Reduced medication dependency and improved symptoms and quality of life 12 months after enteryx implantation for gastroesophageal reflux

[Reflux and hiatus hernia in the controversy between conservative and operative therapy]

Approximately 20 % of the population are affected by gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The subjective clinical and objective pathological extent of the disease is highly variable and the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms extraordinarily diverse. The importance of hiatus hernia for GERD has been intensively debated for decades. Hiatus hernia was initially considered to be at the center of the pathophysiology but later the function of the lower esophageal sphincter was increasingly considered to be of importance. Currently, additional relevant pathophysiological cofactors are being detected with the continuous improvement in diagnostic methods and used for therapeutic decision-making. Despite standardization of the operative technique and increasing criticism on long-term proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, antireflux surgery still requires a very critical assessment of indications based on a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation.

EAES recommendations for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most frequent benign disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Management of GERD has always been controversial since modern medical therapy is very effective, but laparoscopic fundoplication is one of the few procedures that were quickly adapted to the minimal access technique. The purpose of this project was to analyze the current knowledge on GERD in regard to its pathophysiology, diagnostic assessment, medical therapy, and surgical therapy, and special circumstances such as GERD in children, Barrett's esophagus, and enteroesophageal and duodenogastroesophageal reflux.

METHODS

The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has tasked a group of experts, based on their clinical and scientific expertise in the field of GERD, to establish current guidelines in a consensus development conference. The expert panel was constituted in May 2012 and met in September 2012 and January 2013, followed by a Delphi process. Critical appraisal of the literature was accomplished. All articles were reviewed and classified according to the hierarchy of level of evidence and summarized in statements and recommendations, which were presented to the scientific community during the EAES yearly conference in a plenary session in Vienna 2013. A second Delphi process followed discussion in the plenary session.

RESULTS

Recommendations for pathophysiologic and epidemiologic considerations, symptom evaluation, diagnostic workup, medical therapy, and surgical therapy are presented. Diagnostic evaluation and adequate selection of patients are the most important features for success of the current management of GERD. Laparoscopic fundoplication is the most important therapeutic technique for the success of surgical therapy of GERD.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the background of GERD is multifactorial, the management of this disease requires a complex approach in diagnostic workup as well as for medical and surgical treatment. Laparoscopic fundoplication in well-selected patients is a successful therapeutic option.

Do endoscopic antireflux procedures fit in the current treatment paradigm of gastroesophageal reflux disease?

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common condition requiring considerable medical resources. The mainstay of therapy is proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), which are effective at reducing acid reflux. In patients who have refractory acid reflux and esophagitis despite high-dose PPI, or are intolerant of the side effects of PPI therapy, surgical fundoplication is the primary therapy. The risk and cost gap between medical therapy and surgery has resulted in substantial interest in less-invasive endoscopic therapies. In this review, we discuss the underlying physiology of GERD along with the anatomic hurdles that must be overcome to develop an effective antireflux procedure. We also review the current published literature and assess the clinical efficacy of the devices that have been studied or currently are being investigated. Despite promising early studies, many of the devices fall short in high-quality randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, the physiologic aberration resulting in GERD oftentimes is addressed inadequately. Although there is certainly a need for less-invasive, safe, and effective therapy for reflux, therapy will need to withstand the established clinical efficacy of both PPI and surgical fundoplication. At present, we have the luxury of time to wait for such a device to become available.

Antireflux 'barriers': problems with patient recruitment for a new endoscopic antireflux procedure

BACKGROUND

Most first-generation endoscopic antireflux procedures (EARPs) have been withdrawn because of variable success rates, economic considerations, and/or complications. As a result, subsequent methods may meet 'skepticism' by physicians and patients.

AIMS

To identify potential barriers to patient recruitment for a new EARP METHODS: We prospectively analyzed our recruitment for a phase 2 study of a transoral incisionless fundoplication procedure. We contacted 50 private practices and 23 hospitals for potential referrals, and placed three newspaper advertisements. All patient replies were followed up by a phone call. Patients were then invited for a personal interview, and eligible patients underwent further preprocedure testing. In addition, poststudy questionnaires regarding their opinions about EARPs were sent to referring physicians.

