Search

Objectives: It is thought that esophageal hypersensitivity in combination with an impaired mucosal barrier function contributes to PPI-resistant reflux symptoms. Ziverel, a bioadhesive agent that coats the esophageal wall, was shown to have a positive effect on reflux symptoms. However, the mechanisms of action are unclear. We aimed to assess the effect of Ziverel on esophageal sensitivity to acid and mucosal barrier function., Methods: We performed a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial in PPI-refractory patients with reflux symptoms. Patients were assigned (1:1) to 14 days of Ziverel followed by 14 days of placebo or opposite treatment order. The effect was evaluated using acid perfusion tests, an upper endoscopy with electrical tissue impedance spectroscopy (ETIS) and esophageal biopsies. The primary outcome was the esophageal sensitivity based on perfusion sensitivity score. Secondary outcomes included mucosal barrier function and reflux symptoms and correlations between the different outcomes., Results: Perfusion sensitivity score was not significantly different during treatment with Ziverel (106 (73-115)) and placebo (102 (67-110)) ( p  = 0.508) along with total RDQ score (2.6 (1.9-3.3) vs 2.8 (1.6-3.5) p  = 0.456). ETIS showed comparable values during treatment with Ziverel (13514 (8846-19734)Ω·m) and placebo (13217 (9127-24942)Ω·m ( p  = 0.650)). Comparing Ziverel and placebo no difference was seen in transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) 203 (163-267) Ω.cm 2 vs 205 (176-240) Ω.cm 2 ( p  = 0.445) and fluorescein flux 775 (17-6964) nmol/cm 2 /h vs 187 (4-12209) nmol/cm 2 /h ( p  = 0.638)., Conclusion: Ziverel did not show a benefit on acid sensitivity, reflux symptoms or esophageal mucosal integrity compared to placebo in PPI-refractory patients with reflux symptoms. Trial registration : Netherlands Trial Register number: NL7670.

Objective: As achalasia is a chronic disorder, long-term follow-up data comparing different treatments are essential to select optimal clinical management. Here, we report on the 10-year follow-up of the European Achalasia Trial comparing endoscopic pneumodilation (PD) with laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM)., Design: A total of 201 newly diagnosed patients with achalasia were randomised to either a series of PDs (n=96) or LHM (n=105). Patients completed symptom (Eckardt score) and quality-of-life questionnaires, underwent functional tests and upper endoscopy. Primary outcome was therapeutic success defined as Eckardt score < 3 at yearly follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the need for retreatment, lower oesophageal sphincter pressure, oesophageal emptying, gastro-oesophageal reflux and the rate of complications., Results: After 10 years of follow-up, LHM (n=40) and PD (n=36) were equally effective in both the full analysis set (74% vs 74%, p=0.84) and the per protocol set (74% vs 86%, respectively, p=0.07). Subgroup analysis revealed that PD was superior to LHM for type 2 achalasia (p=0.03) while there was a trend, although not significant (p=0.05), that LHM performed better for type 3 achalasia. Barium column height after 5 min at timed barium oesophagram was significantly higher for patients treated with PD compared with LHM, while other parameters, including gastro-oesophageal reflux, were not different., Conclusions: PD and LHM are equally effective even after 10 years of follow-up with limited risk to develop gastro-oesophageal reflux. Based on these data, we conclude that PD and LHM can both be proposed as initial treatment of achalasia., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GEB is Associate Editor of this journal., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background/aims: It has been suggested that STW5 (Iberogast) reduces heartburn symptoms in patients with functional dyspepsia, but underlying mechanisms of action are unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate whether STW5 affects esophageal sensitivity or esophageal motility, thereby reducing occurrence and perception of reflux events., Methods: We performed a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial in patients with functional dyspepsia (Rome IV) and reflux symptoms. After 4 weeks of treatment with either placebo or STW5, patients were studied with an esophageal acid perfusion test and ambulatory 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring., Results: A total of 18 patients (7 men, median age 54, range [19-76]), were included in the study. Although we found no statistical difference in our primary outcome the total Reflux Disease Questionnaire score 2.33 (0.25-4.33) vs 2.67 (1.17-4.00), P = 0.347, "gastroesophageal reflux disease" and "regurgitation" subscale scores were lower after STW5 treatment compared to placebo ( P = 0.049 and P = 0.007). There was no statistical difference in number of reflux events, acid exposure time and acid sensitivity scores between STW5 and placebo. In a subgroup analysis of patients with pH-metry confirmed gastroesophageal reflux disease, treatment with STW5 significantly reduced the total number of acidic reflux events ( P = 0.028). Moreover, in patients with reflux esophagitis, the median lag time to acid perception increased after STW5 treatment ( P = 0.042)., Conclusions: We found some indications pointing towards a beneficial effect of STW5 on reflux symptoms in dyspeptic patients, with reduction of esophageal hypersensitivity as a potential underlying mechanism. Our findings will have to be confirmed in larger studies.