Search

Achalasia, characterized by impaired lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxation and failed peristalsis, stands out as the most widely recognized primary esophageal motility disorder. It manifests with dysphagia to solid and liquid foods, chest pain, regurgitation, and weight loss, leading to significant morbidity and healthcare burden. Traditionally, surgical Heller myotomy and pneumatic dilation were the primary therapeutic approaches for achalasia. However, in 2009, Inoue and colleagues introduced a groundbreaking endoscopic technique called peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), revolutionizing the management of this condition. This review aims to comprehensively examine the recent advancements in the POEM technique for patients diagnosed with achalasia, delving into critical aspects, such as the tailoring of the myotomy, the prevention of intraprocedural adverse events (AEs), the evaluation of long-term outcomes, and the feasibility of retreatment in cases of therapeutic failure., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Cesare Hassan: Fujifilm Co. (consultancy), Medtronic Co. (consultancy); Alessandro Repici: Fujifilm Co. (consultancy), Olympus Corp (consultancy), Medtronic Co. (consultancy); Roberta Maselli: Fujifilm Co. (consultancy). Other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The present document constitutes Part 2 of the EoETALY Consensus Statements guideline on the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) developed by experts in the field of EoE across Italy (i.e., EoETALY Consensus Group). Part 1 was published as a different document, and included three chapters discussing 1) definition, epidemiology, and pathogenesis; 2) clinical presentation and natural history and 3) diagnosis of EoE. The present work provides guidelines on the management of EoE in two final chapters: 4) treatment and 5) monitoring and follow-up, and also includes considerations on knowledge gaps and a proposed research agenda for the coming years. The guideline was developed through a Delphi process, with grading of the strength and quality of the evidence of the recommendations performed according to accepted GRADE criteria.This document has received the endorsement of three Italian national societies including the Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), the Italian Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (SINGEM), and the Italian Society of Allergology, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC). The guidelines also involved the contribution of members of ESEO Italia, the Italian Association of Families Against EoE., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic type 2-mediated inflammatory disease of the esophagus that represents the most common eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease. Experts in the field of EoE across Italy (i.e., EoETALY Consensus Group) including gastroenterologists, endoscopists, allergologists/immunologists, and paediatricians conducted a Delphi process to develop updated consensus statements for the management of patients with EoE and update the previous position paper of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE) in light of recent evidence. Grading of the strength and quality of the evidence of the recommendations was performed using accepted GRADE criteria. The guideline is divided in two documents: Part 1 includes three chapters, namely 1) definition, epidemiology, and pathogenesis; 2) clinical presentation and natural history, and 3) diagnosis, while Part 2 includes two chapters: 4) treatment and 5) monitoring and follow-up. This document has received the endorsement of three Italian national societies including the SIGE, the Italian Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (SINGEM), and the Italian Society of Allergology, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC). With regards to patients' involvement, these guidelines involved the contribution of members of ESEO Italia, the Italian Association of Families Against EoE., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Nicola de Bortoli: Advisory board member for: AlfaSigma, Sanofi Genzyme, Dr Falk; Lecture grants from Reckitt-Benkiser, Malesci, Dr. Flak, Sofar, Alfa-Sigma, Pharma-Line. Pierfrancesco Visaggi: Has served as speaker for Dr Falk, JB Pharmaceuticals, Malesci. Roberto Penagini: Has served as speaker for Dr Falk, Sanofi. Edda Battaglia: has served as consultant for NZP, GUNA Gaia Pellegatta has served as speaker for Dr Falk, Sanofi Genzyme, Malesci. Paola Iovino: Has served as consultant for Dr Falk Giovanni Marasco: Served as an advisory board member for AlfaSigma, EG Pharma, Monteresearch srl, Recordati, Cineca. Received lecture grants from Agave, AlfaSigma, Bromatech, Clorofilla, Echosens, Ferring, Mayoly Spindler, Menarini and Schwabe Pharma. Salvatore Oliva: Has served as speaker for Sanofi, Medtronic; Has served as consultant for: Sanofi, Medtronic, Brystol; Has received research support from Alfa Sigma, Medtronic. Francesca Racca: has served as speaker for Sanofi; has served as consultant for Dr Falk, Sanofi, GSK Erminia Ridolo: has served as consultant for Dr Falk Edoardo Vincenzo Savarino: has served as speaker for Abbvie, Agave, AGPharma, Alfasigma, Aurora Pharma, CaDiGroup, Celltrion, Dr Falk, EG Stada Group, Fenix Pharma, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, JB Pharmaceuticals, Innovamedica/Adacyte, Malesci, Mayoly Biohealth, Omega Pharma, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Sandoz, SILA, Sofar, Takeda, Tillots, Unifarco; has served as consultant for Abbvie, Agave, Alfasigma, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Diadema Farmaceutici, Dr. Falk, Fenix Pharma, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, JB Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Nestlè, Reckitt Benckiser, Regeneron, Sanofi, SILA, Sofar, Synformulas GmbH, Tssakeda, Unifarco; he received research support from Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, SILA, Sofar, Unifarco, Zeta Farmaceutici. Bruno Annibale, Federica Baiano Svizzero, Giovanni Barbara, Brigida Barberio, Ottavia Bartolo, Antonio Di Sabatino, Ludovico Docimo, Marzio Frazzoni, Manuele Furnari, Matteo Ghisa, Andrea Iori, Marco Vincenzo Lenti, Elisa Marabotto, Aurelio Mauro, Marcella Pesce, Antonino Carlo Privitera, Ilaria Puxeddu, Mentore Ribolsi, Salvatore Russo, Giovanni Sarnelli, Salvatore Tolone, Patrizia Zentilin, Fabiana Zingone: None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Direct comparisons of childhood- and adulthood-onset eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are scarce., Aim: To compare disease characteristics, endoscopic and histological features, allergic concomitances and therapeutic choices across ages., Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of the EoE CONNECT registry., Results: The adulthood-onset cohort (those diagnosed at ≥18y) comprised 1044 patients and the childhood-onset cohort (patients diagnosed at <18 y), 254. Vomiting, nausea, chest and abdominal pain, weight loss, slow eating and food aversion were significantly more frequent in children; dysphagia, food bolus impaction and heartburn predominated in adults. A family history of EoE was present in 16% of pediatric and 8.2% of adult patients (p<0.001). Concomitant atopic diseases did not vary across ages. Median±IQR diagnostic delay (years) from symptom onset was higher in adults (2.7 ± 6.1) than in children (1 ± 2.1; p<0.001). Esophageal strictures and rings predominated in adults (p<0.001), who underwent esophageal dilation more commonly (p = 0.011). Inflammatory EoE phenotypes were more common in children (p = 0.001), who also presented higher eosinophil counts in biopsies (p = 0.015) and EREFS scores (p = 0.017). Despite PPI predominating as initial therapy in all cohorts, dietary therapy and swallowed topical corticosteroids were more frequently prescribed in children (p<0.001)., Conclusions: Childhood-onset EoE has differential characteristics compared with adulthood-onset, but similar response to treatment., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest AJ Lucendo has served as a speaker, and/or has received research and/or education funding and/or consulting fees from Adare/Ellodi, Dr. Falk Pharma, Regeneron, Dr. Falk Pharma and EsoCap. C. Santander received honoraria as consultant and trainer at Laborie/MMS and Medtronic Covidien AG, and received research funding from AstraZeneca, EsoCap Biotech, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Adare Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH. J. Alcedo has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from Adare Pharmaceuticals Inc, Abbvie, MSD, Allergan, and Shire Pharmaceuticals. C Gutiérrez-Junquera has received research funding from Dr. Falk Pharma. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) may lead to severe complications if not promptly recognised., Aims: To assess the diagnostic delay in patients with EoE and to explore its risk factors., Methods: EoE patients followed-up at eight clinics were included via retrospective chart review. Diagnostic delay was estimated as the time lapse occurring between the appearance of the first likely symptoms indicative of EoE and the final diagnosis. Patient-dependent and physician-dependent diagnostic delays were assessed. Multivariable regression models were computed., Results: 261 patients with EoE (mean age 34±14 years; M:F ratio=3:1) were included. The median overall diagnostic delay was 36 months (IQR 12-88), while patient- and physician-dependent diagnostic delays were 18 months (IQR 5-49) and 6 months (IQR 1-24). Patient-dependent delay was greater compared to physician-dependent delay (95% CI 