Monthly Archives: May 2021

4-14-4 Rule: More Biopsies Needed For Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Posted on by

Briefly noted: AL Krarup et al. Endoscopy. 2021 Jan;53(1):15-24. doi: 10.1055/a-1206-0852. Implementation of a biopsy protocol to improve detection of esophageal eosinophilia: a Danish registry-based study

In 2011, leaders of regional endoscopy units in Northern Denmark reached a consensus on a protocol to take eight biopsy samples in dysphagia patients (four biopsies from 4 cm and 14 cm above the esophagogastric junction-“4-14-4 rule”) regardless of the macroscopic appearance.

Key finding:  The number of patients with esophageal eosinophilia detected per year increased 50-fold after the protocol was implemented in 2011 (median of 1 [interquartile range 0-3] vs. 52 [47-56]; P < 0.001), and the number of biopsy samples per patient doubled (median 4 [4-5] vs. 8 [6-9]; P < 0.04). In total, there were 309 with esophageal eosinophilia identified from 2007-2017.

My take: This study provides more data that more biopsies help identify more cases of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Related blog posts:

  • Best Approach for Identifying Eosinophilic Esophagitis Prior studies have shown higher yield when taking 5 or 6 biopsies rather than fewer biopsies; thus, the location of biopsies may not be as important as the number of specimens. Also, prior studies have shown that having another pathologist review the slides can increase the yield by ~20%; this indicates that careful review of specimens by itself is helpful.  Perhaps, more specimen containers will increase the time that a pathologist reviews the biopsies.
  • Looking Twice for Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Real-World Experience with Proactive Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

A recent large retrospective pediatric study provides further evidence that therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) results in better clinical outcomes. One of my partners, Chelly Dykes, is a coauthor and leads our ImproveCareNow team.

JL Lyles et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2021; 27: 482-492. Effect of a Practice-wide Anti-TNF Proactive Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Program on Outcomes in Pediatric Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

This single center implemented a practice wide TDM approach in 2014. This study compared a historical pre-TDM group (n=108) to the TDM group (n=206). The primary outcome was sustained clinical remission (SCR22-52), defined as physician global assessment (PGA) of inactive from 22 to 52 weeks and off corticosteroids at 52 weeks. Key findings:

  • The SCR22-52 was achieved in 42% of pre-TDM and 59% of TDM patients (risk difference, 17.6%; 95% CI, 5.4–29%; P = 0.004)
  • The TDM group had an increased adjusted odds of achieving SCR22-52 (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.27–3.26; P = 0.003)
  • The adjusted risk of developing high titer antidrug antibodies (ADAs) was lower in the post-TDM group (hazard ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09–0.35; P < 0.001)
  • The SCBR22-52 (which was defined by normal CRP along with SCR22-52) was 24.7% in pre-TDM and 42.7% in the TDM group
  • The authors did not identify a significantly higher rate of anti-TNF cessation in either group
  • Only 12% of patients in their practice were receiving combination therapy

In the discussion, the authors review three pivotal studies which also support proactive TDM: TAXIT, TAILORIX, and PAILOT.

My take: While this was an observational study with historical controls, the findings are convincing that proactive TDM is helpful, particularly in patients who are not receiving combination therapy.

Related blog posts:

March 31, 2021

Lubiprostone Study: Ineffective for Pediatric Functional Constipation

Posted on by

MA Benninga et al. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.005 Lubiprostone for Pediatric Functional Constipation: Randomized, Controlled, Double-blind Study With Long-term Extension

Key finding: 606 patients were randomized to treatment (placebo: n=202; lubiprostone: n=404). No statistically significant difference in overall SBM (spontaneous bowel movement) response rate was observed between the lubiprostone and placebo groups (18.5% vs 14.4%; P=.2245).

Related blog posts: