Objective To compare the predictive accuracy and clinical utility of five risk scoring systems in the assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Design International multicentre prospective study.Setting Six large hospitals in Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania.Participants 3012 consecutive patients presenting over 12 months with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Main outcome measures Comparison of pre-endoscopy scores (admission Rockall, AIMS65, and Glasgow Blatchford) and post-endoscopy scores (full Rockall and PNED) for their ability to predict predefined clinical endpoints: a composite endpoint (transfusion, endoscopic treatment, interventional radiology, surgery, or 30 day mortality), endoscopic treatment, 30 day mortality, rebleeding, and length of hospital stay. Optimum score thresholds to identify low risk and high risk patients were determined.Results The Glasgow Blatchford score was best (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.86) at predicting intervention or death compared with the full Rockall score (0.70), PNED score (0.69), admission Rockall score (0.66, and AIMS65 score (0.68) (all P<0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≤1 was the optimum threshold to predict survival without intervention (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 34.6%). The Glasgow Blatchford score was better at predicting endoscopic treatment (AUROC 0.75) than the AIMS65 (0.62) and admission Rockall scores (0.61) (both P<0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≥7 was the optimum threshold to predict endoscopic treatment (sensitivity 80%, specificity 57%). The PNED (AUROC 0.77) and AIMS65 scores (0.77) were best at predicting mortality, with both superior to admission Rockall score (0.72) and Glasgow Blatchford score (0.64; P<0.001). Score thresholds of ≥4 for PNED, ≥2 for AIMS65, ≥4 for admission Rockall, and ≥5 for full Rockall were optimal at predicting death, with sensitivities of 65.8-78.6% and specificities of 65.0-65.3%. No score was helpful at predicting rebleeding or length of stay.Conclusions The Glasgow Blatchford score has high accuracy at predicting need for hospital based intervention or death. Scores of ≤1 appear the optimum threshold for directing patients to outpatient management. AUROCs of scores for the other endpoints are less than 0.80, therefore their clinical utility for these outcomes seems to be limited.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16235737.

BACKGROUND & AIMS Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) is increasingly common among patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE). We aimed to provide consensus recommendations based on the medical literature that clinicians could use to manage patients with BE and low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or early-stage EA. METHODS We performed an international, multidisciplinary, systematic, evidence-based review of different management strategies for patients with BE and dysplasia or early-stage EA. We used a Delphi process to develop consensus statements. The results of literature searches were screened using a unique, interactive, Web-based data-sifting platform; we used 11,904 papers to inform the choice of statements selected. An a priori threshold of 80% agreement was used to establish consensus for each statement. RESULTS Eighty-one of the 91 statements achieved consensus despite generally low quality of evidence, including 8 clinical statements: (1) specimens from endoscopic resection are better than biopsies for staging lesions, (2) it is important to carefully map the size of the dysplastic areas, (3) patients that receive ablative or surgical therapy require endoscopic follow-up, (4) high-resolution endoscopy is necessary for accurate diagnosis, (5) endoscopic therapy for HGD is preferred to surveillance, (6) endoscopic therapy for HGD is preferred to surgery, (7) the combination of endoscopic resection and radiofrequency ablation is the most effective therapy, and (8) after endoscopic removal of lesions from patients with HGD, all areas of BE should be ablated. CONCLUSIONS We developed a data-sifting platform and used the Delphi process to create evidence-based consensus statements for the management of patients with BE and early-stage EA. This approach identified important clinical features of the diseases and areas for future studies.

Barrett’s Esophagus is an increasingly common disease that is strongly associated with reflux of stomach acid and usually a hiatus hernia. Barrett’s Esophagus strongly predisposes to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a tumour with a very poor prognosis. We have undertaken the first genome-wide association study on Barrett’s Esophagus, comprising 1,852 UK cases and 5,172 UK controls in discovery and 5,986 cases and 12,825 controls in the replication. Two regions were associated with disease risk: chromosome 6p21, rs9257809 (Pcombined=4.09×10−9, OR(95%CI) =1.21(1.13-1.28)) and chromosome 16q24, rs9936833 (Pcombined=2.74×10−10, OR(95%CI) =1.14(1.10-1.19)). The top SNP on chromosome 6p21 is within the major histocompatibility complex, and the closest protein-coding gene to rs9936833 on chromosome 16q24 is FOXF1, which is implicated in esophageal development and structure. We found evidence that the genetic component of Barrett’s Esophagus is mediated by many common variants of small effect and that SNP alleles predisposing to obesity also increase risk for Barrett’s Esophagus.

SummaryBackgroundOesophageal adenocarcinoma is the sixth most common cause of cancer death worldwide and Barrett's oesophagus is the biggest risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose esomeprazole proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and aspirin for improving outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.MethodsThe Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's metaplasia Trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design and was done at 84 centres in the UK and one in Canada. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus of 1 cm or more were randomised 1:1:1:1 using a computer-generated schedule held in a central trials unit to receive high-dose (40 mg twice-daily) or low-dose (20 mg once-daily) PPI, with or without aspirin (300 mg per day in the UK, 325 mg per day in Canada) for at least 8 years, in an unblinded manner. Reporting pathologists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary composite endpoint was time to all-cause mortality, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, or high-grade dysplasia, which was analysed with accelerated failure time modelling adjusted for minimisation factors (age, Barrett's oesophagus length, intestinal metaplasia) in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2004-003836-77.FindingsBetween March 10, 2005, and March 1, 2009, 2557 patients were recruited. 705 patients were assigned to low-dose PPI and no aspirin, 704 to high-dose PPI and no aspirin, 571 to low-dose PPI and aspirin, and 577 to high-dose PPI and aspirin. Median follow-up and treatment duration was 8·9 years (IQR 8·2–9·8), and we collected 20 095 follow-up years and 99·9% of planned data. 313 primary events occurred. High-dose PPI (139 events in 1270 patients) was superior to low-dose PPI (174 events in 1265 patients; time ratio [TR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·01–1·58, p=0·038). Aspirin (127 events in 1138 patients) was not significantly better than no aspirin (154 events in 1142 patients; TR 1·24, 0·98–1·57, p=0·068). If patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were censored at the time of first use, aspirin was significantly better than no aspirin (TR 1·29, 1·01–1·66, p=0·043; n=2236). Combining high-dose PPI with aspirin had the strongest effect compared with low-dose PPI without aspirin (TR 1·59, 1·14–2·23, p=0·0068). The numbers needed to treat were 34 for PPI and 43 for aspirin. Only 28 (1%) participants reported study-treatment-related serious adverse events.InterpretationHigh-dose PPI and aspirin chemoprevention therapy, especially in combination, significantly and safely improved outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.FundingCancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Wellcome Trust, and Health Technology Assessment.

ObjectivesExisting scores are not accurate at predicting mortality in upper (UGIB) and lower (LGIB) gastrointestinal bleeding. We aimed to develop and validate a new pre-endoscopy score for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB.Design and settingInternational cohort study. Patients presenting to hospital with UGIB at six international centres were used to develop a risk score for predicting mortality using regression analyses. The score’s performance in UGIB and LGIB was externally validated and compared with existing scores using four international datasets. We calculated areas under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs), sensitivities, specificities and outcome among patients classified as low risk and high risk.Participants and resultsWe included 3012 UGIB patients in the development cohort, and 4019 UGIB and 2336 LGIB patients in the validation cohorts. Age, Blood tests and Comorbidities (ABC) score was closer associated with mortality in UGIB and LGIB (AUROCs: 0.81–84) than existing scores (AUROCs: 0.65–0.75; p≤0.02). In UGIB, patients with low ABC score (≤3), medium ABC score (4–7) and high ABC score (≥8) had 30-day mortality rates of 1.0%, 7.0% and 25%, respectively. Patients classified low risk using ABC score had lower mortality than those classified low risk with AIMS65 (threshold ≤1) (1.0 vs 4.5%; p<0.001). In LGIB, patients with low, medium and high ABC scores had in-hospital mortality rates of 0.6%, 6.3% and 18%, respectively.ConclusionsIn contrast to previous scores, ABC score has good performance for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB, allowing early identification and targeted management of patients at high or low risk of death.