Impact of Night Shifts on Gut Disorders

Posted on by
Reply

C Pennaneach et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2026; 24: 2584-2594. High Prevalence of Disorders of Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Functional Dyspepsia in Night Shift Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study in Australia and the United Kingdom

Background: “Approximately 15% to 25% of the global workforce operates outside conventional daytime hours.1–3 These schedules typically occur between 6:00 pm and 6:00 am4 and typically take 2 forms: fixed night shifts (consistent night-time work) or rotating (alternating between day, afternoon and night). This distinction is physiologically significant; although fixed night workers may partially adapt to their schedule over time, rotating shift workers face continuous circadian disruption due to frequently changing schedules, preventing biological adaptation.5 This circadian misalignment creates a particularly vulnerable subset of workers and is associated with increased risk of chronic conditions, including cardiovascular disease,6 type 2 diabetes,7 and gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances.8 These adverse outcomes primarily stem from disruption of central and peripheral biological clocks.9“

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of night shift workers (≥8 shifts/mo between 11 pm and 3 am) in Australia and the United Kingdom from March to July 2024. Participants (n=392) completed validated questionnaires including Rome IV criteria for IBS and FD. Fixed night shift workers constituted 54.1% of the sample, whereas 45.9% worked rotating shifts.

Key findings:

  • 21.3% met Rome IV criteria for IBS, 30.4% for FD, and 24.5% for both conditions.  The rates of IBS and FD in this cohort was substantially more than “general estimates of 4.1%” general population estimates (4.1% for IBS and 7.2% for FD),10“
  • Most participants (59.9%) reported night shifts negatively affected their GI symptoms, and 16.3% considered changing jobs due to symptoms.

The authors discuss the many ways that circadian disruption can adversely affect the GI tract. In addition, night shift workers are more likely to adopt irregular dietary habits which could be a contributing factor as well.

My take: This study shows that night shift work is associated with high rates of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) likely due to disturbance in circadian rhythms. It is in agreement with other studies showing that disturbed sleep worsens IBS symptoms (A Patel et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016; 44(3):246–258).

Related blog posts:

Fjadrargljufur. Iceland.  I would fail spelling in Iceland!  There is a powered hang glider in the distance.
This was a good hike with serpentine canyon walls and a long waterfall at the end

PODIUM Study: Jak Inhibitors and Ustekinumab Outperformed Vedolizumab as a 2nd Line Agent for Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by
Reply

G Privitera et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatl 2026; 24: 2539-2550. Open Access! Ustekinumab and Janus Kinase Inhibitors Outperform Vedolizumab as Second-Line Therapy in Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor-Experienced Patients With Ulcerative Colitis

Before reading this article, I had to research why it was called “The Podium Study.” The research directly stacks three competing second-line classes of advanced therapies against each other: vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and JAK inhibitors; this is similar to a sports podium (1st, 2nd, and 3rd place), as the ultimate clinical goal of the study was to “rank” which medication performed best in terms of efficacy and safety after a patient fails anti-TNFα therapy. Of historical interest, there was an older, unrelated PODIUM trial, which stood for Pentasa Once Daily in Ulcerative Colitis for Maintenance of Remission.

Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter European study, there were 596 patients were included (301 vedolizumab, 149 ustekinumab, 146 JAKi) with a mean age of 43.9 ± 15.5 years.  JAKi included 114 with tofacitinib, 28 with upadacitinib, and 5 with filgotinib. Achievement of biochemical steroid-free clinical remission (SFCR) within 12 months was identified by having SFCR associated with biomarker normalization: FCP <250 μg/g or CRP <5 mg/L—if discordant, FCP was considered the reference biomarker.

Key findings:

  • Compared with vedolizumab, both ustekinumab and JAKi showed significantly higher probability of steroid-free clinical remission (SFCR) (aHR, 1.54 and aHR, 1.66, respectively) and biochemical SFCR (aHR, 2.26 and 3.37, respectively) at 12 months
  • The crude incidence rate of SFCR at 12 months was 65.3% for vedolizumab, 87.0% for ustekinumab, and 80.2% for JAKi.
  • From a safety standpoint, JAKi were associated with an approximately 4-fold increase in the incidence rate of treatment-related AEs—primarily infections—compared with both vedolizumab and ustekinumab.

Discussion Points:

“Optimal sequencing in UC after anti-TNF-α exposure remains an open issue, as direct comparisons are scarce. Overall, our findings are consistent with the network meta-analysis by Lasa et al, which reported superior efficacy of JAKi and ustekinumab compared with vedolizumab in inducing clinical remission and endoscopic improvement in anti-TNF-α-experienced patients.14 However, these conclusions derive from indirect comparisons across heterogeneous randomized trials.”

My take: Vedolizumab is a good choice as a 1st line agent for ulcerative colitis but has a lower success rate as a 2nd line agent. Also, this study likely underestimates the potential effectiveness of JAKi as most individuals received tofacitinib rather than upadacitinib.

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

ESPGHAN Position Paper: Management of Foreign Bodies (2026)

Posted on by
Reply

O Ledder et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2026;83:539–554. Open Access! Foreign body ingestions in children and adolescents: A position paper of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) endoscopy special interest group

In 2015, NASPGHAN’s endoscopy committee published a report on the management of foreign bodies (see: Foreign Bodies in Children -Expert Guidance). This was quite helpful. This ESPGHAN position paper provides updated guidance though many of the recommendations are unchanged.

Overall Treatment Algorithm:

Button Batteries

Blunt Objects/Benign Foreign Bodies

  • Superabsorbent polymers (SAP) Since these items are translucent, imaging is useful only for identifying the sequelae of the ingestion, but not the SAP itself… In cases of witnessed or suspected ingestion of SAP, emergency endoscopy should be performed to attempt retrieval of the material. If this is unsuccessful, or not completely retrieved, the child should be admitted for close observation with surgical support.

Magnets:

  • On table fluoroscopy has been suggested to confirm removal of all magnets if there is doubt whether all have been retrieved. (My personal experience is that fluoroscopy is particularly helpful if a colonoscopy is needed.)

Sharp Objects

My take: These guidelines are similar the previous NASPGHAN endoscopy committee recommendations from 2015. They are still worth a read for more context and there are a lot of endoscopy pointers in this report.

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure. This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

“Being a Doctor Will Never Be the Same After A.I.”

Posted on by
Reply

Rachael Bedard. NY Times 9/25/26: Being a Doctor Will Never Be the Same After A.I.

An excerpt:

“I have a confession: A.I. is making me a better doctor. And I worry that it’s making doctors-in-training worse…

I already use the technology in my practice all the time…This summer, I used an A.I. tool — a platform called OpenEvidence, accessible only to health care providers — to help me choose antibiotics for one patient and to interpret unusual bloodwork for another. A.I. reminded me to consider migraines when a woman presented with dizziness. ..

Almost every month, I’m confronted with a complaint or syndrome that I don’t recognize. I’m confident in my mastery over what doctors do — history-taking, reasoning, communicating. I’m less confident about my continued mastery of an ever-evolving universe of facts. Now, the chatbot in my pocket reassures me that I will always know enough, or have access to the cloud-based intelligence that generally does.

All of my students and residents also use OpenEvidence, however, and I worry about the consequences of introducing such a powerful decision aid so early in their careers. Not only have they memorized less than I’d like, but they can seem almost passive in their relationship to their machines…

OpenEvidence is trained exclusively on peer-reviewed evidence and guidelines, and includes citations for all its claims…To use the app well, you must stay skeptical as you scroll…

I’m surprised by how much I learn from, and enjoy, these interactions. More important, my patient care has improved as conversations with the agent push my thinking beyond its usual limits…

Adam Rodman, a physician and A.I. researcher at Harvard Medical School,… said he shared my concern that trainees aren’t benefiting from “productive struggles” as much as their predecessors. “In experienced hands, decision support might cause a little de-skilling, but a little de-skilling probably doesn’t matter much to you,” Dr. Rodman told me. “But if you do that to somebody who has much less skill, the cognitive offloading can cause never-skilling”…

Current doctors-to-be may be the most adversely affected generation when it comes to A.I. They’re training before we know enough about how to teach them well in this new paradigm.

My take: In all aspects of learning, not just medicine, using AI shortcuts may make learners increasingly dependent on their devices, undermine their judgment and hinder developing their own voice. How to best train individuals in this new era remains unclear.

Related blog posts:

Svörtuloft Lighthouse is located at the westernmost tip of the Snæfellsnes Peninsula in West Iceland. It is perched atop a 2.5-mile stretch of pitch-black volcanic lava cliffs.

Outcomes of Biliary Atresia in Large Cohort

Posted on by
1

G Boroni et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2026;83:491–499. The Italian biliary atresia registry: Insights and lessons from the retrospective analysis of a 10-year period cohort

This retrospective study (2012-2012) examined the outcomes of 309 children with biliary atresia (BA) from 13 centers. Clearance of jaundice (CoJ) was defined as total bilirubin <1.2 mg/dL within 6 months.

Key findings:

  • The calculated incidence of BA in Italy during the study period was 1/15,142 live births
  • Kasai portoenterostomy (KPE) was performed in 272 infants (88%) at a median age of 68.5 days.
  • CoJ was achieved in 39% of cases.
  • CoJ was significantly associated with younger age and lower total bilirubin at referral (p = 0.0446 and p = 0.0144, respectively), younger age at KPE (p = 0.0345), and postoperative corticosteroid use (p = 0.0036). 
  • Liver transplantation was performed in 212/309 patients, and overall 5-year actuarial patient survival was 97.4%.
  • Overall patient survival was excellent: 97% at 5 years and 95% at 10 years.
Steroids were used in 71% of KPE cases. Different centers had different steroid protocols
Steroids were associated with improved clearance of jaundice after Kasai.
In those with a failed Kasai, steroid use did not improve outcomes.

Discussion points:

  • “This analysis contributes further to the controversy surrounding the effect of steroids.”
  • “The success of KPE decreases progressively with age at operation, with each additional day reducing the odds of CoJ by approximately 1.3%.”
  • “Despite decades of calls for earlier diagnosis and earlier KPE, little progress has been made in achieving earlier access to surgery…The evidence suggests that fibrosis is already advanced when KPE is performed at around 60 days of life and is likely to persist for life even when CoJ is achieved. Cirrhosis and portal hypertension remain common in long‐term survivors, who may face severe comorbidities.”
  • “Standards should therefore aim for KPE closer to, or before, 30 days of age, rather than accepting the current usual timing of 50–70 days achieved worldwide.”

My take: In this cohort, ~70% needed a liver transplant. Even with optimal timing and management, more than 50% are likely to need a liver transplant for long-term survival.

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure. This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

AI for Capsule Endoscopy:

Posted on by
Reply

D Fan et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2026; 24: 2571-2583. Open Access! INTELCAPE: A Deep Learning-Powered System for Automated, High-Accuracy Crohn’s Disease Diagnosis via Capsule Endoscopy

Methods: In this retrospective, multi-center study with data from 2 Chinese hospitals, the authors developed artificial intelligence, INTELCAPE, for a multi-task deep learning system, to perform small-intestine segmentation, lesion detection, and CD diagnosis from full (capsule endoscopy) CE videos.

Key findings:

  • “INTELCAPE achieved state-of-the-art performance across all tasks.”
  • “For lesion detection, it achieved area under the curve values of 0.993 (Cohort 1) and 0.980 (Cohort 2), with 99.33% classification accuracy, which was comparable to that of specialists (97.83%) but superior to that of residents (91.05%; P < .001).”
  • “For CD diagnosis, INTELCAPE demonstrated robust generalizability, achieving area under the curve values of 0.982 (Cohort 1) and 0.984 (Cohort 2) with 90% diagnostic accuracy, comparable to that of specialists (93.33%) but 10-fold faster (P < .001).”
  • “INTELCAPE improved doctors’ diagnostic accuracy (76.7%–94.8%; P < .001), while reducing their interpretation time (67.9–22.5 minutes; P < .001).”

Discussion Points:

  • “CE generates thousands of images per examination, imposing a substantial analytical burden on clinicians. Manual analysis is labor-intensive and prone to human error, increasing the risk of missed lesions, particularly those with subtle appearances.”
  • “Real-world clinical workflows will require prospective validation on “all-comers” populations, robust handling of poor-quality videos, and device-specific fine-tuning.”

My take: Capsule endoscopy appears to be an ideal target for AI assistance. It has the potential to improve accuracy, reduce time, and augment the performance of less experienced clinicians.

Related blog posts:

Long-Term Effectiveness of Dupilumab for Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Posted on by
Reply

S Oliva et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology; 2026 (Epub, 9/7/26). Open Access! Long-Term Effectiveness of Dupilumab in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Results From the DUPEOETALY Study

Methods: This retrospective observational study included 167 patients, median age, 21.5 years, with EoE from 50 Italian centers, unresponsive or intolerant to conventional therapies. Given the real-world design of the study, no standardized protocol mandated patient re-evaluation at fixed follow-up timepoints. Histologic remission was considered having <15 eos/hpf. All patients, however, underwent at least 3 endoscopic assessments: at baseline, after the induction phase (performed between weeks 12 and 24), and at 1-year follow-up. At baseline, 76% had a personal history of atopy, 86.2% had used corticosteroids, and 94% had used proton pump inhibitors.

Key findings:

  • DSQ score decreased from 22.14 ± 26.63 to 0.21 ± 2.30, EREFS from 4.95 ± 3.43 to 0.07 ± 0.09, and Eos/HPF from 36.80 ± 31.75 to 0.06 ± 0.46.
  • Improvements increased with treatment duration. By week 72, 98.3% of patients achieved remission criteria (DSQ ≤5, Eos/HPF ≤15, and EREFS ≤2). 
  • No serious or systemic adverse events were reported, and no patients discontinued treatment due to intolerance. 
Remission criteria were defined as DSQ ≤5, EREFS ≤2, and <15 eos/HPF,
with complete remission achieved when all 3 were met simultaneously.24

Discussion:

  • “Only a small proportion of patients in our cohort had a history of esophageal dilation (8.4%), which may suggest a relatively lower burden of advanced fibrostenotic disease…could partially influence remission rates and should be considered when interpreting the generalizability of our findings to populations with more severe structural disease.”

My take: This study supports the long-term effectiveness of dupilumab in pediatric and adult patients with EoE. It is not clear why there was such a high remission rate in this cohort compared to previous reports.

Related blog posts:

Some good brief YouTube EoE educational videos for families from GIKids.org (with pharmaceutical funding), links:

Flawed Dual Therapy Study of Vedolizumab and Upadacitinib

Posted on by
Reply

J Yao et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2026. Combined Upadacitinib and Vedolizumab as 8-Week Induction Therapy for Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

Many patients do not respond to current advanced therapies which have prompted evaluation of dual therapy regimens. In this randomized open-label trial, the authors compared upadacitinib-vedolizumab dual therapy against vedolizumab monotherapy (40 combination, 73 monotherapy) for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Upadacitinib was dosed at 45 mg per day.

Key findings:

  • Endoscopic remission at week 8 was achieved by 37.5% in the dual therapy group compared to 15.1% with vedolizumab monotherapy (adjusted odds ratio, 3.34, 1.34–8.58; P = .010)
  • Clinical remission (65.0% vs 35.6%; P = .002) was significantly higher with combination therapy.
  • Adverse event rates were comparable (7.5% vs 6.8%), with no serious adverse events.

It is great to see more dual therapy data . While I am a little reluctant to criticize this study, as I think this type or research is both important and difficult, this trial has a couple problems. First of all, vedolizumab monotherapy may take twice as long to become effective; as such, the results at week 8 in isolation provoke more questions than answers. In addition, at this time point, it is not clear if combination therapy would be more effective than upadacitinib monotherapy.

In their discussion, the authors state that “the 65.0% clinical remission rate at week 8 substantially exceeds rates reported in pivotal induction trials for either upadacitinib (up to 34%11,25) or vedolizumab (approximately 17%24) as monotherapy….. The absence of a upadacitinib monotherapy arm precludes formal assessment of synergy; however, the observed combination endoscopic remission rate (37.5%) exceeds published upadacitinib monotherapy rates for Mayo score = 0 (approximately 14%–18%),11 suggesting a benefit beyond that of upadacitinib monotherapy alone.” However, in a study (RS Dalal et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 22: 666-668) comparing monotherapy with upadacitinib versus ustekinumab, upadacitinib had a steroid-free clinical remission rate of 62.1 %, and an endoscopic remission 37.5%. These results are nearly identical to the results of the combination therapy group.

My take: This study shows that upadacitinib works quicker than vedolizumab for moderate-to severe UC. It does not prove that upadacitinib in combination with vedolizumab is more effective than upadacitinib monotherapy.

The anticipated followup data at 1 year will be helpful to determine whether the combination with vedolizumab impacts long-term effectiveness of upadacitinib monotherapy. It is unfortunate that an upadacitinib monotherapy arm was not included in this study.

Another useful study would be whether patients who respond to upadacitinib as an induction combination therapy with vedolizumab could transition to vedolizumab monotherapy. This would leverage upadacitinib’s rapid onset and if effective, allow long-term treatment with vedolizumab which is considered to have the most favorable long-term safety data.

Related blog posts:

The Median Arcuate Ligament Syndrome (MALS) Study For Skeptics Like Me

Posted on by
Reply

MA Nassif et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2026;83:397–403. Outcomes of surgical versus conservative treatment inpediatric median arcuate ligament syndrome

Methods: This was a retrospective pediatric study (n=34) evaluating surgical versus conservative management in pediatric MALS. Conservative therapy included the following: 100% pharmacologic, 80% behavioral, 30% botulinum toxin, 20% neurostimulation.

Key findings:

  • Conservative therapy outcomes (n=10): resolution (20%), improvement (40%), unchanged (40%), and none worsened.
  • Surgical therapy outcomes (n=24) resolution (21%), improvement (33%), unchanged (17%), worsened (29%); thus, these outcomes are not significantly different from the conservative group (p = 0.21). Median hospital stays: 4 days. Postoperative complications occurred in 21%. The one major complication was an intraoperative splenic artery injury in a patient with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome.
  • Overall, 60% of children with MALS improved with conservative DGBI‐directed therapy and 54% improved with decompression surgery at long‐term follow‐up (at median 9.8 months), despite a robust short‐term postoperative response (87%). At 20 days postop: 52% reported resolution, 35% improved.
Recent follow‐up data show comparable rates of resolution and improvement between the two groups, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.21).

Discussion points:

  • Other studies have reported higher response rates for MALS surgery: “The newest and largest‐scale review suggests a 70% symptom relief rate in three of six pediatric studies, with follow‐ups of 6–62 months after laparoscopic MALS release.[28]”
  • “A more recent study conducted in 2017 determined that only post‐exertional abdominal pain was a predictor of a good surgical outcome.[31]”
  • “The lack of universally accepted diagnostic criteria for MALS remains a challenge.”

My take: In this study, surgery for MALS did not seem to improve long-term outcome more than DGBI therapy. If one finds celiac artery compression which may be identified in many healthy individuals (10-24% of population), it is unclear to me if an MALS operation is indicated and how to determine when it is indicated.

Related blog posts: