Category Archives: Gastroenterology

IBD Management in Pregnancy: Global Consensus

Posted on by

U Mahadevan et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2025 (published ahead of print). Open Access! Global Consensus Statement on the Management of Pregnancy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Addendum -updated reference: U Mahadevan et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2025; 23: S1-S60. Open Access! Global Consensus Statement on the Management of Pregnancy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

This is a 60 page open access article. Table 1 lists 34 “GRADE” statements and Table 2 lists 35 consensus statements. This article is also jointly published in the following:

  • Gut
  • Am J Gastroenterol
  • Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
  • Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis
  • Aliment Pharmacol Ther

For Moms:

For Babies:

My take: This is a useful reference –mainly helpful for gastroenterologists rather than pediatric providers.

Related blog posts:

Can Smartphone Use Increase the Risk of Hemorrhoids?

Posted on by

There are many reasons NOT to use a phone while you are on the toilet. Now a small study indicates that smartphone use is associated with longer time on the toilet and increased rate of endoscopically-detected hemorrhoids.

An excerpt from the NBC summary:

“The longer you sit on the toilet, the worse it is for you,” said Dr. Trisha Pasricha, director of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center’s Institute for Gut-Brain Research Institute in Boston. Pasricha is also an author of the study, which was published Wednesday in PLOS One…

Pasricha and colleagues surveyed 125 adults just before they were about to have a routine colonoscopy to screen for colorectal cancer. Eighty-three (66%) of the participants admitted to using their phones in the bathroom — mostly to catch up on news of the day and scroll through social media.

Gastroenterologists performing the colonoscopies looked for evidence of inflamed veins, or hemorrhoids. People who said they took their phone into the bathroom were 46% more likely to have hemorrhoids compared to the others…

The experts agreed that business on the toilet should take no longer than 5 minutes. More than 37% of study participants who used a smartphone in the bathroom stayed for longer than that, compared to 7% of people who kept their phones out of the bathroom.

My take: This study has a number of limitations; so, a definite link between smartphones and hemorrhoids has not been established. For example, there could be reverse causation. In this case, individuals who expected to be on the toilet longer may be more likely to use their smartphones rather than the smartphones making them stay longer. Nevertheless, I think multitasking on the toilet is generally not a good idea.

Brooklyn Bridge, August 2025

Expert Advice for GI Manifestations of Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Including Association with POTS and Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS)

Posted on by

Q Aziz et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Volume 23, Issue 8, 1291 – 1302. Open Access! AGA Clinical Practice Update on GI Manifestations and Autonomic or Immune Dysfunction in Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome: Expert Review

This review and practice update includes 16 “best practice advice” statements. Here are nine of them:

  • #1: Clinicians should be aware of the observed associations between hEDS or HSDs and POTS and/or MCAS and their overlapping gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations; while theoretical explanations exist, experimental evidence of the biological mechanisms that explain relationships is limited and evolving.
  • #2: Testing for POTS/MCAS should be targeted to patients presenting with clinical manifestations of POTS/MCAS, but universal testing for POTS/MCAS in all patients with hEDS/HSDs is not supported by the current evidence.
  • #3: Gastroenterologists seeing patients with DGBI should inquire about joint hypermobility and strongly consider incorporating the Beighton score for assessing joint hypermobility into their practice as a screening tool; if the screen is positive, gastroenterologists may consider applying 2017 diagnostic criteria to diagnose hEDS (https://www.ehlers-danlos.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/hEDS-Dx-Criteria-checklist-1.pdf) or offer appropriate referral to a specialist where resources are available.
  • #4: Testing for POTS through postural vital signs (eg, symptomatic increase in heart rate of 30 beats/min [40 beats/min for 12-19 yo] or more with 10 minutes of standing during an active stand or head-up tilt table test in the absence of orthostasis) and referral to specialty practices (eg, cardiology or neurology) for autonomic testing should be considered in patients with hEDS/HSDs and refractory GI symptoms who also report orthostatic intolerance after exclusion of medication side effects and appropriate lifestyle or behavioral modifications (eg, adequate hydration and physical exercise) have been attempted but is not required for all patients with hEDS/HSDs who report GI symptoms alone.
  • #5: In patients presenting to gastroenterology providers, testing for mast cell disorders including MCAS should be considered in patients with hEDS/HSDs and DGBI who also present with episodic symptoms that suggest a more generalized mast cell disorder (eg, visceral and somatic pain, pruritus, flushing, sweating, urticaria, angioedema, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal cramping, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, urogynecological and neurological complaints) involving 2 or more physiological systems (eg, cutaneous, GI, cardiac, respiratory, and neuropsychiatric), but current data do not support the use of these tests for routine evaluation of GI symptoms in all patients with hEDS/HSDs without clinical or laboratory evidence of a primary or secondary mast cell disorder.
  • #6: If MCAS is suspected, diagnostic testing with serum tryptase levels collected at baseline and 1–4 hours following symptom flares may be considered by the gastroenterologist; increases of 20% above baseline plus 2 ng/mL are necessary to demonstrate evidence of mast cell activation.
  • #12: Medical management of GI symptoms in hEDS/HSDs and POTS/MCAS should focus on treating the most prominent GI symptoms and abnormal GI function test results. In addition to general DGBIs and GI motility disorder treatment, management should also include treating any symptoms attributable to POTS and/or MCAS.
  • #13: Treatment of POTS may include increasing fluid and salt intake, exercise training, and use of compression garments. Special pharmacological treatments for volume expansion, heart rate control, and vasoconstriction with integrated care from multiple specialties (eg, cardiology, neurology) should be considered in patients who do not respond to conservative lifestyle measures.
  • #14: When MCAS is suspected, patients can benefit from treatment with histamine receptor antagonists and/or mast cell stabilizers, in addition to avoiding triggers such as certain foods, alcohol, strong smells, temperature changes, mechanical stimuli (eg, friction), emotional distress (eg, pollen, mold), or specific medications (eg, opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, iodinated contrast).

Background: “Clinical gastroenterologists are encountering an increasing number of patients with chronic GI symptoms who also appear to experience comorbid hEDS/HSDs, POTS, and/or MCAS.15,16 Recognizing and treating GI symptoms in patients with hEDS/HSDs and comorbid POTS or MCAS present major challenges for clinicians, who often feel under equipped to address their needs.”

The article provides guidance on measuring hypermobility (Beighton Scoring System), Diagnosis/classification of mast cell activation (Table 1) and treatments for these disorders (Table 2)

My take: This is a useful reference for the overlap of DGBIs with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos, POTS and Mast cell Activation. Nevertheless, the relationship between these disorders is unclear. In fact, there have been some studies indicating that joint mobility is not associated with an increase in functional GI disorders. Some of the association may be related to a surveillance bias.

Related blog posts:

Impact of GLP-1 Agonists on IBD and Obesity

Posted on by

P Sehgal et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025; 23: 1453-1454.Safety and Clinical Effectiveness of GLP1 Receptor Agonists in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients

Background: “The prevalence of obesity among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is estimated at 15-40%, and continues to rise. Obesity has been associated with a more severe phenotype of IBD.”

Methods: Retrospective cohort with 244 patients. Semaglutide was the most commonly prescribed agent (54%).

Key findings:

  • GLP-1RA use led to weight loss from 102 kg to 97.6 kg at 12-24 weeks postinitiation
  • GLP-1RA was associated with a significant drop in CRP from 10.1 mg/dL to 3 mg/dL
  • In a subset of 32, fecal calprotectin values decreased from 825 mcg/kg to 235 mcg/kg (P= 0.13)

Limitations: Retrospective study with a short duration, lack of a control group for this study, and lack of endoscopic data.

My take: As with the broader population, GLP-1 RAs help with weight loss in patients with IBD. Many patients may derive health benefits from weight loss alone. This study, though with numerous limitations, indicates the potential beneficial effects on the activity of IBD based on improvements in biomarkers.

Related blog posts:

Old Mill on the Cherokee Trail at Stone Mtn Park. Stone Mtn, GA

Pharmacologic Neuromodulation for Bloating Symptoms

Posted on by

Briefy noted: EN Madva et al. Scand J Gastroenterol 2025 Aug 8:1-5. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2025.2544306. Online ahead of print. Pharmacologic neuromodulation for bloating.

This was a small retrospective study of consecutively referred patients with a DGBI (N = 77; ages 18-74, 87% female) to a tertiary neurogastroenterology clinic who were prescribed a neuromodulator for a primary complaint of bloating in 2016-2022.  Duloxetine was the most commonly prescribed neuromodulator (n = 52, 67.5%).

My take: This study shows that neuromodulators are likely beneficial for bloating symptoms. Dr. Garza () previously noted that in patients with bloating “the typical increase in excess gas during bloating symptoms is only 22 mL.” Thus, “A lot of bloating symptoms are due to increased sensitivity and ‘weird gas handling.’ The latter could include compression of diaphragm rather than elevation.”

Related blog posts:

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.

How to Diagnose Celiac Disease in Patients Already Receiving a Gluten Free Diet

Posted on by

Open Access: Evaluating for Celiac Disease in Patients on a Gluten-Free Diet: A Practical Approach

Algorithm -Figure 2:

Figure 3 lists the content of several common foods -some noted below

While gluten exposure increases the diagnostic yield of currently available tests, there are novel tests being developed “which may aid in the diagnosis of CeD regardless of diet, with a particular focus on immune-based assays. One such innovation involves the use of tetramer-based assays, which enable the direct detection of gluten-specific T cells in the blood. These tetramers, designed to bind to HLA-DQ2 molecules, can help identify T cells that have been activated by gluten exposure. This presents a highly specific immune marker for CeD. Even for those on a GFD, sensitivity (97%) and specificity (95%) have been impressive.”

My take: This article provides practical advice for evaluating whether celiac disease is present in those already consuming a GFD.

Related blog posts:

And news from The Onion 8/26/25: Hummingbird Feels Like Fucking Idiot After Seeing Other Bird Gliding

Celiac Risk Among First-Degree Relatives of Index Case

Posted on by

S Karimzadhagh, et al. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 2025; 120(7):p 1488-1501. Global Prevalence and Clinical Manifestations of Celiac Disease Among First-Degree Relatives: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Methods: Of 8,764 studies screened, 34 studies involving 10,016 first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with Celiac Disease (CeD) were included

Key findings:

  • The pooled estimates for seroprevalence and the biopsy-confirmed CeD prevalence in FDRs were 11% and 7%, respectively
  • Daughters and sisters had the highest prevalence rates at 23% and 14%, compared with sons and brothers at 6% and 9%, respectively. Mothers/fathers prevalence rates were 5%. It is noted, however, that the stud only included 32 daughters and 41 sons, making these estimates less reliable
  • Abdominal pain (42%), bloating (39%), and flatulence (38%) were the most common gastrointestinal symptoms, while 34% of FDRs with CeD were asymptomatic

Discussion points:

Discrepancy between serology and biopsy: “First, not all individuals who tested positive through serological screening underwent a confirmatory duodenal biopsy. Second, some individuals with positive anti-tTG Ab may have false-positive results, or the disease process is still in the early stages of the disease, where intestinal damage is not yet detectable. This highlights that relying solely on serological screening without follow-up evaluations and intestinal biopsy can lead to overestimating the true prevalence of CeD.”

Limitations: “Some included studies only screened the siblings of indexed patients with CeD. For example, one study reported a prevalence of 22% among siblings. Given that genetic factors play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of CeD and that the prevalence of CeD among siblings is often higher than that of other FDRs, this selective screening approach could potentially introduce selection bias into the overall prevalence of CeD in FDRs.”

My take: This study supports routine screening of first-degree relatives of patients with Celiac Disease, especially as many are asymptomatic.

Related blog posts:

INNOCENT Study: Psychological Impact for Gastroenterologist Associated with Procedural Complications

Posted on by

Holzwanger, Erik A. et al. Gastroenterology 2025. Psychosocial Impact of Endoscopic Procedural Complications on Gastroenterologists: The Second Victims

Background: “Serious adverse events (SAEs) are unavoidable occurrences for those performing complex endoscopic interventions. These affect not only the patient (the first victim), but also possibly the proceduralist (the second victim). Second victim syndrome (SVS) was first described by Dr. Wu detailing the negative psychological effects of adverse patient events on physicians (Ref: Wu AW. Medical error: the second victim. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):726-727).”

Methods: Survey responses form “X” platform (n=195) were collected in 2023. Only
responses from advanced endoscopists (defined as those who perform either endoscopic
ultrasound or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography annually) and advanced
endoscopy fellows were included.

Key findings:

  • Higher procedural volume (>1000/year) was associated with feelings of greater emotional preparedness for SAEs
  • Speaking with colleagues (53%), exercise (33%), discussions at conferences (17%) and meditation (8%) were rated as used and very or extremely helpful

Discussion Points: “Peer support programs have proven to be well received and highly utilized. Additionally, surgeons criticize the often-punitive handling of SAEs, and note that the tone and culture in the review process following an SAE dictates reduction or exacerbation of SVS.”

My take: When I have had a complication in a patient, speaking with colleagues has provided a lot of support. One book I have recommended to others is the following: Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science by Atul Gawande.

Related article (2022): “We Suffer in Silence” The Challenge of Surgeons as Second Victims

Related blog posts:

Sterile Water is Unnecessary for Endoscopy

Posted on by

From AGA Today (8/5/25): “Sterile Water is Unnecessary for Endoscopy”

GI and Hepatology News (8/4, Pass) reports a review suggests that “endoscopists can safely forgo sterile water in favor of tap, reducing both environmental and financial costs.” Researchers found that only two studies since 1975 “directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy,” and “neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.” Current guidelines “recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence.” However, they pointed out that “these recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy.” Furthermore, the “review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone.” The review was published in Gastro Hep Advances.

Referenced article: D Agrawal, et al. Gastro Hep Advances, Volume 4, Issue 5, 100625. Ripple Effect: Safety, Cost, and Environmental Concerns of Using Sterile Water in Endoscopy

Environmental Costs:

“With a conservative estimate of using half of a 1-L sterile bottle for irrigation per endoscopy, 22 million yearly endoscopies in the US could result in an additional 6000 tons of eCO2.”

Economic Costs:

“A 1-L bottle of sterile water costs $3–$10. For an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures daily and a conservative estimate of half a water bottle per case, the average monthly direct costs could be $1000–$3000”

Discussion:

“There is no direct supporting evidence for using sterile water during endoscopy…a Cochrane review show no difference in infection risk when using tap or sterile water to irrigate wounds…Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.

My take: Plastic water bottles in endoscopy centers contribute to health-care waste, climate change and increased costs.

Related blog post: Environmental Impact of Endoscopy

Sandy Springs, GA

Guselkumab for Crohn’s Disease: GALAXI-2 and GALAXI-3: 48-Week Results

Posted on by

R Panaccione et al. The Lancet. Published online July 17, 2025 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00681-6. Efficacy and safety of intravenous induction and subcutaneous maintenance therapy with guselkumab for patients with Crohn’s disease (GALAXI-2 and GALAXI-3): 48-week results from two phase 3, randomised, placebo and active comparator-controlled, double-blind, triple-dummy trials

Methods: “GALAXI-2 and GALAXI-3 were identically designed, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, triple-dummy, treat-through trials with active and placebo comparators…1048 participants were randomly assigned, treated, and followed up until week 48, of whom 1021 participants were included in the primary analysis population: 508 (49·8%) in GALAXI-2 and 513 (50·2%) in GALAXI-3.” The studies enrolled adult patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease.

Key findings:

Discussion points:

  • “Guselkumab treatment in participants with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease was also evaluated in the GRAVITI study, which had a fully subcutaneous induction and maintenance treatment regimen. Clinical and endoscopic outcomes reported with subcutaneous guselkumab induction in the GRAVITI study were similar to those in the phase 3 GALAXI studies following intravenous guselkumab induction.”
  • “The incidence of adverse events with guselkumab during induction was low and similar to placebo.”

My take (borrowed from authors): In GALAXI-2 and GALAXI-3, both guselkumab dose regimens (each including intravenous induction and subcutaneous maintenance) were superior to placebo for short-term (week 12) and long-term (week 48) endpoints and both guselkumab dose regimens were also superior to ustekinumab

Related blog posts: