Methods: In this prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial, 322 participants (18-75 yrs) were divided into two groups: a 3-L PEG + 870-μg linaclotide group (administered as a single dose for 3 days) and a 4-L PEG group. All enrolled patients had constipation as defined by the Rome IV criteria (fewer than three bowel movements per week with associated symptoms such as straining and hard or lumpy stools).
Linaclotide dosing: One 290-μg linaclotide capsule 30 min before the first meal for 3 days leading up to the colonoscopy, but not on the day of the procedure itself
Key findings:
The 3-L PEG + linaclotide group showed significantly higher rates of adequate and excellent bowel preparation than the 4-L PEG group (89.4% vs 73.6% and 37.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < 0.05).
Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score in the linaclotide group was significantly higher than that in the 4-L PEG group.
Adverse effects like nausea and vomiting were less common in the linaclotide group compared to the 4-L PEG group. Nausea was noted in 10% of linaclotide group compared to 24.5% in the 4-L PEG group. vomiting occurred in 5% and 19.5% respectively. Overall, adverse effects were 24.4% compared to 41.5% respectively.
The cecal intubation rate was 87.5% in the linaclotide group and 81.8% in the 4-L PEG group, which indicated a higher trend in the linaclotide group. Both groups had a lower cecal intubation rate than the 90% benchmark rate and could be related to the underlying constipation.
My take: In patients with constipation, linaclotide with 3L PEG resulted in a better cleanout than a standard 4L PEG prep. Combination laxatives as part of the prep should be considered in those with underlying constipation.
This study would be hard to replicate in children as very few children with constipation need a colonoscopy. It is possible that the addition of linaclotide would improve cleanouts even in children without constipation. Other studies showing linaclotide can help with cleanouts in the general population include the following:
Zhang M, et al. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021; 33: e625–33.
This is a terrific review article. The authors detail the rationale for neuromodulators, strategies for selecting among them, side effects, and dosing.
Background: “IBS is frequently associated with neuropsychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety, which are considered triggers for the onset of symptoms or occur in response to having them (3). In the Rome Foundation global study that included 54,127 participants, subjects with psychological distress or clinically relevant somatic symptoms were 4.45 times more likely to have 1 or more DGBI than those without psychological distress. The same study reported that those who met specific criteria for bowel disorders presented clinically relevant psychological distress or somatic symptoms in 55.5% of cases (4). In addition, in a meta-analysis that included 7,095 subjects with IBS exclusively, the global prevalence of depression was 36%…Anxiety was present in 44% of patients with IBS….Central neuromodulators act on receptors along the brain-gut axis, so they are useful in treating psychiatric comorbidities, modifying gut motility, improving central downregulation of visceral signals, and enhancing neurogenesis in patients with IBS… Neuromodulator treatment is still considered off-label, many of the recommendations herein are based on expert consensus (6)”
Key points:
“The first-line treatment for pain management in IBS is using tricyclic antidepressants.” Nortriptyline and desipramine are less likely to cause constipation.
“Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are useful when symptoms of anxiety and hypervigilance are dominant but are not helpful for treating abdominal pain….The SSRIs include fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, sertraline, paroxetine, citalopram, and escitalopram. …Sertraline, citalopram, and escitalopram tend to have the fewest pharmacokinetic drug interactions”
“SSRIs are first-line pharmacologic agents for treating anxiety disorders, but they have the potential to induce restlessness and exacerbate anxiety when the drug is initiated. They are typically initiated at half of the usual starting dose to minimize these potential anxiogenic adverse effects. The dose may gradually increase to the regular starting dose after about 1 week… SSRIs should be considered when a significant component of anxiety without pain is present.”
SNRIs: “In addition to showing benefits with depression and painful disorders, SNRIs have shown significant improvement in anxiety.” Thus, they may be useful as monotherapy for patients with pain and anxiety.
Tetracyclics: “The most representative agent of this class is nirtazapine (Table 5). However, their effects seem to be mainly on anxiety, early satiety, nausea, and other symptoms associated with esophageal and gastroduodenal disorders, so their use in IBS is limited.”
“It is important to explain to the patients, …neuromodulators are not necessarily used for the treatment of depression but are a therapeutic alternative in the management of DGBI. It helps to use the term “neuromodulator” instead of “antidepressant” (6,8) It also helps to clarify that these medications can treat pain and other GI symptoms independent of treating depression, and the dosages are often lower than those used for treating major depression. This will preclude any patient concerns that their symptoms are being underestimated or considered to be in their head (6,8).”
Using central neuromodulators for IBS requires long-term treatment. From our experience, 6–12 months of treatment or more are needed to increase the likelihood of remission.
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.
Background: “Placebo-controlled trials are especially important during the early phases of drug development, as use of placebo aids early detection of efficacy or futility.”
Methods: The authors performed a systematic review which identified 47 trials including 20,987 patients (14 267 [68·0%] receiving active drug and 6720 [32·0%] receiving placebo) were eligible. The studies involved multiple RCTs of biologics and small molecules in IBD.
Key findings:
The risks of worsening of IBD activity (Active treatment vs placebo: 563/13,473 [4·2%] vs 530/6252 [8·5%];RR 0·48)
Withdrawal due to adverse event (Active treatment vs placebo: 401/13 363 [3·0%] vs 299/6267 [4·8%]; RR 0·62)
Serious adverse event (Active treatment vs placebo: 682/14,267 [4·8%] vs 483/6720 [7·2%]; RR 0·69)
Serious infection (Active treatment vs placebo: 140/14 ,194 [1·0%] vs 91/6647 [1·4%]; RR 0·67)
Serious worsening of IBD activity (Active treatment vs placebo: 187/11,271 [1·7%] vs 189/5056 [3·7%]; RR 0·4)
VTEs (Active treatment vs placebo: 13/7542 [0·2%] vs 12/2981 [0·4%]; RR 0·45)
All of these adverse outcomes were significantly lower with active drug than placebo.
My take: Now that there are proven medications that are effective for moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, head-to-head trials of novel drugs against existing drugs with proven efficacy, rather than placebo-controlled trials, should be prioritized.
In June, risankizumab (Skyrizi) received FDA approval as a treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in adults. FDA approval relied on the data from these two randomized trials.
Methods: For the induction trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive 1200 mg of risankizumab or placebo administered intravenously at weeks 0, 4, and 8. For the maintenance trial, patients with a clinical response (determined using the adapted Mayo score) after intravenous treatment with risankizumab were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous treatment with 180 mg or 360 mg of risankizumab or placebo (no longer receiving risankizumab) every 8 weeks for 52 weeks.
Key findings:
In the 12-week induction INSPIRE study with 975 patients, the clinical remission rates at week 12 were 132/650 (20.3%) for 1200 mg of risankizumab and 20/325 (6.2%) for placebo (P < .001)
In the induction trial, a greater proportion of treated patients achieved endoscopic improvement (36.5% vs. 12.1%; P < 0.00001) and endoscopic histologic mucosal improvement (24.5% vs. 7.7%; P < 0.00001) after 12 weeks
In the induction trial, a clinical response at 12 weeks was noted in 418/650 (64.3%) of risankizumab-treated patients and 116/325 (35.7%) of the placebo-treated patients
In the COMMAND maintenance trial with 548 patients, the clinical remission rates at week 52 were 72/179 (40.2%) for 180 mg of risankizumab, 70/186 (37.6%) for 360 mg of risankizumab, and 46/183 (25.1%) for placebo. Both doses were statistically-significant compared to placebo, P < .001 and P = .002, respectively
After 1 year of treatment with either maintenance dose of risankizumab, more than 40% of patients had histologic and endoscopic improvement
More than 75% of patients in the maintenance trial had a history of inadequate response to advanced therapies
My take: The published results of risankizumab for Crohn’s disease are much more impressive than the results in this study.
Methods: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, patients aged 18 years or older from 13 Australian tertiary hospitals with intravenous steroid-refractory ASUC were randomly assigned (1:2) to receive a first dose of 10 mg/kg infliximab or 5 mg/kg infliximab (randomization 1). Block randomization was used and stratified by history of thiopurine exposure and study site, with allocation concealment maintained via computer-generated randomization. Patients in the 10 mg/kg group (intensified induction strategy [IIS]) received a second dose at day 7 or earlier at the time of non-response; all patients in the 5 mg/kg group were re-randomized between day 3 and day 7 (1:1; randomization 2) to a standard induction strategy (SIS) or accelerated induction strategy (AIS), resulting in three induction groups. Patients in the SIS group received 5 mg/kg infliximab at weeks 0, 2, and 6, with an extra 5 mg/kg dose between day 3 and day 7 if no response. Patients in the AIS group received 5 mg/kg infliximab at weeks 0, 1, and 3, with the week 1 dose increased to 10 mg/kg and given between day 3 and day 7 if no response.
Thus, this was the first RCT comparing an intensified induction strategy (IIS; 10 mg/kg infliximab at weeks 0 and 1, with the second dose given earlier if no clinical response), an accelerated induction strategy (AIS; 5 mg/kg infliximab at weeks 0, 1, and 3, with the second dose increased to 10 mg/kg and given earlier if no response), and a standard induction strategy (SIS; 5 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2 and 6; with an extra 5 mg/kg dose before day 7 if no response) in steroid-refractory patients with ASUC.
Key findings:
There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who had a clinical response by day 7 between the 10 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg groups: 65% vs 61%
In patients with a baseline albumin of less than 25 g/L, a day 7 response occurred in nine (64%) of 14 patients in the 10 mg/kg group versus 14 (45%) of 31 in the 5 mg/kg group (RR 1·43, p=0·17)
In patients with a baseline CRP of 50 mg/L or higher, a day 7 response occurred in six (60%) of ten patients in the 10 mg/kg group versus eight (42%) of 19 in the 5 mg/kg group (RR 1·39, p=0·34)
The proportions of patients with clinical response at day 14: 74% in the IIS group, 73% in the AIS group, and 68% of 44 in the SIS group.
The clinical remission at month 3: 50% in the IIS group, 52% in the AIS group, and 48% in the SIS group
The steroid-free remission at month 3: 41% in the IIS group, 42% in the AIS group, and 41% in the SIS group
The endoscopic remission at month 3: 46% in the IIS group, 46% in the AIS group, and 48% in the SIS group
The colectomy rate at month 3: 7% in the IIS group, 19% in the AIS group, and 12% in the SIS group colectomy at month 3 were not significantly different between group (P=0.20)
The colectomy rate at month 12: 7% in the IIS group, 22% in the AIS group, and 15% in the SIS group colectomy at month 3 were not significantly different between group (p=0.13)
In post-hoc analysis of second-dose salvage strategies (among the group who had not responded at day7), a clinical response was observed in 19 (59%) of 32 patients who received a 10 mg/kg salvage dose versus nine (64%) of 14 who received a 5 mg/kg salvage dose (RR 0·92). Endoscopic remission at month 3 was observed in 11 (34%) who received 10 mg/kg salvage versus six (43%) who received 5 mg/kg salvage (RR 0·80). Colectomy by 3 months occurred in ten (31%) who received 10 mg/kg salvage compared with three (21%) who received 5 mg/kg salvage (HR 1·46)
Higher proportions of patients with clinical and biochemical remission between weeks 2 and 6 were apparent in the IIS and AIS groups versus the SIS group, but by 3 months, these differences were lost
My take: Intensified, accelerated, and standard induction regimens in the PREDICT-UC study did not result in a statistically-significant difference in clinical response by day 14 or in remission or colectomy rates by month 3. However, there are some important caveats:
There appeared to be a trend towards a lower colectomy rate in the IIS group.
There appeared to be a favorable trend towards an improved response to IIS group in those with low albumin (<25 g/L) and high CRP (>5 mg/L). The smaller numbers in these subgroups could have precluded statistical significance
Also, even the SIS group were able to receive a 4th induction 5 mg/kg dose between days 3-7 if they had not responded to treatment
In patients who had not responded to either 10 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg, a salvage dose at day 7 resulted in a >60% response rate
It is possible that a sustained strategy of more aggressive dosing (not done in this study) aided with therapeutic drug monitoring could result in better outcomes following IIS
This study was a post hoc analysis included pooled data from 2 phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, 12-week induction trials (U-EXCEL and U-EXCEED) and 1 maintenance trial (U-ENDURE). The study included 1021 patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) (n = 674 UPA45; n = 347 PBO).
Key findings:
Upadacitinib 45 mg taken once daily resulted in rapid relief from CD symptoms within 5 to 6 days of treatment initiation and improved clinical outcomes starting at week 2.
The present analysis demonstrates symptomatic relief as early as day 5 to 6 for patients receiving UPA, with 16.7% of patients experiencing daily SF/APS clinical remission by day 5.
The first achievement of daily stool frequency/abdominal pain score (SF/APS) clinical remission occurred earlier with UPA45 (median, 13 d) vs PBO (median, 32 d)
Patients treated with UPA45 showed improved rates of SF/APS clinical remission (21.1% UPA45 vs 8.9% PBO) and clinical response (58.8% UPA45 vs 37.9% PBO) starting at week 2 (both P ≤ .01).
In their discussion, the authors note that time to response to treatment with upadacitinib compares favorably to other advanced therapies:
“Vedolizumab resulted in symptomatic improvement within 2 to 4 weeks of treatment initiation16; ustekinumab led to clinical response and remission at week 3 or 6, depending on the dose.17 Similarly, of the time points analyzed, clinical response and/or clinical remission was observed as early as week 2 for risankizumab, 5 infliximab,18 and certolizumab pegol,19 and as early as week 1 for adalimumab.20,21“
My take: The rapid response seen in many patients indicate that upadacitinib can be a steroid-sparing therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease.
Key findings: Among the 975 patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, analyzed in the induction trial, 1200 mg of risankizumab significantly increased the rates of clinical remission at 12-week follow-up compared with placebo (20.3% vs 6.2%, respectively). Among 548 patients included in the primary efficacy analysis for the maintenance trial, 180 mg of risankizumab and 360 mg of risankizumab significantly increased the rates of clinical remission (40.2% and 37.6%, respectively) compared with placebo (25.1%).
This guideline was developed with adults in mind; however, much of the practice advice is applicable in the pediatric population as well. Here are some of the recommendations:
Best Practice Advice 1: No single formulation of oral iron has any advantages over any other. Ferrous sulfate is preferred as the least expensive iron formulation.
Best Practice Advice 2: Give oral iron once a day at most. Every-other-day iron dosing may be better tolerated for some patients with similar or equal rates of iron absorption as daily dosing.
Best Practice Advice 3: Add vitamin C to oral iron supplementation to improve absorption.
Best Practice Advice 4: Intravenous iron should be used if the patient does not tolerate oral iron, ferritin levels do not improve with a trial of oral iron, or the patient has a condition in which oral iron is not likely to be absorbed.
Best Practice Advice 5: Intravenous iron formulations that can replace iron deficits with 1 or 2 infusions are preferred over those that require more than 2 infusions.
Best Practice Advice 6: All intravenous iron formulations have similar risks; true anaphylaxis is very rare. The vast majority of reactions to intravenous iron are complement activation–related pseudo-allergy (infusion reactions) and should be treated as such.
With regard to iron infusion reactions, the authors note the following:
Being truly allergic to IV iron is very rare—almost all reactions are complement activation–related pseudo-allergy, which are idiosyncratic infusion reactions that can mimic allergic reactions.26 For mild reactions, simply stopping the infusions and restarting 15 minutes later at a slower rate will suffice. For more severe reactions, corticosteroids may be of benefit. Diphenhydramine should be avoided because its side effects of mouth dryness, tachycardia, diaphoresis, somnolence, and hypotension can be mistaken for worsening of the reaction.27 Studies have shown that rates of mild reactions are approximately 1:200 and rates of major reactions are approximately 1:200,000.28
Related information: Our hematologists often recommend Novaferrum (polysaccharide-iron complex) products in children.
Food/diet items with plenty of iron:
beef, pork, poultry, and seafood
tofu
dried beans and peas
dried fruits
leafy dark green vegetables
iron-fortified breakfast cereals, breads, and pastas
Use of “lucky fish” (also available at Amazon) while cooking and cooking with cast iron pan can increase iron intake. The lucky fish can be used for 5 years.
Limiting milk consumption can help improve iron absorption.
My take: Iron deficiency anemia is a common issue in pediatric gastroenterology that usually merits evaluation. The AGA practice update provides helpful information with regard to management.
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.
The proverb “Necessity is the mother of invention” is often attributed to Plato. In the dialogue of The Republic, Plato wrote, “our need will be the real creator”. This quote came to mind as I was reading about the use of f for fatigue in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
Background: “Fatigue is highly prevalent in patients with IBD, affecting 72% of patients with active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and 47% in remission, and is associated with poor quality of life, absenteeism and presenteeism.1 However, understanding the mechanisms of IBD fatigue remains limited, as reflected in a lack of effective treatments.1“
Methods: “Ten patients with IBD and severe fatigue were referred to a consultant psychiatrist. In all cases, mucosal inflammation and organic causes of fatigue (anemia, B12 deficiency, hypothyroidism) had been investigated and treated as much as possible. We measured fatigue severity using the IBD Fatigue Assessment Scale (IBD-FAS), designed specifically for IBD.5 Scores of 11 or higher out of 20 indicate severe fatigue and we only included patients scoring in this range.5
Dosing (for adults) of modafnil is described in the article.
Key findings:
“At baseline, the mean IBD-FAS score was 16.0 (SD, 1.7) of 20. After modafinil treatment [at 6 months], the mean IBD-FAS score was 6.7 (SD, 3.0), representing a mean improvement of 58.1% from baseline.”
“Although all 10 patients were severely fatigued at baseline, only 2 patients were still in the severe fatigue range after treatment.”
“Tolerability was good: 1 patient reported transient headache and 1 patient reported transient dizziness; another patient reported mild palpitations; but none of the patients reported gastrointestinal side effects.”
My take: Perhaps, modafinil will be helpful –pharmacologic therapy for severe fatigue is an unmet need. More studies are needed as this is a small study without a control group.
A-K Wiklund, et al. Gastroenterol 2024; 167: 485-492. Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma After Helicobacter pylori Eradication Treatment in a Population-Based Multinational Cohort Study
Background:Helicobacter pylori infection is associated with a decreased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma, and the decreasing prevalence of such infection might contribute to the increasing incidence of this tumor. For this reason, the authors examined the hypothesis that eradication treatment of H pylori increases the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Methods: Using national registries with Nordic population adults (≥18 years, n=661,987) receiving H pylori eradication treatment from 1995–2018, the authors evaluated 5,495,552 person-years after eradication treatment.
Key findings:
The standardized incidence ratios (SIR) did not increase over time after eradication treatment, but rather decreased and was 0.73 at 11–24 years after treatment
The overall SIR of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, calculated for comparison, showed no association (SIR = 0.99)
My take: Eradication of H pylori lowers the risk of gastric cancer. This study shows that treatment does NOT result in an unintended consequence of increasing esophageal cancer.
Methods: Participants (N = 178,711) who completed 24-hour dietary recalls during 2009 to 2012 from the UK Biobank, and free of IBS, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and any cancer at baseline, were included. During a median of 11.3 years of follow-up, 2690 incident IBS cases were identified.
Key findings:
The mean UPF consumption was 21.0% (SD, 11.0%) of the total diet
An 8% higher risk of IBS (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04–1.12) was associated with every 10% increment of UPF consumption
Compared with the lowest quartile of UPF consumption, the highest quartile was associated with a significantly increased risk of incident IBS (hazard ratio, 1.19)
Discussion:
“The worsening global epidemic of IBS has coincided with increased dietary consumption of UPF over the past few decades…A similar positive association with IBS (odds ratio of quartile 4 vs quartile 1 = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12–1.39) was detected in…the French NutriNet-Santé study”
High UPF consumption has been associated with “a 42% greater risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and a 22% greater risk of depression.”
The authors note that with an observational study, this limits the determination of causality between UPF and IBS
My take: Yet, another study showing that UPF are associated with negative health outcomes. This study reported that UPF consumption was 21% of participants’ diet. In U.S., the current estimate is 60-70% (Source: NPR May 2023: What we know about the health risks of ultra-processed foods). It would be helpful if these foods that are bad for our health did not taste so good!
gutsandgrowth 