Evidence Hub

Medical management of painful achalasia: a patient-driven systematic review

Bramer S, Ladell A, Glatzel H, Moss A, Hashemi M, Zaninotto G, Antonowicz S

Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2024

4 citations

Abstract

Achalasia is a rare esophageal disorder characterized by abnormal esophageal motility and swallowing difficulties. Pain and/or spasms often persist or recur despite effective relief of the obstruction. A survey by UK charity 'Achalasia Action' highlighted treatments for achalasia pain/spasms as a key research priority. In this patient-requested systematic review, we assessed the existing literature on pharmacological therapies for painful achalasia. A systematic review of the literature using Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies evaluating pharmacological therapies for achalasia. Methodological quality of included randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In total, 70% (40/57) of survey respondents reported experiencing pain/spasms. A range of management strategies were reported. Thirteen studies were included in the review. Seven were randomized controlled trials. Most studies were >30 years old, had limited follow-up, and focussed on esophageal manometry as the key endpoint. Generally, studies found improvements in lower esophageal pressures with medications. Only one study evaluated pain/spasm specifically, precluding meta-analysis. Overall risk of bias was high. The achalasia patient survey identified that pain/spasms are common and difficult to treat. This patient-requested review identified a gap in the literature regarding pharmacological treatments for these symptoms. We provide an algorithm…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free