Category Archives: inflammatory bowel disease

What I Didn’t Know About Vitamin B12 and Crohn’s Disease

Posted on by

This month I learned from a recent publication (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014; 20: 1120-23) that Crohn’s disease without ileal resection does not seem to increase the risk of Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) deficiency.  To reach this conclusion, the authors did an extensive literature search and identified 42 relevant articles with 3732 IBD patients.

Key findings:

  • Ileal resections >30 cm were associated with B12 deficiency.
  • Resections <20 cm were not associated with B12 deficiency; whereas the findings were inconsistent when resections were 20-30 cm.

Take home message:  Crohn’s disease, regardless of disease location, did not increase the risk of B12 deficiency in the absence of ileal resections >20 cm.

Related blog posts:

Monotherapy or Combination Therapy with Adalimumab?

Posted on by

Since the introduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies (anti-TNFs), the benefit of using these agents in combination with immunomodulators or as monotherapy has shifted a few times based on the latest studies.  The most influential recent studies had been SONIC and UC Success which indicated that combination therapy for Crohn’s and Ulcerative Colitis, respectively, was more effective and without more adverse effects than monotherapy. A recent study may create some additional uncertainty in this line of thought (Gastroenterol 2014; 146: 941-49).

The author performed a pooled analysis of data from 1594 patients with Crohn’s disease (CD).  Studies included CLASSIC I and II, CHARM, GAIN, EXTEND, and ADHERE.  In total, these studies provided 3050 patient-years of exposure. For individual patients, the median followup period was 1.5 years.

Key findings:

  • “Those patients receiving combination therapy had an increased risk of malignancy (other than non melanoma skin cancer [NMSC])” with a relative risk of 2.82.
  • Adalimumab monotherapy was not associated with an increased risk of malignancy other than NMSC
  • Combination therapy was associated with relative risk of NMSC of 3.46

In the discussion, the authors state “the data suggest that the increased risk likely is attributed to the immunomodulator therapy.”

A related editorial (884-86) helps dissect the articles strengths/limitations as well as implications.

Strengths:

  • the study captured data from randomized controlled trials.

Limitations:

  • median followup of 1.5 years –may not be long enough to detect a malignancy signal from anti-TNF therapy
  • unclear how many adalimumab monotherapy patients had been on a thiopurine previously

Implications:

  • “Even if Osterman et al are correct, is this information clinically meaningful enough to swing the mono-combo pendulum back to mono therapy?”
  • “The clinical relevance of the increase in absolute cancer risk from 4 in 1000 with adalimumab monotherapy to 10 in 1000 with combination therapy for cancers other than NMSC is unclear”
  • This difference of 6 in 1000 “translates to 167 patients who are treated before seeing 1 excess cancer”
  • “Most (if not all) of the cancer risk is associated with thiopurine exposure…induction therapy is more effective with combination treatment–>”we propose that we should induce patients into remission with combination therapy, and then consider withdrawing thiopurines at some point.“
  • “Consider treating younger males with thiopurines short term, or alternatively with methotrexate.”  Though the authors note that data from rheumatology brings some concern to methotrexate cancer risk (Semin Arthritis Rheum 2014; 43: 489-97). Source Article: Methotrexate Safety | gutsandgrowth
  • “Consider treating elderly patients with anti-TNF monotherapy to decrease their risk of serious infections”

Also noted: “Risk of Cancer in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Nationwide Population-based Cohort Study with 30 Years of Follow-up Evaluation” (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 13: 265-73). n=13,756 patients with CD and 35,152 with UC. Key findings –among CD patients, the excess risk was largely due to extra-intestinal cancers such as hematological malignancies (SIR 1.9) and smoking-related malignancies (SIR 1.5).  Associations between UC and gastrointestinal/extraintestinal cancers were weaker (both SIRs were 1.1); the risk of gastrointestinal cancers decreased over the course of the study.

Related blog posts:

Another Reason for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients to Take Vitamin D

Posted on by

According to a recent study (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 821-27), “in a large mulit-institutional IBD cohort, a low plasma level of 25(OH)D was associated with an increased risk of cancer, especially colorectal cancer.”  The study reviewed data from 2809 patients who vitamin D levels check (total cohort 11,028 persons with IBD); nearly a third had vitamin [25(OH)D] levels less than 20 ng/mL.  The median followup was 11 years.  During this period, 7% developed cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer).  Vitamin D deficiency was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.82 of increased cancer risk.

Like so many other studies, this study is another reason for vitamin D manufacturers to feel pretty good.  The associated editorial provides some helpful context (pgs 828-30). The evidence regarding vitamin D dates back to at least 1980 when there was an observed higher incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality in regions with low solar radiation levels.  Similar findings were noted with breast cancer.

There is biologic plausibility to the importance of vitamin D with regard to cancer as it is involved in “cell signaling, cell proliferation, cell apoptosis, cell adhesion, angiogenesis and it can up-regulate tumor suppressor genes.” A number of reviews have shown an inverse relationship to vitamin D levels and CRC risk.

The editorial points out a number of potential flaws.  “For instance, those who had vitamin D measured may have been among the more ill patients…they may have been the most malnourished.”  “Whether patients had concurrent …primary sclerosing cholangitis was also omitted.”

Take-home message (from editorial): “Although the authors have identified an association, for several reasons it may be spurious…the jury is still out as to what impact maintaining normal vitamin D levels may have on reducing inflammation and modulating cancer risk in chronic inflammatory diseases. However, it is healthful to have adequate vitamin D.” In Manitoba, the authors recommend that all of their patients receive vitamin D supplementation.  In areas with more sun, checking levels may be worthwhile.

Related 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.

ESPGHAN IBD Diagnostic Practice Recommendations -Revised Porto Criteria

Posted on by

Recently ESPGHAN assembled an international group of European experts in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD) to establish practice recommendations (JPGN 2014; 58: 795-806).  Their aim was “to revise the original Porto criteria using an evidence-based approach and consensus process to yield specific practice recommendations for the diagnosis of PIBD.”

Before detailing some of their recommendations, I want to state my main criticism: these recommendations do not consider cost or cost-effectiveness. This is important since we do not live in a world where costs are irrelevant.

Some specific recommendations/observations:

1. “We recommend performing small bowel imaging in all suspected cases of IBD at diagnosis; this may be deferred in typical UC.”  In addition, all suspected cases of IBD should undergo esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and ileocolonoscopy.  “The diagnostic yield of an EGD to diagnose Crohn’s disease (CD) in patients with an otherwise normal workup [ileocolonoscopy/small bowel imaging] is ~7.5%. ”

2. The authors clarify the use of IBD-unclassified (IBD-U). “IBD-U should be …for patients with colitis and highly atypical findings.” Atypical findings for ulcerative colitis: include rectal sparing, and cecal patch (present in 2% of pediatric patients with left-sided colitis).  Table 3 suggests that if at least one “class 2” (rare feature) exists or at least 2 “class 3” (uncommon) feature exists, then labeling IBD-U is appropriate.

Rare (Class 2):

  • significant growth delay
  • histologic and gross sparing of rectum
  • transmural inflammation in the absence of severe colitis
  • duodenal or esophageal ulcers (not due to other causes)
  • multiple aphthous ulcerations in the stomach (not due to other causes)
  • positive ASCA in the presence of negative pANCA
  • mucosal inflammation more severe in proximal colon

Uncommon (Class 3):

  • severe scalloping of stomach or duodenum (not due to other causes)
  • focal chronic duodenitis (not due to other causes)
  • aphthous ulcerations in the colon

3. Crohn’s disease, according to Table 3, should be diagnosed with any of the following:

  • well-formed granulomas anywhere in the GI tract, remote from a ruptured crypt
  • deep serpentine ulcerations, cobblestoning or stenosis anywhere in the small bowel
  • fistulizing disease
  • ileal inflammation in the presence of normal cecum

4. “Normal blood tests do not exclude the diagnosis of IBD”… Fecal markers (eg. calprotectin) are “extremely sensitive in the detection of mucosal inflammation but are not specific for IBD.”

5.”Although small bowel imaging is encouraged in all of the patients with suspected IBD, it is essential in pediatric patients with CD, IBD-U, or atypical UC.”  Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) is currently the imaging modality of choice in PIBD.  Wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) is a “useful alternative.”  The authors advocate for imaging because it may “detect small intestinal involvement…and identify disease complications.”

6. Evaluation for primary immune deficiency should be performed in all cases of PIBD  diagnosed <2 years of age.

While the authors acknowledge that “clinical considerations may require taking a course of action that varies from these criteria,” nevertheless, they are likely to influence clinical practice.  My personal belief is that there are many situations in which small bowel imaging will not result in changes in clinical care.  Furthermore, many patients, especially younger patients, would require anesthesia in order to complete a MRE which is an added burden.  In addition, with the added emphasis on assessing response to therapy, one could envision that some patients would be better served with imaging after implementing treatment.

Related blog posts:

 

 

 

Another Study Supporting Enteral Therapy for Crohn’s Disease

Posted on by

Here’s the link (Enteral Nutrition Study) from a summary of the study in Healio Gastroenterology (from their twitter feed) and an excerpt:

Frivolt K. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;39:1398-1407.

A retrospective study of all pediatric Crohn’s disease (CD) patients treated with exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) at a children’s hospital in Munich between January 2004 and June 2011. Fifty-two included patients (mean age, 13.2 years; 59.6% male) had newly diagnosed CD (n=40) or had relapsed (n=12) while maintaining treatment for at least 3 months….The first course of EEN showed a higher median starting wPCDAI score compared with the second (59 vs. 40; P<.0001), as well as higher remission rates after 3 months (92% vs. 77%). Relapse rates after 1 year were comparable (67% vs. 70%), but fewer relapses occurred in the first 120 days after the first EEN course compared with the second (25% vs. 45%).

Of 48 patients with NOD2 genotype, 44 went into remission with EEN; 11 of 12 patients carrying R702W or G908R genotype relapsed within 1 year; and there were significantly lower rates of relapse in patients with wild-type (60%) or 1007fs (50%) mutations.

 

Related blog posts:

 

 

Treating to Target

Posted on by

As alluded to in a previous post (CCFA Conference Notes 2014 (part 2) | gutsandgrowth), there has been increasing discussion and efforts aimed at mucosal healing (MH) because it is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patient’s with Crohn’s disease (CD).  Even before its print publication, this study (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 978-85) by William Sandborn’s group has influenced the discussion.

This retrospective study analyzed 67 patients with CD (2011-2012).  These 67 were selected from a population of 510 patients seen at UCSD who had at least several endoscopies and ulcers  seen at the initial procedure.  In this cohort of 67 patients, the median disease duration was 9.8 years.  Only 26 (38.8%) were naive to both immunosuppressives and biologics at referral.

Key findings:

  • Only half of the patients achieved MH.  “After a median follow-up of 62 weeks, 50.7% had MH and 61.1% had endoscopic improvement.”  79% of those who underwent adjustments achieved MH.
  • Clinical symptoms do not correlate with MH. “40.9% of patients experienced clinical symptoms despite MH and 18.8% of patients without clinical symptoms had significant endoscopic lesions.”
  • Biomarkers may be effective at predicting MH. “None of the patients with MH had an increased concentration of CRP.”
  • Adjusting treatment is needed if abnormal endoscopy; this is inherent in the philosophy of treating-to-target.

The authors conclude that “serial endoscopic procedures to guide treatment to the goal of MH is feasible in clinical practice.” Ultimately the goal is to influence the natural history of Crohn’s disease.

Study limitations:

  • retrospective study
  • small number of highly-selected patients
  • lack of randomization
  • definition of MH remains debated
  • no cost data
  • lack of data on stool biomarkers (e.g. calprotectin) which could serve as alternative
  • no answer to the question of what to do for the patient without MH who is receiving ‘maximal medical treatment’

From Dr. Sandborn: (from Healio Gastro summary):

“Evidence has accumulated that the complications of Crohn’s disease [CD] … are due to chronic inflammation that has not been fully treated,” William J. Sandborn, MD, chief of the gastroenterology division and director at the University of California, San Diego, IBD Center, told Healio.com. “This in turn has led to the concept of ‘treat to target’ in which patients are assessed with endoscopy for active inflammation prior to making important changes in therapy, and then reassessed with endoscopy within 4 to 6 months to ensure that the therapy change healed the bowel and resolved the inflammation.

“If active disease persists at endoscopy, even in the absence of clinical symptoms, then therapy is intensified and this cycle is repeated until mucosal healing (MH) is achieved.”

Take-home message: This study is one of many that are likely to influence the practice of clinicians to prove that the treatment is exerting a biologic effect and not solely improvement in clinical scoring indices.  With the emergence of multiple modalities to assess improvement, including biomarkers and imaging, it is not clear that repeated endoscopy will be the best assessment tool.

Related blog post: EXTEND & MUSIC: Optimizing Crohn Disease Care …

Also noted:

Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 986-94.  “Association Between Telephone Activity and Features of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.”  The authors found that 15% of patients were responsible for half of all telephone calls.  These patients were more likely to be seen in ED and hospitalized.

Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 929-34. “Histologic Remission: The Ultimate Therapeutic Goal in Ulcerative Colitis?” This article reviews definitions for histologic remission and highlights questions that need to be addressed before histologic remission is used more widely as a clinical endpoint in trials and in practice.

Antibiotics, Oral Contraceptives, and IBD

Posted on by

Briefly noted:

“Physician Knowledge Regarding Concomitant Antibiotic and Oral Contraceptive Use in Patients with IBD.” Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2014; 10: 302-06.

Key finding:

  • IBD specialists and gynecologists were more likely to be aware that no evidence exists to support a link between a decrease in oral contraceptive pill (OCP) efficacy and concomitant use of ciprofloxacin or metronidazole.

Previous studies suggested that antibiotics reduced OCP efficacy.  The authors note that “more recent, prospective, pharmacokinetic studies in women demonstrate no evidence of an interaction between OCPs and most antibiotics, with the exception of rifampin.” (J Am Acad Dermatol 2002; 46: 917-23)

 

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.

 

 

Specific Carbohydrate Diet in Children -Ahead of Print

Posted on by

Here is a link, bit.ly/1xb1kk8, (from JPGN) and the abstract to an article on the Specific Carbohydrate Diet in Children.  This study shows clinical improvement and mucosal healing, confirmed by capsule endoscopy, in response to the specific carbohydrate diet (SCN). Congratulations to my colleagues/partners from GI Care for Kids who published this study in JPGN:

Objective: To prospectively evaluate clinical and mucosal responses to the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD) in children with Crohn’s disease (CD).

Methods: Eligible patients with active CD (Pediatric Crohn’s Disease Activity Index, PCDAI >= 15) underwent a patency capsule and if passed intact, capsule endoscopy (CE) was performed. Patients were monitored on SCD for 52 weeks while maintaining all prescribed medications. Demographic, dietary and clinical information, PCDAI, Harvey Bradshaw (HB) and Lewis score (LS) were collected at 0, 12 and 52 weeks. CE’s were evaluated by an experienced reader blinded to patient clinical information and timing.

Results: Sixteen patients were screened; 10 enrolled; and 9 completed the initial 12 week trial; receiving 85 % of estimated caloric needs prior to, and 101%, on the SCD. HB significantly decreased from 3.3 + 2.0 to 0.6 + 1.3 (p = 0.007) as did PCDAI (21.1 + 5.9 to 7.8 + 7.1; p = 0.011). LS declined significantly from 2153 + 732 to 960 + 433 (p = 0.012). Seven patients continued the SCD to 52 weeks with HB (0.1 + 0.4) and PCDAI (5.4 + 5.5) remaining improved (p = 0.016 and 0.027 compared to baseline) with mean LS at 1046 + 372 and 2 patients showing sustained mucosal healing.

Impressions: Clinical and mucosal improvements were seen in children with CD using the SCD over 12 and 52 weeks. Additionally, CE can monitor mucosal improvement in treatment trials for pediatric CD. Further studies are critically needed to understand the mechanisms underlying SCD’s effectiveness in children with CD.

Related Blog Posts:

Comparing Biologics for Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

A recent study has reviewed biologic therapies for ulcerative colitis (Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(10):704-711). Here’s the abstract link: bit.ly/1o5PpRX.

Data Synthesis: ..There were 7 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that were rated as low risk of bias and showed that all biological agents (adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, and vedolizumab) resulted in more clinical responses, clinical remissions, and mucosal healings than placebo for induction therapy. The results of network meta-analysis suggested that infliximab is more effective to induce clinical response (odds ratio, 2.36 [95% credible interval, 1.22 to 4.63]) and mucosal healing (odds ratio, 2.02 [95% credible interval, 1.13 to 3.59]) than adalimumab. No other indirect comparison reached statistical significance. For maintenance, 6 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that were rated high risk of bias showed that all biological agents have greater clinical efficacy than placebo. The occurrence of adverse events was not different between biological agents and placebo.

Limitation: Few trials, no head-to-head comparisons, and inadequate follow-up in maintenance trials.

Conclusion: Biological agents are effective treatments for UC, but head-to-head trials are warranted to establish the best therapeutic option.

Related blog posts:

 

My First Take: It is Hard to Save $$$ at a Rolls-Royce Dealership

Posted on by

A recent article looked at a crucial issue –trying to deliver “best care at lower cost” (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014; 20: 946-51).  “The goal of this report is to answer the primary question: What are implementable strategies and exploratory considerations for cost-efficient anti-TNF use while maintaining the highest quality of IBD care?”

The strategies that are discussed include the following:

  • Reduce costs of avoidable dose intensification of class switching by eliminating episodic anti-TNF use and improving patient education
  • Reduce over-utilization costs by accurately determining indication for escalating anti-TNF use
  • Reduce nondrug infliximab costs through shortened infusion times after initial safety is clearly established

Exploratory considerations:

  • Self-injectable anti-TNFs
  • Combination therapy
  • Monitoring anti-TNF drug levels and autoantibodies
  • Assessing mucosal healing as a clinical endpoint

The authors discuss both the exploratory issues and the strategies.  Some of each could easily increase costs, at least in the short-term, rather than reduce them.  The authors also make note of the development of an infliximab biosimilar (Inflecta) which could be approved in U.S. by 2015.

While the review article is a good read, in my opinion the authors fail to address in a meaningful way the larger context.  The costs for hospital-based care are enormous; pediatric hospitals are like Rolls-Royce dealerships; and by the way, if you have to ask how much it costs, you probably cannot afford it.  With regard to charges/costs, there is little transparency, high variability, and little accountability.  Understanding health care costs and trying to get a good deal is much harder than buying a car.

For IBD care, as an example, the authors make note of the cost of infliximab at one pediatric tertiary care center.  At this institution, “77% of the total health care cost for each infusion encounter” was for non-drug costs.  Given how expensive the drug cost is, the expense for an infusion is very high, but probably similar to many other pediatric hospitals.

If one is interested in reducing the costs of infliximab and other infusions, the first practical step would be to consider infusion outside of a hospital-based setting, such as an infusion center.  In such a setting, the patient safety would still be excellent but the costs would be less.

In Atlanta, there have been some high-profile hospital acquisitions that have increased health care costs (When doctors sell out, hospitals cash in | www.myajc.com).  In many circumstances, when a hospital acquires a physician practice, infusion center, or endoscopy center, the charges and reimbursement increase despite no change in clinical care.  In this way and many others, the current system promotes cost-inefficient care.

Related blog entries: