GOAL: The goal of this study was to compare the clinical presentations of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) with coexisting abnormal esophageal body motility (EBM) to isolated EGJOO.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance and management of EGJOO remain debated, as patients may have varied to no symptoms. The effect of coexisting abnormal EBM in EGJOO is unclear. We hypothesized that a concomitant EBM disorder is associated with clinical symptoms of EGJOO.

STUDY: This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adults diagnosed with EGJOO on high-resolution impedance-manometry (HRIM) at 2 academic centers in March 2018 to September 2018. Patients with prior treatment for achalasia, foregut surgery, or evidence of obstruction were excluded. Subjects were divided into EGJOO with abnormal EBM per Chicago classification v3.0 and isolated EGJOO. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher-exact or Student t test (univariate) and logistic or linear regression (multivariate).

RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (72% women, age 61.1±10.7 y) were included. Thirty-one (37.8%) had abnormal EBM, including 16 (19.5%) ineffective esophageal motility and 15 (18.2%) hypercontractile esophagus. Esophageal symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation, chest pain, dysphagia) were more prevalent among those with abnormal EBM (90.3% vs. 64.7%, P=0.01). On logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, and opioid use, abnormal EBM remained predictive of esophageal symptoms (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.51, P=0.007). On separate models constructed, HE was associated with chest pain (aOR 7.45, P=0.01) and regurgitation (aOR 4.06, P=0.046), while ineffective esophageal motility was predictive of heartburn (aOR 5.84, P=0.009) and decreased complete bolus transit (β-coefficient -0.177, P=0.04).

CONCLUSION: Coexisting abnormal EBM is associated with esophageal symptoms and bolus transit in patients with EGJOO.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic liver disease (CLD) represents a major global health burden. We undertook this study to identify the factors associated with adverse outcomes in patients with CLD who acquire the novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS: We conducted a multi-center, observational cohort study across 21 institutions in the United States (US) of adult patients with CLD and laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and May 30, 2020. We performed survival analysis to identify independent predictors of all-cause mortality and COVID-19 related mortality, and multivariate logistic regression to determine the risk of severe COVID-19 in patients with CLD.

RESULTS: Of the 978 patients in our cohort, 867 patients (mean age 56.9 ± 14.5 years, 55% male) met inclusion criteria. The overall all-cause mortality was 14.0% (n = 121), and 61.7% (n = 535) had severe COVID-19. Patients presenting with diarrhea or nausea/vomiting were more likely to have severe COVID-19. The liver-specific factors associated with independent risk of higher overall mortality were alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) (hazard ratio [HR] 2.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-4.55), decompensated cirrhosis (HR 2.91 [1.70-5.00]) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (HR 3.31 [1.53-7.16]). Other factors were increasing age, diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and current smoker. Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 2.33 [1.47-3.70]) and decompensated cirrhosis (OR 2.50 [1.20-5.21]) were independently associated with risk for severe COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS: The risk factors which predict higher overall mortality among patients with CLD and COVID-19 are ALD, decompensated cirrhosis and HCC. Hispanic ethnicity and decompensated cirrhosis are associated with severe COVID-19. Our results will enable risk stratification and personalization of the management of patients with CLD and COVID-19. Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT04439084.

Background and study aims  While argon plasma coagulation (APC) is the first-line treatment for gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE), endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has shown promising results. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of EBL for the treatment of GAVE. Methods  Individualized search strategies were developed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines through September 1, 2020. Measured outcomes included endoscopic success (defined as GAVE eradication/improvement), change in hemoglobin, transfusion dependency, number of treatment sessions, adverse events, rebleeding, and bleeding-associated mortality. Outcomes were compared among studies evaluating EBL versus APC. Results  Eleven studies (n = 393; 59.39 % female; mean age 58.65 ± 8.85 years) were included. Endoscopic success was achieved in 87.84 % [(95 % CI, 80.25 to 92.78); I 2  = 11.96 %] with a mean number of 2.50 ± 0.49 treatment sessions and average of 12.40 ± 3.82 bands applied. For 8 studies comparing EBL (n = 143) versus APC (n = 174), there was no difference in baseline patient characteristics. However, endoscopic success was significantly higher for EBL [OR 6.04 (95 % CI 1.97 to 18.56; P  = 0.002], requiring fewer treatment sessions (2.56 ± 0.81 versus 3.78 ± 1.17; P  < 0.001). EBL was also associated with a greater increase in post-procedure hemoglobin [mean difference 0.35 (95 % CI 0.07 to 0.62; P  = 0.0140], greater reduction in transfusions required [mean difference -1.46 (95 % CI -2.80 to -0.12; P  = 0.033], and fewer rebleeding events [OR 0.11 (95 % CI, 0.04 to 0.36); P  < 0.001]. There was no difference in adverse events or bleeding-associated mortality ( P  > 0.050). Conclusions  EBL appears to be safe and effective for treatment of GAVE, with improved outcomes when compared to APC.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms have been reported with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but data on the prevalence and severity of GI symptoms in patients with cancer are limited. We sought to characterize the GI manifestations of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) in oncology patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 9 Massachusetts medical centers and identified those with an active malignancy. We evaluated the prevalence and severity of GI symptoms among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with cancer.

RESULTS: Of 395 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 36 (9%) had an active malignancy. Of the 36 cancer patients, 23 (63%) reported ≥1 new GI symptom. The most prevalent symptoms were anorexia (12, 52%), diarrhea (9, 39%), and vomiting (8, 35%). GI symptoms were the initial symptom in 4/36 (11%) patients, were the predominant symptom in 5/36 (14%) patients, and were severe in 4/23 (17%) patients. Four of 5 patients with GI symptoms at presentation reported concurrent fever; notably 1 patient had no fever or respiratory symptoms. Twelve (33%) patients had elevations in liver transaminases at presentation; patients with elevated transaminases were more likely to have associated GI symptoms (83% vs. 54%, P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS: Acute GI symptoms associated with COVID-19 are highly prevalent in hospitalized cancer patients and can occur as a presenting symptom without respiratory symptoms. Symptoms are severe in a small subset of patients.

BACKGROUND: The effect of immunosuppressive treatment for immune-mediated diseases on risk of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has not been established. We aimed to define the effect of targeted biologic and immunomodulator therapy on risk of COVID-19 in a multi-institutional cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS: We identified patients 18 years and older who received care for IBD at Partners Healthcare between January 2019 and April 2020. The primary outcome was development of COVID-19 defined as a positive polymerase chain reaction test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Multivariable regression models were used to examine the effect of immunosuppression on risk of COVID-19 and its outcomes.

RESULTS: In a cohort of 5302 IBD patients, 39 (0.7%) developed COVID-19. There was no difference in age, sex, or race between IBD patients with and without COVID-19. The rate of COVID-19 was similar between patients treated with immunosuppression (0.8%) compared with those who were not (0.64%; P = 0.55). After adjusting for age, sex, race, and comorbidities, use of immunosuppressive therapy was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-3.63). The presence of obesity was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 (odds ratio, 8.29; 95% confidence interval, 3.72-18.47). There were 7 hospitalizations, 3 intensive care unit stays, and 1 death. Older age and obesity but not immunosuppressive treatment were associated with severe COVID-19 infection.

CONCLUSIONS: The use of systemic immunosuppression was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 in a multi-institutional cohort of patients with IBD.

BACKGROUND: Medical journals increasingly promote published content through social media platforms such as Twitter. However, gastroenterology journals still rank below average in social media engagement.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the engagement patterns of publications in gastroenterology journals on Twitter and evaluate the impact of tweets on citations.

METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing the 3-year citations of all full-length articles published in five major gastroenterology journals from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012, tweeted by official journal accounts with those that were not. Multivariate analysis using linear regression was performed to control for journal impact factor, time since publication, article type, frequency of reposting by other users ("retweets"), and media addition to tweets. Secondary analyses were performed to assess the associations between article type or subtopic and the likelihood of social media promotion/engagement.

RESULTS: A total of 1666 articles were reviewed, with 477 tweeted by the official journal account. Tweeting an article independently predicted increased citations after controlling for potential confounders (β coefficient=13.09; P=.007). There was significant association between article type and number of retweets on analysis of variance (ANOVA) (P<.001), with guidelines/technical reviews (mean difference 1.04, 95% CI 0.22-1.87; P<.001) and meta-analyses/systemic reviews (mean difference 1.03, 95% CI 0.35-1.70; P<.001) being retweeted more than basic science articles. The manuscript subtopics most frequently promoted included motility/functional bowel disease (odds ratio [OR] 3.84, 95% CI 1.93-7.64; P<.001) and education (OR 4.69, 95% CI 1.62-13.58; P=.004), while basic science papers were less likely tweeted (OR 0.154, 95% CI 0.07-0.34; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Tweeting of gastroenterology journal articles independently predicted higher 3-year citations. Wider adoption of social media to increase reach and measure uptake of published research should be considered.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with liver injury, but the prevalence and patterns of liver injury in liver transplantation (LT) recipients with COVID-19 are open for study.

APPROACH AND RESULTS: We conducted a multicenter study in the United States of 112 adult LT recipients with COVID-19. Median age was 61 years (interquartile range, 20), 54.5% (n = 61) were male, and 39.3% (n = 44) Hispanic. Mortality rate was 22.3% (n = 25); 72.3% (n = 81) were hospitalized and 26.8% (n = 30) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Analysis of peak values of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) during COVID-19 showed moderate liver injury (ALT 2-5× upper limit of normal [ULN]) in 22.2% (n = 18) and severe liver injury (ALT > 5× ULN) in 12.3% (n = 10). Compared to age- and sex-matched nontransplant patients with chronic liver disease and COVID-19 (n = 375), incidence of acute liver injury was lower in LT recipients (47.5% vs. 34.6%; P = 0.037). Variables associated with liver injury in LT recipients were younger age (P = 0.009; odds ratio [OR], 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.54), Hispanic ethnicity (P = 0.011; OR, 6.01; 95% CI, 1.51-23.9), metabolic syndrome (P = 0.016; OR, 5.87; 95% CI, 1.38-24.99), vasopressor use (P = 0.018; OR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.39-38.52), and antibiotic use (P = 0.046; OR, 6.93; 95% CI, 1.04-46.26). Reduction in immunosuppression (49.4%) was not associated with liver injury (P = 0.156) or mortality (P = 0.084). Liver injury during COVID-19 was significantly associated with mortality (P = 0.007; OR, 6.91; 95% CI, 1.68-28.48) and ICU admission (P = 0.007; OR, 7.93; 95% CI, 1.75-35.69) in LT recipients.

CONCLUSIONS: Liver injury is associated with higher mortality and ICU admission in LT recipients with COVID-19. Hence, monitoring liver enzymes closely can help in early identification of patients at risk for adverse outcomes. Reduction of immunosuppression during COVID-19 did not increase risk for mortality or graft failure.

BACKGROUND: Serum bilirubin is inversely associated with cardiovascular risk. Atazanavir, an HIV protease inhibitor that competitively inhibits bilirubin conjugation, provides a unique opportunity to examine whether selectively increasing bilirubin is cardioprotective. We sought to determine whether patients receiving atazanavir manifest a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease compared with those receiving darunavir, an HIV protease inhibitor that does not increase serum bilirubin.

METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 1020 patients with HIV. The main outcome was time to myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke. Mean follow-up was 6.6±3.4 years, with 516 receiving atazanavir and 504 darunavir. Atazanavir patients exhibited significantly higher serum total bilirubin (1.7 versus 0.4 mg/dL; P<0.001) and longer mean time to ischemic event (10.2 versus 9.4 years; P<0.001). On Cox regression, atazanavir treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.71; P=0.002) and serum bilirubin (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41-0.89; P=0.011) were independently associated with a lower risk of an ischemic event. Notably, when atazanavir and bilirubin were included together in the Cox regression model, atazanavir lost significance (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.24-1.29; P=0.169) consistent with bilirubin being an intermediate variable on the causal pathway between atazanavir and its effect on cardiovascular disease. Patients on atazanavir also had a significantly lower risk of developing new cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P=0.010) and longer mean time to death (12.2 versus 10.8 years; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HIV on atazanavir manifest a decreased risk of cardiovascular disease when compared with those on darunavir, an effect that appears to be mediated by serum bilirubin.