Author Archives: gutsandgrowth

Unknown's avatar

About gutsandgrowth

I am a pediatric gastroenterologist at GI Care for Kids (previously called CCDHC) in Atlanta, Georgia. The goal of my blog is to share some of my reading in my field more broadly. In addition, I wanted to provide my voice to a wide range of topics that often have inaccurate or incomplete information. Before starting this blog in 2011, I would tear out articles from journals and/or keep notes in a palm pilot. This blog helps provide an updated source of information that is easy to access and search, along with links to useful multimedia sources. I was born and raised in Chattanooga. After graduating from the University of Virginia, I attended Baylor College of Medicine. I completed residency and fellowship training at the University of Cincinnati at the Children’s Hospital Medical Center. I received funding from the National Institutes of Health for molecular biology research of the gastrointestinal tract. During my fellowship, I had the opportunity to work with some of the most amazing pediatric gastroenterologists and mentors. Some of these individuals included Mitchell Cohen, William Balistreri, James Heubi, Jorge Bezerra, Colin Rudolph, John Bucuvalas, and Michael Farrell. I am grateful for their teaching and their friendship. During my training with their help, I received a nationwide award for the best research by a GI fellow. I have authored numerous publications/presentations including original research, case reports, review articles, and textbook chapters on various pediatric gastrointestinal problems. In addition, I have been recognized by Atlanta Magazine as a "Top Doctor" in my field multiple times. Currently, I am the vice chair of the section of nutrition for the Georgia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. In addition, I am an adjunct Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Emory University School of Medicine. Other society memberships have included the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN), American Academy of Pediatrics, the Food Allergy Network, the American Gastroenterology Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, and the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation. As part of a national pediatric GI organization called NASPGHAN (and its affiliated website GIKids), I have helped develop educational materials on a wide-range of gastrointestinal and liver diseases which are used across the country. Also, I have been an invited speaker for national campaigns to improve the evaluation and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, celiac disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, hepatitis C, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Some information on these topics has been posted at my work website, www.gicareforkids.com, which has links to multiple other useful resources. I am fortunate to work at GI Care For Kids. Our group has 17 terrific physicians with a wide range of subspecialization, including liver diseases, feeding disorders, eosinophilic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, cystic fibrosis, DiGeorge/22q, celiac disease, and motility disorders. Many of our physicians are recognized nationally for their achievements. Our group of physicians have worked closely together for many years. None of the physicians in our group have ever left to join other groups. I have also worked with the same nurse (Bernadette) since I moved to Atlanta in 1997. For many families, more practical matters about our office include the following: – 14 office/satellite locations – physicians who speak Spanish – cutting edge research – on-site nutritionists – on-site psychology support for abdominal pain and feeding disorders – participation in ImproveCareNow to better the outcomes for children with inflammatory bowel disease – office endoscopy suite (lower costs and easier scheduling) – office infusion center (lower costs and easier for families) – easy access to nursing advice (each physician has at least one nurse) I am married and have two sons (both adults). I like to read, walk/hike, bike, swim, and play tennis with my free time. I do not have any financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies or other financial relationships to disclose. I have helped enroll patients in industry-sponsored research studies.

Anti-TNF Therapy for Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis

Posted on by

A recent report highlights the use of anti-TNF therapy (eg. infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab [ADA])  for eosinophilic enterocolitis/eosinophilic gastroenteritis in eight patients who had not responded to other treatments (JPGN 2013; 56: 492-97).

The mean age of these patients was 8 years with a range of 1 to 14 years.  Prior to use of IFX therapy, multiple therapies had been used.  Four patients had been treated with complete elemental diet; medications that were used included montelukast, hydroxyzine, sodium cromogylcate, budesonide, amitriptyline, prednisone, ketotifen, cyproheptadine, thiopurines, and methotrexate (Table 1 in study).

Complete clinical remission was noted to occur in 6 (75%) with IFX induction treatment; this was associated with mucosal healing in 3, mucosal improvement in 2, and unknown in 1 patient.

The six responders were followed for a median of 7 years.  During that timeframe, four of six had secondary loss of response and were switched to ADA.  Three of these four maintained a clinical response with ADA using high doses (80 mg EOW).

Additional References:

  • -Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 950.  40% of Eosinophili gastroenteritis resolved.
  • -JPGN 2010; 51: 723. n=91.  Incidental gastric eosinophils does not predict a worse response to fluticasone then isolated EoE.
  • -NEJM 2009; 361: 1387.  Description of a case of eosinophilic gastroenteritis.
  • -Gut 2009; 58: 721-32. Review of primary Eos d/o of GI tract.
  • -JPGN 2008; 47: 234-8.  EGIDs.

More HCV options -phase 3 for Sofosbuvir

Posted on by

The pace of research for HCV is incredible.  Two months ago phase 2 data for Sofosbuvir were reported and noted on this blog (More options for Hepatitis C | gutsandgrowth).  Now phase 3 data from multiple trials have emerged indicating the effectiveness of sofosbuvir for all HCV genotypes.

In the first study, NEJM 2013; 368: 1867-77, data from two trials (POSITRON and FUSION) of patients with HCV genotypes 2 and 3 are reported.  The POSITRON trial (63 sites, n=278 received treatment) was a blinded placebo-controlled study that evaluated 12 weeks of sofosbuvir/ribavirin compared with placebo in patients who discontinued interferon due to unacceptable adverse events or could not take interferon due to contraindications (most commonly psychiatric disorder or autoimmunity). Results: sustained virological response (SVR) in 78% of treatment group compared with 0% of placebo patients.  In addition, there was “complete concordance (100%) between rates of SVR at 12 weeks and at 24 weeks.”

The FUSION study (67 sites, n=201 received treatment) was a blinded, active-control study in patients who did not respond to a previous interferon-based regimen; one of two treatment regimens were administered: 12 weeks of sofosbuvir/ribavirin followed by placebo or 16 weeks of sofosbuvir/ribavirin. Results: 93% of genotype 2 patients had SVR and 61% of genotype 3 patients had SVR.  Among cirrhotic patients, 61% had SVR (94% of genotype 2, 21% of genotype 3); for those without cirrhosis, there was an 81% SVR (92% with genotype 2, 68% with genotype 3).  Thus, it is easy to conclude that genotype 3 patients with cirrhosis responded much less favorably.

Other important findings: rates of discontinuation among the treatment groups were similar to the placebo groups.  The most common adverse effect was anemia in the treatment groups.

In the second study, NEJM 2013; 368: 1878-87, an additional two phase 2 trials (NEUTRINO and FISSION) are reported from previously untreated chronic HCV patients.  The first trial (NEUTRINO) was an open-label study examining a 12-week regimen of sofosbuvir, peginterferon alfa-2a, and ribavirin in 327 HCV patients (98% genotypes 1 or 4).  Results: SVR noted in 90%. The second trial (FISSION) enrolled 499 patients with genotypes 2 and 3 who randomly received either peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin for 24 weeks or sofosbuvir/ribavirin for 12 weeks. Results: SVR noted to be 67% in both groups.  Genotype 2 patients again fared better than genotype 3 among the sofosbuvir/ribavirin group (97% versus 56%).  Some adverse events like fatigue, headache and nausea were common.  Overall, side effects were much lower in those not receiving peginterferon (see Table 3).

Take home message: From the editorial (pg 1931-32 in same issue): “a radical change in clinical practice is imminent…the low incidence of side effects, the relatively short duration of treatment, and the pangenotypic properties of the drugs are strong selling points of a sofosbuvir-ribavirin regimen and will probably lower the threshold for HCV treatment for both patients and physicians.”

Hopefully, we will see pediatric studies soon.

Related blog entries:

Simponi (Golimumab) Approved for Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on 5/15/13 approved a new use for Simponi (golimumab) injection to treat adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

Here’s the link:

FDA approves Simponi to treat ulcerative colitis

From the link:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved a new use for Simponi (golimumab) injection to treat adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

Simponi works by blocking tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which plays an important role in causing abnormal inflammatory and immune responses. Previously approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis (arthritis affecting the joints in the spine and the pelvis), Simponi is now approved to treat adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis that is resistant (refractory) to prior treatment or requires continuous steroid therapy.

