Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most frequent gastrointestinal disorders. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective in healing lesions and improving symptoms in most cases, although up to 40% of GERD patients do not respond adequately to PPI therapy. Refractory GERD (rGERD) is one of the most challenging problems, given its impact on the quality of life and consumption of health care resources. The definition of rGERD is a controversial topic as it has not been unequivocally established. Indeed, some patients unresponsive to PPIs who experience symptoms potentially related to GERD may not have GERD; in this case the definition could be replaced with “reflux-like PPI-refractory symptoms.” Patients with persistent reflux-like symptoms should undergo a diagnostic workup aimed at finding objective evidence of GERD through endoscopic and pH-impedance investigations. The management strategies regarding rGERD, apart from a careful check of patient's compliance with PPIs, a possible change in the timing of their administration and the choice of a PPI with a different metabolic pathway, include other pharmacologic treatments. These include histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), alginates, antacids and mucosal protective agents, potassium competitive acid blockers (PCABs), prokinetics, gamma aminobutyric acid-B (GABA-B) receptor agonists and metabotropic glutamate receptor-5 (mGluR5) antagonists, and pain modulators. If there is no benefit from medical therapy, but there is objective evidence of GERD, invasive antireflux options should be evaluated after having carefully explained the risks and benefits to the patient. The most widely performed invasive antireflux option remains laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS), even if other, less invasive, interventions have been suggested in the last few decades, including endoscopic transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF), magnetic sphincter augmentation (LINX) or radiofrequency therapy (Stretta). Due to the different mechanisms underlying rGERD, the most effective strategy can vary, and it should be tailored to each patient. The aim of this paper is to review the different management options available to successfully deal with rGERD.

In the absence of secondary causes, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, local, progressive, T-helper type 2 immune-mediated disorder characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and eosinophil-predominant inflammation. In the last 20 years, the incidence and prevalence of EoE have risen sharply, and the chances of encountering affected patients in clinics and endoscopy rooms have increased. Nevertheless, it is estimated that the mean diagnostic delay of EoE is 4–6 years in both children and adults. Unfortunately, the longer the disease stays unrecognized, the likelier it is for the patient to have persistent or increased esophageal eosinophilic inflammation, to complain of non-resolving symptoms, and to develop fibrotic complications. Early detection depends on the recognition of initial clinical manifestations that vary from childhood to adulthood and even among patients of the same age. The disease phenotype also influences therapeutic approaches that include drugs, dietary interventions, and esophageal dilation. We have herein reviewed epidemiologic, clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features and therapeutic options of EoE focusing on differences and similarities between children and adults that may certainly serve in daily clinical practice.

Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a very common functional gastrointestinal disease. Its pathogenesis is multifactorial and not yet clearly defined, and hence, its therapy mainly relies on symptomatic treatments. Changes in lifestyle and dietary behavior are usually the first step, but unfortunately, there is little high-quality scientific evidence regarding a dietary approach. This is due to the difficulty in setting up randomized double-blind controlled trials which objectively evaluate efficacy without the risk of a placebo effect. However, a Low Fermentable Oligo-, Di- and Mono-saccharides And Polyols (FODMAP) Diet (LFD) and Gluten Free Diet (GFD) are among the most frequently suggested diets. This paper aims to evaluate their possible role in IBS management. A GFD is less restrictive and easier to implement in everyday life and can be suggested for patients who clearly recognize gluten as a trigger of their symptoms. An LFD, being more restrictive and less easy to learn and to follow, needs the close supervision of a skilled nutritionist and should be reserved for patients who recognize that the trigger of their symptoms is not, or not only, gluten. Even if the evidence is of very low-quality for both diets, the LFD is the most effective among the dietary interventions suggested for treating IBS, and it is included in the most updated guidelines.

No abstract

No abstract