the above, the present study was planned and carried out for the generation of E.coli expressed recombinant gametocyte antigen-EmGam56 using pET 28(a+) as cloning vector and BL21 DE3 (pLysS) as expression vector in a Bio-fermentor (New Brunswick™ Scientific BioFlo 310). The recombinant protein was purified by conventional (Ammonium sulfate) and by automatic purification system (AKTA prime) in Ni-NTA column for a planned immunization trial with experimental chickens.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this best practice advice (BPA) article from the Clinical Practice Update Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association is to provide an update on advances and innovation regarding the screening and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus. METHODS: The BPA statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of BPAs was not the intent of this clinical practice update. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Screening with standard upper endoscopy may be considered in individuals with at least 3 established risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including individuals who are male, non-Hispanic white, age >50 years, have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, or a family history of BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Nonendoscopic cell-collection devices may be considered as an option to screen for BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Screening and surveillance endoscopic examination should be performed using high-definition white light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy, with endoscopists spending adequate time inspecting the Barrett’s segment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Screening and surveillance exams should define the extent of BE using a standardized grading system documenting the circumferential and maximal extent of the columnar lined esophagus (Prague classification) with a clear description of landmarks and the location and characteristics of visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration), when present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Advanced imaging technologies such as endomicroscopy may be used as adjunctive techniques to identify dysplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Sampling during screening and surveillance exams should be performed using the Seattle biopsy protocol (4-quadrant biopsies every 1–2 cm and target biopsies from any visible lesion). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Wide-area transepithelial sampling may be used as an adjunctive technique to sample the suspected or established Barrett’s segment (in addition to the Seattle biopsy protocol). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients with erosive esophagitis should be biopsied when concern of dysplasia or malignancy exists. A repeat endoscopy should be performed after 8 weeks of twice a day proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Tissue systems pathology-based prediction assay may be utilized for risk stratification of patients with nondysplastic BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Risk stratification models may be utilized to selectively identify individuals at risk for Barrett’s associated neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of BE-related neoplasia should be confirmed by an expert pathology review. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Patients with BE-related neoplasia should be referred to endoscopists with expertise in advanced imaging, resection, and ablation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: All patients with BE should be placed on at least daily proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo surveillance endoscopy in 3 to 5 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: In patients undergoing surveillance after endoscopic eradication therapy, random biopsies should be taken of the esophagogastric junction, gastric cardia, and the distal 2 cm of the neosquamous epithelium as well as from all visible lesions, independent of the length of the original BE segment.

Background and study aims Recent outbreaks attributed to contaminated duodenoscopes have led to the development of enhanced surveillance and reprocessing techniques (enhanced-SRT) aimed at minimizing cross-contamination. Common enhanced-SRT include double high-level disinfection (HLD), ethylene oxide (EtO) gas sterilization, and culture-based monitoring of reprocessed scopes. Adoption of these methods adds to the operational costs and we aimed to assess its economic impact to an institution. Methods We compared the estimated costs of three enhanced-SRT versus single-HLD using data from two institutions. We examined the cost of capital measured as scope inventory and frequency of scope use per unit time, the constituent reprocessing costs required on a per-cycle basis, and labor & staffing needs. The economic impact attributable to enhanced-SRT was defined as the difference between the total cost of enhanced-SRT and single HLD. Results Compared to single HLD, adoption of double HLD increased the costs approximately by 47 % ($80 vs $118). Similarly, culture and quarantine and EtO sterilization increased costs by 160 % and 270 %, respectively ($80 vs $208 and $296). Enhanced-SRT introduced significant scope downtime due to prolonged techniques, necessitating a 3.4-fold increase in the number of scopes needed to maintain procedural volume. The additional annual budget required to implement enhanced-SRT approached $406,000 per year in high-volume centers. Conclusions While enhanced-SRT may reduce patient risk of exposure to contaminated duodenoscopes, it significantly increases the cost of performing ERCP. Future innovation should focus on approaches that can ensure patient safety while maintaining the ability to perform ERCP in a cost-effective manner.

Background and Aims: Expert endoscopists previously reported ERCP outcomes for the first commercialized single-use duodenoscope. We aimed to document usability of this device by endoscopists with different levels of ERCP experience. Methods: Fourteen “expert” (>2000 lifetime ERCPs) and 5 “less-expert” endoscopists performed consecutive ERCPs in patients without altered pancreaticobiliary anatomy. Outcomes included ERCP completion for the intended indication, rate of crossover to another endoscope, device performance ratings, and serious adverse events. Results: Two hundred ERCPs including 81 (40.5%) with high complexity (American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy grades 3-4) were performed. Crossover rate (11.3% vs 2.5%, P =.131), ERCP completion rate (regardless of crossovers) (96.3% vs 97.5%, P =.999), median ERCP completion time (25.0 vs 28.5 minutes, P =.130), mean cannulation attempts (2.8 vs 2.8, P =.954), and median overall satisfaction with the single-use duodenoscope (8.0 vs 8.0 [range, 1.0-10.0], P =.840) were similar for expert versus less-expert endoscopists, respectively. The same metrics were similar by procedural complexity except for shorter median completion time for grades 1 to 2 versus grades 3 to 4 (P Conclusions: In consecutive ERCPs including high complexity procedures, endoscopists with varying ERCP experience had good procedural success and reported high device performance ratings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04223830.)

The evolution of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from a diagnostic to a therapeutic procedure has resulted in a paradigm shift toward endoscopic management of disease states that previously required percutaneous or surgical approaches. The past few years have seen additional techniques and devices that have enabled endoscopists to expand its diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Some of these techniques initially were reported more than a decade ago; however, with further device development and refinement in techniques there is potential for expanding the application of these techniques and new technologies to a broader group of interventional gastroenterologists. Lack of formalized training, devices, and prospective data regarding their use in addition to a scarcity of guidelines on implementation of these technologies into clinical practice are contributing factors impeding the growth of the field of interventional EUS. In April 2019, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology conducted its annual Tech Summit and a key session focused on interventional EUS. This article is a White Paper generated from the conference, discusses the published literature pertaining to the topic of interventional EUS, and outlines a proposed framework for the implementation of interventional EUS techniques into clinical practice. Three primary areas of interventional EUS are addressed: (1) EUS-guided access; (2) EUS-guided tumor ablation; and (3) endohepatology. There was general agreement among participants on several key components. The introduction of these novel interventions requires better tools, more data on safety/outcomes, and improved training for endoscopists. Participants also agreed that widespread implementation and use of these techniques will require support from Gastrointestinal Societies and other key stakeholders including payers. Continued work by the Gastrointestinal Societies and manufacturers to provide training programs, appropriate equipment/work environments, and policies that motivate endoscopists to adopt new techniques is essential for growing the field of interventional EUS.

Background and Aims Single-use/disposable duodenoscopes represent one strategy to decrease the risk of patient infection related to ERCP. A preliminary case series was performed to demonstrate the feasibility and performance of a new single-use duodenoscope in a real-world clinical setting. Methods A single expert endoscopist performed ERCP for standard indications using a single-use duodenoscope. Results Videos of several key steps of ERCP obtained from 4 patients are shown to demonstrate that these steps can successfully be performed using the new single-use device. Clip 1 shows a patient with a large pancreatic duct stone in whom the image quality and maneuverability are demonstrated. Clip 2 shows a patient with choledocholithiasis and demonstrates bile duct cannulation, cholangiography, and sphincterotomy. Clip 3 shows a patient with acute cholecystitis and choledocholithiasis who underwent bile duct cannulation, sphincterotomy, and balloon sweeps. Clip 4 shows a patient with a history of liver transplant and refractory biliary anastomotic stricture who presented with abnormal liver tests and fever and underwent removal of a metal stent and placement of plastic stents. Conclusions A single-use duodenoscope can successfully accomplish fundamental steps of ERCP. This device can potentially eliminate the risk of patient-to-patient infections linked to contaminated instruments. Larger studies are required to assess device performance.

Backgrounds & Aims Endoscopic management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is being employed increasingly. The aim of this scoping review was to assess the volume of available evidence on the benefits of endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical therapies for GERD. METHODS criteria were used to perform an extensive literature search of data regarding the reported benefit of endoscopic therapies in GERD. Randomized controlled studies were utilized when available; however, data from observational studies were also reviewed. Results A formal review of evidence was performed in 22 studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria and study duration were noted and tabulated. Assessment of outcomes was based on symptoms and objective criteria reported by investigators. Reported outcomes for the interventions were tabulated under the heading of subjective (symptom scores, quality of life metrics, and change in proton pump inhibitor use) and objective metrics (pH parameters, endoscopic signs, and lower esophageal sphincter pressure changes). Adverse events were noted and tabulated. The majority of studies showed symptomatic and objective improvement of GERD with the device therapies. Adverse events were minimal. However, normalization of acid exposure occurred in about 50% of patients and, for some modalities, long-term durability is uncertain. Conclusions This scoping review revealed that the endoluminal and minimally invasive surgical devices for GERD therapy are a promising alternative to proton pump inhibitor therapy. Their place in the treatment algorithm for GERD will be better defined when important clinical parameters, especially durability of effect, are better understood.

Background and Aims There is a lack of consensus on which GI endoscopic procedures should be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and which procedures could be safely deferred without having a significant impact on outcomes. Methods We selected a panel of 14 expert endoscopists. We identified 41 common indications for advanced endoscopic procedures from the ASGE Appropriate Use of GI Endoscopy guidelines. Using a modified Delphi method, we first achieved consensus on the patient-important outcome for each procedural indication. Panelists prioritized consensus patient-important outcome when categorizing each indication into one of the following 3 procedural time periods: (1) time-sensitive emergent (schedule within 1 week), (2) time-sensitive urgent (schedule within 1 to 8 weeks), and (3) non-time sensitive (defer for >8 weeks and then reassess the timing). Three anonymous rounds of voting were allowed before attempts at consensus were abandoned. Results All 14 invited experts agreed to participate in the study. The prespecified consensus threshold of 51% was achieved for assigning patient-important outcome(s) to each advanced endoscopy indication. The prespecified consensus threshold of 66.7% was achieved for 40 of 41 advanced endoscopy indications in stratifying them into 1 of 3 procedural time periods. For 12 of 41 indications, 100% consensus was achieved; for 20 of 41 indications, 75% to 99% consensus was achieved. Conclusions By using a Modified Delphi method that prioritized patient-important outcomes, we developed consensus recommendations on procedural timing for common indications for advanced endoscopy. These recommendations and the structured decision framework provided by our study can inform decision making as endoscopy services are reopened.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The potential for transmission of pathogenic organisms is a problem inherent to the current reusable duodenoscope design. Recent outbreaks of multidrug-resistant pathogenic organisms transmitted via duodenoscopes has brought to light the urgency of this problem. Microbiologic culturing of duodenoscopes and reprocessing with repeat high-level disinfection (HLD) or liquid chemical sterilization (LCS) have been offered as supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aims to compare the efficacy of reprocessing duodenoscopes with double HLD (DHLD) versus LCS. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 2 different modalities of duodenoscope reprocessing from October 23, 2017 to September 24, 2018. Eligible duodenoscopes were randomly segregated to be reprocessed by either DHLD or LCS. Duodenoscopes were randomly cultured after reprocessing for surveillance based on an internal protocol. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 878 post-reprocessing surveillance cultures (453 in the DHLD group and 425 in the LCS group). Of all cultures, 17 were positive for any organism (1.9%). There was no significant difference of positive cultures when comparing the duodenoscopes undergoing DHLD (8 positive cultures, 1.8%) with duodenoscopes undergoing LCS (9 positive cultures, 2.1%; P = .8). Both groups had 2 cultures that grew high-concern organisms (.5% vs .5%, P = 1.0). No multidrug-resistant organisms, including carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae, were detected. CONCLUSIONS: DHLD and LCS both resulted in a low rate of positive cultures, for all organisms and for high-concern organisms. However, neither process completely eliminated positive cultures from duodenoscopes reprocessed with 2 different supplemental reprocessing strategies.

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

In this study, chlorhexidine (CHX)–silver (Ag) hybrid nanoparticles (NPs) coated gauze was developed, and their bactericidal effect and in vivo wound healing capacities were tested. A new method was developed to synthesise the NPs, wherein Ag nitrate mixed with sodium (Na) metaphosphate and reduced using Na borohydride. Finally, CHX digluconate was added to form the hybrid NPs. To study the antibacterial efficacy of particles, the minimal inhibition concentration and biofilm degradation capacity against Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria was studied using Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. The results indicated that the NP inhibited biofilm formation and was bactericidal as well. The gauze was doped with NPs, and its wound healing property was evaluated using mice model. Results indicated that the wound healing process was fastened by using the NPs gauze doped with NPs without the administration of antibiotics.

Introduction : The management of pancreaticobiliary disorders relies heavily on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which is performed with a duodenoscope. Bacterial colonization of reusable duodenoscopes leading to subsequent infectious outbreaks is well recognized and remains an issue despite efforts to optimize best practices in high level disinfection. The EXALT Model D duodenoscope (EXALT) (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA) is a single-use device, designed to achieve technical equivalency with reusable devices while eliminating the potential for device related outbreaks. Areas covered : This review covers the challenges associated with reprocessing duodenoscopes and the development of duodenoscope-related infections, with an emphasis on the use of single-use duodenoscopes as a potential solution to this issue. Expert opinion : Duodenoscope-related infections are an increasingly recognized problem. Infectious outbreaks harm patients, significantly affect providers and medical centers, and can erode patient trust in the healthcare system. Single use duodenoscopes eliminate both the risk of device related infection transmission and the need for burdensome duodenoscope reprocessing. In clinical evaluations, the EXALT device has demonstrated an equivalent technical performance and provider satisfaction compared to reusable duodenoscopes. Increasing use of this device will clarify how it compares to reusable duodenoscopes in a variety of clinical settings among endoscopists of varying skills levels.

