Search

Background & aimsDiscerning whether laryngeal symptoms result from gastroesophageal reflux is clinically challenging and a reliable tool to stratify patients is needed. We aimed to develop and validate a model to predict the likelihood of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) among patients with chronic laryngeal symptoms.MethodsThis multicenter international study collected data from adults with chronic laryngeal symptoms who underwent objective testing (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and/or ambulatory reflux monitoring) between March 2018 and May 2023. The training phase identified a model with optimal receiver operating characteristic curves, and β coefficients informed a weighted model. The validation phase assessed performance characteristics of the weighted model.ResultsA total of 856 adults, 304 in the training cohort and 552 in the validation cohort, were included. In the training phase, the optimal predictive model (area under the curve, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.62-0.74), was the Cough, Overweight/obesity, Globus, Hiatal Hernia, Regurgitation, and male seX (COuGH RefluX) score, with a lower threshold of 2.5 and an upper threshold of 5.0 to predict proven GERD. In the validation phase, the COuGH RefluX score had an area under the curve of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.71), with 79% sensitivity and 81% specificity for proven GERD.ConclusionsThe externally validated COuGH RefluX score is a clinically practical model to predict the likelihood of proven GERD. The score classifies most patients with chronic laryngeal symptoms as low/high likelihood of proven GERD, with only 38% remaining as indeterminate. Thus, the COuGH RefluX score can guide diagnostic strategies and reduce inappropriate proton pump inhibitor use or testing for patients referred for evaluation of chronic laryngeal symptoms.

DescriptionThe 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.MethodsThe 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.

PurposeMany oncologists have relationships with industry. Previous work has shown that these payments are usually modest; however, there exist a subset of medical oncologists who receive more than $100,000 US dollars (USD) annually. Here, we describe the characteristics of these physicians.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used the Open Payments data set to identify all US-based medical oncologists/hematologists who received $100,000+ USD in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018. Open Payments and a web-based search were used to identify physician characteristics, demographics, research profile, and leadership positions.ResultsOne hundred thirty-nine medical oncologists received > $100,000 USD in general payments. The median payment was $154,613 USD, and the total payment was $24.2 million USD. These high-payment physicians represent 1% of all US medical oncologists (N = 10,620) yet account for 37% of all industry payments in 2018. Sixty percent (84 of 139) and 21% (29 of 139) of these high-payment physicians hold hospital and specialty association leadership roles, respectively. One quarter (24%, 33 of 139) serve on journal editorial boards, and 10% (14 of 139) have authored clinical practice guidelines; 72% (100 of 139) hold faculty appointments.ConclusionA small number of medical oncologists receive very high payments from the pharmaceutical industry. These physicians hold major leadership roles within oncology. Further work is needed to understand the extent to which these conflicts of interest may shape clinical practice and policy.

Background & aimsAs 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.MethodsThe 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 pH-impedance 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.

BackgroundAs the landscape of haematological malignancies dramatically changes due to diagnostic and therapeutic advances, it is important to evaluate trends in clinical trial designs. The objective of our study was to describe the design of clinical trials for five common haematological malignancies with respect to randomisation and end-points. We also aimed to assess trends over time and examine the relationships of funding source and country of origin to proportions of randomisation and utilisation of clinical end-points.MethodsThis systematic review identified haematological malignancy clinical trials starting in 2015-2020 registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as of 20th February 2021. Trial-related variables including randomisation status, type of primary end-point, and both projected and actual enrolment numbers were captured. Clinical end-points were defined as overall survival and quality of life, while surrogate end-points included all other end-points.ResultsOf 2609 relevant trials included in this analysis, only one-fifth were randomised (538, 21%), with a significant decrease in the proportion of randomised clinical trials from 26% of trials in 2015 to 19% in 2020 (p

BackgroundOver the past 2 decades there has been a substantial increase in the number of new cancer medicines; this has been accompanied by a dramatic rise in drug costs. It is unknown how these trends impact the revenue of the pharmaceutical sector.MethodsRetrospective cohort study to characterize temporal trends of revenue generated from cancer medicines as a proportion of total drug revenue among 10 large pharmaceutical companies from 2010 to 2019. Itemized product-sales data publicly available through company websites or annual filings were used to identify annual drug revenue. Revenue data were adjusted for inflation and converted to 2019 US dollars.ResultsDuring the study period, cumulative annual revenue generated from cancer drugs increased by 70%: from $55.8 billion to $95.1 billion, while cumulative revenue from nononcology drugs decreased 18%: from $342.2 billion to $281.5 billion. The proportion of total drug revenue generated from oncology drugs increased substantially over the study period: from 14% in 2010 to 25% in 2019 (τ = 1.0, P

BackgroundMany oncologists who lead guidelines and clinical trials have financial conflicts of interest (fCOI) with industry. However, the extent to which fCOI reaches all cancer care providers is not known. Here we describe industry payments across all cancer care specialties by specific drug.MethodsThis observational, retrospective cohort study used Open Payments to describe general payments (i.e. consulting fees, meals, travel) to all US physicians for any cancer medicine during 2016-2018. Endpoints included number and value of payments by specialty, drug, and year.ResultsDuring 2016-2018, industry made general payments to 52 441 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs. Annual number of payments (465 655 in 2018) and total value ($98.5 million in 2018) increased over the study period (20 % and 31 % increase since 2016). Medical/hematologic oncologists, surgical oncologists and radiologists received the highest total value of payments, accounting for $65.7 million (67 % of total), $13.4 million (14 % of total) and $10.8 million (11 % of total) in 2018. In 2018, 5 % of physicians (n = 1660) received >$10 000 in annual payments and 0.6 % (n = 209) received >$100 000. Pembrolizumab and Nivolumab, were associated with the highest total payment in each year, accounting for 12 % and 6 % (2018) of total value, respectively.ConclusionsWhile prior work has identified fCOIs among oncology leaders, these data suggest that payments extend across the cancer system.Policy summaryPre-existing data suggest a strong relationship between industry payments and physician prescribing. The current study demonstrates that fCOIs among oncology prescribers are pervasive. The oncology community must consider the extent to which these relationships influence clinical practice and regulatory policies.

ImportanceThe randomized clinical trial (RCT) in oncology has evolved since its widespread adoption in the 1970s. In recent years, concerns have emerged regarding the use of putative surrogate end points, such as progression-free survival (PFS), and marginal effect sizes.ObjectiveTo describe contemporary trends in oncology RCTs and compare these findings with earlier eras of RCT design and output.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of systemic therapy RCTs in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer published in 7 major journals between 2010 and 2020. This strategy replicates prior work and allows for comparison of trends with RCTs published between 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009.Main outcomes and measuresData on RCT design, funding, results, and reporting were extracted from the published RCT report. Findings from the current period (2010-2020) were compared with data from RCTs published from 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to analyze temporal trends.ResultsThe cohort included 298 RCTs (132 [44%] breast, 111 [37%] non-small cell lung cancer, 55 [19%] colorectal cancer). Experimental treatment included molecular inhibitor (171 of 298 [57%]), cytotoxic (83 of 298 [28%]), hormone (15 of 298 [5%]), and immune (24 of 298 [8%]) therapies. Sixty-nine percent (206 of 298) of RCTs were of palliative intent. The most common primary end point is now PFS; this has increased substantially over time (from 0% [0 of 167] to 18% [25 of 137] to 42% [125 of 298]; P

Background & aimsWireless pH monitoring measures esophageal acid exposure time (AET) for up to 96 hours. We evaluated competing methods of analysis of wireless pH data.MethodsAdult patients with persisting reflux symptoms despite acid suppression (n = 322, 48.5 ± 0.9 years, 61.7% women) from 2 tertiary centers were evaluated using symptom questionnaires and wireless pH monitoring off therapy, from November 2013 through September 2017; 30 healthy adults (control subjects; 26.9 ± 1.5 years; 60.0% women) were similarly evaluated. Concordance of daily AET (physiologic 6%) for 2 or more days constituted the predominant AET pattern. Each predominant pattern (physiologic, borderline, or pathologic) in relation to data from the first day, and total averaged AET, were compared with other interpretation paradigms (first 2 days, best day, or worst day) and with symptoms.ResultsAt least 2 days of AET data were available from 96.9% of patients, 3 days from 90.7%, and 4 days from 72.7%. A higher proportion of patients had a predominant pathologic pattern (31.4%) than control subjects (11.1%; P = .03). When 3 or more days of data were available, 90.4% of patients had a predominant AET pattern; when 2 days of data were available, 64.1% had a predominant AET pattern (P < .001). Day 1 AET was discordant with the predominant pattern in 22.4% of patients and was less strongly associated with the predominant pattern compared with 48 hour AET (P = .059) or total averaged AET (P = .02). Baseline symptom burden was higher in patients with a predominant pathologic pattern compared with a predominant physiologic pattern (P = .02).ConclusionsThe predominant AET pattern on prolonged wireless pH monitoring can identify patients at risk for reflux symptoms and provides gains over 24 hours and 48 hours recording, especially when results from the first 2 days are discordant or borderline.

IntroductionCompetency-based medical education (CBME) for interpretation of esophageal manometry is lacking; therefore, motility experts and instructional designers developed the esophageal manometry competency (EMC) program: a personalized, adaptive learning program for interpretation of esophageal manometry. The aim of this study was to implement EMC among Gastroenterology (GI) trainees and assess the impact of EMC on competency in manometry interpretation.MethodsGI fellows across 14 fellowship programs were invited to complete EMC from February 2018 to October 2018. EMC includes an introductory video, baseline assessment of manometry interpretation, individualized learning pathways, and final assessment of manometry interpretation. The primary outcome was competency for interpretation in 7 individual skill sets.ResultsForty-four GI trainees completed EMC. Participants completed 30 cases, each including 7 skill sets. At baseline, 4 (9%) participants achieved competency for all 7 skills compared with 24 (55%) at final assessment (P < 0.001). Competency in individual skills increased from a median of 4 skills at baseline to 7 at final assessment (P < 0.001). The greatest increase in skill competency was for diagnosis (Baseline: 11% vs Final: 68%; P < 0.001). Accuracy improved for distinguishing between 5 diagnostic groups and was highest for the Outflow obstructive motility disorder (Baseline: 49% vs Final: 76%; P < 0.001) and Normal motor function (50% vs 80%; P < 0.001).DiscussionThis prospective multicenter implementation study highlights that an adaptive web-based training platform is an effective tool to promote CBME. EMC completion was associated with significant improvement in identifying clinically relevant diagnoses, providing a model for integrating CBME into subspecialized areas of training.