ACG clinical guidelines: diagnosis and management of achalasia

Achalasia is an esophageal motility disorder characterized by aberrant peristalsis and insufficient relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter. Patients most commonly present with dysphagia to solids and liquids, regurgitation, and occasional chest pain with or without weight loss. High-resolution manometry has identified 3 subtypes of achalasia distinguished by pressurization and contraction patterns. Endoscopic findings of retained saliva with puckering of the gastroesophageal junction or esophagram findings of a dilated esophagus with bird beaking are important diagnostic clues. In this American College of Gastroenterology guideline, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process to provide clinical guidance on how best to diagnose and treat patients with achalasia.

Perceptions of risk and therapy among patients with Barrett's esophagus: a patient survey study.

Nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus has a risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma as low as 0.18-0.3% per person per year, and low-grade dysplasia as low as 0.5%. While adherence to guidelines and selection of management options varies, little is known about what modifies patient decision-making. This study aims to evaluate and identify factors that influence patient perceptions of risk and decisions about management. An independently developed and piloted survey was administered to patients at an academic hospital. Risk perception and desire for therapy were assessed using a standard reference gamble paradigm, and responses were stratified based on patient and disease characteristics. Data were analyzed with Student's t and chi-squared tests. A total of 42 of 50 patients with Barrett's esophagus and no prior endoscopic therapy participated (84% response; 76% nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus, 22% low-grade dysplasia, 2% indeterminate for dysplasia; mean age 61 years, 29% female). On average, patients perceived their risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma in the next year, 10 years and lifetime as 6, 14, and 19%, respectively. Nearly half viewed their lifetime risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma to be the same or higher than diabetes, heart disease, or colon cancer. Although 92% of patients felt surveillance beneficial, only 54% believed endoscopic therapy to be effective in most or all cases. As many as 83% of patients were willing to undergo endoscopic therapy with a hypothetical success rate as low as 70%, and a majority (64%) accepted complication rates up to 30%. Compared to patients with low risk perception of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma, those with high risk perception more often believed their risk for developing esophageal adenocarcinoma was greater than diabetes (p = 0.04) or colon cancer (p = 0.002). Those with lifetime low risk perception were less likely to accept modest complication rates (<10%) of therapy (P < 0.05). Age, gender, degree of dysplasia, lifetime endoscopies and duration of symptoms had no impact on perceived effectiveness of surveillance or therapy, and did not correlate with desire for treatment at varying levels of risk and effectiveness. Patients with Barrett's esophagus overestimate their risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma and will accept low success rates and high risk of complications to undergo endoscopic therapy. Baseline risk perception correlates with the desire for endoscopic therapy.

Randomized controlled trial comparing esophageal dilation to no dilation among adults with esophageal eosinophilia and dysphagia.

The role of esophageal dilation in patients with esophageal eosinophilia with dysphagia remains unknown. The practice of dilation is currently based on center preferences and expert opinion. The aim of this study is to determine if, and to what extent, dysphagia improves in response to initial esophageal dilation followed by standard medical therapies. We conducted a randomized, blinded, controlled trial evaluating adult patients with dysphagia and newly diagnosed esophageal eosinophilia from 2008 to 2013. Patients were randomized to dilation or no dilation at time of endoscopy and blinded to dilation status. Endoscopic features were graded as major and minor. Subsequent to randomization and endoscopy, all patients received fluticasone and dexlansoprazole for 2 months. The primary study outcome was reduction in overall dysphagia score, assessed at 30 and 60 days post-intervention. Patients with severe strictures (less than 7-mm esophageal diameter) were excluded from the study. Thirty-one patients were randomized and completed the protocol: 17 randomized to dilation and 14 to no dilation. Both groups were similar with regard to gender, age, eosinophil density, endoscopic score, and baseline dysphagia score. The population exhibited moderate to severe dysphagia and moderate esophageal stricturing at baseline. Overall, there was a significant (P < 0.001) but similar reduction in mean dysphagia score at 30 and 60 days post-randomization compared with baseline in both groups. No significant difference in dysphagia scores between treatment groups after 30 (P = 0.93) or 60 (P = 0.21) days post-intervention was observed. Esophageal dilation did not result in additional improvement in dysphagia score compared with treatment with proton pump inhibitor and fluticasone alone. In patients with symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia without severe stricture, dilation does not appear to be a necessary initial treatment strategy.

Eosinophilic esophagitis: dilate or medicate? A cost analysis model of the choice of initial therapy.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly recognized clinical entity. The optimal initial treatment strategy in adults with EoE remains controversial. The aim of this study was to employ a decision analysis model to determine the less costly option between the two most commonly employed treatment strategies in EoE. We constructed a model for an index case of a patient with biopsy-proven EoE who continues to be symptomatic despite proton-pump inhibitor therapy. The following treatment strategies were included: (i) swallowed fluticasone inhaler (followed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD] with dilation if ineffective); and (ii) EGD with dilation (followed by swallowed fluticasone inhaler if ineffective). The time horizon was 1 year. The model focused on cost analysis of initial treatment strategies. The perspective of the healthcare payer was used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model. For every patient whose symptoms improved or resolved with the strategy of fluticasone first followed by EGD, if necessary, it cost an average of $1078. Similarly, it cost an average of $1171 per patient if EGD with dilation was employed first. Sensitivity analyses indicated that initial treatment with fluticasone was the less costly strategy to improve dysphagia symptoms as long as the effectiveness of fluticasone remains at or above 0.62. Swallowed fluticasone inhaler (followed by EGD with dilation if necessary) is the more economical initial strategy when compared with EGD with dilation first.