In this report, the site-specific co-delivery of green tea/aluminium magnesium silicate (AMS) was reported and the specific target delivery was achieved orally. The new co-precipitation process was developed to synthesis the green tea/AMS hybrid complex and using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy and Raman confirmed its successful synthesis. The blood biocompatibility of the green tea/AMS was tested using chicken blood, and the compound is safe up to 500 mg/ml. After mixed with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose phthalate, the oral beads were synthesised using a linking agent. The oral beads underwent different pH-based dissolution studies and the results indicated that the beads specifically dissolved in gastric pH (6.5). The pharmaco kinetic studies were performed to estimate the delivery kinetics. The results revealed that the beads underwent as per the Higuchi model. The anticoccidial effects of the beads were tested using chicken. The animal studies were performed in two different modes such as prophylactic treatment and active treatment after Eimeria species challenge. The results indicated that the prophylactic treatment with beads 100% protected the chicken and the active treatment with beads after the Eimeria challenge significantly protected against the intestinal damage and it also enhanced the anticoccidial effect.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: As many as one-half of all patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do not derive benefit from acid suppression. This review outlines a personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approach to GERD symptoms. METHODS: The Best Practice Advice statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with extensive discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was not the intent of this clinical practice update. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians should develop a care plan for investigation of symptoms suggestive of GERD, selection of therapy (with explanation of potential risks and benefits), and long-term management, including possible de-escalation, in a shared-decision making model with the patient. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians should provide standardized educational material on GERD mechanisms, weight management, lifestyle and dietary behaviors, relaxation strategies, and awareness about the brain-gut axis relationship to patients with reflux symptoms. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should emphasize safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the treatment of GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should provide patients presenting with troublesome heartburn, regurgitation, and/ or non-cardiac chest pain without alarm symptoms a 4- to 8-week trial of single-dose PPI therapy. With inadequate response, dosing can be increased to twice a day or switched to a more effective acid suppressive agent once a day. When there is adequate response, PPI should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: If PPI therapy is continued in a patient with unproven GERD, clinicians should evaluate the appropriateness and dosing within 12 months after initiation, and offer endoscopy with prolonged wireless reflux monitoring off PPI therapy to establish appropriateness of long-term PPI therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: If troublesome heartburn, regurgitation, and/or non-cardiac chest pain do not respond adequately to a PPI trial or when alarm symptoms exist, clinicians should investigate with endoscopy and, in the absence of erosive reflux disease (Los Angeles B or greater) or long-segment (≥3 cm) Barrett’s esophagus, perform prolonged wireless pH monitoring off medication (96-hour preferred if available) to confirm and phenotype GERD or to rule out GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Complete endoscopic evaluation of GERD symptoms includes inspection for erosive esophagitis (graded according to the Los Angeles classification when present), diaphragmatic hiatus (Hill grade of flap valve), axial hiatus hernia length, and inspection for Barrett’s esophagus (graded according to the Prague classification and biopsied when present). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Clinicians should perform upfront objective reflux testing off medication (rather than an empiric PPI trial) in patients with isolated extra-esophageal symptoms and suspicion for reflux etiology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In symptomatic patients with proven GERD, clinicians should consider ambulatory 24-hour pHimpedance monitoring on PPI as an option to determine the mechanism of persisting esophageal symptoms despite therapy (if adequate expertise exists for interpretation). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Clinicians should personalize adjunctive pharmacotherapy to the GERD phenotype, in contrast to empiric use of these agents. Adjunctive agents include alginate antacids for breakthrough symptoms, nighttime H2 receptor antagonists for nocturnal symptoms, baclofen for regurgitation or belch predominant symptoms, and prokinetics for coexistent gastroparesis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Clinicians should provide pharmacologic neuromodulation, and/or referral to a behavioral therapist for hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies in patients with functional heartburn or reflux disease associated with esophageal hypervigilance reflux hypersensitivity and/or behavioral disorders. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: In patients with proven GERD, laparoscopic fundoplication and magnetic sphincter augmentation are effective surgical options, and transoral incisionless fundoplication is an effective endoscopic option in carefully selected patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: In patients with proven GERD, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is an effective primary anti-reflux intervention in obese patients, and a salvage option in non-obese patients, whereas sleeve gastrectomy has potential to worsen GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Candidacy for invasive anti-reflux procedures includes confirmatory evidence of pathologic GERD, exclusion of achalasia, and assessment of esophageal peristaltic function.

Background & Aims The prevalence and significance of digestive manifestations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. We aimed to assess the prevalence, spectrum, severity, and significance of digestive manifestations in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods Consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were identified across a geographically diverse alliance of medical centers in North America. Data pertaining to baseline characteristics, symptomatology, laboratory assessment, imaging, and endoscopic findings from the time of symptom onset until discharge or death were abstracted manually from electronic health records to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and severity of digestive manifestations. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between digestive manifestations and severe outcomes related to COVID-19. Results A total of 1992 patients across 36 centers met eligibility criteria and were included. Overall, 53% of patients experienced at least 1 gastrointestinal symptom at any time during their illness, most commonly diarrhea (34%), nausea (27%), vomiting (16%), and abdominal pain (11%). In 74% of cases, gastrointestinal symptoms were judged to be mild. In total, 35% of patients developed an abnormal alanine aminotransferase or total bilirubin level; these were increased to less than 5 times the upper limit of normal in 77% of cases. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at any time (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76–1.15) or liver test abnormalities on admission (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80–2.12) were not associated independently with mechanical ventilation or death. Conclusions Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, gastrointestinal symptoms and liver test abnormalities were common, but the majority were mild and their presence was not associated with a more severe clinical course.