RESULTS

Of 134 interviewed patients, only 10% (n=13) were successfully recruited. Candidates mostly responded to newspaper advertisements (87%) or were referred from our own institution (7%). Primary exclusion criteria included failure of proton pump inhibitor response (34%), lack of proton pump inhibitor use (20%), atypical symptoms (18%), or a large hiatal hernia (17%). Seventy percent of the responding physicians did not believe that new EARPs would be superior to previous methods.

CONCLUSION

The EARP market seems to be much smaller than anticipated, partially because of skepticism of referring physicians, and partially because of strict selection criteria.

Systematic review of endoscopic treatments for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic procedures for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

METHODS

Literature databases including Medline, Embase and PubMed were searched up to May 2006 without language restriction. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies with at least ten patients in each study arm, and case series studies of at least ten patients, were included.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies examining seven endoscopic procedures (Stretta procedure, Bard EndoCinch, Wilson-Cook Endoscopic Suturing Device, NDO Plicator, Enteryx, Gatekeeper Reflux Repair System and Plexiglas) were included in the review. Of the three procedures that were tested against sham controls (Stretta procedure, Bard EndoCinch and Enteryx), patient outcomes in the treatment group were either as good as, or significantly better than, those of control patients in terms of heartburn symptoms, quality of life and medication usage. However, for the two procedures that were tested against laparoscopic fundoplication (Stretta) procedure and Bard EndoCinch), outcomes for patients in the endoscopic group were either as good as, or inferior to, those for the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

At present there is insufficient evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of endoscopic procedures for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, particularly in the long term.

Review article: endoscopic antireflux procedures - an unfulfilled promise?

BACKGROUND

Most published reviews concerning the endoscopic treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease date back to 2005.

AIM

To provide an updated review that includes all papers published up to 2007.

METHODS

A Medline search from January 2005 to June 2007 was performed regarding endoscopic procedures aiming at treating gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. In addition, we retrieved the abstracts presented at Digestive Disease Week during the last 3 years. We included in the review both 'mechanistic' studies - that is, papers exploring the potential mechanism of action of the procedure/device - and studies trying to assess its clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

During the last 3 years, the number of published papers has declined, and some devices are not available any more. The alleged mechanism(s) of action of the various devices or procedures is (are) still not completely elucidated; however, some concerns have arisen as far as durability and potential detrimental effects. Moreover, all the aspects of endoscopic therapy, except for its safety, are either insufficiently explored or not investigated at all, or assessed only in particularly selected patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the proposed antireflux therapies has fulfilled the criteria of efficacy, safety, cost, durability and, possibly, of reversibility. There is at present no definite indication for endoscopic therapy of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. We suggest a list of recommendations to be followed when a new endoscopic therapeutic procedure is to be assessed for use in clinical practice.

Systematic review: endoluminal therapy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: evidence from clinical trials

During the last few decades many endoscopic interventions have been developed as an alternative for the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). In many countries, these interventions are thus being performed in the general clinical setting. The aim of this study is to systematically review the evidence on the effect of endoscopic therapies for GORD. A systematic search of the literature on this subject in English, indexed in MEDLINE (1966 to May 2007) and in the Cochrane Library, was carried out. For the study selection, retrospective and prospective open-label and randomized, sham-controlled trials were taken into account. The exclusion criteria included the following: case series that included fewer than 10 patients, abstracts, studies involving children or those with a follow-up shorter than 3 months. For data extraction, two reviewers, using standardized forms, independently abstracted data on study design and methods, population, sample size, function studies (e.g. pH-metry), type of endoscopic treatment, follow-up, health-related and quality of life scores, outcomes and complications. Data synthesis involved the following: 43 studies, including four randomized, sham-controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria, out of 4182 citations. The primary end point in most studies was the reduction of the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) by more than 50%. In view of these findings, the majority of studies suggested the efficacy of endoluminal therapies for the control of symptoms in GORD. In the sham-controlled studies, the effect of placebo was, nevertheless, as high as 50%. Most studies were small feasibility studies, with follow-ups of less than 1 year. No study comparing endoscopic techniques with other established treatment options such as PPIs existed. All endoscopic therapies were associated with a small but important percentage of mild to severe complications, which included perforation, abscess and death. In conclusion, the data from most of the short-term follow-up and the few sham-controlled studies demonstrate that subgroups of patients experienced improvement or resolution of typical GORD symptoms and decreased PPI usage. Currently, however, there are not enough scientific and clinical data on safety, efficacy and durability to support the use of endoluminal therapies for GORD in routine clinical practice.

Treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: endoscopic aspects

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a very common chronic disorder manifesting itself as heartburn, regurgitation, or dysphagia, possibly leading to esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinoma, and has a major impact on the patient's quality of life. Both medical treatment and surgery are well-established methods with several limitations. Recently, three types of endoscopic methods in several modifications have been developed: (1) Radiofrequency therapy (Stretta procedure) is available both in Europe and USA and more than 5,000 patients have been treated to date. (2) Injection therapy requires the injection of bulking agents or implantation of bioprosthesis into the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) zone. Both Enteryx was withdrawn from the market in 2005, and Gatekeeper was suspended before FDA approval. (3) Suturing/plication therapy is based on the plication at the level of the LES, and most of all techniques resemble the principle of surgical treatment. Despite sophisticated technologies and promising short-term results, all these techniques are associated with inconsistencies, controversies, and relevant adverse affects. According to current practice, use of endoscopic methods is justifiable only as part of clinical trials. Many aspects, including commercial ones, will influence future developments in this area, which are difficult to predict.

Emerging endoluminal therapies for gastroesophageal reflux disease: adverse events

BACKGROUND

Endoluminal therapies are emerging as a new therapeutic option for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Many of these endoluminal therapies are touted as short outpatient procedures with minimal complications. It is thought that these complications are uncommon and minor. This investigation sought to summarize the adverse events of these endoluminal therapies for the treatment of GERD.

METHODS

The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health Web site was searched to examine all voluntary adverse events reported on emerging endoluminal therapies. The adverse events can be divided into 3 categories: (1) radiofrequency ablation based, (2) injection based, and (3) suture based.

RESULTS

There were a total of 50 adverse events reported on 4 specific therapies. Half of the complications were found to result from injection-based therapy and 44% of the complications were found to result from radiofrequency ablation-based therapy. There were 8 deaths reported (5 in the injection-based group and 3 in the radiofrequency ablation-based group). Sixty-four percent of the adverse events resulted in hospitalizations and 10% of these patients required surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians must be aware that no endoluminal therapy is truly noninvasive. Complications and even deaths are associated with these treatments for GERD. Patients must be informed of all the potential risks and complications of these new technologies.

Endoscopic anti-reflux devices: a year of challenges and change

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic antireflux procedures have generated much interest among clinicians and patients. These devices utilize a variety of methods in an attempt to decrease reflux of gastric contents. This work reviews the most notable results of endoscopic antireflux procedure studies published in 2005.

RECENT FINDINGS

A variety of studies of different technologies have been published this year. Only a few of these studies report data beyond 12 months to establish longer term efficacy. One sham controlled multicenter trial was published this year. After case reports of complications related to Enteryx (Boston Scientific Corp, Natick, Massachusetts, USA) use, this US Food and Drug Administration-approved device was voluntarily removed from the market.

SUMMARY

A review of the literature demonstrates a paucity of long-term studies, as well as a lack of data comparing the devices to active medical therapy. The majority of studies are open-label trials with subjective endpoints, and such study designs are very susceptible to placebo effect. No one technology has demonstrated superiority to another. Additional studies with vigorous attention to methodology, safety evaluation, cost analysis and clinically meaningful endpoints will be required.

Endoluminal gastroplasty (EndoCinch) versus endoscopic polymer implantation (Enteryx) for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: 6-month results of a prospective, randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare and determine the efficiency and safety of two newly introduced endoscopic antireflux procedures in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized trial, endoluminal gastroplasty (EndoCinch) was compared with polymer injection (Enteryx) employing 51 consecutive patients dependent on proton pump inhibitor therapy. Follow-up evaluation included drug consumption, symptoms, quality-of-life scoring, endoscopy, pH monitoring, manometry, and documentation of adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were assigned to EndoCinch treatment, 23 patients received Enteryx implantation, and two patients dropped out before applying endoscopic therapy. At 6 months, proton pump inhibitor therapy could be stopped or dosage was reduced by > or =50% in 20 of 26 (77%) EndoCinch-treated patients and in 20 of 23 patients treated by Enteryx (87%, p= 0.365), which differed significantly in both groups compared to the pre-interventional status (p < 0.0001). Esophageal acid reflux (pH < 4) decreased from 14.5% to 9.6% in EndoCinch-treated patients (p= 0.071) and from 15.5% to 13.9% in patients treated by Enteryx (p= 0.930). Heartburn symptom score, modified DeMeester score, gastrointestinal life quality index, and SF-36 physical health survey score improved significantly in both groups postinterventionally (p < 0.0001). Approximately 25% of the patients in both groups required retreatment in an attempt to achieve symptom control.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first prospective, randomized study directly comparing two endoscopic anti-GERD techniques. EndoCinch and Enteryx seem to be equally successful in the treatment of GERD significantly reducing the proton pump inhibitor dosages, and also by improving symptoms of patients. Both endoluminal antireflux procedures may be promising therapeutic options; long-term evaluation will have to show if the positive initial results can be maintained.

Endoscopic approaches to the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic therapies for gastroesophageal reflux disease represent a minimally invasive alternative to medical or surgical treatment. These devices include suturing, radiofrequency energy, and bulking agent technologies. Research into the use of these technologies in gastroesophageal reflux disease continues to accelerate, and the last 2 years have witnessed significant developments that may affect current and future clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Long-term data from nonrandomized clinical trials have become available in the last 2 years for many gastroesophageal reflux disease endotherapies, providing some insight into their durability. Furthermore, two multicenter and one single-center sham-controlled trials were published recently, allowing comparison between groups.

SUMMARY

Although it is premature to propose the superiority of any individual approach, emerging data in this rapidly evolving field may inform current and future directions in the research and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Enteryx implantation for GERD: expanded multicenter trial results and interim postapproval follow-up to 24 months

BACKGROUND

Enteryx implantation in the esophagus is an alternative therapy for patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) dependent GERD. Although this treatment resulted in highly significant improvement at 6 and 12 months, longer follow-up is needed to more fully assess the durability of these positive effects.

METHODS

An open-label, international clinical trial was conducted in 144 PPI-dependent patients with GERD with follow-up at 6 and 12 months. In addition, the durability and the safety of the treatment were assessed for 24 months in 64 patients enrolled in a postapproval study. The primary study outcome measure was usage of PPI. Secondary outcomes in the multicenter trial were GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) symptom score and esophageal acid exposure.

RESULTS

At 12 months, PPI use was reduced > or =50% in 84%: 95% confidence interval (CI) [76%, 90%] and was eliminated in 73%: 95% CI[64%, 81%] of evaluable patients (intent-to-treat analysis 78%: 95% CI[70%, 84%] and 68%: 95% CI[60%, 76%], respectively). A GERD-HRQL < or =11 was attained in 78%: 95% CI[69%, 85%] of evaluable patients. Esophageal acid exposure (total time pH <4) was reduced by 31%: 95% CI[17%, 43%]. At 24 months, a > or =50% or greater reduction in PPI use was achieved in 72%: 95% CI[59%, 82%] and PPI use was eliminated in 67%: 95% CI[54%, 78%] of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation provides evidence for sustained effectiveness and safety of implantation of Enteryx in the esophagus in PPI-dependent patients with GERD.

Enteryx implant for gastroesophageal reflux disease

Although pharmacologic therapy is safe and effective for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), patients requiring chronic drug treatment often seek alternatives. Surgical alternatives to chronic drug treatment are associated with increased morbidity and long-term failure rates in more than 50% of surgically treated patients. Newer endoluminal therapies using modifications of standard endoscopy techniques are under evaluation as alternatives to chronic drug treatment or surgical intervention for GERD. Appropriate patient selection is KEY. Patients considered for any endoluminal therapy should have well documented GERD and demonstrated appropriate and successful response to medical therapy with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI). The Enteryx implant is an injectable biocompatible polymer approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the management of GERD symptoms. Clinical trial data indicate that the Enteryx procedure is a safe and effective GERD treatment that manages symptoms of GERD and addresses the underlying anatomic and functional aspects of the disorder. Multicenter clinical trials have shown that the Enteryx procedure safely and effectively eliminates or significantly reduces PPI use in approximately 84% of patients at 1 year and 72% of patients at two years. The risk-benefit profile of this procedure and alternative treatment options should be carefully evaluated for each patient considered a candidate for Enteryx and all endoluminal therapies. Randomized-controlled studies comparing the Enteryx procedure to placebo and cost-effective analyses comparing treatment options will further define the use of the Enteryx implant in patients with GERD.