Category Archives: Gastroenterology

Job Security Study: Lots of People Have Reflux Symptoms & COVID-19 Due To Singing

Posted on by

A recent study (SD Delshad, CV Almario et al. Gastroenterol 2020; 158: 1250-61) used survey data from an APP, MyGiHealth, to assess prevalence of reflux symptoms and symptoms that had not responded to proton pump inhibitor treatment.

Key findings:

  • In 2015, among 71,812 participants, 32,878 (44.1%) reported reflux symptoms previously and 23,039 (30.9%) reported reflux symptoms in previous week
  • 35% with reflux symptoms were currently receiving treatment: 55% PPIs, 24% H2RAs, and 24% antacids
  • Of the 3229 taking daily PPIs, 54% reported persistent reflux symptoms (≥2 days per week)
  • Age range of respondents was 33% for 18-29, 27% for 30-39, 17% for 40-49, 15% for 50-59, and 8% ≥60

Limitations: 

  • Potential selection bias as there was only a 5.5% response rate among the entire eligible population of 1.3 million
  • Reflux symptoms frequently is not due to reflux disease

My take: There are a lot of folks with reflux symptoms and many have ongoing symptoms despite treatment; hence, lots of opportunity to help (and job security)

Related blog posts:

Also from NY Times: Coronavirus Ravaged a Choir. But Isolation Helped Contain It.

“One sick singer attended choir practice, infecting 52 others, two of whom died. A study released by the C.D.C. shows that self-isolation and tracing efforts helped contain the outbreak.”  Only 8 of the 61 choir members did not get sick.

Graphical Abstract

Reducing Inappropriate Proton Pump Inhibitor Usage & U.S. Children with COVID-19

Posted on by

D Lin et atl. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 763-6.  In a retrospective chart review, the authors examined pharmacy data from patients in the Harris Health System (Harris county -Houston, TX) which had more than 1.9 million outpatient clinic visits in 2017.

In January 2018, multiple efforts were made to try to reduce inappropriate proton pump inhibitor (PPI) usage.  This included grand rounds and system-wide emails to providers.  In addition, a suggested tapering algorithm (order in EPIC) was given to reduce the likelihood of rebound acid hypersecretion which could undermine the goal of stopping PPI.

Key points:

  • Taper: When ready to taper, start with “a PPI every other day for 2 weeks, followed by a PPI every 4 days for 2 additional weeks before discontinuation.”
  • De-escalation: Before educational intervention, in 2017, there were 66,261 unique PPI prescriptions. After educational intervention, in 2018, there were 55,322 unique PPI prescriptions (16.5% decrease). This equates to ~800,000 fewer capsules or pills dispensed in 1 calendar year
  • The most “important driver” for de-escalation was the initiation of the discussion by the ambulatory primary care provider
  • The authors recommend clinic followup within a month after starting de-escalation and gastroenterology evaluation for patients with severe symptoms or those refractory to PPI treatment

My take: This study indicates that 1 in 6 PPI users were able to de-escalate off treatment.  Physician initiative is crucial to improve appropriate medication use.

Related blog posts:

Recent study from JAMA Pediatrics (5/11/20) -Full text: Characteristics and Outcomes of Children With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infection Admitted to US and Canadian Pediatric Intensive Care Units

Of the 48 children with COVID-19 admitted to participating PICUs (14 hospitals)… Forty patients (83%) had significant preexisting comorbidities; 35 (73%) presented with respiratory symptoms and 18 (38%) required invasive ventilation….At the completion of the follow-up period, 2 patients (4%) had died and 15 (31%) were still hospitalized, with 3 still requiring ventilatory support and 1 receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The median (range) PICU and hospital lengths of stay for those who had been discharged were 5 (3-9) days and 7 (4-13) days, respectively.

NY Times Summary of Study: Details of U.S. Children Severely Affected by Coronavirus

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

Gastroesophageal Reflux Phenotypes and “Where Rome, Lyon, and Montreal Meet”

Posted on by

A useful review (DA Katzka et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 767-76) discusses the phenotypes of gastroesophageal reflux and related disorders.   The authors note that consensus initiatives (Montreal, Rome, and Lyon) have looked at these disorders from different perspectives and their goal was to merge their perspectives.

Table 1 lists the major phenotypes:

  • Nonerosive reflux disease
  • Reflux hypersensitivity
  • Functional heartburn
  • Erosive esophagitis (low grade and high grade).  LA grade A esophagitis “can be found in approximately 6% of asymptomatic controls”
  • Barrett’s esophagus
  • Reflux chest pain syndrome
  • Regurgitation-dominant reflux disease: “need to differentiate from rumination and achalasia”
  • Laryngopharyngeal reflux
  • Chronic cough  “although reflux may contribute, it is rarely the dominant pathophysiology… more amenable to GERD therapy when accompanied by typical reflux symptoms”

Figure 1 provides a model for the pathogenesis of GERD. Figure 2 describes the relationship between reflux phenotypes and PPI responsiveness:

In those with typical reflux symptoms: 

  • esophagitis healing 84% with PPI Rx compared to 28% with placebo (NNT =1.8)
  • heartburn relief (with and without esophagitis) 56% with PPI Rx compared to 16% with placebo (NNT =4.4)
  • heartburn relief without esophagitis 40% with PPI Rx compared to 13% with placebo (NNT =3.7)
  • regurgitation relief (with and without esophagitis) 47% with PPI Rx compared to 30% with placebo (NNT =5.9)

In those with atypical reflux symptoms:

  • chest pain relief with objective GERD 74% with PPI Rx compared to 20% with placebo (NNT =1.6) (Studies used a 50% reduction in pain as opposed to complete elimination…opens the door for a greater placebo response)
  • chest pain relief without objective GERD 29% with PPI Rx compared to 23% with placebo (NNT =16.7) (Studies used a 50% reduction in pain as opposed to complete elimination…opens the door for a greater placebo response)
  • chronic cough with objective GERD 33% with PPI Rx compared to 9% with placebo (NNT =4.2)
  • chronic cough without objective GERD 31% with PPI Rx compared to 27% with placebo (NNT =25)
  • reflux laryngitis (without heartburn, complete resolution) 15% with PPI Rx compared to 16% with placebo
  • poorly-controlled asthma (without heartburn)-exacerbations per year: 2.5 with PPI Rx compared to 2.3 with placebo 
  • *references for this figure provided

Other useful points:

  • “An exception to the de-emphasizing the relationship of GERD to an extraesophageal syndrome is with lung transplantation, which …has unique considerations…the sequelae of untreated GERD …may lead to accelerated mortality from allograft injury…data have suggested that PPIs may be effective at prolonging allograft survival.”
  • The authors state that escalating PPI/antisecretory treatments for esophagitis is often effective but this approach has limited applicability for other indications and can result in overuse. “Similarly, failing to recognize the modulating effects of anxiety, hypervigilance, and visceral and central hypersensitivity on symptom severity has greatly oversimplified the problem.”

My take (borrowed in part from authors): PPIs work well for esophagitis and documented reflux; “the broad spectrum of syndromes [are] much less amenable to PPI therapy in any dose.”

Related blog posts:

Curbside Humor

 

AGA Guidelines: Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

Full Text: JD Feuerstein et al. Gastroenterol 2020; 158: 1450-61. AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis

Full Tex PDF: AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis

 

Associated articles included the following:

  • Clinical decision support tool (1462-63)
  • PDF: Spotlight (summary -images above) (1464)
  • Technical Review (1465-96)

Key recommendations:

  • 2a. In adult outpatients with moderate to severe UC who are naïve to biologic agents, the AGA suggests using infliximab or vedolizumab rather than adalimumab, for induction of remission. Comment: Patients, particularly those with less severe disease, who place higher value on the convenience of self-administered subcutaneous injection, and a lower value on the relative efficacy of medications, may reasonably chose adalimumab as an alternative
  • 2c. In adult outpatients with moderate to severe UC who have previously been exposed to infliximab, particularly those with primary nonresponse, the AGA suggests using ustekinumab or tofacitinib rather than vedolizumab or adalimumab for induction of remission.
  • 6. In adult outpatients with moderate to severe UC, the AGA suggests early use of biologic agents with or without immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step up after failure of 5-ASA. Comment: Patients, particularly those with less severe disease, who place higher value on the safety of 5-ASA therapy and lower value on the efficacy of biologic agents or tofacitinib may reasonably chose gradual step therapy with 5-ASA therapy.
  • 10. In hospitalized adult patients with ASUC refractory to intravenous corticosteroids, the AGA suggests using infliximab or cyclosporine

Summary of recommendations:

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

Timing of Upper Endoscopy with GI Bleeding -Is It Safer to Wait a Bit?

Posted on by

YouTube Video –Adley.TV: What We Should ALL Be Doing Right Now (COVID-19 Humor)

——————-

A recent study (JYW Lau et al. NEJM 2020; 382: 1299-1308, editorial by L Laine 1361-2) indicates that performing an upper endoscopy within the first 6 hours of presentation to the hospital is NOT associated with better outcomes.

516 patients who were predicted to be at high risk for further bleeding or death were randomly assigned to undergo endoscopy within 6 hours or between 6-24 hours. Key findings:

  • 30-day mortality: 8.9% in the <6 hr group (<6G) compared to 6.6% in the 6-24 hr group (6-24G)
  • Endoscopic treatment was administered to 60.1% of <6G compared to 48.4% in 6-24G
  • Re-bleeding within 30 days in 10.9% of <6G compared to 7.8% in 6-24G

The editorial notes that guidelines recommend endoscopy be performed within 24 hours following hemodynamic resuscitation and attention to other coexisting conditions before endoscopy.

My take: This is good news for endoscopists -no need to rush to the endoscopy suite/operating room in the middle of the night!

Link NEJM: Two minute quick take on article

Related blog posts:

 

Impedance May Help in Borderline Reflux Disease Assessment

Posted on by

A recent retrospective study (A Rengarajan et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 589-95), with a cohort of 371 patients (mean age 54 years) shows how impedance testing may help identify patients who are likely to respond to reflux management when pH probe testing is equivocal.  The cohort included adults with persistent reflux symptoms.  Response to antireflux therapy was defined as >50% improvement in esophageal symptoms.

Key points:

  • 107 (28.8%) had pathologic acid exposure time (AET) (pH<4 for >6%)
  • 234 (63.1%) had abnormal mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) (<2292 ohms). MNBI was calculated using baseline values at 10-minute periods between 1-3 am from the 5 cm channel to correspond to total distal AET.
  • Figure 1, shows the combined use of AET and MNBI.  Only 106/107 patients with AET>6, had an abnormal MNBI.  In the borderline category of AET 4-6%, 62/68 (91.2%) had abnormal MNBI values. In those with AET <4, MNBI was abnormal in 66/196 (33.7%)

Response to Treatment:

  • Among patients with AET >6, 66/89 (74%) responded to medical therapy and 18/23 (78%) responded to surgical therapy; among patients with AET 4-6%, 37/56 (66%) responded to medical therapy and 14/17 (82%) responded to surgical therapy. In those with AET <4, 39/185 (21%) responded to medical therapy and 16/23 (70%) responded to surgical therapy
  • Among patients with a low MNBI, 119/198 (60%) responded to medical therapy and 41/50 (82%) to surgical therapy.  In those with a normal MNBI, 23/132 (17%) responded to medical therapy and 7/13 (54%) responded to surgical treatment
  • In those with AET >6, 84/111 (76%) responded to treatment. For those with AET 4-6%, of those with low MNBI, 49/67 (73%), responded (similar to those with AET >6%).  In those with low MNBI and AET <4, 27/70 (39%) responded to treatment
  • 28/138 (20.2%) with normal AET <4 and with normal MNBI responded to treatment

My take: The big takeaway is that all of our tests for pathologic reflux are highly flawed; impedance may (to a small degree) help stratify patients with equivocal evaluation based on AET.  Normal tests do not exclude response treatment (especially surgery).

Related blog posts:

Island Ford, Sandy Springs

 

Gastric Electrical Stimulation For Refractory Vomiting, IBD Resources & MMWR COVID-19 Report

Posted on by

A recent yard sign from my wife for neighborhood walkers during the pandemic

P Ducrotte el al (Gastroenterol 2020; 158: 506-14, editorial 461-3) examined the use of an implanted gastric electrical stimulation (GES) in 172 patients in a randomized crossover trial (mean age 45 years).  GES device was implanted and left unactivated until patients were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive stimulation (for 4 months) or not.  Patients had vomiting that was either idiopathic, postsurgical or associated with diabetic gastroparesis (n=72).

Key findings:

  • A significant decrease in vomiting occurred with the device on based on a nonvalidated vomiting score.  During the ON period, vomiting was improved with score of 2.2 compared to vomiting score of 1.8 with device off.  30.6% of patients reported at least a 1 point improvement with device ON compared to device OFF.  However, 16.5% of patients reported improvement with device OFF compared to device ON.
  • Gastric emptying was not accelerated during treatment (device on) compared to no treatment
  • GES was NOT associated with increased quality of life
  • GES was not associated with improved nutritional parameters
  • Adverse effects included pain (n=26) or infection (n=16) at the insertion site of GES; 3 patients required GES removal.

My take (from editorial): “Taking into account the modest magnitude of therapeutic benefit, the cost of the treatment and the potential for adverse events with GES, it seems advisable to exhaust all (symptomatic) therapeutic options” beforehand.

Related blog posts:

IBD Resources (from David Rubin, MD):

COVID-19 March 2020: MMWR Report (Link to report from Bryan Vartabedian 33mail)

  • March 1-28 2020, 84% of hospitalized U.S. patients had underlying diseases -he most common being obesity, hypertension, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease.
  • Hospitalization rates increased with age, with a rate of 0.3 (per 100,000) in persons aged 0–4 years, 0.1 in those aged 5–17 years, 2.5 in those aged 18–49 years, 7.4 in those aged 50–64 years, and 13.8 in those aged ≥65 years

 

Deconstructing PPI-Associated Risks with Nearly 8 Billion Data Points and More on COVID-19 GI Symptoms (Video)

Posted on by

Link: 22 minute video —COVID-19 and the GI Tract -What We Know Right Now

———————

A recent study (C Ma et al. Gastroenterol 2020; 158: 780-82) used cross-sectional data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) (2006-2015) with a total 7,872,115,883 weighted observations.  They used this data to evaluate medication exposures and outcomes.

Key findings:

  • There was no association between PPI use and dementia, pneumonia, or intestinal infections.  There was a trend towards intestinal infections (AOR 1.48, CI 0.80-2.71) but this did not reach statistical significance. “Sensitivity analysis showed an association between PPI use and C difficile.”
  • There was an association with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (AOR 1.26); however, this was seen with a multitude of drug classes including statins, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

Discussion:

  • This study notes that a recent large randomized controlled trial found no statistically significant differences between those receiving PPIs and those receiving placebo except for intestinal infections.
  • With regard to CKD, “it is extremely unlikely that all of these medications increase the risk of CKD, and therefore, it is likely that these findings are due to residual confounding.”

My take: With the exception of C difficile/intestinal infections, this study provides further evidence of the safety of PPIs and a lack of association between these medications and purported PPI-related adverse events.  That said, it is still a good idea to limit use for appropriate indications.

Related blog posts:

Also, IOIBD recommendations for IBD patients and COVID-19 have been published.

Here is link as well:

IOIBD (International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease) Recommendations (#76) for IBD Patients with Regard to COVID-19:

Full link: IOIBD Update on COVID19 for Patients with Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis (3/26/20)

 

What is the Current Standard of Care for PPE and Endoscopy Cases?

Posted on by

CC Thompson et al. Gastointestinal Endoscopy (EPUB), in a letter to the editor, respond to two recent studies on SARS-CoV-2 virus/COVID-19 and provide recommendations for PPE use in this era of COVID-19.

Here’s a link to manuscript: COVID-19 in Endoscopy: Time to do more?

Key points:

  • Reduce non-urgent cases. “We have cut our daily endoscopy volume by over 80% and closed our ambulatory endoscopy practice.”
  • Increase the use of telemedicine. “At present, telemedicine or virtual visits make up 91% of our upcoming clinic appointments.”
  • Physical distancing as advocated recently by WHO throughout a patient’s time in the endoscopy unit is stressed in the papers, with a 6-foot minimum between individuals.
  • Suggests “the need for a separate toilet as part of the isolation to minimize spread of infection due to bioaerosols from the toilet plume”
  • Our hospital system has recently changed policy to mandate that all employees wear surgical masks at all times while in the hospital and attest to their wellness online before reporting to work.
  • We suggest labeling each computer so the same provider uses that computer and chair for the entire day, and separating by at least 6 feet.
  • All endoscopic procedures (upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, EUS, ERCP) are aerosol-generating, referencing studies that show contamination of the endoscopist’s face during routine procedures. This makes all endoscopic procedures high risk from an infectious standpoint, and appropriate PPE is
    recommended… It makes little sense for healthcare providers to perform
    aerosolizing procedures, with patients coughing or passing gas on them, while not wearing an N95 mask or better
  • “It is important to use full PPE for all endoscopic procedures while in a pandemic such as this especially in areas with community spread, because no one is truly low risk given our ongoing difficulties with testing.”
  • “The mask can be reused as long as it is functional, not soiled, and not used in a suspected or COVIDpositive patient. It is important to cover the N95 to prevent soiling.”
  • “A study from China showed that no medical staff working in high-risk departments who wore N95s and practiced strict hand hygiene regardless of patient’s infection status became infected.”
  • “Testing all patients before high-risk procedures such as endoscopy is likely the best approach; however, this will depend on significant expansion of testing capabilities. Hopefully, the development of point-of-care testing with rapid results and increasing testing availability will make this a reality soon”

My take (in part from authors): “We are living through an unprecedented time and are all trying our best to protect our patients and ourselves under suboptimal conditions of limited PPE, limited testing, and limited data. ”  The recommendations in this article are based mainly on expert opinion and may need modifications based on new data and circumstances.

—————————-

IOIBD (International Organization for the Study of Iinflammatory Bowel Disease) Recommendations (#76) for IBD Patients with Regard to COVID-19:

Full link: IOIBD Update on COVID19 for Patients with Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis (3/26/20)

 

 

Treating Helicobacter Pylori Lowers The Risk of Gastric Cancer

Posted on by

Related blog posts: