Category Archives: Uncategorized

Best gastrostomy tube

Posted on by

A recent report touts the feasibility of a one-step percutaneous gastrojejunostomy (GJ) as the latest advance in enteral access (JPGN 2012; 54: 820-21).  This reference describes a new variation in technical placement: gastropexy using t-fasteners to secure gastrostomy tube site and then advancing neonatal scope via gastrostomy site to advance guidewire for  GJ placement.  This technique was used in three infants.

Most centers have developed their own protocols for enteral access and it is likely that the familiar approach to that center will be safest for their patient population.  Recently, the subject of gastrostomy tube placement was extensively reviewed in our institution (see below) due to variation in care at two children’s hospitals.  In one hospital, the surgical group primarily placed laparascopic button gastrostomies and argued that better visualization led to lower complications like colonic interposition.  Furthermore, this approach was considered similar in cost effectiveness as the group would place a primary Mic-Key® (http://www.mic-key.com/home.aspx) thereby eliminating the need for anesthesia for a button placement.

The alternative approach utilized a Corflo® gastrostomy tube (http://www.corpakmedsystems.com/product_main/enteral_main.html#FeedingTubes).  The advantages of this approach were 1) less anesthetic time/a smaller operation, and 2) lower likelihood of tube dislodgment.  This group approach argued that dislodgment was the greatest risk and that there was no urgency for a button tube.

Despite a joint meeting of these groups weighing the pros and cons, there was not a single best gastrostomy tube.

My experience is that tube dislodgment is quite common with button tubes.  In addition, primary button tubes can be difficult to size when the patient is under anesthesia.  As such, it is my practice to discourage primary gastrostomy button placement.  In addition, most patients who need gastrostomy tubes can wait until they are good surgical candidates both in terms of cardiorespiratory status and size.

Resources:

Gtube Products:
• AMT clamp –helps eliminate tubing pullouts
www.amtinnovation.com

• Gtube washable pads
www.oley.org  (specific web address: http://oley.org/lifeline/TubetalkJF11.html)

Additional references:

  • -J Pediatr 2011; 159: 602. Preemptive gtube assoc with improved survival post Norwood. High number needed fundoplication.
  • -JPGN 2011; 53: 293. 95% success with PEG in infants 2.1-5.6kg
  • -JPEN 2011; 35: 50-55. Predictive factors of mortality after PEG.
  • -JPGN 2009; 49: 237. Gtube improves height & weight in Rett syndrome.
  • -Clin Gastro & Hep 2007; 5: 1372. PEG placement does NOT prolong life in dementia patients.
  • -Arch Dis Child 2006; 91: 478-82. PEG reduced hospitalizations for respiratory dz in 57 severely impaired children
  • -J Pediatr 2006; 149: 837. inreased risk of PEG in SMA type 1 -42% w aspiration; 17% death (2/12)
  • -Pediatrics 2004; 114: 458-61. Moratlity rate of 0.4% -one death related to sepsis/peritonitis & 5% complication rate.
  • -Teitelbaum JE, Gorcey SA, Fox VL. Combined endoscopic cautery and clip closure of chronic gastrocutaneous fistulas. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62(3):432-435
  • -JPGN 2006; 43: 624. Satisfaction with PEGs: 94% of parents viewed PEG as positive influence on child’s situation & 98% would have chosen PEG insertion again (n=121).
  • -Sullivan PB, Dev Med Child Neurol 2005; 47: 77-83. 57 CP pts -almost all had improved health/nutrition p gtube
  • -Gastroenterology 2001; 121: 970-1001 & JPEN 2004; 28: S16. Provision of nutrition does not, for the most part, favorably alter clinical outcome.
  • -Lancet 2005; 365: 755-763. Pts c stroke/PEG did not do better than those c stroke/NGT.
  • -Sullivan PB, Dev Med Child Neurol 2004; 46: 796-800. gtube improves QOL.

Gastrostomy Tube Review with annotated references: Laparoscopic gtube versus conventional PEG placement

 Zamakhshary et al.  JPS 2005; 40: 859-62.   i.  Retrospective review, n=119 (only 26 with laparoscopy =21%). (2002-2003)  ii.  States same operative time of ~53 min by combining 2nd procedure w PEG (in 77% w PEG).  It takes these authors a long time to perform PEG and gtube change procedures.  Also, it is not noted how many of these 2nd procedures were coordinated with other needed anesthesias.  (Many times a PEG is replaced at the time of another procedure.)   iii.   3 PEG with transcolonic tube, 2 failed PEG –one with peritonitis, 4 with tract disruption when PEG pulled.  Similar rate of local problems (eg granulation tissue).  ARTICLE does not detail when PEG tubes are pulled –VERY high rate of tract disruptions.   iv. Article missing key details regarding size of PEGs & gtube buttons which may impact complications.  v. Cited advantages according to authors:

  1. “eliminates” risk of hollow viscus injury (JH: this is NOT  accurate)
  2. Useful for small infants (<2kg) (JH: usually gtube NOT needed in <2kg)
  3. Enables “ideal” location (JH: this is NOT  accurate)
  4. Primary button ‘advantage’ (JH: DOES NOT cite potential pitfalls like button too tight, possibility of balloon breakdown, possibly higher rate of dislodgment)

 Vervloessem et al. JPS 2009; 18: 93-97.     i. Retrospective review: 1992-2008.  N=467.  ONLY 19 Lap PEG –thus limited ability to provide comparison.  ii. Cites 59 “major complications” due to PEG –Table 2, including “13” new cases of GERD after PEG (or worsened GERD).  Of the major complications, important complications included 1 sepsis death, 7 peritonitis, 5 gastrocolic fistulas, 4 major granulation tissue, and 11 buried bumpers.  iii.  States that VPS is risk factor for infection but does not state whether any Lap gtubes were done in these patients.  iv. Complication rate decreased over the years—p=0.003; thus PEG procedure became safer with time and experience.   Could not demonstrate a decrease in complications with lap gtube versus PEG.  Authors recommend lap PEG in specific situations such as previous abdominal surgery or if not a good puncture site.

 Segal et al. JPGN 2001; 33: 495-500.    i. Retrospective study, n=110 (1990-97). N=110 –ALL PEG (no LAP). Thus, limited utility in comparing two methods. ii. “44%” developed late complications with PEG.  Most common: 24 extruded tubes/buried tubes (would NOT be better with lap button); other important: cologastric fistula n=2, peritonitis.  Table 1 indicates that 75% of dislodgment were due to buttons not PEG.  12 of the complications were granulation tissue and proliferative gastric mucosa.  Buried tubes occurred 14 & 19 months after placement with button tube!!   iii.  Thus this article adds little to the discussion of PEG vs lap gtube.

Akay et al. JPS 2010; 45: 1147-52  i.  Retrospective review (2004-2008) n=238 (134 PEG, 104 LAP)  ii. PEG with higher complications;  authors were changing PEG after 6-8 weeks. iii.  6 patients had early PEG dislodgment –this is higher than expected.  iv. 1 patient with gastrocolic-cutaneous fistula with both PEG & with LAP.  v. Table 4 lists complications: similar stomal issues, 2 patients with leak after PEG exchange (too early! –see page 1152) vi. Cited advantages: “eliminating” risk of hollow viscus injury, allows for sutures, small infants (<2kg) & possible primary buttons.**These authors did not place primary buttons –this makes it difficult to draw any conclusions about PEG vs primary LAP button.  Many feel PEG tube is a better tube and less prone to dislodgment than button and guarantees appropriate size.

Lantz et al. Int J Pediatr 2010; ID# 507616, 1-4.   i. Literature review, included 54 studies that qualified (1995-2009).  N=4331 (1027 LAP, 3304 PEG).  Very few details given in this review.  ii.Fistulas in 1.27% of PEG vs 0% for LAP.  iii.  Lists significant limitations: different studies, not blinded, nonpublication bias.  iv.  “This study highlights the need …for trials, comparing PEG to” LAP. v.  Does not include the limitation that LAP technique developed later and with more experience less complications.  Except for gastrocolic-cutaneous fistulas –no specific information is given about complications.

Avitsland et al.  JPGN 2006; 43: 624-28.  i. Restrospective review. N=121 –all PEGs  ii.     PEG “safe technique…major complications rare.”  “Most children experience minor stoma-related complications.”  iii. 29 died due to other factors.  Of 85 with f/u, 21 able to remove gastrostomy.  iv. No early mortality (<30 days).  1 of 85 had tube dislodgment.  3 had tube migration into esophagus (in cases where tube was not endoscopically removed).  v.     Frequent tube site problems ~75% -most easily treated. vi. Parents with high satisfaction: 83/85 (98%) would choose PEG again, 80/85 (94%) stated PEG improved child’s situation

Gauderer M. JPS 2001; 36: 217-19.   i.  Focused literature search and personal 20 year experience. ii. >216,000 PEGs performed annually in U.S. according to article (~5000 children).  PEG procedure developed 1st for children. iii.  Suggested approach to PEG with or w/o fundoplication: “Because PEG is such a simple procedure, a well-accepted approach is to place gastrostomy initially in children who can tolerate nasogastric tube feedings and add an antireflux procedure later, if needed.”

Srinivasan et al. JPGN 2009; 49: 584-88.   i.Prospectively collected data from observational study, n=601 (384 PEG insertions, 165 button conversions).  ALL pediatric. ii.  Complications:  PEG site erythema 15%, buried bumper migration (1 patient), 3 PEG dislodgments, one patient had laparotomy due to severe pain (no findings identified).   No procedure-related mortality.   iii.  49 of 384 removed –no longer needed.  iv. “The role of PEG is well established…our experience..PEG has been generally safe, with low procedure-related morbidity in children.”

Nutr Clin Pract 2005; 20 (6): 607-12.  Bankhead RR et al. i. Comparison of 91 patients.  23 PEG, 39 LAP, 29 open.  ii.   PEG had lowest complication rate

Surg Endosc 2006; 20: (8): 1248-51.  Ljungdahl M.                                         i.     Prospective, randomized study. N=70.  ii.  PEG with lower complication rate than surgical (open) gastrostomy –lower mortality & morbidity in adult patients.

UK Review Online: http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/PEG-Feeding-Tubes-Indications-and-Management.htm   2009  i. Review of alternatives to PEG for gastrostomy insertion. There are alternative methods of gastrostomy tube insertion to PEG. They are: a) Laparoscopic insertion b) Open surgical technique c)Percutaneous radiologically guided gastrostomy (PRG) insertion. ii.  “There are reports over the years since introduction of PEG in the 1980s with often inconclusive results.21▪    A small study from Ireland and one from London favour PRG in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis as it avoids the need for sedation or endoscopy.22,23▪  One meta-analysis suggested a higher success rate with PRG than with PEG, and less morbidity than either PEG or surgery.24 However a more recent comparison of a relatively small number of endoscopic, surgical and laparoscopic placement favoured PEG25 and another favoured PEG over PRG.26▪     A literature review suggested PEG as the procedure of choice for placement of gastrostomy tubes.27▪    A recent prospective randomized trial favoured PEG over surgical gastrostomy insertion.28▪     There is some evidence that polyurethane PEGs are less troublesome than silicone PEGs (less tube deterioration, less blockage).29▪    PEG is preferred in trauma patients.30▪                Antibiotic prophylaxis for PEG insertion appears to reduce the incidence of wound infection.19,20▪      Laparoscopic insertion was considered preferable to PEG by one study in children with PEG insertion having higher complication rate in children and often requiring repeat anaesthetics.31   An earlier study in children showed similar results for surgical, PRG and PEG insertion but did not look at the laparoscopic technique.32    A recent study from Norway found PEG insertion safe and very well tolerated by children and parents but made no comparison with other techniques.

Conclusions of review: PEG likely increases risk of gastrocolic fistulas (1-2%) but this has been reported with LAP as well.  The incidence is low.  No well-designed  studies have demonstrated superiority of LAP over PEG in terms of safety.  Potential drawbacks of LAP are likely underreported.  There have been cases of severe peritonitis at local hospitals following lap with primary gtube balloon misplacement.  Many feel PEG tube is a better tube and less prone to dislodgment than button (dislodgment is most frequent serious adverse event) and can be easily adjusted to  appropriate size.  To minimize complications, tube should not  be changed early.

Natural laws not patentable: the case with Prometheus

Posted on by

While most individuals might think of greek mythology or the recent movie when hearing the word “Prometheus,” pediatric gastroenterologists might think of the company that performs a number of useful diagnostic tests.  Recently, Prometheus has had a legal setback (NEJM 2012; 365: 2338-40). 

Since the 1990s, Prometheus has tested for azathioprine (& 6-mercaptopurine) metabolites.  A therapeutic level of 6-thioguanine (6-TG), a metabolite for these drugs, is recognized as generally between 230-400 pmol per 8×10(to the 8th) red cells.  Levels outside this range often require drug adjustments.

When the Mayo clinic started to offer a slightly different assay, priced 25% below Prometheus’s test, Prometheus sued for patent infringement.  The court held that “if a law of nature is not patentable, then neither is a process reciting a law of nature;”  hence, Prometheus’s patent was rejected.

There are implications of this lawsuit on the use of a large number of biomarkers.  For example, patents for BRCA DNA sequences that increase the risk for cancer will probably be overturned.  Industry groups argue that denying patents will halt progress as companies will not be able to recoup investments in biomarker development.  Congress could consider passing laws allowing exclusive marketing of these innovations.  Alternatively, adequate funding through the NIH (National Institutes of Health) could allow development of biomarkers without the need for patents; in fact, 100 projects are in progress at this time.

Assessing and discussing risk of lymphoma in IBD

Posted on by

A recent article has shown that the absolute lymphoma risk from medications in children and young adults with IBD is quite low (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012; 18: 838-43).

In this single center study from 1979-2008, 1374 pediatric IBD patients had charts reviewed to determine whether lymphoma developed.  In total, two male patients who had received thiopurines developed lymphoma (one Hodgkin, one anaplastic large cell) in 6624 patient-years of follow-up.  Both patients are alive after chemotherapy.  Mean follow-up was 4.8 years per patient.  The absolute lymphoma incidence rate was 3 per 10,000 patient-years; after thiopurine exposure, the rate was 4.5 per 10,000 patient-years compared to an expected 0.58 per 10,000 patient-years.

In this study, 22% of the patients had received TNF inhibitors.  None developed lymphoma.  The risk of biologics could not be fully assessed due to a limited study period: 713 person-years taking the medication.

The risk of thiopurine-associated lymphoma was similar to previous studies but did not reach statistical significance.  As related in other studies, the risk of biologic agents, like Remicade, Humira, and Cimzia, is heavily influenced by whether patients had also received immunomodulators.

One useful way to try to convey this risk has been with diagrams.  One useful diagram is a palette of one thousand people or of 10,000 people showing the absolute risk and one showing the risk for other complications like infection.  You can make your own by going to the following link:

Download Communication Tools

RiskComm

Additional references/blog entries:

Only one chance to make first impression

Biologics | Living Longer | Arthritis Today Magazine -From Arthritis magazine: biologics improve survival in Rheumatoid arthritis

Why “therapeutic dose” of codeine can kill

Posted on by

While this blog has described some of the huge problems with the overuse of narcotics (Deadly consequences of pain management), another danger with narcotics occurs especially with codeine due to its metabolism via the CYP2D6 pathway; codeine is particularly risky in young children.  A reminder of this is a recent case report (Pediatrics 2012; 129: e1343-1347).

During my training, I was told by an ENT doctor that he never prescribed codeine in children less than 6 years of age due to safety concerns.  While he could not explain the mechanism, this case report does.  This case report describes three children with severe cases (two were fatal) from North America.  In the two fatal cases, gene duplications encoding Cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) caused a significantly greater production of morphine from its parent drug, codeine.  This risk of respiratory depression may be enhanced in ENT cases especially in children with obstructive sleep apnea.

The risk from codeine involves individuals who are ‘ultra-metabolizers’ of CYP2D6; this is because the metabolized drug in this case, morphine, is more potent than the parent drug, codeine.  Other opioids that are similar to codeine, like hydrocodone and oxycodone, may have additional risk as well.  Ultra-metabolizers include up to 7% of all caucasians.  In addition, 5-10% of caucasians are poor-metabolizers which would result in a lack of therapeutic effect with codeine.

While ultra-metabolizers of CYP2D6 function are prone to codeine toxicity, poor-metabolizer individuals will have an exaggerated response when the parent drug is more potent than its metabolites.  In addition, there are numerous drugs (not metabolized by CYP2D6) which interact to inhibit the function of CYP2D6 (eg. diphenhydramine).  Thus, these drugs can potentiate the effect of CYP2D6 on its substrates.

Other drugs commonly used by gastroenterologists and metabolized by CYP2D6 include tricyclic antidepressants, most SSRIs, metoclopropramide, ondansetron, and promethazine.  In ultra-metabolizer individuals, many of these drugs will not work because the quickly-produced metabolites, unlike the parent substrate, do not have therapeutic effects.

Additional references:

  • N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2827-31.  Codeine Intoxication Associated with Ultrarapid CYP2D6 Metabolism. 62 year old: “12 hours after the last dose of codeine, the blood level of morphine was 20 to 80 times as high as the blood level that would have been expected on the basis of measurements in healthy persons ” due to ultrametabolism of CYP2D6 in combination with inhibition of CYP3A4 activity by other medications
  • CYP2D6 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence 89 (2007) 190–194. Association of CYP2D6 ultrarapid metabolizer genotype with deficient patient satisfaction regarding methadone maintenance treatment
  • What happens when codeine is used with drugs – WorstPills.org –

What do you know about the “exposome”?

Posted on by

I had not heard of the term “exposome” until last week (Gastroenterology 2012; 142: 1403-4).  However, this term was coined in 2005 (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005; 14: 1847-50).    This term is meant to describe the environmental analog of the genome.

Particularly with the gastrointestinal tract, environmental exposures are often considered a cofactor in disease development.  While there has been an increased understanding of the role of genes in the development of disease, it is abundantly clear that environment exposures can independently cause disease or act as a ‘second hit.’  The gastrointestinal tract is exposed to fluids which contain a multitude of elements and microorganisms, and to foods with their variability in nutrients, microbes and pollutants.  Other environmental factors include smoking, ionizing radiation, noise, breastfeeding, medications, and antimicrobials.

This cited commentary explains how environmental scientists are trying to unravel the ‘exposome.’

  • Bottom-up strategy:  measure external sources of the individual exposome at multiple time points.  This strategy may benefit from improvement in informatics, remote & personal sensing devices.
  • Top-down strategy: examines internal milieu including blood, biologic specimens, and transcriptomics/proteonomics.  Early examples include distinct signatures associated with specific environmental exposures.

Both strategies require validation to understand how external exposures trigger internal changes and disease expression.  Promising fields in gastroenterology for the study of the exposome include IBD, gastrointestinal cancers, functional disorders, and even obesity.  It is likely that studies of the exposome will answer questions about why the frequency of so many diseases are changing much more readily than studies of the genome.

Related blog posts:

Eat your veggies…if you don’t want to get sick

Why are we seeing so many more cases

Additional references:

  • -PLoS One 2010; 5 e10746.  Novel associations between type 2 diabetes and specific chemical exposures.
  • -Nature 2006; 444: 1027-31.  Obesity-associated gut microbiome.
  • -BMC Med Genomics 2010; 3: 17.  Chemical factors associated with disease-related gene expression data.

TNF-α antagonists and infections

Posted on by

In our pediatric patients who receive tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) antagonists, fortunately we see few infectious complications.  In older patients, infections are much more important source of morbidity.  The main TNF-α inhibitors in clinical use include infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, and certolizumab. Two large studies help quantify this risk:

  • Grijalva CG et al. JAMA 2011; 306: 2331-39.
  • Strangeld A et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70: 1914-20.

The first study assembled retrospective cohorts between 1998-2007 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis (group 3).  This study’s acronym is SABER: Safety Assessment of Biologic Therapy. This data was compiled from 4 large US automated databases.  In total, there were 10,484 RA, 2323 IBD, and 3215 group 3 patients.  1172 serious infections were identified, mostly (53%) pneumonia or skin/soft tissue infections.  Among IBD patients, hospitalization rates were 10.91 (per 100 person-years) for TNF-α antagonists and 9.6 for comparison group.  The rates of hospitalization were similar in RA (8.16 with TNF-α antagonists) and lower in the group 3 patients (5.41 with TNF-α antagonists).   In all groups, baseline glucocorticoid use was associated with a dose-dependent increase in infections.  Overall, there was not an increase risk of hospitalizations with TNF-α antagonists compared with nonbiologic treatments.

The second cited reference examined patients from Germany with RA, enrolled in the RABBIT registry.  Data was available for 5044 patients.  There were 392 serious infections in this cohort with fewer infections noted after 3 years.  Risks for infection included age (>60), chronic lung or renal disease, history of serious infections, and treatment with glucocorticoids.  Treatment with 7.5-14mg conferred at relative risk (RR) of 2.1; treatment with ≥15mg conferred a RR of 4.7.  The rates of serious infections has an exponential change when risk factors are added together.  In Figure 3, estimated risk of serious infections for patients receiving ≥15mg  glucocorticoids along with three additional risk factors was 45% per year; with two risk factors the risk was approximately 20% and with one additional risk factor approximately 10%.

While these studies confirm significant risks of infections with biologic agents, the absolute risk is low particularly when other risk factors are not present.  In pediatric populations, glucocorticoids are the most prominent risk factor.  In addition, the risk of serious infections may be reduced by effective therapy.  In the SONIC study, serious infectious complications were less frequent in patients on combination therapy (infliximab and azathioprine) than with either monotherapy.  This result was likely due to the decreased need for glucocorticoids.

Additional references/relevant previous blogs:

  • NEJM 2010; 362: 1383. Sonic study. Combination AZA/IFX with greater efficacy. 56.8% remission in combo Rx.
  • -IBD 2008; 14: 721.  Pneumocystis jiroveci (carinii) w infliximab -review of 84 cases.  Dig Dis Sci 2007; 52: 1481-84.  PCP most likely to occur on average 3 weeks after 2nd infusion (possibly due to concommitant drug use)
  • -Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 929.  n=100 consecutive IBD patients with opportunistic infections.  Any of drugs associated w ~2.9 OR in adutls (greatest in >50yrs).  OR 14.5 when multiple immune drugs. Steroids more associated with Candida. AZA/6MP more with viral: HSV, VZV (shingles), CMV.  IFX less commonly with infections -though increased histoplasma and atypical mycobacterium
  • -Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 1182.  Review of biologics.
  • -IBD 2007; 13: 769.  Review of safety of wide range of biologics
  • –Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006; 5:621-30.  TREAT registry.  Steroids but not biologics associated with increased mortality risk.
  • Only one chance to make first impression

Look of improvement on an EoE diet

Posted on by

In this month’s Gastroenterology, 50 adults with Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) were treated with a 6-food elimination diet (SFED) (Gastroenterology 2012; 142: 1451-1459).  Repeat endoscopy after 6 weeks determined responsiveness.  Histologic response was defined by having <5 eosinophils/high power fields (eos/hpf).  In 20 patients, reintroduction of foods followed by repeat endoscopy was undertaken.

After SFED, 32 (64%) had peak eosinophil counts <5 eos/hpf.  Symptom scores decreased in 94%.  After trigger food reintroduction, eosinophil counts returned to pretreatment values.  The changes are clearly visible in Figure 5.  The pictures are almost like the weight loss commercials on TV –striking improvement.  I contemplated putting in a scan of the Gastroenterology cover, but have not received permission from the publisher.  Check out this link to view it yourself:

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0016-5085/PIIS0016508512006257.pdf

Based on reintroduction, the foods most commonly associated with EoE were wheat (60%), and milk (50%).  Skin-prick testing predicted only 13% of foods associated with EoE.  In general, these study results mirror results from pediatric studies, with the exception that milk allergy has been found to be more common in some pediatric studies.

Only 20 patients completed the reintroduction process.  This process involved adding 1 food group every 2 weeks.  If the patient had symptoms during reintroduction or remained on regimen for 4 weeks, then  endoscopy with biopsies was performed.  If recurrence noted based on symptoms or histology, this required a 6 week washout before additional food reintroduction.  Of note, median time for recurrence of symptoms was 3 days after reintroduction.

Six foods: milk, wheat, eggs, soy, shellfish/fish, nuts.

This study shows that, as in children, adult EoE is predominantly a food-allergy disease

Related blog entries:

Eosinophilic Esophagitis -Six Food Group Diet

Guidelines for Eosinophilic Esophagitis

MicroRNA signature for eosinophilic esophagitis

The undiscovered country

Upper endoscopy useful for identifying Crohn’s disease

Posted on by

In a large pediatric study, the value of upper endoscopy in detecting Crohn’s disease (CD) is evident (JPGN 2012: 54: 753-57).

While the majority of pediatric patients with suspected inflammatory bowel disease probably undergo both upper endoscopy and colonoscopy, the added value of upper endoscopy remains unclear.  In this retrospective study with 171 pediatric patients (70 with CD, 33 with UC, 68 Non-IBD), 11% of children with CD had the diagnosis established based “solely” on the finding of granulomatous inflammation in upper intestinal tract (along with clinical symptoms).

Other key findings:

  • Presence of histologic gastric inflammation in CD patients compared to control patients was significantly higher (p<0.0001) but not significantly higher compared to UC patients (p=0.19).
  • Duodenal inflammation was highly suggestive of CD compared with both UC and non-IBD patients.  This occurred in 19% of CD patients compared with 0% and 1% in the other groups respectively.
  • 21 children (30%) had granulomas identified in upper GI tract (19 in stomach).  In 8 (11%), the diagnosis was changed based on this finding.  Prior to histology, the tenative diagnosis: 2 UC, 4 IC, 2 non-IBD.
One curious finding was a the presence of “perianal abscess/fistula” with similar frequency in CD patients and UC patients based on their Table 2 Patient Characteristics.
Additional references:
  • -IBD 2009; 15: 1101-4.  Presence of UGI disease in IBD.
  • -JPGN 2007; 44: 653.  NASPGHAN report on discriminating/labelling UC vs. Crohn’s.
  • -JPGN 2002; 35: 636-40. Advocates panendoscopy for all new IBD.  Granulomas in 28% of EGDs & 71% of UC pts c some abnl on EGD; 82% Crohn’s c abnl EGD.
  • -JPGN 2005; 41: abstract 181 (page 549).  UGI identified granulomas in 15% that were not identified elsewhere.
  • -JPGN 2004; 39: 257-61. Diagnostic role of EGD for pediatric IBD.
  • Magnetic resonance enterography for Crohn’s disease

Test your knowledge of Clostridium difficile

Posted on by

While Clostridium difficile (C diff) is a common infection, there is a lot to know.  A thorough but brief review is a good place to test your knowledge (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 581-92).

  • a. When was C diff discovered?
  • b. When was C diff identified as a cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea?
  • c. What antibiotics have been associated with a surge in severity and frequency of C diff infections?
  • d. Which C diff strains are the predominant cause of severe C diff?
  • e. How many C diff infections are occurring yearly in hospitalized patients in U.S.?
  • f. What are the most important risk factors?
  • g. How does the risk profile change for multiple antibiotics?
  • h. What time of year sees the greatest number of infections?
  • i. What does C diff smell like?
  • j. What % of antibiotic-associated diarrhea is due to C diff?
  • k. What clinical parameters may indicate severe infection and which ones indicate fulminant infection?
  • l. How much does a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) cost compare to enzyme immunoassay (EIA)?  How does this test work? What are the advantages/disadvantages?
  • m. How to treat severe infection?
  • n. What instructions should be given to prevent C diff in hospital?

Answers:

  • a. 1935
  • b. 1970s
  • c. Fluoroquinolones
  • d. BI/NAP1/027.  This strain has hypersecretion of toxins A & B, the presence of binary toxin, and resistance to fluoroquinolones.
  • e. CDI present in 300,000 hospitalized patients in 2005 (vs. 85,000 in 1993)
  • f. Hospitalization, older age (>65 years), and receipt of antibiotics (especially during 1st two months).
  • g. Hazard ratio 2.5 for two antibiotics, HR 9.6 for exposure to five antibiotics
  • h. Winter
  • i. “Horse stable”
  • j. 15-25%
  • k. Severe: WBC>15,000, Creatinine >1.5 fold patient’s baseline.  Also, albumin <2.5, admission to ICU, pseudomembranes on endoscopy, comorbid diseases.  Fulminant: (50% mortality) colon >6cm in diameter/toxic megacolon, WBC >50,000, lactate >5 mmol/L.
  • l. ~10 times the cost.  Works by identifying genes that encode toxins by PCR or loop-mediated amplification of DNA.  Test is very sensitive and rapid but may have false-positives.  Some recommend using a less expensive test for screening to decrease costs.
  • m. Vancomycin up to 500mg QID (NG/PO) plus metronidazole.  If complete ileus, vancomycin can be given rectally
  • n. Hand hygiene (not alcohol): either soap or chlorhexidine, contact precautions, cleaning environment –chlorine solutions effective (1000-5000 ppm), antimicrobial stewardship (especially reducing clindamycin and fluoroquinolones)

How many did you get right?

Related posts:

Clostridium difficile -Current Battlelines

Proton pump inhibitors–infection risk with cirrhosis

Colonic disease and PSC

Posted on by

While primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) has been associated with inflammatory bowel disease, and ulcerative colitis (UC) in particular, the pathogenesis of this relationship has not been established.  A fascinating observation on this relationship is that an inflamed colon is important in PSC development (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 439-41).

In this study which reviewed 2754 Irish patients with IBD, 59 (2.2%) had PSC.  PSC incidence correlated with increasing colonic involvement.  Among the 13 patients with Crohn’s disease, none had isolated small bowel disease.  The second part of the study involved a review of 82 separate PSC patients attending the Irish National liver transplant unit.  The majority of ulcerative colitis patients had a pancolitis; all 10 PSC patients with Crohn’s disease had colonic involvement.

Since PSC occurs without IBD, colonic inflammation is not necessary for PSC development.  However, in patients with IBD, colonic inflammation is very important.  In fact, in a previous study of 53 PSC-IBD patients, no UC patient status post a colectomy had recurrent liver disease following liver transplantation whereas seven patients with intact colons had recurrent disease following liver transplantation.

The authors speculate that bacterial translocation along with subsequent portal bacteremia may be an important step in pathogenesis among these patients.

Additional references/previous posts: