Category Archives: Gastroenterology

Dupilumab for Eosinophilic Gastritis: DEGAS study

Posted on by
Reply

N Gonsalves, E Dellon E, K Kliewer K et al. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 2026; DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(26)00116-0. Open Access! Dupilumab versus placebo in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic gastritis (DEGAS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Methods: This was a phase 2b trial with a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period, followed by a 24-week open-label extension period. Patients aged 12–70 years from 11 hospitals in the USA with histologically active eosinophilic gastritis (≥30 eosinophils per high-power field [HPF] in at least five HPFs in the gastric antrum and/or body) and moderate-to-severe symptoms. Eligible patients were individually randomised (1:1) to parallel groups and received six injections over 12 weeks: subcutaneous dupilumab (n=21) (600 mg once followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks) or subcutaneous placebo (n=20).  The primary endpoint of relative change from baseline in mean gastric eosinophil count.

Key findings:

  • At week 12, the relative reduction in the primary endpoint was greater with dupilumab (estimated mean change –50%) than with placebo (–4%)
  • Reduction from baseline in EoG-REFS (Eosinophilic Gastritis Endoscopic Reference Score) at week 12 was greater with dupilumab (estimated mean change –3·47 points than with placebo (–0·06 points)

 

 

Discussion Points:

“Currently, there are no FDA-approved therapies for patients with eosinophilic gastritis…this first prospective trial of dupilumab for eosinophilic gastritis show a greater reduction in mean gastric eosinophil count from the five most eosinophil-dense HPFs (the primary endpoint) with dupilumab compared with placebo.”

My take: Dupilumab improved eosinophilic gastritis histology and endoscopic appearance. This study suggests that there may be overlapping pathophysiology between eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic esophagits as dupilumab appers to be effective in both disorders.

Related blog posts:

How Effective is Ustekinumab Dose Intensification in Crohn’s Disease: REScUE Trial

Posted on by
Reply

Methods: This was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 15 hospitals in Belgium. Eligible patients were adults (n=108) with CD treated with ustekinumab on maintenance dosing of 90 mg subcutaneous every 8 weeks and experiencing a secondary loss of response. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receiving a single intravenous reinduction with ustekinumab ≈6 mg/kg followed by either subcutaneous ustekinumab 90 mg every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks until week 48. 

Key findings:

  • Steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 was reached in 15% vs 19% of patients in the every 4 weeks vs the every 8 weeks group 

Discussion Points:

  • “Remarkably, the overall steroid-free clinical remission rates at week 48 were low in both arms: 15% and 19% for ustekinumab Q4W and Q8W, respectively. Most of the patients achieved clinical remission in the first 24 weeks after IV reinduction though, suggesting that the IV reinduction is the main driver of the effectiveness, rather than the subsequent SC dose intensification.”
  • “Our results are in contrast with several retrospective and observational nonrandomized and open-label cohort studies suggesting a clinical response rate after dose intensification up to 60% and clinical remission rates up to 50% after 1 year of treatment.4,13–17“

The associated editorial notes that the modest remission rate could be partly due to a more refractory patient poulation. “The cohort was indeed difficult to treat: median disease duration exceeded a decade, and more than 90% of patients had prior anti–tumor necrosis factor exposure.” Despite this caveat, “the trial avoids overestimating therapeutic success and aligns outcomes with contemporary treat-to-target principles.4 From this perspective, REScUE provides a realistic benchmark for what ustekinumab intensification can and cannot achieve in routine clinical practice.”

The editorial also notes that the “STARDUST trial [which] evaluated a treat-to-target, endoscopy-guided escalation algorithm vs standard of care in ustekinumab-treated CD and did not demonstrate a clear advantage for the intensive, endoscopy-driven strategy at 1 year.7“

My take (borrowed from editorial): “In carefully selected patients who previously responded well to ustekinumab, a short and closely monitored trial of IV reinduction may be considered. However, the threshold for switching to another advanced therapy should remain low if treatment targets are not achieved.”

Related blog posts:

This year’s Peachtree Road Race. It didn’t look like I would be finishing first this year!

Extending Benjamin Franklin’s Observations: Chart Your Fart Study

Posted on by

E Brindal et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2026;9;5):e2615637. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026. 15637. Open Access! Regular Flatulence Patterns Among Community-Dwelling Individuals in Australia. Thanks to Stan Cohen for sharing this study.

Methods: Cross-sectional study with 6416 participants  Data were recorded into a purpose-designed mobile phone application (Chart Your Fart) by participants who logged their flatus passages in real time, consistent with experience sampling methods.3

Key findings:

  • See Table below – Mean flatus per day was 5.0

Discussion:

  • “In terms of range, observed data suggest good consistency with other methods, including retrospective frequency reports in a large US sample of individuals experiencing gas or bloating (n = 16 537),6 a small laboratory study that collected a median of 8 emissions throughout 24 hours,7 and even Benjamin Franklin’s personal account of “discharging wind from bowels” 7 times a day.8“
  • “Limitations of this study include failing to quantify emissions made while asleep due to reliance on self-report.”

My take: Looks like another good study to discuss at the GI dinner table. Also, lots of jokes that would be apropos. Here’s one:

An elderly patient goes to her doctor and at the end of her exam she tells him there is one other matter that she would like to discuss. “It seems that I have frequent gas but fortunately it is silent and does not smell. I have even passed some gas while I’ve been here.” The physician says, “Hmmm… take these pills for one week and then come back.”

When she returns, she complains, “I don’t know what was in those pills. The gas now smells terrible but thank goodness it is silent.” The doctor replies, “Well, it looks like the antibiotics have improved your ability to smell. Now we need to get your hearing evaluated.”

Related blog post: Somewhat Funny Flatulent Research

Island Ford, Sandy Springs at sunrise

Safety Data Up to Seven Years with Vedolizumab

Posted on by

E Louis et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2026; 24: 1654-1665. Open Access! Long-Term Safety of Vedolizumab in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis/Crohn’s Disease: A Prospective Observational Study

Methods: This was a prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study in adult patients (n=5208) with UC or CD starting treatment with vedolizumab or other biologics. The primary safety outcome was serious infections compared between cohorts using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by propensity score. Clinical effectiveness was a secondary outcome. Mean follow-up duration was 37.4 months. The vedolizumab group had greater age, duration of disease, and concomitant medication use at baseline, indicating more advanced disease.

Key findings:

  • In patients with UC, the incidence rate per 100 person-years of serious infections was 5.5 (vedolizumab) and 7.0 (other biologic), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.89 (P = .38).
  • In patients with CD, corresponding findings were 7.9 (vedolizumab) and 6.5 (other biologic) with adjusted hazard ratio of 1.15 (P = .16).
  • Rates of clinical response and clinical remission were similar in patients treated with vedolizumab compared with other biologics for both UC and CD.
Time to treatment failure in (A) biologic-naïve. Treatment failure included discontinuation of biologic treatment, IBD nonsurgical hospitalization, primary IBD surgery, and corticosteroid initiation.
Time to treatment failure in (B) biologic-experienced CD patients. 

My take: This large prospective study showed no new safety signals with mean followup of more than 3 years. There were no new trends or changes of clinical importance for infections (serious and opportunistic infections, gastrointestinal infections, respiratory tract infections, other infections), malignancies, infusion-related reactions, hepatotoxicity, and pregnancies. No cases of PML were reported. Efficacy was similar between vedolizumab and other biologics.

Related blog posts:

How Does Remission in Crohn’s Disease Affect the Abnormal Microbiome/Gut Signature?

Posted on by

T Braun et al. Gastroenterol 2026; 170: 971-984. Open Access! Perturbations of Diet and Gut Signatures Persist During Remission in Crohn’s Disease Despite Effective Immune Suppression

Methods: The authors analyzed diet, ileal transcriptomics, microbiomics, and metabolomics across patients with CD in remission, patients with active CD, and non–inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) controls as the reference for healthy signals.

Key findings:

  • Immune signals: Ileal transcriptomics revealed a significant decrease in genes and pathways associated with adaptive T cells and innate granulocytes during remission, which was even deeper than observed in non-IBD controls.
  • Antimicrobial gene expression: Patients in remission showed an increase in the expression of epithelial antimicrobial pathways and related genes, including DUOX2, along with an increase in genes associated with goblet cells and mucin glycosylation.
  • Microbiome and diet: In patients in remission, there was persistent pathogenic gut microbial composition, metabolic alterations, and less healthy dietary habits, which were characterized by a higher intake of ultraprocessed foods and lower consumption of fiber, folate, vitamin C, and vegetables
Purple = control (n=64), Yellow = CD remission (n=56), Red = CD active disease (n=24). Fecal signals persist during remission and substantially correlate with dietary exposures. (A) Boxplots of Faith’s phylogenetic alpha diversity, our previously defined health index,23 the previously defined Gevers IBD dysbiosis index21, and our IBD-specific index23 between controls, CD patients in remission, and CD with active disease.

Fecal signals persist during remission and substantially correlate with dietary exposures. (A) Boxplots of Faith’s phylogenetic alpha diversity, our previously defined health index,23 the previously defined Gevers IBD dysbiosis index21, and our IBD-specific index23 between controls, CD patients in remission, and CD with active disease.

My take (borrowed from the authors): This study shows that, during remission with advanced therapies, “disturbances in antibacterial epithelial signals, along with unhealthy dietary patterns, altered microbiome, and perturbed metabolome, continue and are partly linked to the risk of flare 6 months later.”

Related blog posts:

NSAIDs and IBD Flares (2026)

Posted on by

AS Mayer,et al. Arthritis Care Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.80067. Open Access! Safety of Prescription Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in Adults With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Data From a Large Administrative Claims Cohort.

Methods:

  • “This retrospective cohort study included patients with IBD aged at least 18 years from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (2000–2022). Patients with a new NSAID prescription fill were matched to those without an NSAID fill during the study period…Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association between NSAID exposure and time to IBD-related hospitalization across IBD subtypes.”

Key findings:

Unweighted Kaplan-Meier curve for IBD-related hospitalization in patients
with Crohn disease (B).
Unweighted Kaplan-Meier curve for IBD-related hospitalization in patients
with ulcerative colitis (C).

Discussion:

  • “The use of IPTW [inverse probability of treatment weighting] to balance an extensive number of confounders associated with NSAID use optimizes the assessment of the association of NSAID exposure with IBD-related hospitalization and helps address recent concern of residual confounding in observational studies of NSAID risk in IBD.”
  • Besides the potential risk of an IBD flare, “NSAID use is associated with risk of hospitalization from several non-IBD–related entities such as acute kidney injury and adverse cardiac events…a large prospective multicenter observational study of more than 18,000 admitted patients in England found that NSAIDs were responsible for 29.6% of admissions related to adverse drug reactions, including gastrointestinal bleeding, stroke, and renal impairment.34“

My take: This study shows an association of increased hospitalization in patients with CD but not UC based on NSAID exposure. The absolute risk of this appears low and could be in fact related to residual confounders (despite use of IPTW) as this was not a prospective study. The risk of NSAIDs outside the GI tract are likely more significant for most patients. Nevertheless, there are limited options for pain management and NSAID benefits have to be weighed against other approaches.

Related blog post: Rethinking the Link between NSAIDs and IBD Flares

AGA Clinical Practice Update:  Clostridioides difficile Infection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

S Khanna et al. Gastroenterology, 2026 (In press). Open Access! AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Clostridioides difficile Infection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Expert Review


Best Practice Advice Statements

  1. In patients with IBD who have new or worsening diarrhea, CDI should be excluded, especially among those with colonic involvement, as they are at increased risk of CDI. Clinicians should consider and treat CDI in patients with end ileostomy or ileo-anal pouch anastomosis with worsening diarrhea.
  2. In patients with IBD and suspected CDI, a multistep toxin-based assay should be used for diagnostic evaluation.
  3. In patients with IBD and recent CDI who have been treated successfully with antibiotics, recurrent diarrhea should prompt retesting for CDI.
  4. In patients with IBD who develop an initial episode of CDI, clinicians should preferentially use fidaxomicin or use vancomycin if fidaxomicin is unavailable or cost-prohibitive. Metronidazole should not be used.
  5. Clinicians should strongly consider hospitalization for patients with IBD and CDI who demonstrate features of severe colitis or systemic toxicity (eg, more than 6 bowel movements per day, severe abdominal pain, marked leukocytosis, hemodynamic instability, or other evidence of sepsis).
  6. When selecting an immunosuppressive therapy to treat IBD, no class or mechanism of action has a differential risk of CDI and, therefore, clinicians should choose the therapy that is best to treat the IBD.
  7. In patients with IBD and acute CDI, concurrent treatment of IBD is critical and clinicians should continue therapy with the required immunosuppressive therapies (ie, immunomodulators, biologics, or small molecules). Steroids can also be used if deemed necessary while CDI is treated with antibiotics.
  8. Clinicians should consider endoscopic evaluation for IBD activity and exclusion of concomitant cytomegalovirus infection if symptoms persist 48–72 hours after initiation of treatment for CDI.
  9. Clinicians may consider loperamide in patients with improving inflammation and infection but ongoing diarrhea.
  10. Clinicians should offer microbiome-based therapies (eg, fecal microbiota, live-jslm, fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk, or unapproved fecal microbiota transplantation) to patients with IBD with at least 1 recurrence of CDI to prevent future infection.
  11. In patients with IBD, clinicians should not advise probiotics for primary or secondary prevention of CDI.
  12. In patients with IBD and a history of CDI who are receiving systemic antibiotics, clinicians may consider oral vancomycin prophylaxis as secondary prevention.

Testing Caveats:

  • “Because NAAT (nucleic acid amplification test) alone can detect colonization, positive EIA (enzyme immunoassay) with NAAT confirms diagnosis. Positive NAAT and negative EIA should be interpreted with caution due to low sensitivity of EIA.”

Related blog posts:

Reassuring Study of Infants Exposed to Biologics

Posted on by

L Palomino et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2026; 24: 1688-1701. Open Access! Psychomotor Development in Infants Following Maternal Exposure to Biologics: Results From the DUMBO Registry

Methods: DUMBO (NCT03894228) is an ongoing, prospective, multicenter, observational registry study supported by Grupo Español de Trabajo en Enfermedad de Crohn y Colitis Ulcerosa (GETECCU) which includes women with IBD whose pregnancy was known to the investigator before the 28th week of gestation. Psychomotor development of infants was assessed using the Spanish version of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire 3rd edition (ASQ-3) during the first year of life. 

Key findings:

  • Exposure to biologics in utero, had no impact on ASQ-3 scores at month 12.
  • Multivariate analysis revealed that preterm birth (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1–0.6) and maternal ulcerative colitis (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.3–0.9) were associated with an increased risk of abnormal ASQ-3. 

Discussion Points:

  • “Active maternal inflammation during the periconception period and pregnancy has been associated with low birth weight, preterm delivery, small size for gestational age, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirths.3,4…Active maternal inflammation during the periconception period and pregnancy has been associated with low birth weight, preterm delivery, small size for gestational age, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirths.3,4“
  • “In infants born to mothers with IBD, exposure to biologics would be expected to reduce their exposure to inflammatory cytokines in utero, which could potentially mitigate the impact of maternal inflammation on psychomotor development… our study found no negative impact of biologics exposure on the psychomotor development of infants, either from exposure in utero or during breastfeeding. Furthermore, we observed higher ASQ-3 scores in the personal-social domain at 4 months and in the gross and fine motor domains at 12 months in biologics-exposed vs nonexposed children, possibly reflecting a beneficial effect of treatment in reducing maternal inflammation.”
  • “Data from the PIANO study further supports our findings. Mahadevan et al assessed psychomotor development in 206 children exposed to biologics (both anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF) in utero, and 92 controls, finding higher ASQ-3 scores in the exposed group.”

My take: Biologic exposure does not appear to impair psychomotor development in infants. While this study provides useful information, I am not impressed wtih with the Acronym DUMBO for this registry.

Related blog posts:

Yesterday’s Peachtree Road Race Shirt

“Real-World” Impact of Vitamin D for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

JA Sninsky et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2026; 24: 1666-1674. Open Access! The Real-World Impact of Vitamin D Supplementation on Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Outcomes

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients (n=5021) with IBD seen in the national Veterans Health Administration system from 2000 to 2023. The researchers used 3 different methods to try to determine causality of improved outcomes with supplementation of Vitamin D.

  1. “Difference-in-differences (DiD) approach to compare changes in clinical outcomes before and after vitamin D testing between patients who did and did not receive supplementation”
  2. “The regression discontinuity design leveraged the clinical threshold of 30 ng/mL serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, comparing outcomes in patients just lower than and just higher than this cutoff, who are assumed to be otherwise similar”
  3. “The inverse probability weighting method adjusted for confounding by weighting patients based on their likelihood (propensity) of receiving vitamin D15“

Key findings:

  • The median 25-hydroxyvitamin D level was 23 ng/mL, and 41% received vitamin D supplementation
  • Vitamin D supplementation was associated with reduction in IBD-related emergency department visits by 2.17% (34.4% relative risk reduction; P = .007), hospitalizations by 2.64% (53.18% relative risk reduction; P = .003), and corticosteroid prescriptions by 1.29% (25.13% relative risk reduction; P = .066)

Discussion:

  • “Collectively, our data strongly suggest that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of IBD flare, underscoring its promise as an effective adjunctive therapy in clinical practice.”
  • “Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent among patients with IBD and is strongly linked to poor clinical outcomes, including higher rates of hospitalization and surgery. Patients with IBD are 64% more likely to be vitamin D deficient compared with healthy control subjects.29“
  • “Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent among patients with IBD and is strongly linked to poor clinical outcomes, including higher rates of hospitalization and surgery. Patients with IBD are 64% more likely to be vitamin D deficient compared with healthy control subjects.29“
  • “Although these findings support a strong association between vitamin D deficiency and worse clinical outcomes, they do not address whether supplementation itself mitigates the risk of adverse events, because disease severity confounds this relationship.33 Our study fills this knowledge gap and provides rigorous real-world data to support the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation.”

My take: There have been large studies (eg. VITAL) study showing that Vitamin D supplementation does not help most people in the general population. In addition, many individuals with IBD who have low Vitamin D levels may see improvement in Vitamin D status by treating the IBD (without Vitamin D supplement). Yet, studies like this one by Sninsky indicate that Vitamin D supplementation is associated with improved outcomes in this retrospective cohort; the study methods likely indicate a causal effect of supplementation; however, a prospective randomized controlled study would be more definitive.

Related blog posts:

Here’s Why CYP2C19 Testing May Be Helpful For Refractory Reflux

Posted on by

Recent pediatric Rome V recommendations suggested the use of CYP2C19 testing in patients with reflux that was not responding to time-limited therapy (link: Rome V Pediatric Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (Part 1)). The following retrospective study of adults (n=421) at an academic medical center provides a strong rationale.

L Creech et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2026; 24: 1550-1557. Open Access! High Prevalence of CYP2C19 Rapid and Ultrarapid Metabolism Among Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Key finding:

  • 44% (n=184) of patients presenting to gastroenterology clinic with gastroesophageal reflux disease who underwent CYP2C19 genotyping were found to be rapid metabolizers (RMs) (38%) or ultrarapid metabolizers (6%)
  • The prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus/erosive esophagitis was higher among ultrarapid metabolizers (24%; n = 5/21) than among normal metabolizers (7%; n = 12/165; odds ratio, 3.5)
  • Among the 184 RMs, 79% (n = 146) had a change in management due to CYP testing results: 65% (n = 120) changed their medication (89 patients were switched to rabeprazole), 22% (n = 41) continued PPI therapy, and 14% (n = 26) increased their PPI dose

Discussion points:

Prevalence of CYP RMs in Other Studies:

  • “Ionovo et al studied over 2 million patients who underwent genetic testing using 23andMe and found that the rate of RMs (∗1/∗17) in the general population was 26.0%, and the rate of URMs (∗17/∗17) was 4.4%.25“
  • “Fricke-Galindo et al analyzed data from 138 studies of over 52,000 healthy volunteers from around the world.26 The highest rates of combined RMs and URMs were reported in the Middle Eastern populations (36%), followed by European (28.6%), African (16.8%), and Asian populations (3.4%).26 The prevalence was 26.7% in the United States.”
  • “Among GI clinical practice guidelines, the 2025 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guideline was the first to suggest routine incorporation of CYP testing into the management of patients with GERD.30“
  • “PCABs offer a viable alternative to PPIs in patients who are RMs and should be considered accordingly. PCABs are also not dependent on preprandial dosing and thus are easier for patients to take. However, the cost of PCABs continues to be a limiting factor.”
  • Testing cost: “A typical out-of-pocket price of $250 to $400 and is covered by some insurance.39“
  • Limitations: The study population has a selection bias compared to the general population. Patients referred to a GI clinic are more likely to have treatment-refractory GERD and thus have higher rates of RMs.

My take: In patients with established GERD who are not responding to treatment, CYP testing may be helpful. This is probably true for patients with EoE as well. In patients with GERD who are RMs, options include changing to rabeprazole, higher doses, or possible use of PCABs.

Related blog posts: