This article has 91 authors! Using Delphi surveys, the authors recommend the following:
“EGID” was the preferred umbrella term for disorders of gastrointestinal (GI) tract eosinophilic inflammation in the absence of secondary causes
Involved GI tract segments will be named specifically and use an “Eo” abbreviation convention: eosinophilic gastritis (now abbreviated EoG), eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and eosinophilic colitis (EoC)
For EoN, “it is desirable, but not required, to name specific locations of small bowel involvement, if these are known…The abbreviation for eosinophilic duodenitis should be “EoD”… for eosinophilic jejunitis should be “EoJ”….eosinophilic ileitis should be “EoI”
The term “eosinophilic gastroenteritis” is no longer preferred as the overall name (but can be used to indicate involvement of both the stomach and small bowel)
When >2 GI tract areas are involved, the name should reflect all of the involved areas
Compared with WD1 (typical Western Diet), PB2 (Plant-based diet 2) was associated with lower odds of active symptoms for CD (odds ratio [OR], 0.32
PB1 (Plant-based diet 1) was associated with lower odds of active symptoms for participants with UC (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23-0.90) but not for participants with CD (OR, 0.95
Diet PB1 (“Plant-based Diet 1”) was characterized by much higher intake of fruits, vegetables, plant-based proteins, and cooked grains than most other dietary clusters. There was low water intake in favor of juices and other beverages. There was otherwise average intake of added fats and oils, sugars, seafood, and dairy products, and modest intake of meats, eggs, mixed grains, and breads.
Diet PB2 (“Plant-based Diet 2”) was characterized by high intake of fruits, vegetables, plant proteins, and cooked grains and low intake of animal proteins (especially red and cured meats), added fats, sweetened beverages, sweet bakery products, other desserts, eggs, and breads. There was also a reduction of other beverages in favor of water. There was otherwise an average intake of seafood and dairy products.
Background: The current chart review study evaluated the longer-term effectiveness and safety of darvadstrocel (expanded allogeneic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells).; n=43 treated patient and n=46 controls.
Key findings:
At 52, 104, and 156 weeks posttreatment, clinical remission was observed in 29 (67.4%) of 43, 23 (53.5%) of 43, and 23 (53.5%) of 43 darvadstrocel-treated patients, compared with 24 (52.2%) of 46, 20 (43.5%) of 46, and 21 (45.7%) of 46 control subjects, respectively.
A widely covered news story in October 2022 was the disappointing results/modest benefits of a colonoscopy screening study. This study actually supports the use of colonoscopy to reduce colorectal cancer deaths but shows that typical screening programs may not work well if patients don’t show up for the test.
Methods: This was “a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group).”
There were 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden — 28,220 in the invited group,
Key findings:
Only 11,843 (42.0%) in the invited group underwent colonoscopy screening
During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group
The risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18%
The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16)
The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group
If all invited participants had received a colonoscopy, the authors estimate the risk of colorectal cancer would have decreased from 1.22% to 0.84% and the risk of colorectal cancer death would have been reduced from 0.3% to 0.15% (a 50% drop).
My take: Colonoscopy as a screening tool only works if it is performed. Given the low response rate for screening, other tools like an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) need to be considered as alternatives.
Background: NSAIDs are well-known to cause gastrointestinal injury. While single center studies have suggested that NSAIDs are associated with increased IBD flares, a systemic review of 18 studies found no consistent association between NSAIDs and IBD exacerbation.
This study included 15,705 (44.8%) and 19,326 (55.2%) IBD patients with and without an NSAID exposure.
Key findings:
Findings from a Cox proportional hazards model suggest an association between NSAIDs and IBD exacerbation (HR 1.24; 95%CI 1.16-1.33)
However, the likelihood of an IBD exacerbation in the NSAID exposed arm preceding NSAID exposure was similar (HR 1.30; 95%CI 1.21-1.39).
Those who received NSAIDs were already at increased risk of experiencing a disease flare. And the prior event rate ratio for IBD exacerbation, as determined by dividing the adjusted HR after NSAID exposure by the adjusted HR for pre-NSAID exposure, was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.89 – 1.01).
“A self-controlled case series analysis of 3,968 patients who had both an NSAID exposure and IBD exacerbation demonstrated similar exacerbation rates in the 1-year preceding exposure, 2-6 weeks post-exposure, and 6-weeks to 6-months post-exposure, but higher incidence 0-2 weeks post-exposure, suggesting potential confounding by reverse causality.” The self-controlled part of the study allowed patients to serve as their own controls which allowed adjustment for many factors that are difficult to control with retrospective studies.
75% of patients with IBD who were prescribed an NSAID did not have an IBD exacerbation during a mean of 5.9 years of follow-up
NSAIDs were commonly used: 36.5% of patients with IBD had received at least one NSAID prescription
NSAIDs use was prescribed more frequently in patients with immune targeted therapy (likely a marker for moderate to severe disease)
Discussion points:
The estimated prior event ratio of 0.95 suggests that the risk of IBD flares in NSAID-exposed patients preceded the use of NSAIDs. The risk of IBD exacerbation did not increase in the 2 weeks to 6 months after NSAID exposure.
The overall association of increased IBD flare is likely related to reverse causation. Patients may take NSAIDs due to arthropathy or other symptoms that may be an early manifestation of a flare.
My take: This study challenges the prevailing view that NSAID use worsen inflammatory bowel disease; it is more likely that IBD exacerbations are due to underlying risk from more severe disease and residual confounding/reverse causality. The study provides reassurance that short-duration use is likely to be well-tolerated in most patients with IBD.
Methods: This was “a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-comparator, phase 3b trial (SEAVUE) at 121 hospitals or private practices in 18 countries. We included biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn’s…Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; via an interactive web response system) to receive ustekinumab (approximately 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 0, then 90 mg subcutaneously once every 8 weeks) or adalimumab (160 mg on day 0, 80 mg at 2 weeks, then 40 mg once every 2 weeks, subcutaneously) through week 56. Study treatments were administered as monotherapy and without dose modifications.”
386 patients were enrolled.
Key findings:
29 (15%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and 46 (24%) of 195 in the adalimumab group discontinued study treatment before week 52
At week 52, 124 (65%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group versus 119 (61%) of 195 in the adalimumab group were in clinical remission (CDAI <150)
Endoscopic remission at week 52: ustekinumab 29% and for adalimumab 29%
Endoscopic response at week 52: ustekinumab 42%and for adalimumab 37%
Rapid onset of clinical response was seen with both therapies with improvement noted as early as week 2 assessment
Antidrug antibodies were less frequent with ustekinumab compared to adalimumab: 2% vs 74%.
Infections were reported in 65 (34%) of ustekinumab group compared to 79 (41%) of adalimumab group. Serious infections were reported in four (2%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and five (3%) of 195 in the adalimumab group.
No deaths occurred through week 52 of the study.
My take:
Both medications had a high similar response rate. Ustekinumab had fewer patients discontinue medication and lower immunogenicity which could improve efficacy/duration of response in an extended study.
It is good to see a well-designed head-to-head study rather than a placebo-control arm. Placebo-based studies are hard to justify given the availability of multiple effective agents.
On meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (8 RCTs in adults, and focusing on maintenance phase), there was no significant difference in the risk of failing to maintain clinical remission in patients who underwent proactive TDM (267/709; 38%) vs conventional management (292/696; 42%) (relative risk [RR], 0.96)
The discussion in this paper makes some important points, as there are some populations in which proactive TDM is more likely to be beneficial.
Pediatrics:
“The impact of proactive TDM in pediatric patients also merits further consideration. This concept may be particularly important in pediatrics due to the variability in size of patients, which may not be adequately addressed by weight-based dosing.33 This is especially important in younger children, where it has been shown that standard TNFα antagonist regimens and trough levels may not be applicable in this age group, and may require more frequent escalation of therapy.34,35 In the PAILOT trial, proactive TDM in children with clinical response to adalimumab was associated with higher rates of maintaining sustained corticosteroid-free clinical remission at all visits from week 8–72, compared with reactive TDM in which physicians were informed of trough concentration only after loss of response.”
Induction Dosing (Adults and Children):
“It is possible that the early measurement of biologic drug concentrations, to identify patients who may have accelerated clearance, and optimization of a subset of these patients early in the course of therapy may offer benefit.1,30 …Ongoing trials such as OPTIMIZE (NCT04835506) and TITRATE (NCT03937609) in which infliximab is optimized during the induction phase through a pharmacokinetic dashboard in patients with Crohn’s disease and acute severe ulcerative colitis will shed further light on this.”
My take: So far, studies in adults have not shown that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring has been effective in improving clinical outcomes. This may change particularly if studies focus on patients on monotherapy who are at increased risk of subtherapeutic levels. No matter what happens in adults, there is sufficient data showing that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring is essential in children. This is especially important as ‘routine” dosing of infliximab in children may be subtherapeutic in nearly 80%.
Background: “A major challenge that pharmacoepidemiologic studies often face is the susceptibility to protopathic bias. Protopathic bias occurs when a pharmaceutical agent is prescribed for an early manifestation of a disease and then appears to cause the disease when it is eventually diagnosed…Here, we used a modified lag-time approach to investigate the association between PPI use and all-cause and cause-specific mortality”
Methods: This was a prospective cohort study using data collected from the Nurses’ Health Study (2004–2018) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (2004–2018). Study participants: 50,156 women and 21,731 men followed for 831,407 person-years and a median of 13.8 years.
Key findings:
Upon applying lag times of up to 6 years, the mortality associations were attenuated and no longer statistically significant:
Longer duration of PPI use did not confer higher risks for all-cause and cause-specific mortality.
My take: This study provides convincing evidence that PPI use does not increase the risk of mortality. Protopathic bias can make PPI use appear to increase the risk of mortality (HR, 1.19 in this study) compared to PPI non-users. It is still a good idea to use these agents for appropriate indications and at appropriate doses.
Beached Fishing Boats Jules Achille Noel. The Art Institute of Chicago.
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
Also, worldwide COVID-19 deaths are at a low point since the beginning of the pandemic (both reported and estimated excess deaths).
Methods: A randomized controlled trial was performed from 2018 to 2019 in 70 adults with biopsy-proven celiac disease. Inclusion criteria were as follows: persistent gastrointestinal symptoms defined by a Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS)–IBS version score of 30 or higher, gluten-free diet adherence for 12 months or longer, and serologic and mucosal remission.
Key findings:
Compared to placebo-treated patients, there was significant improvement in pain, bloating, diarrhea and satiety, based on GSRS-IBS scores, in those assigned to a low FODMAPs diet (see below)
While this a low FODMAP diet can be helpful, the authors offer this cautionary advice:
“Following 2 complex diets increases the risk of inadequate nutritional intake, and patients should be followed up carefully. A low FODMAP diet should not be recommended to patients at nutritional risk or to patients at risk of developing an eating disorder.”
Figure 2 in Article
My take: Asking patients with celiac disease to further restrict their diet is akin to running the Peachtree Road Race in a fireman’s outfit. It can be done but doesn’t look like much fun.
Background: “Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) might be a promising treatment for IBS, and this has been investigated in 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 2 In 4 of these, FMT reduced symptoms and improved the quality of life of patients with IBS, whereas no effects were indicated in the other 3. 2 The difference in these results was likely because of differences in the protocols used, the selected donors, the cohort of treated patients, the fecal transplant dose, and the route by which the transplant was administrated.2“
Methods: In this placebo-controlled trial with 125 patients, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was administered into duodenum (30 g or 60 g). The donor was a healthy male aged 36 years with a normal body mass index who was born via vaginal delivery, breastfed, a nonsmoker, was not taking any medication, was only treated a few times with antibiotics, exercised regularly, and consumed a sport-specific diet that was richer in protein, fiber, minerals, and vitamins than the average diet.
Key findings:
Response rates were 26.3%, 69.1%, and 77.8% in the placebo, 30-g, and 60-g groups, respectively, at 2 years after FMT, and 27.0%, 64.9%, and 71.8%, respectively, at 3 years after FMT.
Fluorescent signals of 10 bacteria had significant correlations with IBS symptoms and fatigue after FMT in the 30-g and 60-g groups.
No long-term adverse events were recorded. The authors note in the discussion rare serious safety issues with FMT but indicate in this population without systemic diseases or immune deficiency, that adverse effects were mild and self-limited gastrointestinal symptoms
The editorial suggests that overall response is modest bust similar to FDA-approved medications for IBS. The number needed to treat (NNT) would be 4-5 patients to reduce the proportion with severe IBS-SSS based on per-protocol analysis (most IBS medications range from 6 to 10).
My take: This study strengthens the notion that alterations in our microbiome can the outcomes of patients suffering from IBS. Now, we have to identify which patients will benefit from this approach and how to optimally modify the microbiome. In addition, this study suggests that finding an optimal FMT donor will impact results given variability in prior trials.
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.
In a nationwide Swedish cohort of 18,815 incident patients with a minimum 5 years of follow-up, 652 (3.5%) underwent formation of a stoma. The 5-year cumulative incidence of stoma formation was 2.5%, with no differences between calendar periods (2003–2006, 2007–2010, and 2011–2014).
This study captured data from 1317 patients (including 927 patients stopping infliximab and 390 patients stopping adalimumab) to develop risk prediction models. “The authors confirm many of the high risk, albeit rather intuitive, factors that are associated with the risk of relapse, including younger age, younger age at diagnosis, smoking, upper gastrointestinal tract involvement, longer disease duration, absence of concomitant immunosuppressant use, previous anti-TNF failure, and absence of clinical remission.”
The editorial notes that even in the lowest risk group, more than 20% had risk of relapse within 1 year; in addition, stopping therapy increases risk of not recapturing remission with restart of treatment. “Stopping anti-TNF therapy is a highly personalized treatment decision and is one that carries considerable risks…therapeutic discontinuation of TNF antagonists should be reserved for the very small minority of patients who are in deep remission, have a strong desire to stop treatment, have no (or very few) characteristics of high-risk CD, can tolerate a substantial disease flare, and are fully informed of the risks of therapeutic withdrawal.”
Graphical abstract below shows that 52.2% of patients who did not achieve clinical response to 8 weeks’ treatment with tofacitinib 10 mg BID in the induction studies achieved a clinical response following extended induction (delayed responders). At Month 12 of OCTAVE Open, 70.3%, 56.8%, and 44.6% of delayed responders maintained clinical response and achieved endoscopic improvement and remission, respectively. Corresponding values at Month 36 were 56.1%, 52.0%, and 44.6%.
My take: By extending the treatment induction to 16 weeks to determine response (rather than 8 weeks), the authors showed that 75% of patients with ulcerative colitis in the initial cohort respond to tofacitinib.
gutsandgrowth 