Background/Aims: The role of esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) within Lyon consensus phenotypes, especially patients with inconclusive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) evidence, has not been fully investigated. In this multicenter, observational study we aim to compare HRM parameters in patients with GERD stratified according to the Lyon consensus. Methods: Clinical and endoscopic data, HRM and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) studies performed off proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with esophageal GERD symptoms were reviewed. Lyon consensus criteria identified pathological GERD, reflux hypersensitivity, functional heartburn, and inconclusive GERD. Patients, with inconclusive GERD were further subdivided into 2 groups based on total reflux numbers (≤ 80 or > 80 reflux episodes) during the MII-pH recording time. Results: A total of 264 patients formed the study cohort. Pathological GERD and inconclusive GERD patients were associated with higher numbers of reflux episodes, lower mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) values, and a higher proportion of patients with pathologic MNBI compared to functional heartburn (P < 0.05 for each comparison). On multivariate analysis, pathological GERD and inconclusive GERD patients, both with ≤ 80 or > 80 reflux episodes, were significantly associated with pathologic esophagogastric junction contractile integral values and with presence of hiatus hernia (type 2/3 esophagogastric junction). Patients with inconclusive GERD and > 80 reflux episodes were significantly associated with fragmented peristalsis and ineffective esophageal motility whilst inconclusive GERD with ≤ 80 reflux episodes were significantly associated with fragmented peristalsis. Conclusion Esophageal motor parameters on HRM are similar between pathologic and inconclusive GERD according to the Lyon consensus.

Background/Aims: The role of esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) within Lyon consensus phenotypes, especially patients with inconclusive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) evidence, has not been fully investigated. In this multicenter, observational study we aim to compare HRM parameters in patients with GERD stratified according to the Lyon consensus. Methods: Clinical and endoscopic data, HRM and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) studies performed off proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with esophageal GERD symptoms were reviewed. Lyon consensus criteria identified pathological GERD, reflux hypersensitivity, functional heartburn, and inconclusive GERD. Patients, with inconclusive GERD were further subdivided into 2 groups based on total reflux numbers (≤ 80 or > 80 reflux episodes) during the MII-pH recording time. Results: A total of 264 patients formed the study cohort. Pathological GERD and inconclusive GERD patients were associated with higher numbers of reflux episodes, lower mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) values, and a higher proportion of patients with pathologic MNBI compared to functional heartburn (P < 0.05 for each comparison). On multivariate analysis, pathological GERD and inconclusive GERD patients, both with ≤ 80 or > 80 reflux episodes, were significantly associated with pathologic esophagogastric junction contractile integral values and with presence of hiatus hernia (type 2/3 esophagogastric junction). Patients with inconclusive GERD and > 80 reflux episodes were significantly associated with fragmented peristalsis and ineffective esophageal motility whilst inconclusive GERD with ≤ 80 reflux episodes were significantly associated with fragmented peristalsis. Conclusion Esophageal motor parameters on HRM are similar between pathologic and inconclusive GERD according to the Lyon consensus.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a complex disorder with heterogeneous symptoms and a multifaceted pathogenetic basis, which prevent a simple diagnostic algorithm or any categorical classification. Clinical history, questionnaires and response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy are insufficient tools to make a conclusive diagnosis of GERD and further investigations are frequently required. The Lyon Consensus goes beyond the previous classifications and defines endoscopic and functional parameters able to establish the presence of GERD. Evidences for reflux include high-grade erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, and peptic strictures at endoscopy as well as esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on pH-metry or combined pH-impedance monitoring. Even if a normal endoscopy does not exclude GERD, its combination with distal acid exposure time < 4% on off-PPI pH-impedance monitoring provides sufficient evidence refuting this diagnosis. Reflux-symptom association on pH-monitoring provides supportive evidence for reflux-triggered symptoms and may predict a better treatment outcome, when present. Also recommendations to perform pH-impedance “on” or “off” PPI are well depicted. When endoscopy and pH-metry or combined pH-impedance monitoring are inconclusive, adjunctive evidence from biopsy findings (eg, microscopic esophagitis), high-resolution manometry (ie, ineffective esophagogastric barrier and esophageal body hypomotility), and novel impedance metrics, such as mean nocturnal baseline impedance and post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index, can contribute to better identify patients with GERD. Definition of individual patient phenotype, based on the level of refluxate exposure, mechanism of reflux, efficacy of clearance, underlying anatomy of the esophagogastric junction, and clinical presentation, will lead to manage GERD patients with a tailored approach chosen among different types of therapy.

Background/Aims: Impaired esophageal motility and disrupted esophagogastric junction (EGJ) on high-resolution manometry (HRM) have been associated with increased reflux severity in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients. However, there are limited data evaluating HRM parameters in proton pump inhibitors (PPI) non-responders. Methods: Clinical and endoscopic data, HRM and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH studies performed of PPI therapy in patients with typical GERD symptoms were reviewed from 3 international centers. Frequency of GERD symptoms was assessed on and off PPI therapy in both non-responders (< 50% symptom improvement on PPI therapy) and responders. Rome IV definitions identified non-erosive reflux disease, reflux hypersensitivity, and functional heartburn. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine predictors of non-response. Results: Of 204 patients, 105 were PPI non-responders and 99 were responders. Non-responders showed higher EGJ contractile integral values, and a lower frequency of type II and III EGJ morphology (P ≤ 0.03 for each comparison). Esophageal body diagnoses on HRM (fragmented peristalsis, ineffective esophageal motility, or absent peristalsis) did not predict non-response. On multivariate analysis, non-pathological acid exposure time (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.0; P < 0.001), normal mean nocturnal baseline impedance values (OR, 2.7-2.4; 95% CI, 1.0-6.1; P < 0.05), normal EGJ contractile integral values (OR, 3; 95% CI, 1.3-7.4; P = 0.012), and presence of type I EGJ morphology (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0-3.4;P = 0.044) were associated with an unfavorable response to PPIs. Conclusions Intact EGJ metrics on HRM complement normal reflux burden in predicting non-response to PPI therapy. HRM has value in the evaluation of PPI non-responders.

Background/Aims: Current literature is lacking in studies comparing the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) treated with adalimumab (ADA) or vedolizumab (VDZ) in a real-life scenario. Therefore, our primary aim was to compare the AEs occurring in patients taking ADA to those of patients taking VDZ. Methods: In this single center study, data on AEs from IBD patients who underwent treatment with ADA and VDZ were retrospectively collected. AE rates per 100 person-years were calculated. A Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratios of the AEs between the 2 drugs. Results: A total of 16 ADA patients (17.2%) and 11 VDZ patients (7.6%) had AEs causing drug interruption during the study period (P=0.02). Most of the AEs were noninfectious extraintestinal events (50% in ADA and 54.5% in VDZ) while infections accounted for 31.2% of the AEs in patients treated with ADA and 27.3% in those treated with VDZ. The incidence rate of AEs causing withdrawal of therapy was 13.2 per 100 person-years for ADA and 5.3 per 100 person-years for VDZ, corresponding to a 76% lower risk in patients in VDZ. Considering the first year of treatment, we observed 34 subjects treated with ADA (36.5%) having at least 1 AEs and 57 (39.3%) among those taking VDZ (P=0.67). Conclusions VDZ has a lower incidence rate of AEs causing withdrawal of treatment compared to ADA but a similar risk of AEs not causing drug interruption. Real-life head-to-head studies are still necessary to further explore the safety profile of these drugs.