Evidence Hub

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in the World Trade Center Health Program General Responder Cohort

C. Dasaro, Ahmad H Sabra, H. Sacks, Benjamin J. Luft, Denise J. Harrison, I. Udasin, M. A. Crane, Jacqueline M. Moline et al.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2025

19,067 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: People participating in the rescue, recovery, and clean-up effort after the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) were exposed to a complex mix of noxious substances and subsequently experienced elevated gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) incidence, the second-most-common WTC-related condition. Methods: Longitudinal WTC Health Program data, collected between July 2002 and December 2022, were used to describe the sample characteristics, diagnostic procedures, and treatment of consenting cohort members with self-reported GERD who reported incident GERD for a year or longer (n = 19,067). Cross-tabulations and binomial logistic regression, adjusted for confounders including comorbidities, assessed the associations with intermittent and resolved, compared with unresolved, GERD. Results: 12.6% of the study cohort reported intermittent GERD; 5.5% reported GERD resolution. Analyses indicated that most GERD resolution was reported by people of color and those with body mass index <25, and by cohort members who had longer postdiagnosis follow-up and implemented dietary modifications together with proton pump inhibitors or Program-approved antacids. GERD-certified members who underwent endoscopy, used medications without dietary modifications, or used bed head-elevation, and those with Barrett’s disease (5.8%) or esophageal cancer (0.1%) may have had more severe GERD and reported little resolution. Conclusions: The use of GERD services was consistent…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 19,067 participants or records.

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