User login
Negotiating for a Successful Career in Private Practice Gastroenterology
In this video, Aja McCutchen, MD, of Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates in Georgia, discusses why she chose to enter private practice gastroenterology, and identifies some key considerations on the road to a successful career.
Dr. McCutchen is vice chair of the AGA Research Foundation. She has no financial conflicts relative to the topics in this video.
In this video, Aja McCutchen, MD, of Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates in Georgia, discusses why she chose to enter private practice gastroenterology, and identifies some key considerations on the road to a successful career.
Dr. McCutchen is vice chair of the AGA Research Foundation. She has no financial conflicts relative to the topics in this video.
In this video, Aja McCutchen, MD, of Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates in Georgia, discusses why she chose to enter private practice gastroenterology, and identifies some key considerations on the road to a successful career.
Dr. McCutchen is vice chair of the AGA Research Foundation. She has no financial conflicts relative to the topics in this video.
How to Discuss Lifestyle Modifications in MASLD
Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is a spectrum of hepatic disorders closely linked to insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and obesity.1 An increasingly prevalent cause of liver disease and liver-related deaths worldwide, MASLD affects at least 38% of the global population.2 The immense burden of MASLD and its complications demands attention and action from the medical community.
Lifestyle modifications involving weight management and dietary composition adjustments are the foundation of addressing MASLD, with a critical emphasis on early intervention.3 Healthy dietary indices and weight loss can lower enzyme levels, reduce hepatic fat content, improve insulin resistance, and overall, reduce the risk of MASLD.3 Given the abundance of literature that exists on the benefits of lifestyle modifications on liver and general health outcomes, clinicians should be prepared to have informed, individualized, and culturally concordant conversations with their patients about these modifications. This Short Clinical Review aims to
Initiate the Conversation
Conversations about lifestyle modifications can be challenging and complex. If patients themselves are not initiating conversations about dietary composition and physical activity, then it is important for clinicians to start a productive discussion.
The use of non-stigmatizing, open-ended questions can begin this process. For example, clinicians can consider asking patients: “How would you describe your lifestyle habits, such as foods you usually eat and your physical activity levels? What do you usually look for when you are grocery shopping or thinking of a meal to cook? Are there ways in which you stay physically active throughout the day or week?”4 (see Table 1).
Such questions can provide significant insight into patients’ activity and eating patterns. They also eliminate the utilization of words such as “diet” or “exercise” that may have associated stigma, pressure, or negative connotations.4
Regardless, some patients may not feel prepared or willing to discuss lifestyle modifications during a visit, especially if it is the first clinical encounter when rapport has yet to even be established.4 Lifestyle modifications are implemented at various paces, and patients have their individual timelines for achieving these adjustments. Building rapport with patients and creating spaces in which they feel safe discussing and incorporating changes to various components of their lives can take time. Patients want to trust their providers while being vulnerable. They want to trust that their providers will guide them in what can sometimes be a life altering journey. It is important for clinicians to acknowledge and respect this reality when caring for patients with MASLD. Dr. Duong often utilizes this phrase, “It may seem like you are about to walk through fire, but we are here to walk with you. Remember, what doesn’t challenge you, doesn’t change you.”
Identify Motivators of Engagement
Identifying patients’ motivators of engagement will allow clinicians to guide patients through not only the introduction, but also the maintenance of such changes. Improvements in dietary composition and physical activity are often recommended by clinicians who are inevitably and understandably concerned about the consequences of MASLD. Liver diseases, specifically cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as associated metabolic disorders, are consequences that could result from poorly controlled MASLD. Though these consequences should be conveyed to patients, this tactic may not always serve as an impetus for patients to engage in behavioral changes.5
Clinicians can shed light on motivators by utilizing these suggested prompts: “What motivates you to come to our appointments and care for your health? What entails a meaningful life for you — what do or would you enjoy doing? What would make implementing lifestyle changes important to you?” Patient goals may include “being able to keep up with their grandchildren,” “becoming a runner,” or “providing healthy meals for their families.”5,6 Engagement is more likely to be feasible and sustainable when lifestyle modifications are tied to goals that are personally meaningful and relevant to patients.
Within the realm of physical activity specifically, exercise can be individualized to optimize motivation as well. Both aerobic exercise and resistance training are associated independently with benefits such as weight loss and decreased hepatic adipose content.3 Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal type of physical activity for patients with MASLD; therefore, clinicians should encourage patients to personalize physical activity.3 While some patients may prefer aerobic activities such as running and swimming, others may find more fulfillment in weightlifting or high intensity interval training. Furthermore, patients with cardiopulmonary or musculoskeletal health contraindications may be limited to specific types of exercise. It is appropriate and helpful for clinicians to ask patients, “What types of physical activity feel achievable and realistic for you at this time?” If physicians can guide patients with MASLD in identifying types of exercise that are safe and enjoyable, their patients may be more motivated to implement such lifestyle changes.
It is also crucial to recognize that lifestyle changes demand active effort from patients. While sustained improvements in body weight and dietary composition are the foundation of MASLD management, they can initially feel cumbersome and abstract to patients. Physicians can help their patients remain motivated by developing small, tangible goals such as “reducing daily caloric intake by 500 kcal” or “participating in three 30-minute fitness classes per week.” These goals should be developed jointly with patients, primarily to ensure that they are tangible, feasible, and productive.
A Culturally Safe Approach
Additionally, acknowledging a patient’s cultural background can be conducive to incorporating patient-specific care into MASLD management. For example, qualitative studies have shown that people from Mexican heritage traditionally complement dinners with soft drinks. While meal portion sizes vary amongst households, families of Mexican origin believe larger portion sizes may be perceived as healthier than Western diets since their cuisine incorporates more vegetables into each dish.7
Eating rituals should also be considered since some families expect the absence of leftovers on the plate.7 Therefore, it is appropriate to consider questions such as, “What are common ingredients in your culture? What are some of your family traditions when it comes to meals?” By integrating cultural considerations, clinicians can adopt a culturally safe approach, empowering patients to make lifestyle modifications tailored toward their unique social identities. Clinicians should avoid generalizations or stereotypes about cultural values regarding lifestyle practices, as these can vary among individuals.
Identify Barriers to Lifestyle Changes and Social Determinants of Health
Even with delicate language from providers and immense motivation from patients, barriers to lifestyle changes persist. Studies have shown that patients with MASLD perceive a lack of self-efficacy and knowledge as major barriers to adopting lifestyle modifications.8,9 Patients have reported challenges in interpreting nutritional data, identifying caloric intake and portion sizes. Physicians can effectively guide patients through lifestyle changes by identifying each patient’s unique knowledge gap and determining the most effective, accessible form of education. For example, some patients may benefit from jointly interpreting a nutritional label with their healthcare providers, while others may require educational materials and interventions provided by a registered dietitian.
Understanding patients’ professional or other commitments can help physicians further individualize recommendations. Questions such as, “Do you have work or other responsibilities that take up some of your time during the day?” minimize presumptive language about employment status. It can reveal whether patients have schedules that make certain lifestyle changes more challenging than others. For example, a patient who is an overnight delivery associate at a warehouse may have a different routine from another patient who is a family member’s caretaker. This framework allows physicians to build rapport with their patients and ultimately, make lifestyle recommendations that are more accessible.
Though MASLD is driven by inflammation and metabolic dysregulation, social determinants of health play an equally important role in disease development and progression.10 As previously discussed, health literacy can deeply influence patients’ abilities to implement lifestyle changes. Furthermore, economic stability, neighborhood and built environment (i.e., access to fresh produce and sidewalks), community, and social support also impact lifestyle modifications. It is paramount to understand the tangible social factors in which patients live. Such factors can be ascertained by beginning the dialogue with “Which grocery stores do you find most convenient? How do you travel to obtain food/attend community exercise programs?” These questions may offer insight into physical barriers to lifestyle changes. Physicians must utilize an intersectional lens that incorporates patients’ unique circumstances of existence into their individualized health care plans to address MASLD.
Summary
- Communication preferences, cultural backgrounds, and sociocultural contexts of patient existence must be considered when treating a patient with MASLD.
- The utilization of an intersectional and culturally safe approach to communication with patients can lead to more sustainable lifestyle changes and improved health outcomes.
- Equipping and empowering physicians to have meaningful discussions about MASLD is crucial to combating a spectrum of diseases that is rapidly affecting a substantial proportion of patients worldwide.
Dr. Nikzad is based in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Chicago Medicine (@NewshaN27). Mr. Huynh is a medical student at Stony Brook University Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, N.Y. (@danielhuynhhh). Dr. Duong is an assistant professor of medicine and transplant hepatologist at Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif. (@doctornikkid). They have no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
1. Mohanty A. MASLD/MASH and Weight Loss. GI & Hepatology News. 2023 Oct. Data Trends 2023:9-13.
2. Wong VW, et al. Changing epidemiology, global trends and implications for outcomes of NAFLD. J Hepatol. 2023 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.04.036.
3. Zeng J, et al. Therapeutic management of metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease. United European Gastroenterol J. 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1002/ueg2.12525.
4. Berg S. How patients can start—and stick with—key lifestyle changes. AMA Public Health. 2020 Jan.
5. Berg S. 3 ways to get patients engaged in lasting lifestyle change. AMA Diabetes. 2019 Jan.
6. Teixeira PJ, et al. Motivation, self-determination, and long-term weight control. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Mar. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-22.
7. Aceves-Martins M, et al. Cultural factors related to childhood and adolescent obesity in Mexico: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Obes Rev. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1111/obr.13461.
8. Figueroa G, et al. Low health literacy, lack of knowledge, and self-control hinder healthy lifestyles in diverse patients with steatotic liver disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2024 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s10620-023-08212-9.
9. Wang L, et al. Factors influencing adherence to lifestyle prescriptions among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A qualitative study using the health action process approach framework. Front Public Health. 2023 Mar. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1131827.
10. Andermann A, CLEAR Collaboration. Taking action on the social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health professionals. CMAJ. 2016 Dec. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.160177.
Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is a spectrum of hepatic disorders closely linked to insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and obesity.1 An increasingly prevalent cause of liver disease and liver-related deaths worldwide, MASLD affects at least 38% of the global population.2 The immense burden of MASLD and its complications demands attention and action from the medical community.
Lifestyle modifications involving weight management and dietary composition adjustments are the foundation of addressing MASLD, with a critical emphasis on early intervention.3 Healthy dietary indices and weight loss can lower enzyme levels, reduce hepatic fat content, improve insulin resistance, and overall, reduce the risk of MASLD.3 Given the abundance of literature that exists on the benefits of lifestyle modifications on liver and general health outcomes, clinicians should be prepared to have informed, individualized, and culturally concordant conversations with their patients about these modifications. This Short Clinical Review aims to
Initiate the Conversation
Conversations about lifestyle modifications can be challenging and complex. If patients themselves are not initiating conversations about dietary composition and physical activity, then it is important for clinicians to start a productive discussion.
The use of non-stigmatizing, open-ended questions can begin this process. For example, clinicians can consider asking patients: “How would you describe your lifestyle habits, such as foods you usually eat and your physical activity levels? What do you usually look for when you are grocery shopping or thinking of a meal to cook? Are there ways in which you stay physically active throughout the day or week?”4 (see Table 1).
Such questions can provide significant insight into patients’ activity and eating patterns. They also eliminate the utilization of words such as “diet” or “exercise” that may have associated stigma, pressure, or negative connotations.4
Regardless, some patients may not feel prepared or willing to discuss lifestyle modifications during a visit, especially if it is the first clinical encounter when rapport has yet to even be established.4 Lifestyle modifications are implemented at various paces, and patients have their individual timelines for achieving these adjustments. Building rapport with patients and creating spaces in which they feel safe discussing and incorporating changes to various components of their lives can take time. Patients want to trust their providers while being vulnerable. They want to trust that their providers will guide them in what can sometimes be a life altering journey. It is important for clinicians to acknowledge and respect this reality when caring for patients with MASLD. Dr. Duong often utilizes this phrase, “It may seem like you are about to walk through fire, but we are here to walk with you. Remember, what doesn’t challenge you, doesn’t change you.”
Identify Motivators of Engagement
Identifying patients’ motivators of engagement will allow clinicians to guide patients through not only the introduction, but also the maintenance of such changes. Improvements in dietary composition and physical activity are often recommended by clinicians who are inevitably and understandably concerned about the consequences of MASLD. Liver diseases, specifically cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as associated metabolic disorders, are consequences that could result from poorly controlled MASLD. Though these consequences should be conveyed to patients, this tactic may not always serve as an impetus for patients to engage in behavioral changes.5
Clinicians can shed light on motivators by utilizing these suggested prompts: “What motivates you to come to our appointments and care for your health? What entails a meaningful life for you — what do or would you enjoy doing? What would make implementing lifestyle changes important to you?” Patient goals may include “being able to keep up with their grandchildren,” “becoming a runner,” or “providing healthy meals for their families.”5,6 Engagement is more likely to be feasible and sustainable when lifestyle modifications are tied to goals that are personally meaningful and relevant to patients.
Within the realm of physical activity specifically, exercise can be individualized to optimize motivation as well. Both aerobic exercise and resistance training are associated independently with benefits such as weight loss and decreased hepatic adipose content.3 Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal type of physical activity for patients with MASLD; therefore, clinicians should encourage patients to personalize physical activity.3 While some patients may prefer aerobic activities such as running and swimming, others may find more fulfillment in weightlifting or high intensity interval training. Furthermore, patients with cardiopulmonary or musculoskeletal health contraindications may be limited to specific types of exercise. It is appropriate and helpful for clinicians to ask patients, “What types of physical activity feel achievable and realistic for you at this time?” If physicians can guide patients with MASLD in identifying types of exercise that are safe and enjoyable, their patients may be more motivated to implement such lifestyle changes.
It is also crucial to recognize that lifestyle changes demand active effort from patients. While sustained improvements in body weight and dietary composition are the foundation of MASLD management, they can initially feel cumbersome and abstract to patients. Physicians can help their patients remain motivated by developing small, tangible goals such as “reducing daily caloric intake by 500 kcal” or “participating in three 30-minute fitness classes per week.” These goals should be developed jointly with patients, primarily to ensure that they are tangible, feasible, and productive.
A Culturally Safe Approach
Additionally, acknowledging a patient’s cultural background can be conducive to incorporating patient-specific care into MASLD management. For example, qualitative studies have shown that people from Mexican heritage traditionally complement dinners with soft drinks. While meal portion sizes vary amongst households, families of Mexican origin believe larger portion sizes may be perceived as healthier than Western diets since their cuisine incorporates more vegetables into each dish.7
Eating rituals should also be considered since some families expect the absence of leftovers on the plate.7 Therefore, it is appropriate to consider questions such as, “What are common ingredients in your culture? What are some of your family traditions when it comes to meals?” By integrating cultural considerations, clinicians can adopt a culturally safe approach, empowering patients to make lifestyle modifications tailored toward their unique social identities. Clinicians should avoid generalizations or stereotypes about cultural values regarding lifestyle practices, as these can vary among individuals.
Identify Barriers to Lifestyle Changes and Social Determinants of Health
Even with delicate language from providers and immense motivation from patients, barriers to lifestyle changes persist. Studies have shown that patients with MASLD perceive a lack of self-efficacy and knowledge as major barriers to adopting lifestyle modifications.8,9 Patients have reported challenges in interpreting nutritional data, identifying caloric intake and portion sizes. Physicians can effectively guide patients through lifestyle changes by identifying each patient’s unique knowledge gap and determining the most effective, accessible form of education. For example, some patients may benefit from jointly interpreting a nutritional label with their healthcare providers, while others may require educational materials and interventions provided by a registered dietitian.
Understanding patients’ professional or other commitments can help physicians further individualize recommendations. Questions such as, “Do you have work or other responsibilities that take up some of your time during the day?” minimize presumptive language about employment status. It can reveal whether patients have schedules that make certain lifestyle changes more challenging than others. For example, a patient who is an overnight delivery associate at a warehouse may have a different routine from another patient who is a family member’s caretaker. This framework allows physicians to build rapport with their patients and ultimately, make lifestyle recommendations that are more accessible.
Though MASLD is driven by inflammation and metabolic dysregulation, social determinants of health play an equally important role in disease development and progression.10 As previously discussed, health literacy can deeply influence patients’ abilities to implement lifestyle changes. Furthermore, economic stability, neighborhood and built environment (i.e., access to fresh produce and sidewalks), community, and social support also impact lifestyle modifications. It is paramount to understand the tangible social factors in which patients live. Such factors can be ascertained by beginning the dialogue with “Which grocery stores do you find most convenient? How do you travel to obtain food/attend community exercise programs?” These questions may offer insight into physical barriers to lifestyle changes. Physicians must utilize an intersectional lens that incorporates patients’ unique circumstances of existence into their individualized health care plans to address MASLD.
Summary
- Communication preferences, cultural backgrounds, and sociocultural contexts of patient existence must be considered when treating a patient with MASLD.
- The utilization of an intersectional and culturally safe approach to communication with patients can lead to more sustainable lifestyle changes and improved health outcomes.
- Equipping and empowering physicians to have meaningful discussions about MASLD is crucial to combating a spectrum of diseases that is rapidly affecting a substantial proportion of patients worldwide.
Dr. Nikzad is based in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Chicago Medicine (@NewshaN27). Mr. Huynh is a medical student at Stony Brook University Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, N.Y. (@danielhuynhhh). Dr. Duong is an assistant professor of medicine and transplant hepatologist at Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif. (@doctornikkid). They have no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
1. Mohanty A. MASLD/MASH and Weight Loss. GI & Hepatology News. 2023 Oct. Data Trends 2023:9-13.
2. Wong VW, et al. Changing epidemiology, global trends and implications for outcomes of NAFLD. J Hepatol. 2023 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.04.036.
3. Zeng J, et al. Therapeutic management of metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease. United European Gastroenterol J. 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1002/ueg2.12525.
4. Berg S. How patients can start—and stick with—key lifestyle changes. AMA Public Health. 2020 Jan.
5. Berg S. 3 ways to get patients engaged in lasting lifestyle change. AMA Diabetes. 2019 Jan.
6. Teixeira PJ, et al. Motivation, self-determination, and long-term weight control. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Mar. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-22.
7. Aceves-Martins M, et al. Cultural factors related to childhood and adolescent obesity in Mexico: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Obes Rev. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1111/obr.13461.
8. Figueroa G, et al. Low health literacy, lack of knowledge, and self-control hinder healthy lifestyles in diverse patients with steatotic liver disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2024 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s10620-023-08212-9.
9. Wang L, et al. Factors influencing adherence to lifestyle prescriptions among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A qualitative study using the health action process approach framework. Front Public Health. 2023 Mar. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1131827.
10. Andermann A, CLEAR Collaboration. Taking action on the social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health professionals. CMAJ. 2016 Dec. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.160177.
Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is a spectrum of hepatic disorders closely linked to insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and obesity.1 An increasingly prevalent cause of liver disease and liver-related deaths worldwide, MASLD affects at least 38% of the global population.2 The immense burden of MASLD and its complications demands attention and action from the medical community.
Lifestyle modifications involving weight management and dietary composition adjustments are the foundation of addressing MASLD, with a critical emphasis on early intervention.3 Healthy dietary indices and weight loss can lower enzyme levels, reduce hepatic fat content, improve insulin resistance, and overall, reduce the risk of MASLD.3 Given the abundance of literature that exists on the benefits of lifestyle modifications on liver and general health outcomes, clinicians should be prepared to have informed, individualized, and culturally concordant conversations with their patients about these modifications. This Short Clinical Review aims to
Initiate the Conversation
Conversations about lifestyle modifications can be challenging and complex. If patients themselves are not initiating conversations about dietary composition and physical activity, then it is important for clinicians to start a productive discussion.
The use of non-stigmatizing, open-ended questions can begin this process. For example, clinicians can consider asking patients: “How would you describe your lifestyle habits, such as foods you usually eat and your physical activity levels? What do you usually look for when you are grocery shopping or thinking of a meal to cook? Are there ways in which you stay physically active throughout the day or week?”4 (see Table 1).
Such questions can provide significant insight into patients’ activity and eating patterns. They also eliminate the utilization of words such as “diet” or “exercise” that may have associated stigma, pressure, or negative connotations.4
Regardless, some patients may not feel prepared or willing to discuss lifestyle modifications during a visit, especially if it is the first clinical encounter when rapport has yet to even be established.4 Lifestyle modifications are implemented at various paces, and patients have their individual timelines for achieving these adjustments. Building rapport with patients and creating spaces in which they feel safe discussing and incorporating changes to various components of their lives can take time. Patients want to trust their providers while being vulnerable. They want to trust that their providers will guide them in what can sometimes be a life altering journey. It is important for clinicians to acknowledge and respect this reality when caring for patients with MASLD. Dr. Duong often utilizes this phrase, “It may seem like you are about to walk through fire, but we are here to walk with you. Remember, what doesn’t challenge you, doesn’t change you.”
Identify Motivators of Engagement
Identifying patients’ motivators of engagement will allow clinicians to guide patients through not only the introduction, but also the maintenance of such changes. Improvements in dietary composition and physical activity are often recommended by clinicians who are inevitably and understandably concerned about the consequences of MASLD. Liver diseases, specifically cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as associated metabolic disorders, are consequences that could result from poorly controlled MASLD. Though these consequences should be conveyed to patients, this tactic may not always serve as an impetus for patients to engage in behavioral changes.5
Clinicians can shed light on motivators by utilizing these suggested prompts: “What motivates you to come to our appointments and care for your health? What entails a meaningful life for you — what do or would you enjoy doing? What would make implementing lifestyle changes important to you?” Patient goals may include “being able to keep up with their grandchildren,” “becoming a runner,” or “providing healthy meals for their families.”5,6 Engagement is more likely to be feasible and sustainable when lifestyle modifications are tied to goals that are personally meaningful and relevant to patients.
Within the realm of physical activity specifically, exercise can be individualized to optimize motivation as well. Both aerobic exercise and resistance training are associated independently with benefits such as weight loss and decreased hepatic adipose content.3 Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal type of physical activity for patients with MASLD; therefore, clinicians should encourage patients to personalize physical activity.3 While some patients may prefer aerobic activities such as running and swimming, others may find more fulfillment in weightlifting or high intensity interval training. Furthermore, patients with cardiopulmonary or musculoskeletal health contraindications may be limited to specific types of exercise. It is appropriate and helpful for clinicians to ask patients, “What types of physical activity feel achievable and realistic for you at this time?” If physicians can guide patients with MASLD in identifying types of exercise that are safe and enjoyable, their patients may be more motivated to implement such lifestyle changes.
It is also crucial to recognize that lifestyle changes demand active effort from patients. While sustained improvements in body weight and dietary composition are the foundation of MASLD management, they can initially feel cumbersome and abstract to patients. Physicians can help their patients remain motivated by developing small, tangible goals such as “reducing daily caloric intake by 500 kcal” or “participating in three 30-minute fitness classes per week.” These goals should be developed jointly with patients, primarily to ensure that they are tangible, feasible, and productive.
A Culturally Safe Approach
Additionally, acknowledging a patient’s cultural background can be conducive to incorporating patient-specific care into MASLD management. For example, qualitative studies have shown that people from Mexican heritage traditionally complement dinners with soft drinks. While meal portion sizes vary amongst households, families of Mexican origin believe larger portion sizes may be perceived as healthier than Western diets since their cuisine incorporates more vegetables into each dish.7
Eating rituals should also be considered since some families expect the absence of leftovers on the plate.7 Therefore, it is appropriate to consider questions such as, “What are common ingredients in your culture? What are some of your family traditions when it comes to meals?” By integrating cultural considerations, clinicians can adopt a culturally safe approach, empowering patients to make lifestyle modifications tailored toward their unique social identities. Clinicians should avoid generalizations or stereotypes about cultural values regarding lifestyle practices, as these can vary among individuals.
Identify Barriers to Lifestyle Changes and Social Determinants of Health
Even with delicate language from providers and immense motivation from patients, barriers to lifestyle changes persist. Studies have shown that patients with MASLD perceive a lack of self-efficacy and knowledge as major barriers to adopting lifestyle modifications.8,9 Patients have reported challenges in interpreting nutritional data, identifying caloric intake and portion sizes. Physicians can effectively guide patients through lifestyle changes by identifying each patient’s unique knowledge gap and determining the most effective, accessible form of education. For example, some patients may benefit from jointly interpreting a nutritional label with their healthcare providers, while others may require educational materials and interventions provided by a registered dietitian.
Understanding patients’ professional or other commitments can help physicians further individualize recommendations. Questions such as, “Do you have work or other responsibilities that take up some of your time during the day?” minimize presumptive language about employment status. It can reveal whether patients have schedules that make certain lifestyle changes more challenging than others. For example, a patient who is an overnight delivery associate at a warehouse may have a different routine from another patient who is a family member’s caretaker. This framework allows physicians to build rapport with their patients and ultimately, make lifestyle recommendations that are more accessible.
Though MASLD is driven by inflammation and metabolic dysregulation, social determinants of health play an equally important role in disease development and progression.10 As previously discussed, health literacy can deeply influence patients’ abilities to implement lifestyle changes. Furthermore, economic stability, neighborhood and built environment (i.e., access to fresh produce and sidewalks), community, and social support also impact lifestyle modifications. It is paramount to understand the tangible social factors in which patients live. Such factors can be ascertained by beginning the dialogue with “Which grocery stores do you find most convenient? How do you travel to obtain food/attend community exercise programs?” These questions may offer insight into physical barriers to lifestyle changes. Physicians must utilize an intersectional lens that incorporates patients’ unique circumstances of existence into their individualized health care plans to address MASLD.
Summary
- Communication preferences, cultural backgrounds, and sociocultural contexts of patient existence must be considered when treating a patient with MASLD.
- The utilization of an intersectional and culturally safe approach to communication with patients can lead to more sustainable lifestyle changes and improved health outcomes.
- Equipping and empowering physicians to have meaningful discussions about MASLD is crucial to combating a spectrum of diseases that is rapidly affecting a substantial proportion of patients worldwide.
Dr. Nikzad is based in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Chicago Medicine (@NewshaN27). Mr. Huynh is a medical student at Stony Brook University Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, N.Y. (@danielhuynhhh). Dr. Duong is an assistant professor of medicine and transplant hepatologist at Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif. (@doctornikkid). They have no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
1. Mohanty A. MASLD/MASH and Weight Loss. GI & Hepatology News. 2023 Oct. Data Trends 2023:9-13.
2. Wong VW, et al. Changing epidemiology, global trends and implications for outcomes of NAFLD. J Hepatol. 2023 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.04.036.
3. Zeng J, et al. Therapeutic management of metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease. United European Gastroenterol J. 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1002/ueg2.12525.
4. Berg S. How patients can start—and stick with—key lifestyle changes. AMA Public Health. 2020 Jan.
5. Berg S. 3 ways to get patients engaged in lasting lifestyle change. AMA Diabetes. 2019 Jan.
6. Teixeira PJ, et al. Motivation, self-determination, and long-term weight control. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Mar. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-22.
7. Aceves-Martins M, et al. Cultural factors related to childhood and adolescent obesity in Mexico: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Obes Rev. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1111/obr.13461.
8. Figueroa G, et al. Low health literacy, lack of knowledge, and self-control hinder healthy lifestyles in diverse patients with steatotic liver disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2024 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s10620-023-08212-9.
9. Wang L, et al. Factors influencing adherence to lifestyle prescriptions among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A qualitative study using the health action process approach framework. Front Public Health. 2023 Mar. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1131827.
10. Andermann A, CLEAR Collaboration. Taking action on the social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health professionals. CMAJ. 2016 Dec. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.160177.
Financial Empowerment Journey
Dear Friends,
One of the challenges I faced during training was managing my life outside of work. Many astute trainees started their financial empowerment journey early. However, I was too overwhelmed with what I did not know (the financial world) and just avoided it. Over the last year, I finally decided to embrace my lack of knowledge and find the support of experts, just as we would in medicine. A lot of questions from my journey translated into several articles in the “Finance” section of The New Gastroenterologist, so I encourage those who need guidance on embarking on their financial journeys to explore that section!
In the “In Focus” section, Dr. Patrick Chang, Dr. Supisara Tintara, and Dr. Jennifer Phan – all from the University of Southern California – review diagnostic modalities to assess gastroesophageal reflux disease with an emphasis on medical, endoscopic, and surgical managements.
With the rise in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), patient education is starting in the primary care and gastroenterologist’s office. Dr. Newsha Nikzad, medical student Daniel Huynh, and Dr. Nikki Duong share their approach to ask effectively about and communicate lifestyle modifications, with examples of using sensitive language and prompts to help guide patients, in the “Short Clinical Review” section.
The “Finance” section highlights the ins and outs of a physician mortgage loan and additional information for first time home buyers, reviewed by John G. Kelley II, a physician mortgage specialist and vice president of mortgage lending at Arvest Bank.
Lastly, in the “Early Career” section, Dr. Neil Gupta shares his experiences of transitioning from academic medicine to building a private practice group. He reflects on lessons learned from the first year after establishing his practice.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The first proton pump inhibitor was omeprazole, discovered 45 years ago in 1979 in Sweden, and clinically available in the United States only 36 years ago in 1988.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
Dear Friends,
One of the challenges I faced during training was managing my life outside of work. Many astute trainees started their financial empowerment journey early. However, I was too overwhelmed with what I did not know (the financial world) and just avoided it. Over the last year, I finally decided to embrace my lack of knowledge and find the support of experts, just as we would in medicine. A lot of questions from my journey translated into several articles in the “Finance” section of The New Gastroenterologist, so I encourage those who need guidance on embarking on their financial journeys to explore that section!
In the “In Focus” section, Dr. Patrick Chang, Dr. Supisara Tintara, and Dr. Jennifer Phan – all from the University of Southern California – review diagnostic modalities to assess gastroesophageal reflux disease with an emphasis on medical, endoscopic, and surgical managements.
With the rise in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), patient education is starting in the primary care and gastroenterologist’s office. Dr. Newsha Nikzad, medical student Daniel Huynh, and Dr. Nikki Duong share their approach to ask effectively about and communicate lifestyle modifications, with examples of using sensitive language and prompts to help guide patients, in the “Short Clinical Review” section.
The “Finance” section highlights the ins and outs of a physician mortgage loan and additional information for first time home buyers, reviewed by John G. Kelley II, a physician mortgage specialist and vice president of mortgage lending at Arvest Bank.
Lastly, in the “Early Career” section, Dr. Neil Gupta shares his experiences of transitioning from academic medicine to building a private practice group. He reflects on lessons learned from the first year after establishing his practice.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The first proton pump inhibitor was omeprazole, discovered 45 years ago in 1979 in Sweden, and clinically available in the United States only 36 years ago in 1988.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
Dear Friends,
One of the challenges I faced during training was managing my life outside of work. Many astute trainees started their financial empowerment journey early. However, I was too overwhelmed with what I did not know (the financial world) and just avoided it. Over the last year, I finally decided to embrace my lack of knowledge and find the support of experts, just as we would in medicine. A lot of questions from my journey translated into several articles in the “Finance” section of The New Gastroenterologist, so I encourage those who need guidance on embarking on their financial journeys to explore that section!
In the “In Focus” section, Dr. Patrick Chang, Dr. Supisara Tintara, and Dr. Jennifer Phan – all from the University of Southern California – review diagnostic modalities to assess gastroesophageal reflux disease with an emphasis on medical, endoscopic, and surgical managements.
With the rise in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), patient education is starting in the primary care and gastroenterologist’s office. Dr. Newsha Nikzad, medical student Daniel Huynh, and Dr. Nikki Duong share their approach to ask effectively about and communicate lifestyle modifications, with examples of using sensitive language and prompts to help guide patients, in the “Short Clinical Review” section.
The “Finance” section highlights the ins and outs of a physician mortgage loan and additional information for first time home buyers, reviewed by John G. Kelley II, a physician mortgage specialist and vice president of mortgage lending at Arvest Bank.
Lastly, in the “Early Career” section, Dr. Neil Gupta shares his experiences of transitioning from academic medicine to building a private practice group. He reflects on lessons learned from the first year after establishing his practice.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The first proton pump inhibitor was omeprazole, discovered 45 years ago in 1979 in Sweden, and clinically available in the United States only 36 years ago in 1988.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
Journal Highlights: Sept.-Oct. 2024
Upper GI
Levinthal DJ et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome: Commentary. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.05.031.
Geeratragool T et al. Comparison of Vonoprazan Versus Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitor for Prevention of High-Risk Peptic Ulcers Rebleeding After Successful Endoscopic Hemostasis: A Multicenter Randomized Noninferiority Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.03.036.
Goodoory VC et al. Effect of Brain-Gut Behavioral Treatments on Abdominal Pain in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.05.010.
Kurlander JE et al; Gastrointestinal Bleeding Working Group. Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors for Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in US Outpatient Visits. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.047.
Oliva S et al. Crafting a Therapeutic Pyramid for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in the Age of Biologics. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.04.020.
Lower GI
Redd WD et al. Follow-Up Colonoscopy for Detection of Missed Colorectal Cancer After Diverticulitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.03.036.
Peyrin-Biroulet L et al. Upadacitinib Achieves Clinical and Endoscopic Outcomes in Crohn’s Disease Regardless of Prior Biologic Exposure. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.02.026.
Chang PW et al. ChatGPT4 Outperforms Endoscopists for Determination of Postcolonoscopy Rescreening and Surveillance Recommendations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.04.022.
Liver
Wang L et al. Association of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Incidence and Hepatic Decompensation in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.04.029.
Bajaj JS et al. Serum Ammonia Levels Do Not Correlate With Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy Severity in Hospitalized Patients With Cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.02.015.
Endoscopy
Steinbrück I, et al. Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Randomized Controlled German CHRONICLE Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.05.013.
Misc.
Kothari S et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pregnancy-Related Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.06.014.
Chavannes M et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Role of Intestinal Ultrasound in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Commentary. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.04.039.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
Upper GI
Levinthal DJ et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome: Commentary. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.05.031.
Geeratragool T et al. Comparison of Vonoprazan Versus Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitor for Prevention of High-Risk Peptic Ulcers Rebleeding After Successful Endoscopic Hemostasis: A Multicenter Randomized Noninferiority Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.03.036.
Goodoory VC et al. Effect of Brain-Gut Behavioral Treatments on Abdominal Pain in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.05.010.
Kurlander JE et al; Gastrointestinal Bleeding Working Group. Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors for Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in US Outpatient Visits. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.047.
Oliva S et al. Crafting a Therapeutic Pyramid for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in the Age of Biologics. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.04.020.
Lower GI
Redd WD et al. Follow-Up Colonoscopy for Detection of Missed Colorectal Cancer After Diverticulitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.03.036.
Peyrin-Biroulet L et al. Upadacitinib Achieves Clinical and Endoscopic Outcomes in Crohn’s Disease Regardless of Prior Biologic Exposure. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.02.026.
Chang PW et al. ChatGPT4 Outperforms Endoscopists for Determination of Postcolonoscopy Rescreening and Surveillance Recommendations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.04.022.
Liver
Wang L et al. Association of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Incidence and Hepatic Decompensation in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.04.029.
Bajaj JS et al. Serum Ammonia Levels Do Not Correlate With Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy Severity in Hospitalized Patients With Cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.02.015.
Endoscopy
Steinbrück I, et al. Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Randomized Controlled German CHRONICLE Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.05.013.
Misc.
Kothari S et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pregnancy-Related Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.06.014.
Chavannes M et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Role of Intestinal Ultrasound in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Commentary. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.04.039.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
Upper GI
Levinthal DJ et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome: Commentary. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.05.031.
Geeratragool T et al. Comparison of Vonoprazan Versus Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitor for Prevention of High-Risk Peptic Ulcers Rebleeding After Successful Endoscopic Hemostasis: A Multicenter Randomized Noninferiority Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.03.036.
Goodoory VC et al. Effect of Brain-Gut Behavioral Treatments on Abdominal Pain in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.05.010.
Kurlander JE et al; Gastrointestinal Bleeding Working Group. Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors for Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in US Outpatient Visits. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.047.
Oliva S et al. Crafting a Therapeutic Pyramid for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in the Age of Biologics. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.04.020.
Lower GI
Redd WD et al. Follow-Up Colonoscopy for Detection of Missed Colorectal Cancer After Diverticulitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.03.036.
Peyrin-Biroulet L et al. Upadacitinib Achieves Clinical and Endoscopic Outcomes in Crohn’s Disease Regardless of Prior Biologic Exposure. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.02.026.
Chang PW et al. ChatGPT4 Outperforms Endoscopists for Determination of Postcolonoscopy Rescreening and Surveillance Recommendations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.04.022.
Liver
Wang L et al. Association of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Incidence and Hepatic Decompensation in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.04.029.
Bajaj JS et al. Serum Ammonia Levels Do Not Correlate With Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy Severity in Hospitalized Patients With Cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.02.015.
Endoscopy
Steinbrück I, et al. Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Randomized Controlled German CHRONICLE Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.05.013.
Misc.
Kothari S et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pregnancy-Related Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.06.014.
Chavannes M et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Role of Intestinal Ultrasound in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Commentary. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.04.039.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
DDSEP Plus Can Help You Achieve Your Educational Goals
Challenge yourself with these practice questions! This is just a sample of the nearly 900 questions available with an annual DDSEP Plus subscription. AGA member trainees receive a discounted subscription.
Purchase a subscription to continue learning.
Practice Question #1
A 45-year-old woman diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea presents to your clinic. Her diarrhea is well controlled with loperamide, but her abdominal pain persists.
Her primary care provider previously prescribed dicyclomine, but this did not improve her abdominal pain symptoms.
What is the next best medication to treat her abdominal pain?
A. Amitriptyline
B. Codeine/acetaminophen
C. Hydrocodone
D. Meloxicam
Correct answer:
A. Amitriptyline
Commentary:
Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant medication that functions as a central neuromodulator. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of 6-12 weeks’ duration showed a modest improvement in global symptom relief and abdominal pain in patients with IBS treated with tricyclic anti-depressants. Opioid medications and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications are not recommended to treat abdominal pain in patients with IBS.
Practice Question #2
A 52-year-old man with hypertension and diabetes mellitus type 2 is referred to you for 8 months of troublesome regurgitation and heartburn. He has a body mass index of 29 kg/m2.
He had minimal relief with single-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy before breakfast and partial response with double-dose PPI therapy taken before breakfast and before dinner. Regurgitation after dinner and at bedtime is his most troublesome symptom.
What is the next best step in management?
A. Counsel on weight management
B. Increase PPI to quadruple dose
C. Perform gastric emptying study
D. Refer for bariatric surgery evaluation
E. Switch PPI to before bedtime
Correct answer:
A. Counsel on weight management
Commentary:
This presentation represents typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease that are not responsive to an optimized regimen of PPI therapy.
Management of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms begins with optimizing lifestyle and weight loss.
Quadruple-dose PPI therapy has no established role. A gastric emptying study would be recommended if gastroparesis was suspected.
This patient does not meet criteria for bariatric surgery as his body mass index is less than 30 kg/m2.
PPI therapy optimization with before-meal dosing (30-60 min before breakfast for single-dose therapy and before breakfast and dinner for double-dose therapy) would be the next step after weight management.
Challenge yourself with these practice questions! This is just a sample of the nearly 900 questions available with an annual DDSEP Plus subscription. AGA member trainees receive a discounted subscription.
Purchase a subscription to continue learning.
Practice Question #1
A 45-year-old woman diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea presents to your clinic. Her diarrhea is well controlled with loperamide, but her abdominal pain persists.
Her primary care provider previously prescribed dicyclomine, but this did not improve her abdominal pain symptoms.
What is the next best medication to treat her abdominal pain?
A. Amitriptyline
B. Codeine/acetaminophen
C. Hydrocodone
D. Meloxicam
Correct answer:
A. Amitriptyline
Commentary:
Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant medication that functions as a central neuromodulator. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of 6-12 weeks’ duration showed a modest improvement in global symptom relief and abdominal pain in patients with IBS treated with tricyclic anti-depressants. Opioid medications and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications are not recommended to treat abdominal pain in patients with IBS.
Practice Question #2
A 52-year-old man with hypertension and diabetes mellitus type 2 is referred to you for 8 months of troublesome regurgitation and heartburn. He has a body mass index of 29 kg/m2.
He had minimal relief with single-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy before breakfast and partial response with double-dose PPI therapy taken before breakfast and before dinner. Regurgitation after dinner and at bedtime is his most troublesome symptom.
What is the next best step in management?
A. Counsel on weight management
B. Increase PPI to quadruple dose
C. Perform gastric emptying study
D. Refer for bariatric surgery evaluation
E. Switch PPI to before bedtime
Correct answer:
A. Counsel on weight management
Commentary:
This presentation represents typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease that are not responsive to an optimized regimen of PPI therapy.
Management of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms begins with optimizing lifestyle and weight loss.
Quadruple-dose PPI therapy has no established role. A gastric emptying study would be recommended if gastroparesis was suspected.
This patient does not meet criteria for bariatric surgery as his body mass index is less than 30 kg/m2.
PPI therapy optimization with before-meal dosing (30-60 min before breakfast for single-dose therapy and before breakfast and dinner for double-dose therapy) would be the next step after weight management.
Challenge yourself with these practice questions! This is just a sample of the nearly 900 questions available with an annual DDSEP Plus subscription. AGA member trainees receive a discounted subscription.
Purchase a subscription to continue learning.
Practice Question #1
A 45-year-old woman diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea presents to your clinic. Her diarrhea is well controlled with loperamide, but her abdominal pain persists.
Her primary care provider previously prescribed dicyclomine, but this did not improve her abdominal pain symptoms.
What is the next best medication to treat her abdominal pain?
A. Amitriptyline
B. Codeine/acetaminophen
C. Hydrocodone
D. Meloxicam
Correct answer:
A. Amitriptyline
Commentary:
Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant medication that functions as a central neuromodulator. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of 6-12 weeks’ duration showed a modest improvement in global symptom relief and abdominal pain in patients with IBS treated with tricyclic anti-depressants. Opioid medications and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications are not recommended to treat abdominal pain in patients with IBS.
Practice Question #2
A 52-year-old man with hypertension and diabetes mellitus type 2 is referred to you for 8 months of troublesome regurgitation and heartburn. He has a body mass index of 29 kg/m2.
He had minimal relief with single-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy before breakfast and partial response with double-dose PPI therapy taken before breakfast and before dinner. Regurgitation after dinner and at bedtime is his most troublesome symptom.
What is the next best step in management?
A. Counsel on weight management
B. Increase PPI to quadruple dose
C. Perform gastric emptying study
D. Refer for bariatric surgery evaluation
E. Switch PPI to before bedtime
Correct answer:
A. Counsel on weight management
Commentary:
This presentation represents typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease that are not responsive to an optimized regimen of PPI therapy.
Management of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms begins with optimizing lifestyle and weight loss.
Quadruple-dose PPI therapy has no established role. A gastric emptying study would be recommended if gastroparesis was suspected.
This patient does not meet criteria for bariatric surgery as his body mass index is less than 30 kg/m2.
PPI therapy optimization with before-meal dosing (30-60 min before breakfast for single-dose therapy and before breakfast and dinner for double-dose therapy) would be the next step after weight management.
Navigating the Physician Mortgage Loan
Navigating the path to homeownership can be particularly challenging for physicians, who often face a unique set of financial circumstances. With substantial student loan debt, limited savings, and a delayed peak earning potential, traditional mortgage options may seem out of reach.
Enter physician mortgage loans—specialized financing designed specifically for medical professionals. These loans offer tailored solutions that address the common barriers faced by doctors, making it easier for them to achieve their homeownership goals. In this article, we’ll
What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?
A physician mortgage loan, also known as a ‘doctor loan,’ is a specialized mortgage product designed for a specific group of qualifying medical professionals. These loans are particularly attractive to new doctors who may have substantial student loan debt, limited savings, and an income that is expected to increase significantly over time. As unique portfolio loans, physician mortgage products can vary considerably between lending institutions. However, a common feature is that they typically require little to no down payment and do not require private mortgage insurance (PMI).
Beyond the common features, loan options and qualifying parameters can vary significantly from one institution to another. Therefore, it’s important to start gathering information as early as possible, giving you ample time to evaluate which institution and loan option best meet your needs.
How Do I Know if I Am Eligible for a Physician Mortgage Loan?
Physician loans are typically offered to MDs, DOs, DDSs, DMDs, and ODs, though some institutions expand this list to include DPMs, PAs, CRNAs, NPs, PharmDs, and DVMs. Additionally, most of these loan products are available to residents, fellows, and attending or practicing physicians.
How Do I Know What Physician Mortgage Loan Is Best for Me?
When selecting the optimal physician loan option for your home purchase, consider several important metrics:
- Duration of Stay: Consider how long you expect to live in the home. If you’re in a lengthy residency or fellowship program, or if you plan to move for a new job soon after, a 30-year fixed-rate loan might not be ideal. Instead, evaluate loan options that match your anticipated duration of stay. For example, a 5-year or 7-year ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) could offer a lower interest rate and reduced monthly payments for the initial fixed period, which aligns with your shorter-term stay. This can result in substantial savings if you do not plan to stay in the home for the full term of a traditional mortgage.
- Underwriting Guidelines: Each lender has different underwriting standards and qualifying criteria, so it’s essential to understand these differences. For instance, some lenders may have higher minimum credit score requirements or stricter debt-to-income (DTI) ratio limits. Others might require a larger down payment or have different rules regarding student loan payments and closing costs. Flexibility in these guidelines can impact your ability to qualify for a loan and the terms you receive. For example, some lenders may allow you to include student loan payments at a lower percentage of your income, which could improve your DTI ratio and help you secure a better loan offer.
- Closing Timing: The timing of your home closing relative to your job start date can be crucial, especially if you’re relocating. Some lenders permit closing up to 60-90 days before your job begins, while others offer up to 120 days. If you need to relocate your family before starting your new position, having the ability to close earlier can provide you with more flexibility in finding and moving into a home. This additional time can ease the transition and allow you to settle in before your new job starts.
Given the wide range of options and standards, it’s important to strategically identify which factors are most meaningful to you. Beyond interest rates, consider the overall cost of the loan, the flexibility of terms, and how well the loan aligns with your financial goals and career plans. For example, if you value lower monthly payments over a longer period or need to accommodate significant student loan debt, ensure that the loan program you choose aligns with these priorities.
What Attributes Should I Look for in My Loan Officer?
When interviewing multiple loan officers for your upcoming loan needs, it’s essential to use the right metrics—beyond just the interest rate—to determine the best fit for your situation. Some critical factors to consider include the loan officer’s experience working with physicians, that person’s availability and responsiveness, and the potential for building a long-term relationship.
As in most professions, experience is paramount—it’s something that cannot be taught or simply read in a training manual. Physicians, especially those in training or just stepping into an attending role, often have unique financial situations. This makes it crucial to work with a loan officer who has extensive experience serving physician clients. An experienced loan officer will better understand how to customize a loan solution that aligns with your specific needs, resulting in a much more tailored and meaningful mortgage. There is no one-size-fits-all mortgage. You are unique, and your loan officer should be crafting a mortgage solution that reflects your individuality and financial circumstances.
In my opinion, availability and responsiveness are among the most critical attributes your chosen loan officer should possess. Interestingly, this factor doesn’t directly influence the ‘cost’ of your loan but can significantly impact your experience. As a physician with a demanding schedule, it’s unrealistic to expect that all communication will take place strictly during business hours—this is true for any consumer. Pay close attention to how promptly loan officers respond during your initial interactions, and evaluate how thoroughly they explain loan terms, out-of-pocket costs, and the overall loan process. Your loan officer should be your trusted guide as you navigate through the complexities of the loan process, so setting yourself up for success starts with choosing someone who meets your expectations in this regard.
It’s crucial to build a good rapport with the loan officer you choose, as this likely won’t be the last mortgage or financial need you encounter in your lifetime. Establishing a personal connection with your loan officer fosters a level of trust that is invaluable. Whether you’re considering refinancing your current mortgage or exploring additional loan products for other financial needs, having a trusted advisor you can rely on as a financial resource is immensely beneficial as you progress in your career. A strong, long-standing relationship with a loan officer ensures you receive reliable and sound financial advice tailored to your unique needs.
Additional Things to Consider if You Are a First-Time Home Buyer
Interview multiple lenders and make those conversations about more than just interest rates. This approach will help you gauge their knowledge of physician mortgage loans while allowing you to assess who might be the best fit for you in terms of compatibility. Relying solely on an email blast to inquire about rates could easily lead you to a subpar lender and result in an unfavorable experience.
Don’t be afraid to ask a lot of questions! As a first-time home buyer, it’s natural to feel a bit overwhelmed by the process—it can seem daunting if you’ve never been through it before. That’s why it’s crucial to ask any questions that come to mind and to work with a lender who is willing to take the time to answer them while educating you throughout the home-buying journey. With a trusted guide and the right education, the process will feel far less overwhelming, leading to a smoother and more positive experience from start to finish.
In conclusion, choosing the right lender for a physician mortgage loan is a crucial step in securing your financial future and achieving homeownership. By thoroughly evaluating interest rates, down payment requirements, loan terms, and other key metrics, you can find a lender that offers competitive rates and favorable terms tailored to your unique needs. Consider factors such as customer service, closing costs, and the lender’s experience with physician loans to ensure a smooth and supportive mortgage process. By taking the time to compare options and select the best fit for your financial situation, you can confidently move forward in your home-buying journey and set the stage for a successful and fulfilling homeownership experience.
Mr. Kelley is vice president of mortgage lending and a physician mortgage specialist at Arvest Bank in Overland Park, Kansas.
Navigating the path to homeownership can be particularly challenging for physicians, who often face a unique set of financial circumstances. With substantial student loan debt, limited savings, and a delayed peak earning potential, traditional mortgage options may seem out of reach.
Enter physician mortgage loans—specialized financing designed specifically for medical professionals. These loans offer tailored solutions that address the common barriers faced by doctors, making it easier for them to achieve their homeownership goals. In this article, we’ll
What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?
A physician mortgage loan, also known as a ‘doctor loan,’ is a specialized mortgage product designed for a specific group of qualifying medical professionals. These loans are particularly attractive to new doctors who may have substantial student loan debt, limited savings, and an income that is expected to increase significantly over time. As unique portfolio loans, physician mortgage products can vary considerably between lending institutions. However, a common feature is that they typically require little to no down payment and do not require private mortgage insurance (PMI).
Beyond the common features, loan options and qualifying parameters can vary significantly from one institution to another. Therefore, it’s important to start gathering information as early as possible, giving you ample time to evaluate which institution and loan option best meet your needs.
How Do I Know if I Am Eligible for a Physician Mortgage Loan?
Physician loans are typically offered to MDs, DOs, DDSs, DMDs, and ODs, though some institutions expand this list to include DPMs, PAs, CRNAs, NPs, PharmDs, and DVMs. Additionally, most of these loan products are available to residents, fellows, and attending or practicing physicians.
How Do I Know What Physician Mortgage Loan Is Best for Me?
When selecting the optimal physician loan option for your home purchase, consider several important metrics:
- Duration of Stay: Consider how long you expect to live in the home. If you’re in a lengthy residency or fellowship program, or if you plan to move for a new job soon after, a 30-year fixed-rate loan might not be ideal. Instead, evaluate loan options that match your anticipated duration of stay. For example, a 5-year or 7-year ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) could offer a lower interest rate and reduced monthly payments for the initial fixed period, which aligns with your shorter-term stay. This can result in substantial savings if you do not plan to stay in the home for the full term of a traditional mortgage.
- Underwriting Guidelines: Each lender has different underwriting standards and qualifying criteria, so it’s essential to understand these differences. For instance, some lenders may have higher minimum credit score requirements or stricter debt-to-income (DTI) ratio limits. Others might require a larger down payment or have different rules regarding student loan payments and closing costs. Flexibility in these guidelines can impact your ability to qualify for a loan and the terms you receive. For example, some lenders may allow you to include student loan payments at a lower percentage of your income, which could improve your DTI ratio and help you secure a better loan offer.
- Closing Timing: The timing of your home closing relative to your job start date can be crucial, especially if you’re relocating. Some lenders permit closing up to 60-90 days before your job begins, while others offer up to 120 days. If you need to relocate your family before starting your new position, having the ability to close earlier can provide you with more flexibility in finding and moving into a home. This additional time can ease the transition and allow you to settle in before your new job starts.
Given the wide range of options and standards, it’s important to strategically identify which factors are most meaningful to you. Beyond interest rates, consider the overall cost of the loan, the flexibility of terms, and how well the loan aligns with your financial goals and career plans. For example, if you value lower monthly payments over a longer period or need to accommodate significant student loan debt, ensure that the loan program you choose aligns with these priorities.
What Attributes Should I Look for in My Loan Officer?
When interviewing multiple loan officers for your upcoming loan needs, it’s essential to use the right metrics—beyond just the interest rate—to determine the best fit for your situation. Some critical factors to consider include the loan officer’s experience working with physicians, that person’s availability and responsiveness, and the potential for building a long-term relationship.
As in most professions, experience is paramount—it’s something that cannot be taught or simply read in a training manual. Physicians, especially those in training or just stepping into an attending role, often have unique financial situations. This makes it crucial to work with a loan officer who has extensive experience serving physician clients. An experienced loan officer will better understand how to customize a loan solution that aligns with your specific needs, resulting in a much more tailored and meaningful mortgage. There is no one-size-fits-all mortgage. You are unique, and your loan officer should be crafting a mortgage solution that reflects your individuality and financial circumstances.
In my opinion, availability and responsiveness are among the most critical attributes your chosen loan officer should possess. Interestingly, this factor doesn’t directly influence the ‘cost’ of your loan but can significantly impact your experience. As a physician with a demanding schedule, it’s unrealistic to expect that all communication will take place strictly during business hours—this is true for any consumer. Pay close attention to how promptly loan officers respond during your initial interactions, and evaluate how thoroughly they explain loan terms, out-of-pocket costs, and the overall loan process. Your loan officer should be your trusted guide as you navigate through the complexities of the loan process, so setting yourself up for success starts with choosing someone who meets your expectations in this regard.
It’s crucial to build a good rapport with the loan officer you choose, as this likely won’t be the last mortgage or financial need you encounter in your lifetime. Establishing a personal connection with your loan officer fosters a level of trust that is invaluable. Whether you’re considering refinancing your current mortgage or exploring additional loan products for other financial needs, having a trusted advisor you can rely on as a financial resource is immensely beneficial as you progress in your career. A strong, long-standing relationship with a loan officer ensures you receive reliable and sound financial advice tailored to your unique needs.
Additional Things to Consider if You Are a First-Time Home Buyer
Interview multiple lenders and make those conversations about more than just interest rates. This approach will help you gauge their knowledge of physician mortgage loans while allowing you to assess who might be the best fit for you in terms of compatibility. Relying solely on an email blast to inquire about rates could easily lead you to a subpar lender and result in an unfavorable experience.
Don’t be afraid to ask a lot of questions! As a first-time home buyer, it’s natural to feel a bit overwhelmed by the process—it can seem daunting if you’ve never been through it before. That’s why it’s crucial to ask any questions that come to mind and to work with a lender who is willing to take the time to answer them while educating you throughout the home-buying journey. With a trusted guide and the right education, the process will feel far less overwhelming, leading to a smoother and more positive experience from start to finish.
In conclusion, choosing the right lender for a physician mortgage loan is a crucial step in securing your financial future and achieving homeownership. By thoroughly evaluating interest rates, down payment requirements, loan terms, and other key metrics, you can find a lender that offers competitive rates and favorable terms tailored to your unique needs. Consider factors such as customer service, closing costs, and the lender’s experience with physician loans to ensure a smooth and supportive mortgage process. By taking the time to compare options and select the best fit for your financial situation, you can confidently move forward in your home-buying journey and set the stage for a successful and fulfilling homeownership experience.
Mr. Kelley is vice president of mortgage lending and a physician mortgage specialist at Arvest Bank in Overland Park, Kansas.
Navigating the path to homeownership can be particularly challenging for physicians, who often face a unique set of financial circumstances. With substantial student loan debt, limited savings, and a delayed peak earning potential, traditional mortgage options may seem out of reach.
Enter physician mortgage loans—specialized financing designed specifically for medical professionals. These loans offer tailored solutions that address the common barriers faced by doctors, making it easier for them to achieve their homeownership goals. In this article, we’ll
What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?
A physician mortgage loan, also known as a ‘doctor loan,’ is a specialized mortgage product designed for a specific group of qualifying medical professionals. These loans are particularly attractive to new doctors who may have substantial student loan debt, limited savings, and an income that is expected to increase significantly over time. As unique portfolio loans, physician mortgage products can vary considerably between lending institutions. However, a common feature is that they typically require little to no down payment and do not require private mortgage insurance (PMI).
Beyond the common features, loan options and qualifying parameters can vary significantly from one institution to another. Therefore, it’s important to start gathering information as early as possible, giving you ample time to evaluate which institution and loan option best meet your needs.
How Do I Know if I Am Eligible for a Physician Mortgage Loan?
Physician loans are typically offered to MDs, DOs, DDSs, DMDs, and ODs, though some institutions expand this list to include DPMs, PAs, CRNAs, NPs, PharmDs, and DVMs. Additionally, most of these loan products are available to residents, fellows, and attending or practicing physicians.
How Do I Know What Physician Mortgage Loan Is Best for Me?
When selecting the optimal physician loan option for your home purchase, consider several important metrics:
- Duration of Stay: Consider how long you expect to live in the home. If you’re in a lengthy residency or fellowship program, or if you plan to move for a new job soon after, a 30-year fixed-rate loan might not be ideal. Instead, evaluate loan options that match your anticipated duration of stay. For example, a 5-year or 7-year ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) could offer a lower interest rate and reduced monthly payments for the initial fixed period, which aligns with your shorter-term stay. This can result in substantial savings if you do not plan to stay in the home for the full term of a traditional mortgage.
- Underwriting Guidelines: Each lender has different underwriting standards and qualifying criteria, so it’s essential to understand these differences. For instance, some lenders may have higher minimum credit score requirements or stricter debt-to-income (DTI) ratio limits. Others might require a larger down payment or have different rules regarding student loan payments and closing costs. Flexibility in these guidelines can impact your ability to qualify for a loan and the terms you receive. For example, some lenders may allow you to include student loan payments at a lower percentage of your income, which could improve your DTI ratio and help you secure a better loan offer.
- Closing Timing: The timing of your home closing relative to your job start date can be crucial, especially if you’re relocating. Some lenders permit closing up to 60-90 days before your job begins, while others offer up to 120 days. If you need to relocate your family before starting your new position, having the ability to close earlier can provide you with more flexibility in finding and moving into a home. This additional time can ease the transition and allow you to settle in before your new job starts.
Given the wide range of options and standards, it’s important to strategically identify which factors are most meaningful to you. Beyond interest rates, consider the overall cost of the loan, the flexibility of terms, and how well the loan aligns with your financial goals and career plans. For example, if you value lower monthly payments over a longer period or need to accommodate significant student loan debt, ensure that the loan program you choose aligns with these priorities.
What Attributes Should I Look for in My Loan Officer?
When interviewing multiple loan officers for your upcoming loan needs, it’s essential to use the right metrics—beyond just the interest rate—to determine the best fit for your situation. Some critical factors to consider include the loan officer’s experience working with physicians, that person’s availability and responsiveness, and the potential for building a long-term relationship.
As in most professions, experience is paramount—it’s something that cannot be taught or simply read in a training manual. Physicians, especially those in training or just stepping into an attending role, often have unique financial situations. This makes it crucial to work with a loan officer who has extensive experience serving physician clients. An experienced loan officer will better understand how to customize a loan solution that aligns with your specific needs, resulting in a much more tailored and meaningful mortgage. There is no one-size-fits-all mortgage. You are unique, and your loan officer should be crafting a mortgage solution that reflects your individuality and financial circumstances.
In my opinion, availability and responsiveness are among the most critical attributes your chosen loan officer should possess. Interestingly, this factor doesn’t directly influence the ‘cost’ of your loan but can significantly impact your experience. As a physician with a demanding schedule, it’s unrealistic to expect that all communication will take place strictly during business hours—this is true for any consumer. Pay close attention to how promptly loan officers respond during your initial interactions, and evaluate how thoroughly they explain loan terms, out-of-pocket costs, and the overall loan process. Your loan officer should be your trusted guide as you navigate through the complexities of the loan process, so setting yourself up for success starts with choosing someone who meets your expectations in this regard.
It’s crucial to build a good rapport with the loan officer you choose, as this likely won’t be the last mortgage or financial need you encounter in your lifetime. Establishing a personal connection with your loan officer fosters a level of trust that is invaluable. Whether you’re considering refinancing your current mortgage or exploring additional loan products for other financial needs, having a trusted advisor you can rely on as a financial resource is immensely beneficial as you progress in your career. A strong, long-standing relationship with a loan officer ensures you receive reliable and sound financial advice tailored to your unique needs.
Additional Things to Consider if You Are a First-Time Home Buyer
Interview multiple lenders and make those conversations about more than just interest rates. This approach will help you gauge their knowledge of physician mortgage loans while allowing you to assess who might be the best fit for you in terms of compatibility. Relying solely on an email blast to inquire about rates could easily lead you to a subpar lender and result in an unfavorable experience.
Don’t be afraid to ask a lot of questions! As a first-time home buyer, it’s natural to feel a bit overwhelmed by the process—it can seem daunting if you’ve never been through it before. That’s why it’s crucial to ask any questions that come to mind and to work with a lender who is willing to take the time to answer them while educating you throughout the home-buying journey. With a trusted guide and the right education, the process will feel far less overwhelming, leading to a smoother and more positive experience from start to finish.
In conclusion, choosing the right lender for a physician mortgage loan is a crucial step in securing your financial future and achieving homeownership. By thoroughly evaluating interest rates, down payment requirements, loan terms, and other key metrics, you can find a lender that offers competitive rates and favorable terms tailored to your unique needs. Consider factors such as customer service, closing costs, and the lender’s experience with physician loans to ensure a smooth and supportive mortgage process. By taking the time to compare options and select the best fit for your financial situation, you can confidently move forward in your home-buying journey and set the stage for a successful and fulfilling homeownership experience.
Mr. Kelley is vice president of mortgage lending and a physician mortgage specialist at Arvest Bank in Overland Park, Kansas.
Transitioning from Employment in Academia to Private Practice
After more than 10 years of serving in a large academic medical center in Chicago, Illinois, that was part of a national health care system, the decision to transition into private practice wasn’t one I made lightly.
Having built a rewarding career and spent over a quarter of my life in an academic medical center and a national health system, the move to starting an independent practice from scratch was both exciting and daunting. The notion of leaving behind the structure, resources, and safety of the large health system was unsettling. However, as the landscape of health care continues to evolve, with worsening large structural problems within the U.S. health care system, I realized that starting an independent gastroenterology practice — focused on trying to fix some of these large-scale problems from the start — would not only align with my professional goals but also provide the personal satisfaction I had failed to find.
As I reflect on my journey, there are a few key lessons I learned from making this leap — lessons that helped me transition from a highly structured employed physician environment to leading a thriving independent practice focused on redesigning gastroenterology care from scratch.
Lesson 1: Autonomy Opens the Door to Innovation
One of the primary reasons I left the employed physician setting was to gain greater control over my clinical practice and decision-making processes.
In a national health care system, the goal of standardization often dictates not only clinical care, but many “back end” aspects of the entire health care experience. We often see the things that are more visible, such as what supplies/equipment you use, how your patient appointments are scheduled, how many support staff members are assigned to help your practice, what electronic health record system you use, and how shared resources (like GI lab block time or anesthesia teams) are allocated.
However, this also impacts things we don’t usually see, such as what fees are billed for care you are providing (like facility fees), communication systems that your patients need to navigate for help, human resource systems you use, and retirement/health benefits you and your other team members receive.
Standardization has two adverse consequences: 1) it does not allow for personalization and as a result, 2) it suppresses innovation. Standard protocols can streamline processes, but they sometimes fail to account for the nuanced differences between patients, such as genetic factors, unique medical histories, or responses/failures to prior treatments. This rigidity can stifle innovation, as physicians are often bound by guidelines that may not reflect the latest advancements or allow for creative, individualized approaches to care. In the long term, an overemphasis on standardization risks turning health care into a one-size-fits-all model, undermining the potential for breakthroughs.
The transition was challenging at first, as we needed to engage our entire new practice with a different mindset now that many of us had autonomy for the first time. Instead of everyone just practicing health care the way they had done before, we took a page from Elon Musk and challenged every member of the team to ask three questions about everything they do on a daily basis:
- Is what I am doing helping a patient get healthy? (Question every requirement)
- If not, do I still need to do this? (Delete any part of the process you can)
- If so, how can I make this easier, faster, or automated? (Simplify and optimize, accelerate cycle time, and automate)
The freedom to innovate is a hallmark of independent practice. Embracing innovation in every aspect of the practice has been the most critical lesson of this journey.
Lesson 2: Financial Stewardship is Critical for Sustainability
Running an independent practice is not just about medicine — it’s also about managing a business.
This was a stark shift from the large academic health systems, where financial decisions were handled by the “administration.” In my new role as a business owner, understanding the financial aspects of health care was crucial for success. The cost of what patients pay for health care in the United States (either directly in deductibles and coinsurance or indirectly through insurance premiums) is unsustainably high. However, inflation continues to cause substantial increases in almost all the costs of delivering care: medical supplies, salaries, benefits, IT costs, etc. It was critical to develop a financial plan that accounted for these two macro-economic trends, and ideally helped solve for both. In our case, delivering high quality care with a lower cost to patients and payers.
We started by reevaluating our relationship with payers. Whereas being part of a large academic health system, we are often taught to look at payers as the adversary; as an independent practice looking to redesign the health care experience, it was critical for us to look to the payers as a partner in this journey. Understanding payer expectations and structuring contracts that aligned with shared goals of reducing total health care costs for patients was one of the foundations of our financial plan.
Offering office-based endoscopy was one innovation we implemented to significantly impact both patient affordability and practice revenue. By performing procedures like colonoscopies and upper endoscopies in an office setting rather than a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, we eliminated facility fees, which are often a significant part of the total cost of care. This directly lowers out-of-pocket expenses for patients and reduces the overall financial burden on insurance companies. At the same time, it allows the practice to capture more of the revenue from these procedures, without the overhead costs associated with larger facilities. This model creates a win-win situation: patients save money while receiving the same quality of care, and the practice experiences an increase in profitability and autonomy in managing its services.
Lesson 3: Collaborative Care and Multidisciplinary Teams Can Exist Anywhere
One aspect I deeply valued in academia was the collaborative environment — having specialists across disciplines work together on challenging cases. In private practice, I was concerned that I would lose this collegial atmosphere. However, I quickly learned that building a robust network of multidisciplinary collaborators was achievable in independent practice, just like it was in a large health system.
In our practice, we established close relationships with primary care physicians, surgeons, advanced practice providers, dietitians, behavioral health specialists, and others. These partnerships were not just referral networks but integrated care teams where communication and shared decision-making were prioritized. By fostering collaboration, we could offer patients comprehensive care that addressed their physical, psychological, and nutritional needs.
For example, managing patients with chronic conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, cirrhosis, or obesity requires more than just prescribing medications. It involves regular monitoring, dietary adjustments, psychological support, and in some cases, surgical intervention. In an academic setting, coordinating this level of care can be cumbersome due to institutional barriers and siloed departments. In our practice, some of these relationships are achieved through partnerships with other like-minded practices. In other situations, team members of other disciplines are employed directly by our practice. Being in an independent practice allowed us the flexibility to prioritize working with the right team members first, and then structuring the relationship model second.
Lesson 4: Technology Is a Vital Tool in Redesigning Health Care
When I worked in a large academic health system, technology was often seen as an administrative burden rather than a clinical asset. Electronic health records (EHR) and a lot of the other IT systems that health care workers and patients interacted with on a regular basis were viewed as a barrier to care or a cause of time burdens instead of as tools to make health care easier. As we built our new practice from scratch, it was critical that we had an IT infrastructure that aligned with our core goals: simplify and automate the health care experience for everyone.
For our practice, we didn’t try to re-invent the wheel. Instead we copied from other industries who had already figured out a great solution for a problem we had. We wanted our patients to have a great customer service experience when interacting with our practice for scheduling, questions, refills, etc. So we implemented a unified communication system that some Fortune 100 companies, with perennial high scores for customer service, used. We wanted a great human resource system that would streamline the administrative time it would take to handle all HR needs for our practice. So we implemented an HR information system that had the best ratings for automation and integration with other business systems. At every point in the process, we reminded ourselves to focus on simplification and automation for every user of the system.
Conclusion: A Rewarding Transition
The lessons I’ve learned along the way — embracing autonomy, understanding financial stewardship, fostering collaboration, and leveraging technology — have helped me work toward a better total health care experience for the community.
This journey has also been deeply fulfilling on a personal level. It has allowed me to build stronger relationships with my patients, focus on long-term health outcomes, and create a practice where innovation and quality truly matter. While the challenges of running a private practice are real, the rewards — both for me and my patients — are immeasurable. If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment. If anything, I should have done it earlier.
Dr. Gupta is Managing Partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition, in Des Plaines, Illinois. He has reported no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.
After more than 10 years of serving in a large academic medical center in Chicago, Illinois, that was part of a national health care system, the decision to transition into private practice wasn’t one I made lightly.
Having built a rewarding career and spent over a quarter of my life in an academic medical center and a national health system, the move to starting an independent practice from scratch was both exciting and daunting. The notion of leaving behind the structure, resources, and safety of the large health system was unsettling. However, as the landscape of health care continues to evolve, with worsening large structural problems within the U.S. health care system, I realized that starting an independent gastroenterology practice — focused on trying to fix some of these large-scale problems from the start — would not only align with my professional goals but also provide the personal satisfaction I had failed to find.
As I reflect on my journey, there are a few key lessons I learned from making this leap — lessons that helped me transition from a highly structured employed physician environment to leading a thriving independent practice focused on redesigning gastroenterology care from scratch.
Lesson 1: Autonomy Opens the Door to Innovation
One of the primary reasons I left the employed physician setting was to gain greater control over my clinical practice and decision-making processes.
In a national health care system, the goal of standardization often dictates not only clinical care, but many “back end” aspects of the entire health care experience. We often see the things that are more visible, such as what supplies/equipment you use, how your patient appointments are scheduled, how many support staff members are assigned to help your practice, what electronic health record system you use, and how shared resources (like GI lab block time or anesthesia teams) are allocated.
However, this also impacts things we don’t usually see, such as what fees are billed for care you are providing (like facility fees), communication systems that your patients need to navigate for help, human resource systems you use, and retirement/health benefits you and your other team members receive.
Standardization has two adverse consequences: 1) it does not allow for personalization and as a result, 2) it suppresses innovation. Standard protocols can streamline processes, but they sometimes fail to account for the nuanced differences between patients, such as genetic factors, unique medical histories, or responses/failures to prior treatments. This rigidity can stifle innovation, as physicians are often bound by guidelines that may not reflect the latest advancements or allow for creative, individualized approaches to care. In the long term, an overemphasis on standardization risks turning health care into a one-size-fits-all model, undermining the potential for breakthroughs.
The transition was challenging at first, as we needed to engage our entire new practice with a different mindset now that many of us had autonomy for the first time. Instead of everyone just practicing health care the way they had done before, we took a page from Elon Musk and challenged every member of the team to ask three questions about everything they do on a daily basis:
- Is what I am doing helping a patient get healthy? (Question every requirement)
- If not, do I still need to do this? (Delete any part of the process you can)
- If so, how can I make this easier, faster, or automated? (Simplify and optimize, accelerate cycle time, and automate)
The freedom to innovate is a hallmark of independent practice. Embracing innovation in every aspect of the practice has been the most critical lesson of this journey.
Lesson 2: Financial Stewardship is Critical for Sustainability
Running an independent practice is not just about medicine — it’s also about managing a business.
This was a stark shift from the large academic health systems, where financial decisions were handled by the “administration.” In my new role as a business owner, understanding the financial aspects of health care was crucial for success. The cost of what patients pay for health care in the United States (either directly in deductibles and coinsurance or indirectly through insurance premiums) is unsustainably high. However, inflation continues to cause substantial increases in almost all the costs of delivering care: medical supplies, salaries, benefits, IT costs, etc. It was critical to develop a financial plan that accounted for these two macro-economic trends, and ideally helped solve for both. In our case, delivering high quality care with a lower cost to patients and payers.
We started by reevaluating our relationship with payers. Whereas being part of a large academic health system, we are often taught to look at payers as the adversary; as an independent practice looking to redesign the health care experience, it was critical for us to look to the payers as a partner in this journey. Understanding payer expectations and structuring contracts that aligned with shared goals of reducing total health care costs for patients was one of the foundations of our financial plan.
Offering office-based endoscopy was one innovation we implemented to significantly impact both patient affordability and practice revenue. By performing procedures like colonoscopies and upper endoscopies in an office setting rather than a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, we eliminated facility fees, which are often a significant part of the total cost of care. This directly lowers out-of-pocket expenses for patients and reduces the overall financial burden on insurance companies. At the same time, it allows the practice to capture more of the revenue from these procedures, without the overhead costs associated with larger facilities. This model creates a win-win situation: patients save money while receiving the same quality of care, and the practice experiences an increase in profitability and autonomy in managing its services.
Lesson 3: Collaborative Care and Multidisciplinary Teams Can Exist Anywhere
One aspect I deeply valued in academia was the collaborative environment — having specialists across disciplines work together on challenging cases. In private practice, I was concerned that I would lose this collegial atmosphere. However, I quickly learned that building a robust network of multidisciplinary collaborators was achievable in independent practice, just like it was in a large health system.
In our practice, we established close relationships with primary care physicians, surgeons, advanced practice providers, dietitians, behavioral health specialists, and others. These partnerships were not just referral networks but integrated care teams where communication and shared decision-making were prioritized. By fostering collaboration, we could offer patients comprehensive care that addressed their physical, psychological, and nutritional needs.
For example, managing patients with chronic conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, cirrhosis, or obesity requires more than just prescribing medications. It involves regular monitoring, dietary adjustments, psychological support, and in some cases, surgical intervention. In an academic setting, coordinating this level of care can be cumbersome due to institutional barriers and siloed departments. In our practice, some of these relationships are achieved through partnerships with other like-minded practices. In other situations, team members of other disciplines are employed directly by our practice. Being in an independent practice allowed us the flexibility to prioritize working with the right team members first, and then structuring the relationship model second.
Lesson 4: Technology Is a Vital Tool in Redesigning Health Care
When I worked in a large academic health system, technology was often seen as an administrative burden rather than a clinical asset. Electronic health records (EHR) and a lot of the other IT systems that health care workers and patients interacted with on a regular basis were viewed as a barrier to care or a cause of time burdens instead of as tools to make health care easier. As we built our new practice from scratch, it was critical that we had an IT infrastructure that aligned with our core goals: simplify and automate the health care experience for everyone.
For our practice, we didn’t try to re-invent the wheel. Instead we copied from other industries who had already figured out a great solution for a problem we had. We wanted our patients to have a great customer service experience when interacting with our practice for scheduling, questions, refills, etc. So we implemented a unified communication system that some Fortune 100 companies, with perennial high scores for customer service, used. We wanted a great human resource system that would streamline the administrative time it would take to handle all HR needs for our practice. So we implemented an HR information system that had the best ratings for automation and integration with other business systems. At every point in the process, we reminded ourselves to focus on simplification and automation for every user of the system.
Conclusion: A Rewarding Transition
The lessons I’ve learned along the way — embracing autonomy, understanding financial stewardship, fostering collaboration, and leveraging technology — have helped me work toward a better total health care experience for the community.
This journey has also been deeply fulfilling on a personal level. It has allowed me to build stronger relationships with my patients, focus on long-term health outcomes, and create a practice where innovation and quality truly matter. While the challenges of running a private practice are real, the rewards — both for me and my patients — are immeasurable. If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment. If anything, I should have done it earlier.
Dr. Gupta is Managing Partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition, in Des Plaines, Illinois. He has reported no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.
After more than 10 years of serving in a large academic medical center in Chicago, Illinois, that was part of a national health care system, the decision to transition into private practice wasn’t one I made lightly.
Having built a rewarding career and spent over a quarter of my life in an academic medical center and a national health system, the move to starting an independent practice from scratch was both exciting and daunting. The notion of leaving behind the structure, resources, and safety of the large health system was unsettling. However, as the landscape of health care continues to evolve, with worsening large structural problems within the U.S. health care system, I realized that starting an independent gastroenterology practice — focused on trying to fix some of these large-scale problems from the start — would not only align with my professional goals but also provide the personal satisfaction I had failed to find.
As I reflect on my journey, there are a few key lessons I learned from making this leap — lessons that helped me transition from a highly structured employed physician environment to leading a thriving independent practice focused on redesigning gastroenterology care from scratch.
Lesson 1: Autonomy Opens the Door to Innovation
One of the primary reasons I left the employed physician setting was to gain greater control over my clinical practice and decision-making processes.
In a national health care system, the goal of standardization often dictates not only clinical care, but many “back end” aspects of the entire health care experience. We often see the things that are more visible, such as what supplies/equipment you use, how your patient appointments are scheduled, how many support staff members are assigned to help your practice, what electronic health record system you use, and how shared resources (like GI lab block time or anesthesia teams) are allocated.
However, this also impacts things we don’t usually see, such as what fees are billed for care you are providing (like facility fees), communication systems that your patients need to navigate for help, human resource systems you use, and retirement/health benefits you and your other team members receive.
Standardization has two adverse consequences: 1) it does not allow for personalization and as a result, 2) it suppresses innovation. Standard protocols can streamline processes, but they sometimes fail to account for the nuanced differences between patients, such as genetic factors, unique medical histories, or responses/failures to prior treatments. This rigidity can stifle innovation, as physicians are often bound by guidelines that may not reflect the latest advancements or allow for creative, individualized approaches to care. In the long term, an overemphasis on standardization risks turning health care into a one-size-fits-all model, undermining the potential for breakthroughs.
The transition was challenging at first, as we needed to engage our entire new practice with a different mindset now that many of us had autonomy for the first time. Instead of everyone just practicing health care the way they had done before, we took a page from Elon Musk and challenged every member of the team to ask three questions about everything they do on a daily basis:
- Is what I am doing helping a patient get healthy? (Question every requirement)
- If not, do I still need to do this? (Delete any part of the process you can)
- If so, how can I make this easier, faster, or automated? (Simplify and optimize, accelerate cycle time, and automate)
The freedom to innovate is a hallmark of independent practice. Embracing innovation in every aspect of the practice has been the most critical lesson of this journey.
Lesson 2: Financial Stewardship is Critical for Sustainability
Running an independent practice is not just about medicine — it’s also about managing a business.
This was a stark shift from the large academic health systems, where financial decisions were handled by the “administration.” In my new role as a business owner, understanding the financial aspects of health care was crucial for success. The cost of what patients pay for health care in the United States (either directly in deductibles and coinsurance or indirectly through insurance premiums) is unsustainably high. However, inflation continues to cause substantial increases in almost all the costs of delivering care: medical supplies, salaries, benefits, IT costs, etc. It was critical to develop a financial plan that accounted for these two macro-economic trends, and ideally helped solve for both. In our case, delivering high quality care with a lower cost to patients and payers.
We started by reevaluating our relationship with payers. Whereas being part of a large academic health system, we are often taught to look at payers as the adversary; as an independent practice looking to redesign the health care experience, it was critical for us to look to the payers as a partner in this journey. Understanding payer expectations and structuring contracts that aligned with shared goals of reducing total health care costs for patients was one of the foundations of our financial plan.
Offering office-based endoscopy was one innovation we implemented to significantly impact both patient affordability and practice revenue. By performing procedures like colonoscopies and upper endoscopies in an office setting rather than a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, we eliminated facility fees, which are often a significant part of the total cost of care. This directly lowers out-of-pocket expenses for patients and reduces the overall financial burden on insurance companies. At the same time, it allows the practice to capture more of the revenue from these procedures, without the overhead costs associated with larger facilities. This model creates a win-win situation: patients save money while receiving the same quality of care, and the practice experiences an increase in profitability and autonomy in managing its services.
Lesson 3: Collaborative Care and Multidisciplinary Teams Can Exist Anywhere
One aspect I deeply valued in academia was the collaborative environment — having specialists across disciplines work together on challenging cases. In private practice, I was concerned that I would lose this collegial atmosphere. However, I quickly learned that building a robust network of multidisciplinary collaborators was achievable in independent practice, just like it was in a large health system.
In our practice, we established close relationships with primary care physicians, surgeons, advanced practice providers, dietitians, behavioral health specialists, and others. These partnerships were not just referral networks but integrated care teams where communication and shared decision-making were prioritized. By fostering collaboration, we could offer patients comprehensive care that addressed their physical, psychological, and nutritional needs.
For example, managing patients with chronic conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, cirrhosis, or obesity requires more than just prescribing medications. It involves regular monitoring, dietary adjustments, psychological support, and in some cases, surgical intervention. In an academic setting, coordinating this level of care can be cumbersome due to institutional barriers and siloed departments. In our practice, some of these relationships are achieved through partnerships with other like-minded practices. In other situations, team members of other disciplines are employed directly by our practice. Being in an independent practice allowed us the flexibility to prioritize working with the right team members first, and then structuring the relationship model second.
Lesson 4: Technology Is a Vital Tool in Redesigning Health Care
When I worked in a large academic health system, technology was often seen as an administrative burden rather than a clinical asset. Electronic health records (EHR) and a lot of the other IT systems that health care workers and patients interacted with on a regular basis were viewed as a barrier to care or a cause of time burdens instead of as tools to make health care easier. As we built our new practice from scratch, it was critical that we had an IT infrastructure that aligned with our core goals: simplify and automate the health care experience for everyone.
For our practice, we didn’t try to re-invent the wheel. Instead we copied from other industries who had already figured out a great solution for a problem we had. We wanted our patients to have a great customer service experience when interacting with our practice for scheduling, questions, refills, etc. So we implemented a unified communication system that some Fortune 100 companies, with perennial high scores for customer service, used. We wanted a great human resource system that would streamline the administrative time it would take to handle all HR needs for our practice. So we implemented an HR information system that had the best ratings for automation and integration with other business systems. At every point in the process, we reminded ourselves to focus on simplification and automation for every user of the system.
Conclusion: A Rewarding Transition
The lessons I’ve learned along the way — embracing autonomy, understanding financial stewardship, fostering collaboration, and leveraging technology — have helped me work toward a better total health care experience for the community.
This journey has also been deeply fulfilling on a personal level. It has allowed me to build stronger relationships with my patients, focus on long-term health outcomes, and create a practice where innovation and quality truly matter. While the challenges of running a private practice are real, the rewards — both for me and my patients — are immeasurable. If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment. If anything, I should have done it earlier.
Dr. Gupta is Managing Partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition, in Des Plaines, Illinois. He has reported no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.
Medical, Endoscopic, and Surgical Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Introduction
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a frequently encountered condition, and rising annually.1 A recent meta-analysis suggests nearly 14% (1.03 billion) of the population are affected worldwide. Differences may range by region from 12% in Latin America to 20% in North America, and by country from 4% in China to 23% in Turkey.1 In the United States, 21% of the population are afflicted with weekly GERD symptoms.2 Novel medical therapies and endoscopic options provide clinicians with opportunities to help patients with GERD.3
Diagnosis
Definition
GERD was originally defined by the Montreal consensus as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications.4 Heartburn and regurgitation are common symptoms of GERD, with a sensitivity of 30%-76% and specificity of 62%-96% for erosive esophagitis (EE), which occurs when the reflux of stomach content causes esophageal mucosal breaks.5 The presence of characteristic mucosal injury observed during an upper endoscopy or abnormal esophageal acid exposure on ambulatory reflux monitoring are objective evidence of GERD. A trial of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may function as a diagnostic test for patients exhibiting the typical symptoms of GERD without any alarm symptoms.3,6
Endoscopic Evaluation and Confirmation
The 2022 American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) clinical practice update recommends diagnostic endoscopy, after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks, in patients whose GERD symptoms do not respond adequately to an empiric trial of a PPI.3 Those with GERD and alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, bleeding, and vomiting should undergo endoscopy as soon as possible. Endoscopic findings of EE (Los Angeles Grade B or more severe) and long-segment Barrett’s esophagus (> 3-cm segment with intestinal metaplasia on biopsy) are diagnostic of GERD.3
Reflux Monitoring
With ambulatory reflux monitoring (pH or impedance-pH), esophageal acid exposure (or neutral refluxate in impedance testing) can be measured to confirm GERD diagnosis and to correlate symptoms with reflux episodes. Patients with atypical GERD symptoms or patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GERD whose symptoms have not improved sufficiently with twice-daily PPI therapy should have esophageal impedance-pH monitoring while on PPIs.6,7
Esophageal Manometry
High-resolution esophageal manometry can be used to assess motility abnormalities associated with GERD.
Although no manometric abnormality is unique to GERD, weak lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure and ineffective esophageal motility frequently coexist with severe GERD.6
Manometry is particularly useful in patients considering surgical or endoscopic anti-reflux procedures to evaluate for achalasia,3 an important contraindication to surgery.
Medical Management
Management of GERD requires a multidisciplinary and personalized approach based on symptom presentation, body mass index, endoscopic findings (e.g., presence of EE, Barrett’s esophagus, hiatal hernia), and physiological abnormalities (e.g., gastroparesis or ineffective motility).3
Lifestyle Modifications
Recommended lifestyle modifications include weight loss for patients with obesity, stress reduction, tobacco and alcohol cessation, elevating the head of the bed, staying upright during and after meals, avoidance of food intake < 3 hours before bedtime, and cessation of foods that potentially aggravate reflux symptoms such as coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, acidic foods, and foods with high fat content.6,8
Medications
Pharmacologic therapy for GERD includes medications that primarily aim to neutralize or reduce gastric acid -- we summarize options in Table 1.3,8
Proton Pump Inhibitors
Most guidelines suggest a trial of 4-8 weeks of once-daily enteric-coated PPI before meals in patients with typical GERD symptoms and no alarm symptoms. Escalation to double-dose PPI may be considered in the case of persistent symptoms. The relative potencies of standard-dose pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and rabeprazole are presented in Table 1.9 When a PPI switch is needed, rabeprazole may be considered as it is a PPI that does not rely on CYP2C19 for primary metabolism.9
Acid suppression should be weaned down to the lowest effective dose or converted to H2RAs or other antacids once symptoms are sufficiently controlled unless patients have EE, Barrett’s esophagus, or peptic stricture.3 Patients with severe GERD may require long-term PPI therapy or an invasive anti-reflux procedure.
Recent studies have shown that potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCAB) like vonoprazan may offer more effective gastric acid inhibition. While not included in the latest clinical practice update, vonoprazan is thought to be superior to lansoprazole for those with LA Grade C/D esophagitis for both symptom relief and healing at 2 weeks.10
Adjunctive Therapies
Alginates can function as a physical barrier to even neutral reflux and may be helpful for patients with postprandial or nighttime symptoms as well as those with hiatal hernia.3 H2RAs can also help mitigate nighttime symptoms.3 Baclofen is a gamma-aminobutyric acid–B agonist which inhibits transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) and may be effective for patients with belching.3 Prokinetics may be helpful for GERD with concomitant gastroparesis.3 Sucralfate is a mucosal protective agent, but there is a lack of data supporting its efficacy in GERD treatment. Consider referral to a behavioral therapist for supplemental therapies, hypnotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies for functional heartburn or reflux-associated esophageal hypervigilance or reflux hypersensitivity.3
When to Refer to Higher Level of Care
For patients who do not wish to remain on longer-term pharmacologic therapy or would benefit from anatomic repair, clinicians should have a discussion of risks and benefits prior to consideration of referral for anti-reflux procedures.3,6,8 We advise this conversation should include review of patient health status, postsurgical side effects such as increased flatus, bloating and dysphagia as well as the potential need to still resume PPI post operation.8
Endoscopic Management
Patient Selection And Evaluation
For the groups indicated for a higher level of care, we agree with AGA recommendations, multi-society guidelines, and expert review,3,7,11,12 and highlight potential options in Table 2. Step-up options should be based on patient characteristics and reviewed carefully with patients. Endoscopic therapies are less invasive than surgery and may be considered for those who do not require anatomic repair of hiatal hernia, do not want surgery, or are not suitable for surgery.
The pathophysiology of GERD is from a loss of the anti-reflux barrier of the esophageal gastric junction (EGJ) at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) leading to unintended retrograde movement of gastric contents.6 Anatomically, the LES is composed of muscles of the distal esophagus and sling fibers of the proximal stomach, the “external valve” from the diaphragmatic crura, and the “internal valve” from the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV). GERD occurs from mechanical failure of the LES. First, there may be disproportional dilation of the diaphragmatic crura as categorized by Hill Grade of the GEFV as seen by a retroflexed view of EGJ after 30-45 seconds of insufflation.13 Second, there may be a migration of the LES away from the diaphragmatic crura as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Provocative maneuvers may reveal a sliding hernia by gentle retraction of the endoscope while under retroflexed view.13 Third, there may be more frequent TLESR associated with GERD.12
The aim of most interventions is to restore competency of the LES by reconstruction of the GEFV via suture or staple-based approximation of tissue.11,12 Intraluminal therapy may only target the GEFV at the internal valve. Therefore, most endoscopic interventions are limited to patients with intact diaphragmatic crura (ie, small to no hiatal hernia and GEFV Hill Grade 1 to 2). Contraindications for endoscopic therapy are moderate to severe reflux (ie, LA Grade C/ D), hiatus hernia 2 cm or larger, strictures, or long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.
Utility, Safety, and Outcomes of TIF
Historically, endoscopic therapy targeting endoscopic fundoplication started with EndoLuminal gastro-gastric fundoplication (ELF, 2005) which was a proof of concept of safe manipulation and suture for gastro-gastric plication to below the Z-line. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) 1.0 was suggested in 2007 for clinical application by proposing a longitudinal oriented esophago-gastric plication 1 cm above the Z-line.
In 2009, TIF2.0 was proposed as a rotational 270° wrap of the cardia and fundus to a full-thickness esophago-gastric fundoplication around 2-4 cm of the distal esophagus. Like a surgical fundoplication, this reinforces sling fibers, increases the Angle of His and improves the cardiac notch. TIF 2.0 is indicated for those with small (< 2 cm) or no hiatal hernia and a GEFV Hill Grade 1 or 2. The present iteration of TIF2.0 uses EsophyX-Z (EndoGastric Solutions; Redmond, Washington) which features dual fastener deployment and a simplified firing mechanism. Plication is secured via nonresorbable polypropylene T-fasteners with strength equivalence of 3-0 sutures.
Compared with the original, TIF2.0 represents a decrease of severe adverse events from 2%-2.5% to 0.4%-1%.11,14 Based on longitudinal TEMPO data, patient satisfaction ranges between 70% and 90% and rates of patients reverting to daily PPI use are 17% and 34% at 1 and 5 years. A 5% reintervention rate was noted to be comparable with surgical reoperation for fundoplication.15 One retrospective evaluation of patients with failed TIF followed by successful cTIF noted that in all failures there was a documented underestimation of a much larger crura defect at time of index procedure.16 Chest pain is common post procedure and patients and collaborating providers should be counseled on the expected course. In our practice, we admit patients for at least 1 postprocedure day and consider scheduling symptom control medications for those with significant pain.
TIF2.0 for Special Populations
Indications for TIF2.0 continue to evolve. In 2017, concomitant TIF2.0 with hiatal hernia repair (cTIF or HH-TIF) for hernia > 2 cm was accepted for expanded use. In one study, cTIF has been shown to have similar outcomes for postprocedural PPI use, dysphagia, wrap disruption, and hiatal hernia recurrence, compared with hiatal hernia repair paired with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with possibly shorter postadmission stay, serious adverse events, and bloating.17 A cTIF may be performed in a single general anesthetic session typically with a surgical hiatal hernia repair followed by TIF2.0.
Other Endoscopic Procedures
Several other endoscopic interventions have been proposed for GERD management. The following procedures are under continuous study and should be considered only by those with expertise.
Stretta
The Stretta device (Restech; Houston, Texas) was approved in 2000 for use of a radiofrequency (RF) generator and catheter applied to the squamocolumnar junction under irrigation. Ideal candidates for this nonablative procedure may include patients with confirmed GERD, low-grade EE, without Barrett’s esophagus, small hiatal hernia, and a competent LES with pressure > 5 mmHg. Meta-analysis has yielded conflicting results in terms of its efficacy, compared with TIF2.0, and recent multi-society guidance suggests fundoplication over Stretta.7
ARM, MASE, and RAP
Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARM) has been proposed based on the observation that patients undergoing mucosectomy for neoplasms in the cardia had improvement of reflux symptoms.11,12 Systematic review has suggested a clinical response of 80% of either PPI discontinuation or reduction, but 17% of adverse events include development of strictures. Iterations of ARM continue to be studied including ARM with band ligation (L-ARM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection for GERD (ESD-G).12
Experts have proposed incorporating endoscopic suturing of the EGJ to modulate the LES. Mucosal ablation and suturing of the EG junction (MASE) has been proposed by first priming tissue via argon plasma coagulation (APC) prior to endoscopic overstitch of two to three interrupted sutures below the EGJ to narrow and elongate the EGJ. The resection and plication (RAP) procedure performs a mucosal resection prior to full-thickness plication of the LES and cardia.11,12 Expert opinion has suggested that RAP may be used in patients with altered anatomy whereas MASE may be used when resection is not possible (eg, prior scarring, resection or ablation).12
Surgical Management
We agree with a recent multi-society guideline recommending that an interdisciplinary consultation with surgery for indicated patients with refractory GERD and underlying hiatal hernia, or who do not want lifelong medical therapy.
Fundoplication creates a surgical wrap to reinforce the LES and may be performed laparoscopically. Contraindications include body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2 and significantly impaired dysmotility. Fundoplication of 180°, 270°, and 360° may achieve comparable outcomes, but a laparoscopic toupet fundoplication (LTF 270°) may have fewer postsurgical issues of dysphagia and bloating. Advantages for both anterior and posterior partial fundoplications have been demonstrated by network meta-analysis. Therefore, a multi-society guideline for GERD suggests partial over complete fundoplication.7 Compared with posterior techniques, anterior fundoplication (Watson fundoplication) led to more recurrent reflux symptoms but less dysphagia and other side effects.19
Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical option that strengthens the LES with magnets to improve sphincter competence. In addition to listed contraindications of fundoplication, patients with an allergy to nickel and/or titanium are also contraindicated to receive MSA.7 MSA has been suggested to be equivalent to LNF although there may be less gas bloat and greater ability to belch on follow up.20
Surgical Options for Special Populations
Patients with medically refractory GERD and a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 may benefit from either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or fundoplication, however sleeve gastrectomy is not advised.7 In patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, RYGB may provide an optimal choice. We agree with consultation with a bariatric surgeon when reviewing these situations.
Conclusion
Patients with GERD are commonly encountered worldwide. Empiric PPI are effective mainstays for medical treatment of GERD. Novel PCABs (e.g., vonoprazan) may present new options for GERD with LA Grade C/D esophagitis EE and merit more study. In refractory cases or for patients who do not want long term medical therapy, step-up therapy may be considered via endoscopic or surgical interventions. Patient anatomy and comorbidities should be considered by the clinician to inform treatment options. Surgery may have the most durable outcomes for those requiring step-up therapy. Improvements in technique, devices and patient selection have allowed TIF2.0 to grow as a viable offering with excellent 5-year outcomes for indicated patients.
Dr. Chang, Dr. Tintara, and Dr. Phan are based in the Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. They have no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
1. Richter JE andRubenstein JH. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.045.
2. El-Serag HB et al. Gut. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269.
3. Yadlapati R et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.025.
4. Vakil N et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Aug. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x.
5. Numans ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00011.
6. Kahrilas PJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2008 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.045.
7. Slater BJ et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09817-3.
8. Gyawali CP et al. Gut. 2018 Jul. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722.
9. Graham DY and Tansel A. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.09.033.
10. Graham DY and Dore MP. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.018.
11. Haseeb M and Thompson CC. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Sep. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000968.
12. Kolb JM and Chang KJ. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Jul. doi:10.1097/MOG.0000000000000944.
13. Nguyen NT et al. Foregut. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1177/26345161221126961.
14. Mazzoleni G et al. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Feb. doi: 10.1055/a-1322-2209.
15. Trad KS et al. Surg Innov. 2018 Apr. doi: 10.1177/1553350618755214.
16. Kolb JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(21)02953-X.
17. Jaruvongvanich VK et al. Endosc Int Open. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1055/a-1972-9190.
18. Lee Y et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Jul. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10151-5.
19. Andreou A et al. Surg Endosc. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07208-9.
20. Guidozzi N et al. Dis Esophagus. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.1093/dote/doz031.
Introduction
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a frequently encountered condition, and rising annually.1 A recent meta-analysis suggests nearly 14% (1.03 billion) of the population are affected worldwide. Differences may range by region from 12% in Latin America to 20% in North America, and by country from 4% in China to 23% in Turkey.1 In the United States, 21% of the population are afflicted with weekly GERD symptoms.2 Novel medical therapies and endoscopic options provide clinicians with opportunities to help patients with GERD.3
Diagnosis
Definition
GERD was originally defined by the Montreal consensus as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications.4 Heartburn and regurgitation are common symptoms of GERD, with a sensitivity of 30%-76% and specificity of 62%-96% for erosive esophagitis (EE), which occurs when the reflux of stomach content causes esophageal mucosal breaks.5 The presence of characteristic mucosal injury observed during an upper endoscopy or abnormal esophageal acid exposure on ambulatory reflux monitoring are objective evidence of GERD. A trial of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may function as a diagnostic test for patients exhibiting the typical symptoms of GERD without any alarm symptoms.3,6
Endoscopic Evaluation and Confirmation
The 2022 American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) clinical practice update recommends diagnostic endoscopy, after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks, in patients whose GERD symptoms do not respond adequately to an empiric trial of a PPI.3 Those with GERD and alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, bleeding, and vomiting should undergo endoscopy as soon as possible. Endoscopic findings of EE (Los Angeles Grade B or more severe) and long-segment Barrett’s esophagus (> 3-cm segment with intestinal metaplasia on biopsy) are diagnostic of GERD.3
Reflux Monitoring
With ambulatory reflux monitoring (pH or impedance-pH), esophageal acid exposure (or neutral refluxate in impedance testing) can be measured to confirm GERD diagnosis and to correlate symptoms with reflux episodes. Patients with atypical GERD symptoms or patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GERD whose symptoms have not improved sufficiently with twice-daily PPI therapy should have esophageal impedance-pH monitoring while on PPIs.6,7
Esophageal Manometry
High-resolution esophageal manometry can be used to assess motility abnormalities associated with GERD.
Although no manometric abnormality is unique to GERD, weak lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure and ineffective esophageal motility frequently coexist with severe GERD.6
Manometry is particularly useful in patients considering surgical or endoscopic anti-reflux procedures to evaluate for achalasia,3 an important contraindication to surgery.
Medical Management
Management of GERD requires a multidisciplinary and personalized approach based on symptom presentation, body mass index, endoscopic findings (e.g., presence of EE, Barrett’s esophagus, hiatal hernia), and physiological abnormalities (e.g., gastroparesis or ineffective motility).3
Lifestyle Modifications
Recommended lifestyle modifications include weight loss for patients with obesity, stress reduction, tobacco and alcohol cessation, elevating the head of the bed, staying upright during and after meals, avoidance of food intake < 3 hours before bedtime, and cessation of foods that potentially aggravate reflux symptoms such as coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, acidic foods, and foods with high fat content.6,8
Medications
Pharmacologic therapy for GERD includes medications that primarily aim to neutralize or reduce gastric acid -- we summarize options in Table 1.3,8
Proton Pump Inhibitors
Most guidelines suggest a trial of 4-8 weeks of once-daily enteric-coated PPI before meals in patients with typical GERD symptoms and no alarm symptoms. Escalation to double-dose PPI may be considered in the case of persistent symptoms. The relative potencies of standard-dose pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and rabeprazole are presented in Table 1.9 When a PPI switch is needed, rabeprazole may be considered as it is a PPI that does not rely on CYP2C19 for primary metabolism.9
Acid suppression should be weaned down to the lowest effective dose or converted to H2RAs or other antacids once symptoms are sufficiently controlled unless patients have EE, Barrett’s esophagus, or peptic stricture.3 Patients with severe GERD may require long-term PPI therapy or an invasive anti-reflux procedure.
Recent studies have shown that potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCAB) like vonoprazan may offer more effective gastric acid inhibition. While not included in the latest clinical practice update, vonoprazan is thought to be superior to lansoprazole for those with LA Grade C/D esophagitis for both symptom relief and healing at 2 weeks.10
Adjunctive Therapies
Alginates can function as a physical barrier to even neutral reflux and may be helpful for patients with postprandial or nighttime symptoms as well as those with hiatal hernia.3 H2RAs can also help mitigate nighttime symptoms.3 Baclofen is a gamma-aminobutyric acid–B agonist which inhibits transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) and may be effective for patients with belching.3 Prokinetics may be helpful for GERD with concomitant gastroparesis.3 Sucralfate is a mucosal protective agent, but there is a lack of data supporting its efficacy in GERD treatment. Consider referral to a behavioral therapist for supplemental therapies, hypnotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies for functional heartburn or reflux-associated esophageal hypervigilance or reflux hypersensitivity.3
When to Refer to Higher Level of Care
For patients who do not wish to remain on longer-term pharmacologic therapy or would benefit from anatomic repair, clinicians should have a discussion of risks and benefits prior to consideration of referral for anti-reflux procedures.3,6,8 We advise this conversation should include review of patient health status, postsurgical side effects such as increased flatus, bloating and dysphagia as well as the potential need to still resume PPI post operation.8
Endoscopic Management
Patient Selection And Evaluation
For the groups indicated for a higher level of care, we agree with AGA recommendations, multi-society guidelines, and expert review,3,7,11,12 and highlight potential options in Table 2. Step-up options should be based on patient characteristics and reviewed carefully with patients. Endoscopic therapies are less invasive than surgery and may be considered for those who do not require anatomic repair of hiatal hernia, do not want surgery, or are not suitable for surgery.
The pathophysiology of GERD is from a loss of the anti-reflux barrier of the esophageal gastric junction (EGJ) at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) leading to unintended retrograde movement of gastric contents.6 Anatomically, the LES is composed of muscles of the distal esophagus and sling fibers of the proximal stomach, the “external valve” from the diaphragmatic crura, and the “internal valve” from the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV). GERD occurs from mechanical failure of the LES. First, there may be disproportional dilation of the diaphragmatic crura as categorized by Hill Grade of the GEFV as seen by a retroflexed view of EGJ after 30-45 seconds of insufflation.13 Second, there may be a migration of the LES away from the diaphragmatic crura as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Provocative maneuvers may reveal a sliding hernia by gentle retraction of the endoscope while under retroflexed view.13 Third, there may be more frequent TLESR associated with GERD.12
The aim of most interventions is to restore competency of the LES by reconstruction of the GEFV via suture or staple-based approximation of tissue.11,12 Intraluminal therapy may only target the GEFV at the internal valve. Therefore, most endoscopic interventions are limited to patients with intact diaphragmatic crura (ie, small to no hiatal hernia and GEFV Hill Grade 1 to 2). Contraindications for endoscopic therapy are moderate to severe reflux (ie, LA Grade C/ D), hiatus hernia 2 cm or larger, strictures, or long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.
Utility, Safety, and Outcomes of TIF
Historically, endoscopic therapy targeting endoscopic fundoplication started with EndoLuminal gastro-gastric fundoplication (ELF, 2005) which was a proof of concept of safe manipulation and suture for gastro-gastric plication to below the Z-line. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) 1.0 was suggested in 2007 for clinical application by proposing a longitudinal oriented esophago-gastric plication 1 cm above the Z-line.
In 2009, TIF2.0 was proposed as a rotational 270° wrap of the cardia and fundus to a full-thickness esophago-gastric fundoplication around 2-4 cm of the distal esophagus. Like a surgical fundoplication, this reinforces sling fibers, increases the Angle of His and improves the cardiac notch. TIF 2.0 is indicated for those with small (< 2 cm) or no hiatal hernia and a GEFV Hill Grade 1 or 2. The present iteration of TIF2.0 uses EsophyX-Z (EndoGastric Solutions; Redmond, Washington) which features dual fastener deployment and a simplified firing mechanism. Plication is secured via nonresorbable polypropylene T-fasteners with strength equivalence of 3-0 sutures.
Compared with the original, TIF2.0 represents a decrease of severe adverse events from 2%-2.5% to 0.4%-1%.11,14 Based on longitudinal TEMPO data, patient satisfaction ranges between 70% and 90% and rates of patients reverting to daily PPI use are 17% and 34% at 1 and 5 years. A 5% reintervention rate was noted to be comparable with surgical reoperation for fundoplication.15 One retrospective evaluation of patients with failed TIF followed by successful cTIF noted that in all failures there was a documented underestimation of a much larger crura defect at time of index procedure.16 Chest pain is common post procedure and patients and collaborating providers should be counseled on the expected course. In our practice, we admit patients for at least 1 postprocedure day and consider scheduling symptom control medications for those with significant pain.
TIF2.0 for Special Populations
Indications for TIF2.0 continue to evolve. In 2017, concomitant TIF2.0 with hiatal hernia repair (cTIF or HH-TIF) for hernia > 2 cm was accepted for expanded use. In one study, cTIF has been shown to have similar outcomes for postprocedural PPI use, dysphagia, wrap disruption, and hiatal hernia recurrence, compared with hiatal hernia repair paired with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with possibly shorter postadmission stay, serious adverse events, and bloating.17 A cTIF may be performed in a single general anesthetic session typically with a surgical hiatal hernia repair followed by TIF2.0.
Other Endoscopic Procedures
Several other endoscopic interventions have been proposed for GERD management. The following procedures are under continuous study and should be considered only by those with expertise.
Stretta
The Stretta device (Restech; Houston, Texas) was approved in 2000 for use of a radiofrequency (RF) generator and catheter applied to the squamocolumnar junction under irrigation. Ideal candidates for this nonablative procedure may include patients with confirmed GERD, low-grade EE, without Barrett’s esophagus, small hiatal hernia, and a competent LES with pressure > 5 mmHg. Meta-analysis has yielded conflicting results in terms of its efficacy, compared with TIF2.0, and recent multi-society guidance suggests fundoplication over Stretta.7
ARM, MASE, and RAP
Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARM) has been proposed based on the observation that patients undergoing mucosectomy for neoplasms in the cardia had improvement of reflux symptoms.11,12 Systematic review has suggested a clinical response of 80% of either PPI discontinuation or reduction, but 17% of adverse events include development of strictures. Iterations of ARM continue to be studied including ARM with band ligation (L-ARM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection for GERD (ESD-G).12
Experts have proposed incorporating endoscopic suturing of the EGJ to modulate the LES. Mucosal ablation and suturing of the EG junction (MASE) has been proposed by first priming tissue via argon plasma coagulation (APC) prior to endoscopic overstitch of two to three interrupted sutures below the EGJ to narrow and elongate the EGJ. The resection and plication (RAP) procedure performs a mucosal resection prior to full-thickness plication of the LES and cardia.11,12 Expert opinion has suggested that RAP may be used in patients with altered anatomy whereas MASE may be used when resection is not possible (eg, prior scarring, resection or ablation).12
Surgical Management
We agree with a recent multi-society guideline recommending that an interdisciplinary consultation with surgery for indicated patients with refractory GERD and underlying hiatal hernia, or who do not want lifelong medical therapy.
Fundoplication creates a surgical wrap to reinforce the LES and may be performed laparoscopically. Contraindications include body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2 and significantly impaired dysmotility. Fundoplication of 180°, 270°, and 360° may achieve comparable outcomes, but a laparoscopic toupet fundoplication (LTF 270°) may have fewer postsurgical issues of dysphagia and bloating. Advantages for both anterior and posterior partial fundoplications have been demonstrated by network meta-analysis. Therefore, a multi-society guideline for GERD suggests partial over complete fundoplication.7 Compared with posterior techniques, anterior fundoplication (Watson fundoplication) led to more recurrent reflux symptoms but less dysphagia and other side effects.19
Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical option that strengthens the LES with magnets to improve sphincter competence. In addition to listed contraindications of fundoplication, patients with an allergy to nickel and/or titanium are also contraindicated to receive MSA.7 MSA has been suggested to be equivalent to LNF although there may be less gas bloat and greater ability to belch on follow up.20
Surgical Options for Special Populations
Patients with medically refractory GERD and a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 may benefit from either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or fundoplication, however sleeve gastrectomy is not advised.7 In patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, RYGB may provide an optimal choice. We agree with consultation with a bariatric surgeon when reviewing these situations.
Conclusion
Patients with GERD are commonly encountered worldwide. Empiric PPI are effective mainstays for medical treatment of GERD. Novel PCABs (e.g., vonoprazan) may present new options for GERD with LA Grade C/D esophagitis EE and merit more study. In refractory cases or for patients who do not want long term medical therapy, step-up therapy may be considered via endoscopic or surgical interventions. Patient anatomy and comorbidities should be considered by the clinician to inform treatment options. Surgery may have the most durable outcomes for those requiring step-up therapy. Improvements in technique, devices and patient selection have allowed TIF2.0 to grow as a viable offering with excellent 5-year outcomes for indicated patients.
Dr. Chang, Dr. Tintara, and Dr. Phan are based in the Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. They have no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
1. Richter JE andRubenstein JH. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.045.
2. El-Serag HB et al. Gut. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269.
3. Yadlapati R et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.025.
4. Vakil N et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Aug. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x.
5. Numans ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00011.
6. Kahrilas PJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2008 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.045.
7. Slater BJ et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09817-3.
8. Gyawali CP et al. Gut. 2018 Jul. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722.
9. Graham DY and Tansel A. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.09.033.
10. Graham DY and Dore MP. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.018.
11. Haseeb M and Thompson CC. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Sep. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000968.
12. Kolb JM and Chang KJ. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Jul. doi:10.1097/MOG.0000000000000944.
13. Nguyen NT et al. Foregut. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1177/26345161221126961.
14. Mazzoleni G et al. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Feb. doi: 10.1055/a-1322-2209.
15. Trad KS et al. Surg Innov. 2018 Apr. doi: 10.1177/1553350618755214.
16. Kolb JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(21)02953-X.
17. Jaruvongvanich VK et al. Endosc Int Open. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1055/a-1972-9190.
18. Lee Y et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Jul. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10151-5.
19. Andreou A et al. Surg Endosc. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07208-9.
20. Guidozzi N et al. Dis Esophagus. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.1093/dote/doz031.
Introduction
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a frequently encountered condition, and rising annually.1 A recent meta-analysis suggests nearly 14% (1.03 billion) of the population are affected worldwide. Differences may range by region from 12% in Latin America to 20% in North America, and by country from 4% in China to 23% in Turkey.1 In the United States, 21% of the population are afflicted with weekly GERD symptoms.2 Novel medical therapies and endoscopic options provide clinicians with opportunities to help patients with GERD.3
Diagnosis
Definition
GERD was originally defined by the Montreal consensus as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications.4 Heartburn and regurgitation are common symptoms of GERD, with a sensitivity of 30%-76% and specificity of 62%-96% for erosive esophagitis (EE), which occurs when the reflux of stomach content causes esophageal mucosal breaks.5 The presence of characteristic mucosal injury observed during an upper endoscopy or abnormal esophageal acid exposure on ambulatory reflux monitoring are objective evidence of GERD. A trial of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may function as a diagnostic test for patients exhibiting the typical symptoms of GERD without any alarm symptoms.3,6
Endoscopic Evaluation and Confirmation
The 2022 American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) clinical practice update recommends diagnostic endoscopy, after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks, in patients whose GERD symptoms do not respond adequately to an empiric trial of a PPI.3 Those with GERD and alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, bleeding, and vomiting should undergo endoscopy as soon as possible. Endoscopic findings of EE (Los Angeles Grade B or more severe) and long-segment Barrett’s esophagus (> 3-cm segment with intestinal metaplasia on biopsy) are diagnostic of GERD.3
Reflux Monitoring
With ambulatory reflux monitoring (pH or impedance-pH), esophageal acid exposure (or neutral refluxate in impedance testing) can be measured to confirm GERD diagnosis and to correlate symptoms with reflux episodes. Patients with atypical GERD symptoms or patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GERD whose symptoms have not improved sufficiently with twice-daily PPI therapy should have esophageal impedance-pH monitoring while on PPIs.6,7
Esophageal Manometry
High-resolution esophageal manometry can be used to assess motility abnormalities associated with GERD.
Although no manometric abnormality is unique to GERD, weak lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure and ineffective esophageal motility frequently coexist with severe GERD.6
Manometry is particularly useful in patients considering surgical or endoscopic anti-reflux procedures to evaluate for achalasia,3 an important contraindication to surgery.
Medical Management
Management of GERD requires a multidisciplinary and personalized approach based on symptom presentation, body mass index, endoscopic findings (e.g., presence of EE, Barrett’s esophagus, hiatal hernia), and physiological abnormalities (e.g., gastroparesis or ineffective motility).3
Lifestyle Modifications
Recommended lifestyle modifications include weight loss for patients with obesity, stress reduction, tobacco and alcohol cessation, elevating the head of the bed, staying upright during and after meals, avoidance of food intake < 3 hours before bedtime, and cessation of foods that potentially aggravate reflux symptoms such as coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, acidic foods, and foods with high fat content.6,8
Medications
Pharmacologic therapy for GERD includes medications that primarily aim to neutralize or reduce gastric acid -- we summarize options in Table 1.3,8
Proton Pump Inhibitors
Most guidelines suggest a trial of 4-8 weeks of once-daily enteric-coated PPI before meals in patients with typical GERD symptoms and no alarm symptoms. Escalation to double-dose PPI may be considered in the case of persistent symptoms. The relative potencies of standard-dose pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and rabeprazole are presented in Table 1.9 When a PPI switch is needed, rabeprazole may be considered as it is a PPI that does not rely on CYP2C19 for primary metabolism.9
Acid suppression should be weaned down to the lowest effective dose or converted to H2RAs or other antacids once symptoms are sufficiently controlled unless patients have EE, Barrett’s esophagus, or peptic stricture.3 Patients with severe GERD may require long-term PPI therapy or an invasive anti-reflux procedure.
Recent studies have shown that potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCAB) like vonoprazan may offer more effective gastric acid inhibition. While not included in the latest clinical practice update, vonoprazan is thought to be superior to lansoprazole for those with LA Grade C/D esophagitis for both symptom relief and healing at 2 weeks.10
Adjunctive Therapies
Alginates can function as a physical barrier to even neutral reflux and may be helpful for patients with postprandial or nighttime symptoms as well as those with hiatal hernia.3 H2RAs can also help mitigate nighttime symptoms.3 Baclofen is a gamma-aminobutyric acid–B agonist which inhibits transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) and may be effective for patients with belching.3 Prokinetics may be helpful for GERD with concomitant gastroparesis.3 Sucralfate is a mucosal protective agent, but there is a lack of data supporting its efficacy in GERD treatment. Consider referral to a behavioral therapist for supplemental therapies, hypnotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies for functional heartburn or reflux-associated esophageal hypervigilance or reflux hypersensitivity.3
When to Refer to Higher Level of Care
For patients who do not wish to remain on longer-term pharmacologic therapy or would benefit from anatomic repair, clinicians should have a discussion of risks and benefits prior to consideration of referral for anti-reflux procedures.3,6,8 We advise this conversation should include review of patient health status, postsurgical side effects such as increased flatus, bloating and dysphagia as well as the potential need to still resume PPI post operation.8
Endoscopic Management
Patient Selection And Evaluation
For the groups indicated for a higher level of care, we agree with AGA recommendations, multi-society guidelines, and expert review,3,7,11,12 and highlight potential options in Table 2. Step-up options should be based on patient characteristics and reviewed carefully with patients. Endoscopic therapies are less invasive than surgery and may be considered for those who do not require anatomic repair of hiatal hernia, do not want surgery, or are not suitable for surgery.
The pathophysiology of GERD is from a loss of the anti-reflux barrier of the esophageal gastric junction (EGJ) at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) leading to unintended retrograde movement of gastric contents.6 Anatomically, the LES is composed of muscles of the distal esophagus and sling fibers of the proximal stomach, the “external valve” from the diaphragmatic crura, and the “internal valve” from the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV). GERD occurs from mechanical failure of the LES. First, there may be disproportional dilation of the diaphragmatic crura as categorized by Hill Grade of the GEFV as seen by a retroflexed view of EGJ after 30-45 seconds of insufflation.13 Second, there may be a migration of the LES away from the diaphragmatic crura as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Provocative maneuvers may reveal a sliding hernia by gentle retraction of the endoscope while under retroflexed view.13 Third, there may be more frequent TLESR associated with GERD.12
The aim of most interventions is to restore competency of the LES by reconstruction of the GEFV via suture or staple-based approximation of tissue.11,12 Intraluminal therapy may only target the GEFV at the internal valve. Therefore, most endoscopic interventions are limited to patients with intact diaphragmatic crura (ie, small to no hiatal hernia and GEFV Hill Grade 1 to 2). Contraindications for endoscopic therapy are moderate to severe reflux (ie, LA Grade C/ D), hiatus hernia 2 cm or larger, strictures, or long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.
Utility, Safety, and Outcomes of TIF
Historically, endoscopic therapy targeting endoscopic fundoplication started with EndoLuminal gastro-gastric fundoplication (ELF, 2005) which was a proof of concept of safe manipulation and suture for gastro-gastric plication to below the Z-line. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) 1.0 was suggested in 2007 for clinical application by proposing a longitudinal oriented esophago-gastric plication 1 cm above the Z-line.
In 2009, TIF2.0 was proposed as a rotational 270° wrap of the cardia and fundus to a full-thickness esophago-gastric fundoplication around 2-4 cm of the distal esophagus. Like a surgical fundoplication, this reinforces sling fibers, increases the Angle of His and improves the cardiac notch. TIF 2.0 is indicated for those with small (< 2 cm) or no hiatal hernia and a GEFV Hill Grade 1 or 2. The present iteration of TIF2.0 uses EsophyX-Z (EndoGastric Solutions; Redmond, Washington) which features dual fastener deployment and a simplified firing mechanism. Plication is secured via nonresorbable polypropylene T-fasteners with strength equivalence of 3-0 sutures.
Compared with the original, TIF2.0 represents a decrease of severe adverse events from 2%-2.5% to 0.4%-1%.11,14 Based on longitudinal TEMPO data, patient satisfaction ranges between 70% and 90% and rates of patients reverting to daily PPI use are 17% and 34% at 1 and 5 years. A 5% reintervention rate was noted to be comparable with surgical reoperation for fundoplication.15 One retrospective evaluation of patients with failed TIF followed by successful cTIF noted that in all failures there was a documented underestimation of a much larger crura defect at time of index procedure.16 Chest pain is common post procedure and patients and collaborating providers should be counseled on the expected course. In our practice, we admit patients for at least 1 postprocedure day and consider scheduling symptom control medications for those with significant pain.
TIF2.0 for Special Populations
Indications for TIF2.0 continue to evolve. In 2017, concomitant TIF2.0 with hiatal hernia repair (cTIF or HH-TIF) for hernia > 2 cm was accepted for expanded use. In one study, cTIF has been shown to have similar outcomes for postprocedural PPI use, dysphagia, wrap disruption, and hiatal hernia recurrence, compared with hiatal hernia repair paired with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with possibly shorter postadmission stay, serious adverse events, and bloating.17 A cTIF may be performed in a single general anesthetic session typically with a surgical hiatal hernia repair followed by TIF2.0.
Other Endoscopic Procedures
Several other endoscopic interventions have been proposed for GERD management. The following procedures are under continuous study and should be considered only by those with expertise.
Stretta
The Stretta device (Restech; Houston, Texas) was approved in 2000 for use of a radiofrequency (RF) generator and catheter applied to the squamocolumnar junction under irrigation. Ideal candidates for this nonablative procedure may include patients with confirmed GERD, low-grade EE, without Barrett’s esophagus, small hiatal hernia, and a competent LES with pressure > 5 mmHg. Meta-analysis has yielded conflicting results in terms of its efficacy, compared with TIF2.0, and recent multi-society guidance suggests fundoplication over Stretta.7
ARM, MASE, and RAP
Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARM) has been proposed based on the observation that patients undergoing mucosectomy for neoplasms in the cardia had improvement of reflux symptoms.11,12 Systematic review has suggested a clinical response of 80% of either PPI discontinuation or reduction, but 17% of adverse events include development of strictures. Iterations of ARM continue to be studied including ARM with band ligation (L-ARM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection for GERD (ESD-G).12
Experts have proposed incorporating endoscopic suturing of the EGJ to modulate the LES. Mucosal ablation and suturing of the EG junction (MASE) has been proposed by first priming tissue via argon plasma coagulation (APC) prior to endoscopic overstitch of two to three interrupted sutures below the EGJ to narrow and elongate the EGJ. The resection and plication (RAP) procedure performs a mucosal resection prior to full-thickness plication of the LES and cardia.11,12 Expert opinion has suggested that RAP may be used in patients with altered anatomy whereas MASE may be used when resection is not possible (eg, prior scarring, resection or ablation).12
Surgical Management
We agree with a recent multi-society guideline recommending that an interdisciplinary consultation with surgery for indicated patients with refractory GERD and underlying hiatal hernia, or who do not want lifelong medical therapy.
Fundoplication creates a surgical wrap to reinforce the LES and may be performed laparoscopically. Contraindications include body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2 and significantly impaired dysmotility. Fundoplication of 180°, 270°, and 360° may achieve comparable outcomes, but a laparoscopic toupet fundoplication (LTF 270°) may have fewer postsurgical issues of dysphagia and bloating. Advantages for both anterior and posterior partial fundoplications have been demonstrated by network meta-analysis. Therefore, a multi-society guideline for GERD suggests partial over complete fundoplication.7 Compared with posterior techniques, anterior fundoplication (Watson fundoplication) led to more recurrent reflux symptoms but less dysphagia and other side effects.19
Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical option that strengthens the LES with magnets to improve sphincter competence. In addition to listed contraindications of fundoplication, patients with an allergy to nickel and/or titanium are also contraindicated to receive MSA.7 MSA has been suggested to be equivalent to LNF although there may be less gas bloat and greater ability to belch on follow up.20
Surgical Options for Special Populations
Patients with medically refractory GERD and a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 may benefit from either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or fundoplication, however sleeve gastrectomy is not advised.7 In patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, RYGB may provide an optimal choice. We agree with consultation with a bariatric surgeon when reviewing these situations.
Conclusion
Patients with GERD are commonly encountered worldwide. Empiric PPI are effective mainstays for medical treatment of GERD. Novel PCABs (e.g., vonoprazan) may present new options for GERD with LA Grade C/D esophagitis EE and merit more study. In refractory cases or for patients who do not want long term medical therapy, step-up therapy may be considered via endoscopic or surgical interventions. Patient anatomy and comorbidities should be considered by the clinician to inform treatment options. Surgery may have the most durable outcomes for those requiring step-up therapy. Improvements in technique, devices and patient selection have allowed TIF2.0 to grow as a viable offering with excellent 5-year outcomes for indicated patients.
Dr. Chang, Dr. Tintara, and Dr. Phan are based in the Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. They have no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
1. Richter JE andRubenstein JH. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.045.
2. El-Serag HB et al. Gut. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269.
3. Yadlapati R et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.025.
4. Vakil N et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Aug. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x.
5. Numans ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00011.
6. Kahrilas PJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2008 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.045.
7. Slater BJ et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09817-3.
8. Gyawali CP et al. Gut. 2018 Jul. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722.
9. Graham DY and Tansel A. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.09.033.
10. Graham DY and Dore MP. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.018.
11. Haseeb M and Thompson CC. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Sep. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000968.
12. Kolb JM and Chang KJ. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Jul. doi:10.1097/MOG.0000000000000944.
13. Nguyen NT et al. Foregut. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1177/26345161221126961.
14. Mazzoleni G et al. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Feb. doi: 10.1055/a-1322-2209.
15. Trad KS et al. Surg Innov. 2018 Apr. doi: 10.1177/1553350618755214.
16. Kolb JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(21)02953-X.
17. Jaruvongvanich VK et al. Endosc Int Open. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1055/a-1972-9190.
18. Lee Y et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Jul. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10151-5.
19. Andreou A et al. Surg Endosc. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07208-9.
20. Guidozzi N et al. Dis Esophagus. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.1093/dote/doz031.
Infinite Learning
Dear Friends,
This issue of The New Gastroenterologist marks my first year completed as faculty. It has been both the best year and the HARDEST year. I celebrated many successes, felt intellectually and emotionally drained by difficult and complicated cases, and learned that there is so much more I still do not know. But that’s the beauty of our field — we are constantly learning to be better physicians for our patients. To trainees and my fellow gastroenterologists in practice, never stop asking questions!
In this issue’s “In Focus,” Dr. Rajan Singh and Dr. Baharak Moshiree describe a practical approach to patients with bloating by evaluating and investigating the pathophysiology and etiology of bloating, such as food intolerances, visceral hypersensitivity, pelvic floor dysfunction, abdominophrenic dyssynergia, gut dysmotility, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, as well as treatment management. In the “Short Clinical Review” section, Dr. Ahmad Bazarbashi and his colleagues review when to refer complex polyps to an advanced endoscopist and the different techniques of advanced tissue resection, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and full thickness resection.
Locum practices have become more popular among gastroenterologists. Dr. Catherine Bartholomew is a retired professor of medicine who was chief of gastroenterology at an academic institution, and is now working as a GI locum after retirement. She details what a locum tenens is, the role of the company, being an independent contractor, and the benefits.
Navigating and negotiating maternity and paternity leave may be challenging in private practice. Dr. Marybeth Spanarkel gives her opinion on the nuances of maternity/paternity leave in private practices, what it may mean financially, and things to inquire of the practice if planning to have children.
As we move from joining non-traditional practices and navigating family planning with private practices, Dr. Vasu Appalaneni shares her experiences with financial planning for retirement. She describes ways to financially plan a retirement, but also to consider aspects that affect financial well-being during retirement, including healthcare coverage, lifestyle and traveling, legal and estate, professional development, and emotional and social support.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), communications/managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are not without appreciating where we were: The first colonic polypectomy using an electrosurgical snare was performed by Dr. Hiromi Shinya at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, in 1969.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
Dear Friends,
This issue of The New Gastroenterologist marks my first year completed as faculty. It has been both the best year and the HARDEST year. I celebrated many successes, felt intellectually and emotionally drained by difficult and complicated cases, and learned that there is so much more I still do not know. But that’s the beauty of our field — we are constantly learning to be better physicians for our patients. To trainees and my fellow gastroenterologists in practice, never stop asking questions!
In this issue’s “In Focus,” Dr. Rajan Singh and Dr. Baharak Moshiree describe a practical approach to patients with bloating by evaluating and investigating the pathophysiology and etiology of bloating, such as food intolerances, visceral hypersensitivity, pelvic floor dysfunction, abdominophrenic dyssynergia, gut dysmotility, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, as well as treatment management. In the “Short Clinical Review” section, Dr. Ahmad Bazarbashi and his colleagues review when to refer complex polyps to an advanced endoscopist and the different techniques of advanced tissue resection, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and full thickness resection.
Locum practices have become more popular among gastroenterologists. Dr. Catherine Bartholomew is a retired professor of medicine who was chief of gastroenterology at an academic institution, and is now working as a GI locum after retirement. She details what a locum tenens is, the role of the company, being an independent contractor, and the benefits.
Navigating and negotiating maternity and paternity leave may be challenging in private practice. Dr. Marybeth Spanarkel gives her opinion on the nuances of maternity/paternity leave in private practices, what it may mean financially, and things to inquire of the practice if planning to have children.
As we move from joining non-traditional practices and navigating family planning with private practices, Dr. Vasu Appalaneni shares her experiences with financial planning for retirement. She describes ways to financially plan a retirement, but also to consider aspects that affect financial well-being during retirement, including healthcare coverage, lifestyle and traveling, legal and estate, professional development, and emotional and social support.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), communications/managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are not without appreciating where we were: The first colonic polypectomy using an electrosurgical snare was performed by Dr. Hiromi Shinya at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, in 1969.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
Dear Friends,
This issue of The New Gastroenterologist marks my first year completed as faculty. It has been both the best year and the HARDEST year. I celebrated many successes, felt intellectually and emotionally drained by difficult and complicated cases, and learned that there is so much more I still do not know. But that’s the beauty of our field — we are constantly learning to be better physicians for our patients. To trainees and my fellow gastroenterologists in practice, never stop asking questions!
In this issue’s “In Focus,” Dr. Rajan Singh and Dr. Baharak Moshiree describe a practical approach to patients with bloating by evaluating and investigating the pathophysiology and etiology of bloating, such as food intolerances, visceral hypersensitivity, pelvic floor dysfunction, abdominophrenic dyssynergia, gut dysmotility, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, as well as treatment management. In the “Short Clinical Review” section, Dr. Ahmad Bazarbashi and his colleagues review when to refer complex polyps to an advanced endoscopist and the different techniques of advanced tissue resection, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and full thickness resection.
Locum practices have become more popular among gastroenterologists. Dr. Catherine Bartholomew is a retired professor of medicine who was chief of gastroenterology at an academic institution, and is now working as a GI locum after retirement. She details what a locum tenens is, the role of the company, being an independent contractor, and the benefits.
Navigating and negotiating maternity and paternity leave may be challenging in private practice. Dr. Marybeth Spanarkel gives her opinion on the nuances of maternity/paternity leave in private practices, what it may mean financially, and things to inquire of the practice if planning to have children.
As we move from joining non-traditional practices and navigating family planning with private practices, Dr. Vasu Appalaneni shares her experiences with financial planning for retirement. She describes ways to financially plan a retirement, but also to consider aspects that affect financial well-being during retirement, including healthcare coverage, lifestyle and traveling, legal and estate, professional development, and emotional and social support.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), communications/managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are not without appreciating where we were: The first colonic polypectomy using an electrosurgical snare was performed by Dr. Hiromi Shinya at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, in 1969.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
August 2024 – ICYMI
Gastroenterology
April 2024
Shah I, et al. Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Asian American Populations and Strategies to Address These Disparities. Gastroenterology. 2024 Apr;166(4):549-552. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.02.009. PMID: 38521575.
Shiha MG, et al. Accuracy of the No-Biopsy Approach for the Diagnosis of Celiac Disease in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology. 2024 Apr;166(4):620-630. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.023. Epub 2024 Jan 2. PMID: 38176661.
Goltstein LCMJ, et al. Standard of Care Versus Octreotide in Angiodysplasia-Related Bleeding (the OCEAN Study): A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Apr;166(4):690-703. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.020. Epub 2023 Dec 28. PMID: 38158089.
May 2024
Robertson DJ, et al. Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best? Gastroenterology. 2024 May;166(5):758-771. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.027. Epub 2024 Feb 9. PMID: 38342196.
Mårild K, et al. Histologic Remission in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Female Fertility: A Nationwide Study. Gastroenterology. 2024 May;166(5):802-814.e18. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.01.018. Epub 2024 Feb 6. PMID: 38331202.
June 2024
Trivedi PJ, et al. Immunopathogenesis of Primary Biliary Cholangitis, Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis and Autoimmune Hepatitis: Themes and Concepts. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jun;166(6):995-1019. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.01.049. Epub 2024 Feb 10. PMID: 38342195.
Rubenstein JH, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett’s Esophagus and Related Neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jun;166(6):1020-1055. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.03.019. PMID: 38763697.
Ridtitid W, et al. Endoscopic Gallbladder Stenting to Prevent Recurrent Cholecystitis in Deferred Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jun;166(6):1145-1155. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.02.007. Epub 2024 Feb 14. PMID: 38360274.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
April 2024
Berwald G, et al. The Diagnostic Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Detecting Advanced Neoplasia at Surveillance Colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr;22(4):878-885.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.09.016. Epub 2023 Sep 22. PMID: 37743036.
Hashash JG, et al. AGA Rapid Clinical Practice Update on the Management of Patients Taking GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Prior to Endoscopy: Communication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr;22(4):705-707. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.11.002. Epub 2023 Nov 7. PMID: 37944573.
Sharma R, et al. Statins Are Associated With a Decreased Risk of Severe Liver Disease in Individuals With Noncirrhotic Chronic Liver Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr;22(4):749-759.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.017. Epub 2023 Apr 28. PMID: 37121528.
May 2024
Overbeek KA, et al; PrescrAIP Study Group. Type 1 Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Europe: Clinical Profile and Response to Treatment. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 May;22(5):994-1004.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.12.010. Epub 2024 Jan 5. Erratum in: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun 1:S1542-3565(24)00446-4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.05.005. PMID: 38184096.
Jairath V, et al. ENTERPRET: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Vedolizumab Dose Optimization in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis Who Have Early Nonresponse. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 May;22(5):1077-1086.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.10.029. Epub 2023 Nov 10. PMID: 37951560.
Gunby SA, et al. Smoking and Alcohol Consumption and Risk of Incident Diverticulitis in Women. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 May;22(5):1108-1116. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.11.036. Epub 2023 Dec 19. PMID: 38122959; PMCID: PMC11045313.
June 2024
Krause AJ, et al. Validated Clinical Score to Predict Gastroesophageal Reflux in Patients With Chronic Laryngeal Symptoms: COuGH RefluX. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun;22(6):1200-1209.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.021. Epub 2024 Feb 2. PMID: 38309491; PMCID: PMC11128352.
Peng X, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Vonoprazan-Amoxicillin Dual Regimen With Varying Dose and Duration for Helicobacter pylori Eradication: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun;22(6):1210-1216. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.022. Epub 2024 Feb 1. PMID: 38309492.
Kedia S, et al. Coconut Water Induces Clinical Remission in Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Colitis: Double-blind Placebo-controlled Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun;22(6):1295-1306.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.013. Epub 2024 Jan 24. PMID: 38278200.
Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Ogura T, et al. Step-Up Strategy for Endoscopic Hemostasis Using PuraStat After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Bleeding (STOP Trial). Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 March 16. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2024.03.005.
Nakai Y, et al. Cyst Detection Rate: A Quality Indicator in the Era of Pancreatic Screening Endoscopic Ultrasonography. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 May. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2024.04.001.
Gastro Hep Advances
Kimura Y, et al. Early Sonographic Improvement Predicts Clinical Remission and Mucosal Healing With Molecular-Targeted Drugs in Ulcerative Colitis. Gastro Hep Adv. 2024 April 22. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.04.007.
Hunaut T, et al. Long-Term Neoplastic Risk Associated With Colorectal Strictures in Crohn’s Disease: A Multicenter Study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2024 May 15. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.05.003.
Gastroenterology
April 2024
Shah I, et al. Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Asian American Populations and Strategies to Address These Disparities. Gastroenterology. 2024 Apr;166(4):549-552. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.02.009. PMID: 38521575.
Shiha MG, et al. Accuracy of the No-Biopsy Approach for the Diagnosis of Celiac Disease in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology. 2024 Apr;166(4):620-630. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.023. Epub 2024 Jan 2. PMID: 38176661.
Goltstein LCMJ, et al. Standard of Care Versus Octreotide in Angiodysplasia-Related Bleeding (the OCEAN Study): A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Apr;166(4):690-703. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.020. Epub 2023 Dec 28. PMID: 38158089.
May 2024
Robertson DJ, et al. Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best? Gastroenterology. 2024 May;166(5):758-771. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.027. Epub 2024 Feb 9. PMID: 38342196.
Mårild K, et al. Histologic Remission in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Female Fertility: A Nationwide Study. Gastroenterology. 2024 May;166(5):802-814.e18. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.01.018. Epub 2024 Feb 6. PMID: 38331202.
June 2024
Trivedi PJ, et al. Immunopathogenesis of Primary Biliary Cholangitis, Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis and Autoimmune Hepatitis: Themes and Concepts. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jun;166(6):995-1019. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.01.049. Epub 2024 Feb 10. PMID: 38342195.
Rubenstein JH, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett’s Esophagus and Related Neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jun;166(6):1020-1055. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.03.019. PMID: 38763697.
Ridtitid W, et al. Endoscopic Gallbladder Stenting to Prevent Recurrent Cholecystitis in Deferred Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jun;166(6):1145-1155. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.02.007. Epub 2024 Feb 14. PMID: 38360274.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
April 2024
Berwald G, et al. The Diagnostic Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Detecting Advanced Neoplasia at Surveillance Colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr;22(4):878-885.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.09.016. Epub 2023 Sep 22. PMID: 37743036.
Hashash JG, et al. AGA Rapid Clinical Practice Update on the Management of Patients Taking GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Prior to Endoscopy: Communication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr;22(4):705-707. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.11.002. Epub 2023 Nov 7. PMID: 37944573.
Sharma R, et al. Statins Are Associated With a Decreased Risk of Severe Liver Disease in Individuals With Noncirrhotic Chronic Liver Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr;22(4):749-759.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.017. Epub 2023 Apr 28. PMID: 37121528.
May 2024
Overbeek KA, et al; PrescrAIP Study Group. Type 1 Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Europe: Clinical Profile and Response to Treatment. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 May;22(5):994-1004.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.12.010. Epub 2024 Jan 5. Erratum in: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun 1:S1542-3565(24)00446-4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.05.005. PMID: 38184096.
Jairath V, et al. ENTERPRET: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Vedolizumab Dose Optimization in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis Who Have Early Nonresponse. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 May;22(5):1077-1086.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.10.029. Epub 2023 Nov 10. PMID: 37951560.
Gunby SA, et al. Smoking and Alcohol Consumption and Risk of Incident Diverticulitis in Women. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 May;22(5):1108-1116. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.11.036. Epub 2023 Dec 19. PMID: 38122959; PMCID: PMC11045313.
June 2024
Krause AJ, et al. Validated Clinical Score to Predict Gastroesophageal Reflux in Patients With Chronic Laryngeal Symptoms: COuGH RefluX. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun;22(6):1200-1209.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.021. Epub 2024 Feb 2. PMID: 38309491; PMCID: PMC11128352.
Peng X, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Vonoprazan-Amoxicillin Dual Regimen With Varying Dose and Duration for Helicobacter pylori Eradication: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun;22(6):1210-1216. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.022. Epub 2024 Feb 1. PMID: 38309492.
Kedia S, et al. Coconut Water Induces Clinical Remission in Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Colitis: Double-blind Placebo-controlled Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun;22(6):1295-1306.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.013. Epub 2024 Jan 24. PMID: 38278200.
Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Ogura T, et al. Step-Up Strategy for Endoscopic Hemostasis Using PuraStat After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Bleeding (STOP Trial). Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 March 16. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2024.03.005.
Nakai Y, et al. Cyst Detection Rate: A Quality Indicator in the Era of Pancreatic Screening Endoscopic Ultrasonography. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 May. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2024.04.001.
Gastro Hep Advances
Kimura Y, et al. Early Sonographic Improvement Predicts Clinical Remission and Mucosal Healing With Molecular-Targeted Drugs in Ulcerative Colitis. Gastro Hep Adv. 2024 April 22. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.04.007.
Hunaut T, et al. Long-Term Neoplastic Risk Associated With Colorectal Strictures in Crohn’s Disease: A Multicenter Study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2024 May 15. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.05.003.
Gastroenterology
April 2024
Shah I, et al. Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Asian American Populations and Strategies to Address These Disparities. Gastroenterology. 2024 Apr;166(4):549-552. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.02.009. PMID: 38521575.
Shiha MG, et al. Accuracy of the No-Biopsy Approach for the Diagnosis of Celiac Disease in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology. 2024 Apr;166(4):620-630. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.023. Epub 2024 Jan 2. PMID: 38176661.
Goltstein LCMJ, et al. Standard of Care Versus Octreotide in Angiodysplasia-Related Bleeding (the OCEAN Study): A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Apr;166(4):690-703. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.020. Epub 2023 Dec 28. PMID: 38158089.
May 2024
Robertson DJ, et al. Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best? Gastroenterology. 2024 May;166(5):758-771. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.027. Epub 2024 Feb 9. PMID: 38342196.
Mårild K, et al. Histologic Remission in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Female Fertility: A Nationwide Study. Gastroenterology. 2024 May;166(5):802-814.e18. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.01.018. Epub 2024 Feb 6. PMID: 38331202.
June 2024
Trivedi PJ, et al. Immunopathogenesis of Primary Biliary Cholangitis, Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis and Autoimmune Hepatitis: Themes and Concepts. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jun;166(6):995-1019. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.01.049. Epub 2024 Feb 10. PMID: 38342195.
Rubenstein JH, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett’s Esophagus and Related Neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jun;166(6):1020-1055. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.03.019. PMID: 38763697.
Ridtitid W, et al. Endoscopic Gallbladder Stenting to Prevent Recurrent Cholecystitis in Deferred Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jun;166(6):1145-1155. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.02.007. Epub 2024 Feb 14. PMID: 38360274.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
April 2024
Berwald G, et al. The Diagnostic Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Detecting Advanced Neoplasia at Surveillance Colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr;22(4):878-885.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.09.016. Epub 2023 Sep 22. PMID: 37743036.
Hashash JG, et al. AGA Rapid Clinical Practice Update on the Management of Patients Taking GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Prior to Endoscopy: Communication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr;22(4):705-707. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.11.002. Epub 2023 Nov 7. PMID: 37944573.
Sharma R, et al. Statins Are Associated With a Decreased Risk of Severe Liver Disease in Individuals With Noncirrhotic Chronic Liver Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr;22(4):749-759.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.017. Epub 2023 Apr 28. PMID: 37121528.
May 2024
Overbeek KA, et al; PrescrAIP Study Group. Type 1 Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Europe: Clinical Profile and Response to Treatment. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 May;22(5):994-1004.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.12.010. Epub 2024 Jan 5. Erratum in: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun 1:S1542-3565(24)00446-4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.05.005. PMID: 38184096.
Jairath V, et al. ENTERPRET: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Vedolizumab Dose Optimization in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis Who Have Early Nonresponse. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 May;22(5):1077-1086.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.10.029. Epub 2023 Nov 10. PMID: 37951560.
Gunby SA, et al. Smoking and Alcohol Consumption and Risk of Incident Diverticulitis in Women. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 May;22(5):1108-1116. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.11.036. Epub 2023 Dec 19. PMID: 38122959; PMCID: PMC11045313.
June 2024
Krause AJ, et al. Validated Clinical Score to Predict Gastroesophageal Reflux in Patients With Chronic Laryngeal Symptoms: COuGH RefluX. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun;22(6):1200-1209.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.021. Epub 2024 Feb 2. PMID: 38309491; PMCID: PMC11128352.
Peng X, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Vonoprazan-Amoxicillin Dual Regimen With Varying Dose and Duration for Helicobacter pylori Eradication: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun;22(6):1210-1216. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.022. Epub 2024 Feb 1. PMID: 38309492.
Kedia S, et al. Coconut Water Induces Clinical Remission in Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Colitis: Double-blind Placebo-controlled Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jun;22(6):1295-1306.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.013. Epub 2024 Jan 24. PMID: 38278200.
Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Ogura T, et al. Step-Up Strategy for Endoscopic Hemostasis Using PuraStat After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Bleeding (STOP Trial). Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 March 16. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2024.03.005.
Nakai Y, et al. Cyst Detection Rate: A Quality Indicator in the Era of Pancreatic Screening Endoscopic Ultrasonography. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 May. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2024.04.001.
Gastro Hep Advances
Kimura Y, et al. Early Sonographic Improvement Predicts Clinical Remission and Mucosal Healing With Molecular-Targeted Drugs in Ulcerative Colitis. Gastro Hep Adv. 2024 April 22. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.04.007.
Hunaut T, et al. Long-Term Neoplastic Risk Associated With Colorectal Strictures in Crohn’s Disease: A Multicenter Study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2024 May 15. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.05.003.