5.1-19.3, p<0.001). A previous misdiagnosis was formulated in 109 cases (41.8%; gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in 67 patients, 25.7%). The variables significantly associated with greater overall diagnostic delay were being a non-smoker, >1 episode of food impaction, previous endoscopy with no biopsies, regurgitation, and ≥2 assessing physicians. Being single was significantly associated with lower overall and patient-dependent diagnostic delay., Conclusion: EoE is burdened by substantial diagnostic delay, depending on both patient-related and physician-related factors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None to disclose for all authors., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The most recent iteration of the classifications for functional esophageal disorders, Rome IV, proposed relevant modifications of the previous definitions for Rome III. They specifically considered increased esophageal acid exposure as the marker of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), including the remaining part of non-erosive reflux disease patients with normal acid in the group with functional alterations, considering both reflux hypersensitivity and functional heartburn. However, recent pathophysiological and therapeutic data suggest the need for a return to including reflux hypersensitivity in the GERD spectrum. Indeed, physiologic alterations in esophageal mucosal integrity and chemical clearance, the presence of microscopic esophagitis, and strict symptom-reflux association support the concept that reflux hypersensitivity pertains to GERD. Surgical anti-reflux therapy has resulted in positive outcomes, even in the long term, in patients with reflux hypersensitivity and not in those with functional heartburn. Moreover, clinical trials using neuromodulators have been scarce and provided conflicting results. As a result, the real progress of the Rome IV classifications is in dispute. This article aims to summarize the most recent knowledge of non-erosive reflux disease and reflux hypersensitivity to discuss the utility of Rome IV criteria in the identification and management of functional esophageal disorders., (Copyright © 2020 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aim: An unexpected early increase in incidence, recurrence and clinical aggressiveness of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been reported (and refuted) in patients with HCV-related cirrhosis following direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. To address this controversy, we performed a prospective multicenter study on consecutively enrolled cirrhotic patients, with or without a history of HCC, undergoing DAA therapy., Patients and Methods: A total of 1,161 HCC-free cirrhotics (group 1) and 124 cirrhotics who had received a curative treatment for an HCC (group 2) were enrolled. Clinical features, including presence of undefined/non-malignant liver nodules (UNMNs), were analyzed with respect to HCC incidence and recurrence., Results: During a median study time of 17 months in group 1 and 16 months in group 2, de novo HCC developed in 48 patients (yearly incidence 3.1/100 patient-years, 75% BCLC 0-A) and recurred in 40 (mean yearly incidence 29.9/100 patient-years, 83% BCLC 0-A). A peak of HCC instant incidence was observed at 4.2 months in group 1 patients with UNMNs, and at 7.7 months in group 2. By multivariable Cox regression models, UNMNs (hazard ratio [HR] 3.11; 95% CI 1.47-6.57: p = 0.003), ascites detected any time before enrolment (HR 3.04; 95% CI 1.23-7.51; p = 0.02), and alpha-fetoprotein log-value (HR 1.90; 95% CI 1.05-3.44; p = 0.03) were the variables independently associated with the incidence of de novo HCC, while history of alcohol abuse (HR 2.10; 95% CI 1.08-4.09; p = 0.03) and history of recurrence of HCC (HR 2.87; 95% CI 1.35-6.09; p = 0.006) were associated with HCC recurrence., Conclusion: An early high incidence of both de novo HCC, in patients with UNMNs, and recurrent HCC was observed in DAA-treated patients; this was not accompanied by increased tumor aggressiveness., Lay Summary: This prospective study focuses on the risk of developing de novo or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment in patients with hepatitis C-related cirrhosis. We found that DAA treatment was associated with an early high HCC incidence in patients with undefined or non-malignant nodules, as well as in those with a history of complete response to HCC treatment. Whether this is related to the presence of clinically undetectable nests of cancer cells or to precancerous lesions that may progress to overt HCC upon DAA treatment remains unanswered. No evidence of increased clinical aggressiveness was reported in de novo or recurrent HCC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest that pertain to this work. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)