Abstract
Gastroparesis is defined as a combination of chronic dyspeptic symptoms and delayed emptying of a solid test meal. It remains a difficult-to-treat disorder with a significant impact on quality of life. Although gastroparesis is defined by delayed emptying, several important studies did not find a correlation between this biomarker and symptom severity or treatment success. Thus, some of the more recent trials explored strategies that ranged from antiemetics to antidepressants. Although dietary management showed benefit, most of the other interventions were barely superior to placebo or were not superior at all. Placebo responses were often quite high and this complicates the assessment of active agents. While it complicates the design and interpretation of clinical trials, high response rates for active and sham interventions indicate that we can achieve symptom relief in many patients and thus give them some reassurance. If indeed most therapies are only marginally better than placebo, the differences in adverse effects should be weighed more strongly, a point that is especially important in view of the controversy surrounding metoclopramide. Mechanistic studies introduced the network of macrophages as another potentially important player in the development of gastroparesis. Results are too preliminary and are largely based on preclinical data but show up- and downregulation of cellular elements controlling gastric function. Thus, future developments may teach us how they interfere with some of these mechanisms in clinical settings, potentially making gastroparesis a reversible process.