Diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: recommendations of the Asociación Mexicana de Gastroenterología

Incidence of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth and Symptoms After 7 Days of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use: A Study on Healthy Volunteers

INTRODUCTION

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly prescribed drugs. Chronic PPI use has recently been associated with the risk for developing small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). It is not known whether the short-term prescription of a PPI can trigger SIBO. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the incidence of SIBO and gastrointestinal symptoms after 7 days of PPI use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, pilot, open-label study was conducted on asymptomatic healthy volunteers. The incidence of SIBO was evaluated at the baseline and after administration of 40 mg of pantoprazole once a day for 7 days, through a glucose breath test. In addition, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms, the number of bowel movements, and the consistency of stools, according to the Bristol scale, were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight healthy subjects (71.1% women, mean age 25.18 ± 6.5 years) were analyzed. The incidence of SIBO after 7 days of PPI administration was 7.8% (95% CI 1.6-21.3%). The patients that developed SIBO had a greater prevalence of bloating (p = 0.0002) and flatulence (p = 0.004) after 7 days of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that a short-term 7-day PPI course produced SIBO in 7.8% of healthy subjects. Although, inappropriate use of PPIs should be discouraged, but since more than 90% of subjects who received PPIs for one week did not develop SIBO, the advantages of PPI administration seem to outweigh the disadvantages.

[Position statement of the Latin American Dysphagia Society for the management of oropharyngeal and esophageal dysphagia during the COVID-19 pandemic]

INTRODUCTION

The SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the COVID-19 disease is transmitted through the inhalation of droplets or aerosols and inoculation via the oronasal or ocular routes, transforming the management of swallowing disorders into a challenge for healthcare teams, given their proximity to the aerodigestive tract and the high probability of aerosol generation during patient evaluation and treatment.

AIM

To provide essential guidance for Latin American multidisciplinary teams, regarding the evaluation and treatment of oropharyngeal and esophageal dysphagia, at the different levels of healthcare. The position statement was formulated for the purpose of maintaining medical service continuity, in the context of a pandemic, and minimizing the propagation and infection risks of the virus.

METHODS

Thirteen experts in swallowing disorders were summoned by the Latin American Dysphagia Society to formulate a series of clinical suggestions, based on available evidence and clinical experience, for the management of dysphagia, taking the characteristics of Latin American healthcare systems into account.

RESULTS

The position statement of the Latin American Dysphagia Society provides a series of clinical suggestions directed at the multidisciplinary teams that manage patients with oropharyngeal and esophageal dysphagia. It presents guidelines for evaluation and treatment in different contexts, from hospitalization to home care.

CONCLUSIONS

The present statement should be analyzed by each team or healthcare professional, to reduce the risk for COVID-19 infection and achieve the best therapeutic results, while at the same time, being mindful of the reality of each Latin American country.

Position statement of the Latin American Dysphagia Society for the management of oropharyngeal and esophageal dysphagia during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

The SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the COVID-19 disease is transmitted through the inhalation of droplets or aerosols and inoculation via the oronasal or ocular routes, transforming the management of swallowing disorders into a challenge for healthcare teams, given their proximity to the aerodigestive tract and the high probability of aerosol generation during patient evaluation and treatment.

Aim

To provide essential guidance for Latin American multidisciplinary teams, regarding the evaluation and treatment of oropharyngeal and esophageal dysphagia, at the different levels of healthcare. The position statement was formulated for the purpose of maintaining medical service continuity, in the context of a pandemic, and minimizing the propagation and infection risks of the virus.

Methods

Thirteen experts in swallowing disorders were summoned by the Latin American Dysphagia Society to formulate a series of clinical suggestions, based on available evidence and clinical experience, for the management of dysphagia, taking the characteristics of Latin American healthcare systems into account.

Results

The position statement of the Latin American Dysphagia Society provides a series of clinical suggestions directed at the multidisciplinary teams that manage patients with oropharyngeal and esophageal dysphagia. It presents guidelines for evaluation and treatment in different contexts, from hospitalization to home care.

Conclusions

The present statement should be analyzed by each team or healthcare professional, to reduce the risk for COVID-19 infection and achieve the best therapeutic results, while at the same time, being mindful of the reality of each Latin American country.

SAGES guidelines for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux (GERD)

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) is an extremely common condition with several medical and surgical treatment options. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of GERD with an emphasis on evaluating different surgical techniques.

METHODS

Literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical treatment of GERD in both adults and children: surgical vs. medical treatment, robotic vs. laparoscopic fundoplication, partial vs. complete fundoplication, and division vs. preservation of short gastric vessels in adults or maximal versus minimal dissection in pediatric patients. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.

RESULTS

The panel provided seven recommendations for adults and children with GERD. All recommendations were conditional due to very low, low, or moderate certainty of evidence. The panel conditionally recommended surgical treatment over medical management for adults with chronic or chronic refractory GERD. There was insufficient evidence for the panel to make a recommendation regarding surgical versus medical treatment in children. The panel suggested that once the decision to pursue surgical therapy is made, adults and children with GERD may be treated with either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach, and either partial or complete fundoplication based on surgeon-patient shared decision-making and patient values. In adults, the panel suggested either division or non-division of the short gastric vessels is appropriate, and that children should undergo minimal dissection during fundoplication.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to surgical decision-making in the treatment of GERD and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and patient values to optimize patient outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs may improve future versions of guidelines for the treatment of GERD.

Screening for Barrett's Esophagus: Balancing Clinical Value and Cost-effectiveness

In predisposed individuals with long standing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophageal squamous mucosa can transform into columnar mucosa with intestinal metaplasia, commonly called Barrett’s esophagus (BE). Barrett’s mucosa can develop dysplasia, which can be a precursor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, most EAC cases are identified when esophageal symptoms develop, without prior BE or GERD diagnoses. While several gastrointestinal societies have published BE screening guidelines, these vary, and many recommendations are not based on high quality evidence. These guidelines are concordant in recommending targeted screening of predisposed individuals (eg, long standing GERD symptoms with age > 50 years, male sex, Caucasian race, obesity, and family history of BE or EAC), and against population based screening, or screening of GERD patients without risk factors. Targeted endoscopic screening programs provide earlier diagnosis of high grade dysplasia and EAC, and offer potential for endoscopic therapy, which can improve prognosis and outcome. On the other hand, endoscopic screening of the general population, unselected GERD patients, patients with significant comorbidities or patients with limited life expectancy is not cost-effective. New screening modalities, some of which do not require endoscopy, have the potential to reduce costs and expand access to screening for BE.

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) Ethical Guidelines: advancements and unsolved topics in 2016 upgrade

In 2016, the new edition of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) Ethical Guidelines was released, which are universally acknowledged as ethical standards in biomedical research. In this article, we critically analyze the improvements and shortcomings of the CIOMS Ethical Guidelines 2016. Among the improvements are the relevance assigned to the social value of research and its effects on decision-making and the creation of public policies; the research development in low-resources scenarios; the communities’ involvement in the research process; the determination of participants’ vulnerability and changes on informed consent related proceedings. Despite the improved harmonization with scientific, technologic and social changes, and that the guidelines provide a tool for researchers and members of research ethics committees alike, some topics remain unsolved, namely the management of participants’ minimal risk and conflicts of interest involved in research, and the development of research in low-incomes scenarios. Nonetheless, we recognize that these new guidelines constitute a progress regarding the context and needs of populations in which research will be conducted, with greater community involvement in the different phases of the investigation project, thus allowing them to access the potential benefits. The impact of the CIOMS Ethical Guidelines 2016, should be appraised over time, particularly in socio-sanitary inequities scenarios and in the context of commercial interests of industry on biomedical research.