Category Archives: Gastroenterology

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Still Occurs in Patients who Clear HBsAg

Posted on by

Briefly noted:

Editorial: MH Nathanson, N Terrault Hepatology 2016; 64: 328-29. This very unusual editorial explains a published erratum of 2010 paper reversing a claim that patients with Hepatitis B who had achieved HBsAg clearance had markedly decreased rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (37 cases per 100,000 person-years). After correction of the arithmetic error, the rate of HCC in this population was actually 442 cases per 100,000 person-years.  The editorial does reiterate that studies have shown lower HCC among those with low HBV DNA which is a prerequisite for HBsAg clearance. Exact risk is difficult in this population due to infrequent development of HBsAg loss and infrequent development of HCC.  The message: While loss of HBsAg may lower HCC risk, there remains a need for HCC surveillance.

Related blog posts:

Wild Goose Island, Glacier Natl Park

Wild Goose Island, Glacier Natl Park

Fecal Calprotectin Monitoring Helpful at Identifying Relapse in IBD

Posted on by

Thanks to Ben Gold for this reference: Y. Zhulina et al. Aliment Pharm Ther 2016; 44: 495-504.

Methods: 

  • Patients aged 18 years or older, with a known diagnosis of IBD in clinical remission, were prospectively studied. Patients provided faecal samples every third month and were prospectively followed until the first clinical relapse or the end of the 2-year follow-up period.  
  • Relapse was defined as increasing symptoms necessitating intensified medical therapy or surgery.

Key finding:

  • Among 104 patients, Crohn’s disease (n = 49) and ulcerative colitis (n = 55), 37 had a relapse. A doubling of faecal calprotectin level between two consecutively collected samples was associated with a 101% increased risk of relapse (HR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.53–2.65; P < 0.001).

My take: Another study showing that stool calprotectin is quite useful. How long will it be until I will not need to write letters to insurance companies to get this test covered?

Also noted in the same issue: 
“The safety of autologous and metabolically fit bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells in medically refractory Crohn’s disease – a phase 1 trial with three doses” (pages 471–481) T. Dhere, I. Copland, M. Garcia, K. Y. Chiang, R. Chinnadurai, M. Prasad, J. Galipeau and S. Kugathasan. Aliment Pharm Ther 2016; 44: 471-81. This study examined the use of mesenchymal stromal cells in 12 patients.

In conclusion, a single infusion of fresh autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells propagated ex vivo using a non xenogeneic human platelet lysate growth supplement at doses ranging 2–10 million cell/kg BW was well tolerated in patients with medically refractory moderate to severe Crohn’s disease in this preliminary study. Our data neither addressed long-term safety nor sustained efficacy. However, this study informs that a future phase 2 study 

A previous study of mesenchymal stromal cells was briefly discussed in a previous blog: Sanjay Gupta is Wrong…about Stem Cell Therapy

Related blog posts:

Hidden Lake at Glacier National Park

Hidden Lake at Glacier National Park

All Bleeding Stops (part 2)

Posted on by

Several years ago, this blog provided a summary of the guidelines for stopping upper gastrointestinal bleeding (All bleeding stops | gutsandgrowth).  Most of the recommendations are unchanged.  A nice review of this topic (L Laine. NEJM 2016; 374: 2367-76), specifically focused on peptic ulcers, provides a few new pointers.

Two areas with more data:

  1. Transfusion.  “A randomized trial showed lower rates of death (the primary outcome), rebleeding, and adverse events with a transfusion threshold of 7 g per deciliter than with a transfusion threshold of 9 g per deciliter.”
  2. Proton pump inhibitors. “A recent meta-analysis showed that intermittent oral or intravenous proton-pump inhibitor therapy results in outcomes that were non inferior to those after continuous infusion.”  (JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 1755-62) For adults, the suggested dosing was 80 mg followed by 40 to 80 mg twice daily for 72 hours.

As before, the author recommends preoperative (30 min prior) erythromycin (250 mg) and states that a nasogastric tube in not needed.  The author also recommends that in patients with idiopathic ulcers (not due to NSAIDs or H pylori) that ongoing (indefinite) use of once-daily maintenance therapy with a proton-pump inhibitor is recommended to prevent rebleeding.

Related blog posts:

Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 2.33.58 PM

Gluten-Free for IBS-D?

Posted on by

A recent study (I Aziz et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 696-703) shows that a 6 week gluten-free diet reduced IBS-D symptoms in 29 of 41 (71%) patients.

  • The authors performed a prospective study with all patients receiving a gluten-free diet.  At 6 weeks, 21 of 29 who had responded to GFD continued GFD through 18 months followup.
  • One difference with this study compared to prior studies –these patients were irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea and fulfilled Rome III criteria.  Celiac disease had been excluded with serology and histology; thus, these patients did not have “potential” celiac disease.
  • In addition to GI symptoms like abdominal pain, distention, and stooling problems, patients experienced improvement in mood, fatigue and quality of life.
  • The authors note that the response rate of 71% is much higher than they would have expected if the response was related solely to a placebo effect.

My take: This small study shows that a gluten free diet may be effective in improving the symptoms in many patients with IBS-D.  Other studies have shown that several other diets are effective as well.

Related blog posts:

IBS diagram

 

Five Year Data on Magnetic Device for GERD

Posted on by

Here’s an abstract regarding the efficacy of a magnetic device for gastroesophageal reflux in adults:

Background & Aims

Based on results from year 2 of a 5-year trial, in 2012 the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a magnetic device to augment lower esophageal sphincter function in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We report the final results of 5 years of follow-up evaluation of patients who received this device.

Methods

We performed a prospective study of the safety and efficacy of a magnetic device in 100 adults with GERD for 6 months or more, who were partially responsive to daily proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and had evidence of pathologic esophageal acid exposure, at 14 centers in the United States and The Netherlands. The magnetic device was placed using standard laparoscopic tools and techniques. Eighty-five subjects were followed up for 5 years to evaluate quality of life, reflux control, use of PPIs, and side effects. The GERD–health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire was administered at baseline to patients on and off PPIs, and after placement of the device; patients served as their own controls. A partial response to PPIs was defined as a GERD-HRQL score of 10 or less on PPIs and a score of 15 or higher off PPIs, or a 6-point or more improvement when scores on vs off PPI were compared.

Results

Over the follow-up period, no device erosions, migrations, or malfunctions occurred. At baseline, the median GERD-HRQL scores were 27 in patients not taking PPIs and 11 in patients on PPIs; 5 years after device placement this score decreased to 4. All patients used PPIs at baseline; this value decreased to 15.3% at 5 years. Moderate or severe regurgitation occurred in 57% of subjects at baseline, but only 1.2% at 5 years. All patients reported the ability to belch and vomit if needed. Bothersome dysphagia was present in 5% at baseline and in 6% at 5 years. Bothersome gas-bloat was present in 52% at baseline and decreased to 8.3% at 5 years.

Conclusions

Augmentation of the lower esophageal sphincter with a magnetic device provides significant and sustained control of reflux, with minimal side effects or complications. No new safety risks emerged over a 5-year follow-up period. These findings validate the long-term safety and efficacy of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device for patients with GERD. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00776997.

It is important to note the following:

  1. Symptom control was not different between the magnetic sphincter and surgery
  2. The target population met the inclusion criteria: typical GERD symptoms, abnormal esophageal acid exposure by pH monitoring, partial response to daily PPI, and absence of large hiatus hernia or severe esophagitis

Related blog post:  Stopping reflux with magnets | gutsandgrowth

Screen Shot 2016-05-16 at 6.06.19 PM

 

Ozanimod for Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

The results of a phase 2 trial for Ozanimod have been published: WJ Sandborn et al. NEJM 2016; 374; 1754-62.

Ozanimod (RPC1063) is “an oral agonist of the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor subtypes 1 and 5 that induces peripheral lymphocyte sequestration, potentially decreasing the number of activated lymphocytes circulating to the gastrointestinal tract.”

From the abstract:

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of ozanimod in 197 adults with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive ozanimod at a dose of 0.5 mg or 1 mg or placebo daily for up to 32 weeks. The Mayo Clinic score was used to measure disease activity on a scale from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe disease; subscores range from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. The primary outcome was clinical remission (Mayo Clinic score ≤2, with no subscore >1) at 8 weeks.

RESULTS

The primary outcome occurred in 16% of the patients who received 1 mg of ozanimod and in 14% of those who received 0.5 mg of ozanimod, as compared with 6% of those who received placebo (P=0.048 and P=0.14, respectively, for the comparison of the two doses of ozanimod with placebo). Differences in the primary outcome between the group that received 0.5 mg of ozanimod and the placebo group were not significant; therefore, the hierarchical testing plan deemed the analyses of secondary outcomes exploratory. Clinical response (decrease in Mayo Clinic score of ≥3 points and ≥30% and decrease in rectal-bleeding subscore of ≥1 point or a subscore ≤1) at 8 weeks occurred in 57% of those receiving 1 mg of ozanimod and 54% of those receiving 0.5 mg, as compared with 37% of those receiving placebo. At week 32, the rate of clinical remission was 21% in the group that received 1 mg of ozanimod, 26% in the group that received 0.5 mg of ozanimod, and 6% in the group that received placebo; the rate of clinical response was 51%, 35%, and 20%, respectively. At week 8, absolute lymphocyte counts declined 49% from baseline in the group that received 1 mg of ozanimod and 32% from baseline in the group that received 0.5 mg. The most common adverse events overall were anemia and headache.

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary trial, ozanimod at a daily dose of 1 mg resulted in a slightly higher rate of clinical remission of ulcerative colitis than placebo. The trial was not large enough or of sufficiently long duration to establish clinical efficacy or assess safety. (Funded by Receptos; TOUCHSTONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01647516.)

Ozanimod

Related blog post: CCFA Conference Notes 2016 (part 5) -Emerging Therapies …

 

Mirtazapine for Functional Dyspepsia

Posted on by

In a randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study (J Tack et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 385-92) with 34 patients (29 women, median age 35.9 years), the authors showed improved dyspepsia symptom scores at weeks 4 and 8 compared with baseline.

Background: Mirtazapine is an antidepressant which is associated with weight gain and improvement in nausea.

Methods: The treatment group received 15 mg each day.

Results:

  • Compared with the control group, these was improvement in early satiety, quality of life, GI-specific anxiety, nutrient tolerance, and weight loss.
  • Two patients in the treatment group dropped out due drowsiness.  Interestingly, the trend of improvement was greater at week 4 then for week 8.
  • The authors note that epigastric pain and burning did not improve.

Limitations: small number of patients, and tertiary care patient population

My take: more studies are needed for this vexing problem

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications/diets (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician/nutritionist.  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.

Fountain at Gibbs Gardens

Fountain at Gibbs Gardens

 

Understanding the Risks of Propofol for Colonoscopy

Posted on by

A recent article & editorial (KJ Wernli et al. Gastroenterol 2016; 150: 888-94 & 801-2) shows that the use of propofol, delivered by an anesthetist, is associated with a small increase risk of adverse events.  This finding goes against assumptions that there would be reduced complications with an anesthesia expert in the room who could manage resuscitation and airway problems.

The study analyzed claims data from more than 3 million colonoscopies in the U.S between 2008-2011 in 40-64 year-olds.

Key findings:

  • Use of anesthesia was associated with a 13% increase in the risk of any complications within 30 days.
  • The increased risk included perforation (OR 1.07), hemorrhage (OR 1.28), and abdominal pain (OR 1.07).  Interestingly, the perforation risk was increased only in those undergoing polypectomy (OR 1.26) indicating that some confounders may have been difficult to eliminate.
  • Complications secondary to anesthesia were present as well (OR 1.15) and stroke (OR 1.04).

This is not the first study to associate anesthesia with increased risk of aspiration and mechanical complications (Cooper G et al. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173: 551-6). It is certainly possible that the increased risk is due in part to patient selection, despite attempts to control for this.

It is also important to note that better sedation has not resulted in improved colonoscopy outcomes like increased polyp detection.

Will these results change anything? No.

The small increased safety risk (detectable only in studies of millions of patients), if accurate, is not going to stop the use of anesthesia services for two reasons.

  1. Patient satisfaction
  2. Financial incentives

Patient satisfaction.  Propofol results in excellent sedation, often with complete absence of pain combined with rapid recovery and an antiemetic effect.

Financial incentives.  Many endoscopists are able to employ an anesthetist and generate additional revenue by billing for sedation (in addition to the costs of the endoscopist), whereas this is not allowed with the combination of intravenous opioids/benzodiazepines used for ‘deep sedation.’  Even in the many who do not receive revenue for these services, the rapid recovery expedites patient care and room turnover.

My take: While propofol administered by anesthetists is a little less safe and more expensive, it is here to stay, at least until incentives are created to reconsider this approach.

Georgian Terrace

Georgian Terrace

Metronidazole –Associated Encephalopathy

Posted on by

An interesting image (D Farmakiotis, B Zeluff. NEJM 2016; 374: 1465) shows an unusual side effect from metronidazole. This individual who had cirrhosis presented with confusion after a fall.

The MRIs below show “a symmetric, enhanced fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal in the dentate nuclei of the cerebellum (Panel A, arrow), a finding consistent with encephalopathy associated with metronidazole use.” Panel B shows resolution one month later following metronidazole discontinuation.

Risk factors for metronidazole encephalopathy:

  • Liver dysfunction
  • Prolonged treatment with metronidazole (typical cumulative dose >20 g)

Flagyl Encephalopathy