Ulcerative colitis is a chronic disease that affects about 620,000 Americans. It causes inflammation and ulcers in the inner lining of the large intestine and is one of two main forms of chronic inflammatory bowel disease. The inflammation can lead to abdominal discomfort, gastrointestinal bleeding, production of pus and diarrhea.

“Simponi is an important new treatment option for patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis,” said Andrew E. Mulberg, M.D., deputy director of the Division of Gastroenterology and Inborn Errors Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “It is critical that patients suffering from the serious and painful symptoms of ulcerative colitis have additional treatment options since patients experience the effects of the disease and respond to treatments differently.”

The safety and effectiveness of Simponi for ulcerative colitis were established in two clinical studies. Evaluations of patients included measures of stool frequency, rectal bleeding, endoscopic findings and a physician’s overall assessment.

In the first study, 513 patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis who could not tolerate or failed to respond to other therapies were randomly assigned to receive Simponi or a placebo. Results showed that a greater proportion of Simponi-treated patients achieved clinical response, clinical remission and, as seen during endoscopy, had improved appearance of the colon after six weeks compared with the placebo group.

In the second study, 310 patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis who were responders to Simponi were randomly assigned to receive Simponi or placebo. A greater proportion of Simponi-treated patients maintained clinical response through week 54 and had clinical remission at both weeks 30 and 54.  

The most common side effects in patients treated with Simponi are upper respiratory infection and redness at the site of injection. Patients treated with Simponi are at increased risk of developing serious infections, invasive fungal infections, reactivation of Hepatitis B infection, lymphoma, heart failure, nervous system disorders and allergic reactions.

What is the risk with Rifaximin?

Posted on by

While no one knows how quickly resistance of gut microbes will develop in response to rifaximin, the likelihood of resistance is high and this should temper its usage (J Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 47: 205-11).

Rifaximin, along with other antibiotics, has been shown to relieve symptoms in certain cohorts of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients.  Generally, the results of these studies have been modest (see below); however, because it is a “gut specific” antibiotic with minimal systemic absorption (<1%) and therefore minimal adverse effects, it has been considered a reasonable and safe treatment by many.  It has been useful as well for traveler’s diarrhea, hepatic encephalopathy, and colonic diverticular disease.  With regard to IBS, the major concern is that this is a chronic disorder and repeated usage will result in antimicrobial resistance.

Resistance to rifaximin could result in serious consequences if it provoked a class effect resistance.  Rifaximin belongs to the rifamycin class of antibiotics which treat numerous diseases including tuberculoses, meningococcal disease, Clostridium difficile, and methicillin-resistance Staphylococcus aureus.

Given the limited number of suitable alternatives and emerging resistance patterns, wise stewardship of our current antibiotics is essential, though unlikely.  It is not difficult to foresee a rise in mortality from some infectious problems that are easily treated currently.

Related references:

  • -JPGN 2011; 52: 382.  Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of rifaximin in children with RAP.  n=75.  Not effective in this study.
  • -NEJM 2011; 364: 22 (pg 81-editorial). About 10% improvement over placebo in pts with IBS-D. Effects lasted up to 3 months.
  • -DDW 2010, 475 abstract. Target 1 & Target 2. n=623, n=637. Relief of IBS in ~41% vs ~32% placebo. 550mg TID x 14days.

Related blog posts:

Early Surgery for Acute Uncomplicated Cholecystitis

Posted on by

Data in adults suggests that early surgery is the best approach for acute uncomplicated cholecystitis:

From the following link: Early cholecystectomy beats delayed in acute cholecystitis : Internal …: Acute cholecystitis patients fared significantly better with early rather than delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the largest-ever randomized trial addressing surgical timing for this common condition.

Patients assigned to early cholecystectomy – that is, surgery within 24 hours of presentation to the hospital – had one-third the morbidity, markedly shorter hospital lengths of stay, and correspondingly lower hospital costs compared with patients who underwent surgery on day 7-45, according to Dr. Markus W. Buchler of Heidelberg (Ger.) University….

The optimal timing of surgical intervention in acute cholecystitis is a subject of long-standing controversy. The ACDC trial was conducted because in a Cochrane review of five smaller randomized trials totaling 451 acute cholecystitis patients, researchers concluded there was insufficient evidence to say which surgical strategy was best (Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2006 Oct 18;4:CD005440).

Dr. Buchler noted that surveys indicate many American surgeons prefer to delay laparoscopic cholecystectomy, while in Germany the surgical preference is for immediate surgery in patients with uncomplicated acute cholecystitis.

The ACDC trial involved 618 patients with uncomplicated acute cholecystitis who were placed on the same antibiotic – moxifloxacin – and randomized to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy or to delayed surgery on day 7-45. Pregnant patients were excluded from the trial, which was conducted at 35 European hospitals, including seven German university medical centers. All participating hospitals were staffed by surgical teams experienced in performing difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomies.

The primary endpoint was total morbidity within 75 days. This included cholangitis, pancreatitis, biliary leak, stroke, myocardial infarction, abscess, bleeding, peritonitis, infection, and renal failure. The rate was 11.6% in the early cholecystectomy group compared with 31.3% with delayed surgery. Among less challenging patients with an ASA score of 2 or less, the rates were 9.7% and 28.6%, respectively. Patients with an ASA score above 2 had an overall morbidity rate of 20% with early surgery compared with 47% with delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

The rate of conversion to open surgery was 9.9% in the early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and similar at 11.9% in the delayed surgery group…Total hospital stays averaged 5.4 days in the early surgery group compared with 10.0 days with delayed surgery. Mean total hospital costs calculated via the German DRG system were 2,919 euro in the early cholecystectomy group and 4,261 euro with delayed surgery.

Discussant Dr. Andrew L. Warshaw…“There’s no doubt in my mind that immediate cholecystectomy is superior in this patient population,” said Dr. Warshaw, professor and chairman of the department of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Do Enemas Help Nonretentive Encopresis?

Posted on by

No –according to a recent study (J Pediatr 2013; 162: 1023-7).

In this study, 71 children (76% boys, median age 9 years) with functional nonrententive fecal incontinence (FNRFI) were randomized to receive conventional therapy (control group) or conventional therapy along with daily enemas for 2 weeks.  Conventional therapy was considered education, toilet training, behavioral strategies, and a daily bowel diary with reward system. All children were instructed to defecate on toilet for 5 minutes after each meal.  Treatment success was defined as <2 episodes of fecal incontinence (FI) per month.  Outcomes were measured at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after the start of treatment.

Results:

  • At the start, median FI was 6.1 per week and median defecation frequency was 7.0 per week.
  • In both the control group and the treatment group, there was improvement.  After the initial 6 weeks of treatment, FI episodes were 2.0/week in the control group and 1.0/week in the treatment group.
  • The treatment success at long-term followup was 17% for both groups.

In the discussion, the authors note that a longer course of enemas (> 3 months) could be needed to improve long-term outcomes.  They also note a high rate of daytime (31%) and night time (35%) urinary incontinence in these children; “we hypothesize that children with FNRFI not only deny or neglect their urge to defecate but exhibit the same behavior toward micturation.”

Take-home message: Both treatments improved the frequency of FI (and urinary incontinence); however, neither were highly effective.  Short-term use of enemas is not likely to have a meaningful effect.  Better treatment strategies are needed.

Related blog links:

Drug Shortages and Selenium Deficiency

Posted on by

If you participate in the care of patients who are dependent on parenteral nutrition, then you are familiar with frequent component drug shortages.  Generally, attempts to manage these shortages involve rationing and targeting those with the greatest need.  In one institution, this was not effective in preventing biochemical deficiency of selenium (JPEN 2013; DOI 10.1177/0148607113486005).  Thanks to Kipp Ellsworth for this reference.

The authors describe five pediatric patients who were completely dependent on parenteral nutrition due to intestinal failure.  During a 9-month shortage of intravenous selenium, all five who were previously selenium replete had deficiency identified (level <20 ng/mL).

After these deficiencies were identified, the patients were placed on Multitrace-5 (MTE-5).  This multivitamin contains 20 mcg/mL of selenium.  While patients prior to the shortage typically received 50-75 mcg/day, after instituting MTE-5, they received 10-26 mcg/day.  Nevertheless, this helped prevent any clinical evidence of deficiency.  In patients with selenium deficiency, there is an increased risk of cardiomyopathy, chronic illness, and death.

The authors note that their preference is to individually dose the specific trace elements and that MTE-5 can contribute to elevated levels of manganese and chromium with long-term usage.

Related blog links:

Related references:

  • -Gastroenterol 2009; 137: S61-S69.
  • -J Pediatr 2011; 159: 39.

Overlooking Important Detail$ in Hereditary Angioedema Treatment

Posted on by

Several approved treatments are now available for Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) attacks. A recent article highlights the effectiveness in 46 children who received 2237 infusions of nanofiltered C1-esterase inhibitor (C1 INH-nf) treatment (J Pediatr 2013; 162: 1017-22).

Background:  HAE prevalence: 1 in 50,000.  Though it is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner, up to 25% of case are de novo. HAE is characterized by recurrent episodic attacks of subcutaneous edema of the skin, GI tract or upper airway.  Symptoms often present between 4 and 11 years of age.  GI tract symptoms are often recurrent colicky abdominal pain. Triggers for attacks may include infections, emotional stress, and trauma (e.g. bodily contact from play).

This manuscript provides data from 4 prospective clinical trials of  C1 INH-nf (Cinryze).  Most children in this study responded within 30 minutes compared with 2 hours for placebo.  Therapy also reduced the rate of attacks.  One interesting aspect of the study was its lack of any mention of cost.

From UptoDate:  “Cost of first-line therapies — All first-line therapies for acute attacks of HAE are costly. In the US, the cost of one treatment with C1INHRP,ecallantide, or icatibant ranged from $5000 to $10,000.”  Hereditary angioedema: Treatment of acute attacks – UpToDate

From a Hereditary Angioedema – RegenceRx website: “As a preventative therapy, C1 esterase inhibitor (Cinryze) is significantly more costly than other formulary alternatives (~$500,000 per year; ~250 times more than danazol). For acute treatment of an HAE attack, C1 esterase inhibitor (Berinert) and ecallantide (Kalbitor) costs approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per attack. Cost may double if re- treatment is needed within 24 hours.”

Additional reference:

  • -Eur J Pediatr 2012; 171: 1339-48.  Consensus of therapeutic strategies for HAE.

Liver Injury from Anti-TNF Agents

Posted on by

While anti-TNF agents have been associated with drug-induced liver injury (DILI), it has been difficult to get a handle on how much importance to place on this.  A recent study provides more data and some reassurance (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 558-64).

The authors searched the U.S. DILI Network database from 2003 to 2011 and describe 6 cases of anti-TNF DILI; in addition, they searched PubMed for articles related to anti-TNF agent associated hepatotoxicity and identified an additional 28 cases. Other causes of liver disease were excluded in these patients, including reactivation of hepatitis B, and acute viral hepatitis (eg. hepatitis C, hepatitis E).

Results of anti-TNF hepatotoxicity:

  • 26 cases due to infliximab, 4 cases due to etanercept, and 4 due to adalimumab.
  • Based on scoring system, the anti-TNF agent was considered a definite cause of DILI in 1 (3%), very likely in 21 (62%) and probable in 12 (35%).
  • Median latency (duration of therapy before onset of DILI) was 13 weeks with a range of 2-104 weeks.
  • 22 (67%) had positive anti-nuclear and/or smooth muscle antibodies.  15 of 17 of these patients had liver biopsy features consistent with autoimmunity.
  • Among those 22 with autoimmune features, there was a higher peak alanine aminotransferase compared with the 12 without these features (784 vs 528 U/L)
  • Favorable outcome: all but one patient improved after discontinuation of the implicated drug; 12 received corticosteroids. One patient with underlying cirrhosis underwent liver transplantation after infliximab-induced liver injury.

While the authors note the potential for a class effect of anti-TNF agents, in studies from patients with psoriasis, there was a lack of cross-toxicity between etanercept and infliximab.

Take-home messages:

The risk of hepatocellular injury from anti-TNF agents is very low.  DILI due to anti-TNFs often have autoimmune features. The prognosis is favorable, and alternative anti-TNFs can be given after resolution.

Related blog links: