This article provides insight into the topic of gastric emptying with a focus on patients with diabetes. A few key points:
Gastric emptying affects glucose homeostasis in patients with diabetes; delayed gastric emptying in patients with type 2 diabetes could have beneficial effects in this regard.
Delayed gastric emptying occurs in 40-47% of adults with diabetes; rapid emptying occurs in 20-22%.
Upper GI symptoms do NOT correlate with gastric emptying. Prevalence of these symptoms is highest in those with normal gastric emptying (43-52% in those with normal emptying compared with 19-28% with delayed emptying, and 20-37% with rapid emptying)
“Functional dyspepsia-like symptoms in gastroparesis may arise not through motility changes but rather through the parallel effects of oxidative stress and inflammation on nocireceptors and on other afferents that produce the symptoms.”
My take: Knowing how quickly the stomach empties rarely helps management. In this review, Dr. Goyal states that “the effective treatment of symptoms in diabetic gastroparesis may be similar to the treatment of functional dyspepsia.”
Also, noted in same issue of NEJM:
TB Corcoran et al.NEJM 2021; 384: 1731-1741. Dexamethasone and Surgical-Site InfectionKey finding: A single dose of dexamathosone (8 mg) did not increase the risk of surgical site infection; this is in contrast to long-term glucocorticoid therapy which is a risk factor for infection and wound dehiscence.
J Salwa et al. NEJM 2021; 384: 1684-6. Designing an Independent Public Health Agency. This article makes compelling arguments for separating health agencies from political influence. The FDA, the CDC, and HHS in the previous administration were pressured and undermined. In contrast, the Federal Reserve Board, which has 14 year terms that require ‘removal only for cause,’ was “reliably [able to] exert federal power because of its institutional features as an independent agency.”
“On November 25, 2020, … the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, undermined states’ ability to control that pandemic.” (Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo)
Initially, most courts rejected challenges to restrictions imposed by governors during the pandemic. “Initially, most courts rejected these claims, citing the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld a Cambridge, Massachusetts, regulation mandating smallpox vaccination during an outbreak.”
After the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ” there was now a 5-to-4 majority willing to block limits on religious services.” This was based on the rationale that it is unlawful to “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment” and that “even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”
In dissent, “Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to epidemiologic evidence that in-person worship may pose a greater risk than shopping and other activities that were less stringently regulated to argue that the Court should defer to state officials.”
“The Court’s eagerness to intervene even though New York’s orders were no longer in effect and its failure to consider epidemiologic evidence in determining which activities are comparable to worship will serve as a warning” against “state orders that impose tighter measures on worship…[and] suggests that states will not be able to act before super-spreader events occur or as long as other states take a more lax approach.”
The author note that “although courts should not abdicate their role during a pandemic, they also should not rush to assume an expertise they lack.”
“[The] most important legacy may be the dethroning of Jacobson…[which] has been the key precedent supporting vaccine mandates and other public health laws….With Jacobson apparently sidelined, the future of many public health laws, including and especially vaccine mandates, appears perilous.”