A recent post from Harvard Health Publications offers a succinct explanation of a low FODMAPs diet for irritable bowel syndrome.
Here’s the link: Try a FODMAPs diet to manage irritable bowel syndrome
Related blog posts:
A recent post from Harvard Health Publications offers a succinct explanation of a low FODMAPs diet for irritable bowel syndrome.
Here’s the link: Try a FODMAPs diet to manage irritable bowel syndrome
Related blog posts:
Probably not.
From NY Times: Body Report Cards Aren’t Influencing Arkansas Teenagers, Excerpt:
It is one of the boldest and most controversial tactics in the battle against childhood obesity: A growing number of schools are monitoring their students’ weight and sending updates home, much like report cards.
Ten states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois, now require schools to send such notifications, sometimes called “B.M.I. letters,” or less charitably “fat letters.” But a new study of the first state to adopt the practice shows that the letters have had almost no effect, at least on older teenagers…
The Arkansas study by Dr. Gee looked at the B.M.I. results of juniors and seniors who had been evaluated and, after the 2007 legislative changes, those who had not. It found that students whose families had received the letters showed no appreciable improvement in B.M.I. scores after two years, compared with those who had not been screened. Another peer-reviewed study of such letters, a 2011 examination of younger students in California, had similar findings.
A low FODMAPs diet has been associated with clinical improvement in adults with irritable bowel syndrome and “gluten sensitivity” (see links below). Now, there is more data that this diet can be effective in the pediatric population (Chumpitazi BP, et al. Aliment Pharm Ther DOI: 10.1111/apt.13286. Article first published online: 24 JUN 2015 -Thanks to KT Park for this reference). In addition, this small study (n=33) tries to correlate changes in symptoms with changes in the gut microbiome. Interestingly, the dietary trials were only 48 hours.
From the methods: Following a 7-day baseline period, “we employed a randomised, double-blind, crossover study design. Subjects received either a low FODMAP or typical American childhood diet (TACD) for 48 h. After 48 h on the first assigned diet, they returned to their habitual diet for 5 days. Following this 5-day washout period, they were crossed over to the other intervention diet for 48 h.”
Here is the abstract and a link to the full text: Randomised clinical trial: gut microbiome biomarkers are associated with clinical response to a low FODMAP diet in children with the irritable bowel syndrome
Abstract:
A low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet can ameliorate symptoms in adult irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) within 48 h.
To determine the efficacy of a low FODMAP diet in childhood IBS and whether gut microbial composition and/or metabolic capacity are associated with its efficacy.
In a double-blind, crossover trial, children with Rome III IBS completed a 1-week baseline period. They then were randomised to a low FODMAP diet or typical American childhood diet (TACD), followed by a 5-day washout period before crossing over to the other diet. GI symptoms were assessed with abdominal pain frequency being the primary outcome. Baseline gut microbial composition (16S rRNA sequencing) and metabolic capacity (PICRUSt) were determined. Metagenomic biomarker discovery (LEfSe) compared Responders (≥50% decrease in abdominal pain frequency on low FODMAP diet only) vs. Nonresponders (no improvement during either intervention).
Thirty-three children completed the study. Less abdominal pain occurred during the low FODMAP diet vs. TACD [1.1 ± 0.2 (SEM) episodes/day vs. 1.7 ± 0.4, P < 0.05]. Compared to baseline (1.4 ± 0.2), children had fewer daily abdominal pain episodes during the low FODMAP diet (P < 0.01) but more episodes during the TACD (P < 0.01). Responders were enriched at baseline in taxa with known greater saccharolytic metabolic capacity (e.g. Bacteroides, Ruminococcaceae, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii) and three Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes orthologues, of which two relate to carbohydrate metabolism.
In childhood IBS, a low FODMAP diet decreases abdominal pain frequency. Gut microbiome biomarkers may be associated with low FODMAP diet efficacy.
Related blog posts:
With some studies, the abstract may suggest a more compelling result than is truly evident. That’s how I feel about a recent report (Nobile S, et al. J Pediatr 2015; 167: 279-85).
Here’s the conclusion (verbatim) from the abstract: “The increased number of (and sensitivity for) pH-only events among infants with BPD may be explained by several factors, including lower milk intake, impaired esophageal motility, and a peculiar autonomic nervous system response pattern.”
To me, it sounds like this prospective study of pH-multichannel intraluminal impedance (pH-MII) of 46 infants born ≤32 weeks gestation (12 with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and 34 without BPD) must have identified something important linking gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and BPD. But, the real findings, in my view, are that this is a negative study. Period.
Here are the results reported in the abstract:
Here’s a little more data –not in the abstract:
What should have been in the abstract conclusion? Perhaps, the first line of their discussion: “Infants with BPD did not have significantly higher GER features compared with infants without BPD as measured by esophageal pH-MII monitoring, except for higher occurrence of pH-only events and higher SSI for pH-only events.”
The authors try to explain the differences in the BPD patients by highlighting some of the potential mechanisms of reflux and/or autonomic dysfunction. I think the limitations of this study deserve careful scrutiny. This was a small study with only 12 BPD infants. There was a significant selection bias -only ‘symptomatic’ infants were included. Some of the factors affecting BPD directly could have an indirect effect on reflux (eg. caffeine).
The authors make one other point: “we believe pharmacologic treatment for GER should be initiated only after the demonstration of pathologic pH-MII monitoring to avoid unnecessary drug therapy, adverse events, and costs.”
Related blog posts:
Over the years, I’ve had several experiences in which some patients had flareups of their inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in relation to specific stresses (eg. going to away camp). This was not just stomach pain but instead bloody diarrhea. While this is very infrequent, I’ve come to believe that there may be some individuals who develop IBD flareups in response to stress. A recent study (Targownik LE, et al. AJG 2015; 110, 1001-1012 | doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.147) suggests that most of the time when individuals report a flareup in response to stress, that there is not objective evidence of increased inflammation.
From Abstract:
METHODS:
Participants were recruited from a population-based registry of individuals with known IBD. Symptomatic disease activity was assessed using validated clinical indices: the Manitoba IBD Index (MIBDI) and Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) for Crohn’s disease (CD), and Powell Tuck Index (PTI) for ulcerative colitis (UC). Perceived stress was measured using Cohen’s Perceived Stress Scale (CPSS). Intestinal inflammation was determined through measurement of fecal calprotectin (FCAL), with a level exceeding 250 μg/g indicating significant inflammation. Logistic regressions were used to evaluate the association between intestinal inflammation, perceived stress, and disease activity.
RESULTS:
Of the 478 participants with completed surveys and stool samples, perceived stress was associated with symptomatic activity (MIBDI) for both CD and UC (1.07 per 1-point increase on the CPSS, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–1.10 and 1.03–1.11, respectively). There was no significant association between perceived stress and intestinal inflammation for either CD or UC. Active symptoms (MIBDI ≤3) were associated with intestinal inflammation in UC (odds ratio (OR) 3.94, 95% CI 1.65–9.43), but not in CD (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.51–1.88).
CONCLUSIONS:
Symptomatic disease activity was unrelated to intestinal inflammation in CD and only weakly associated in UC. Although there was a strong relationship between perceived stress and gastrointestinal symptoms, perceived stress was unrelated to concurrent intestinal inflammation. Longitudinal investigation is required to determine the directionality of the relationship between perceived stress, inflammation, and symptoms in IBD.
Related blog posts:
From ASPEN twitter feed: Placement of a Magnetic Small Bowel Feeding Tube at the Bedside
Abstract
Background: Current methods of achieving postpyloric enteral access for feeding are fraught with difficulties, which can markedly delay enteral feeding and cause complications. Bedside tube placement has a low success rate, often requires several radiographs to confirm position, and delays feeding by many hours. Although postpyloric enteral tubes can reliably be placed in interventional radiology (IR), this involves greater resource utilization, delays, cost, and inconvenience. We assessed the utility of bedside enteral tube placement using a magnetic feeding tube (Syncro-BlueTube; Syncro Medical Innovations, Macon, GA, USA) as a means to facilitate initial tube placement. Methods: We recorded the time to insertion, location of tube, success rate, and need for radiographs in a series of patients given magnetic feeding tubes (n = 46) inserted by our hospitalist service over an 8-month interval. Results: Of the 46 attempted magnetic tube placements, 76% were successfully placed in the postpyloric position, 13% were in the stomach, and 11% could not be placed. In 83% of the magnetic tubes, only 1 radiograph was needed for confirmation. The median time to placement was 12 minutes (range, 4–120 minutes). Conclusion: The use of a magnetic feeding tube can increase the success rate of bedside postpyloric placement, decrease the time to successful placement, and decrease the need for supplemental radiographs and IR
More data on the progress of treatment of short bowel syndrome (SBS) programs:
In this study, the researchers from Toronto and the Group for Improvement of Intestinal Function and Treatment (GIFT) retrospectively examine 84 patients over 3 time periods: 1999-2002, 2003-2005, and 2006-2009.
Key points:
Why is this happening?
The authors credit the intestinal rehab program (IRP) for this impact along with specific management changes including new lipid emulsions/lipid minimization to reduce IFALD, use of ethanol locks to reduce bloodstream infections, and bowel reconstructive procedures (e.g. STEP).
Briefly noted: Merras-Salmio L, Pakarinen MP. JPGN 2015; 61: 24-9. This second retrospective study (n=48) from Finland reinforces the view of improvements in cholestasis and prognosis from 1988-2014. Similar strategies, as noted above, were implemented in SBS management protocols.
Bottomline: The outlook has improved for SBS. While this is good news, at the same time, there will be less pediatric gastroenterologists with extensive intestinal transplantation experience.
Related blog posts:
Not only do you have to take a lot of esophageal biopsies, now you may need to call your pathologist to make sure you do not miss a case of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), especially if there are mildly increased eosinophils. At least, that’s the message I inferred from a recent study (Rothenberg ME, et al. JPGN 2015; 61: 65-8).
In this study, the researchers identified 477 biopsies from 429 patients with EoE; 316 were from “PPI confirmed patients.”
Key finding: Of the 477 biopsies, 106 had a peak count of between 1 and 14 eos/hpf cited in the pathology report. However, 23/106 (22% with 1-14 eos/hpf) had ≥15 esos/hpf after a second review.
Overall, 5% of the 477 biopsies were mischaracterized as not meeting the threshold of ≥15 esos/hpf prior to review. Given this frequency at a major medical center and frequent referral center for EoE, my suspicion is that the yield of a 2nd look would be at least as high in most other centers.
Take-home point: Look twice for EoE if eosinophil count is between 1/hpf and 14/hpf. Maybe some new diagnoses are being missed and maybe some of your EoE patients in histologic remission really aren’t.
Related blog posts:
From GI & Hep News: Celiac Disease Associated with 2.5-fold Risk of Neuropathy
Here’s an excerpt:
The use of Swedish population registries enabled first author Dr. Sujata P. Thawani of Columbia University, New York, and her colleagues to find that the risk of neuropathy was increased both before and after a diagnosis of celiac disease (CD).
“We found an increased risk of neuropathy in patients with CD that persists after CD diagnosis. Although absolute risks for neuropathy are low, CD is a potentially treatable condition with a young age of onset. Our findings suggest that screening could be beneficial in patients with neuropathy,” they wrote (JAMA Neurol. 2015 May 11 [doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.0475]).Neuropathy has a known association with CD, an immune-mediated disorder characterized by sensitivity to gluten with an incidence of about 1% in Western Europe…
Dr. Thawani and her associates used Swedish pathology registers to identify individuals whose small intestine biopsies showed villous atrophy between 1969 and 2008 (Marsh stage 3, n = 28,232)…Each CD patient was matched with up to five age- and sex-matched controls (n = 139,473) from the Swedish Total Population Registry, all of whom were diagnosed in the same year and were from the same county as the matched CD patient.
Although 41.7% of CD patients were diagnosed in childhood, the median age at diagnosis was 29 years…
Surveillance bias may account for some of the increased risk for neuropathy…Notably, though, patients with a prior neuropathy diagnosis also were more likely to be diagnosed with CD, showing a bidirectional relationship.
I found a recent study (Paramsothy S. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015; 21: 1600-06) interesting in that it shows how few individuals would qualify as long-term stool donors for fecal microbiata transplantation (FMT). In previous discussions with colleagues, I’ve thought that getting paid to donate stool would be a pretty sweet deal.
In this study, the authors examined 116 potential donors. The donor screening protocols and donor inclusion/exclusion criteria were similar to many others (outlined in their Tables 1, 2 and 3 & noted in previous gutsandgrowth blog post on FMT). What the researchers found is that 47 prospective donors declined to participate after learning the requirements and only 12 of the remaining 69 (17%) remained eligible after concluding screening; this represents only 10% of the initial cohort. A large proportion of healthy asymptomatic donors failed stool testing –40% of those tested. The next most common reasons for rejection were medication comorbidities (n=13) or risk factors for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (n=6).
Bottomline: Now, I realize how these stool donors should be justifiably proud of their carefully-balanced uncontaminated microbiome. The difficulty in identifying suitable donors further reinforces the value of human stool banks.
Briefly noted:
Vandenplas Y, et al. “Fecal Microbiota Transplantation: Just a Fancy Trend? JPGN 2015; 61: 4-7. Brief overview which includes screening protocol used in Brussels. One of the recommendations is to conserve a sample of the donated stool for >30 years.
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.