>99% Accuracy in Non-Biopsy Diagnosis of Celiac Disease

Another large study (KJ Werkstetter et al. Gastroenterol 2017; 153: 924-35) shows a high accuracy of diagnosing celiac disease (CD) without a biopsy when very high celiac titers are identified in symptomatic patients. A previous study (n=898) this year also showed similar findings: The Non-Biopsy Diagnosis of Pediatric Celiac Disease

The current study (2001-2014) identified 743 consecutive pediatric patients with positive celiac serology (TTG-IgA). Key findings:

  • If TTG-IgA was higher than 10-fold the upper limit of normal and a separate sample tested positive for endomysial antibodies, then non-biopsy approach had a positive predictive value >99.6%.  The authors utilized a variety of TTG-IgA assays.
  • The authors noted that HLA-DQ2/DQ8 typing did not improve the accuracy of CD diagnosis.  “Negative results for HLA-DQ2/DQ8 in patients with TGA or EMA positivity are most likely false negative …or due to very rare risk-allele combinations not recognized by the test systems.”
  • “At least 50% of affected children in clinical practice will benefit from this nonbiopsy approach, which reduces burden and risks of endoscopy and anesthesia” and is more cost-effective.

The authors’ conclusion: “allowing omission of biopsies enables a correct diagnosis of CD in symptomatic children if TTG-IgA exceed 10xULN and positive EMA-IgA confirms celiac disease autoimmunity in a second blood sample. If one of these criteria is not fulfilled, biopsy should be performed to confirm the diagnosis.”

My take: This study provides convincing data that CD diagnosis does NOT require an intestinal biopsy under specific conditions.

Related blog posts:

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

Breastfeeding: Protection from Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Xu L, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: breastfeeding and the risk of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitisAliment Pharmacol Ther2017;46:780-789.

https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.14291Thanks to Mike Hart for this reference.

From abstract:

Results

A total of 35 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 7536 individuals with CD, 7353 with UC and 330 222 controls. Ever being breastfed was associated with a lower risk of CD (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85) and UC (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.91). While this inverse association was observed in all ethnicity groups, the magnitude of protection was significantly greater among Asians (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.20-0.48) compared to Caucasians (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93; P = .0001) in CD. Breastfeeding duration showed a dose-dependent association, with strongest decrease in risk when breastfed for at least 12 months for CD (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.50) and UC (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10-0.43) as compared to 3 or 6 months.

From associated editorial by David Rakel:

This meta-analysis of 35 studies shows that there is a dose–response protective effect of the duration of breastfeeding on inflammatory bowel disease. The association shows as much as an 80% reduction in risk for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis for breastfeeding more than 12 months.

Breast Feeding Graph

Inflammatory bowel disease arises from a complex set of interactions related to genetic susceptibility, environmental exposures, and a dysregulated immune response to dysbiotic intestinal microbiota, according to the study authors. These data will give us one more reason to encourage breastfeeding, ideally for a year or more.

Related blog post: Nutrition Week (Day 7) Connecting Diet and Epidemiology in IBD

 

 

Prospective Outcome Data for Infants with Gastroschisis

A recent study (BS Fullerton et al. J Pediatr 2017; 188: 192-7) reports outcome data from 4420 neonates with gastroschisis from 175 North Amercan centers.

This study, using prospectively-collected data from the Vermont Oxford Network, was restricted to infants with birth weights >1500 g and gestational age >28 weeks.

Key findings from this cohort:

  • Survival was 97.8%
  • Length of stay (LOS) 37 day median
  • Sepsis, confirmed with either positive blood culture or CSF culture, “was the only independent predictor of mortality.”
  • In addition to gastroschisis repair, abdominal surgery was needed in 22.3%
  • At discharge, 57.0% were <10% weight for age; whereas, only 37.2% were born small for gestational age.
  • There were no outcome differences based on mode of delivery (eg. vaginal vs. cesarean)
  • Other congenital anomalies were noted in many infants, with 5.8% had an intestinal atresia: 4.6% jejunal/ileal, 1.9% colonic, 0.4% duodenal atresia.

My take: This contemporary study shows excellent survival of neonates with gastroschisis.  Sepsis, need for additional surgery, and poor growth remain important challenges.

Related blog posts:

Patient with FeedingTubeAwareness.org Tshirt

Expert 2017 Opinion: Miralax is (Still) First Choice Laxative for Children

IJN Koppen et al. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition: October 2017 – Volume 65 – Issue 4 – p 361–363

Abstract:

 According to international guidelines, polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the laxative of first choice in the treatment of functional constipation in children, both for disimpaction and for maintenance treatment. PEG acts as an osmotic laxative and its efficacy is dose dependent. PEG is highly effective, has a good safety profile, and is well tolerated by children. Only minor adverse events have been reported. Overall the use of PEG in children has been reported to be safe, although in patients predisposed to water and electrolyte imbalances monitoring of serum electrolytes should be considered.

Because this topic is of great importance to the families that are seen by pediatric gastroenterologists (and pediatricians), I wanted to review this brief article which describes the efficacy and safety of polyethylene glycol (aka miralax).

Key Points:

  • Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the most widely used laxative in children and adults
  • It works by interacting “with water molecules by forming hydrogen bonds, in a ratio of 100 water molecules per 1 PEG molecule, which leads to an additional increase in colonic water content.” It is minimally absorbed.
  • Studies have demonstrated that PEG is better or noninferior to all of the following: lactulose, milk of magnesia, mineral oil, and flixweed (a medicinal herb)

Safety:

  • Only minor adverse events have been reported in studies.  In randomized, placebo-controlled trials, adverse events “did not occur more frequently in patients receiving PEG compared to patients receiving placebo.”
  • The main safety issue has been when it has been administered via nasogastric administration; improper placement can lead to severe pulmonary complications.  In addition, PEG should be used “cautiously in children with swallowing problems…because of risk of aspiration.”

Combatting Myths: 

  • The authors assert that there has never been reports of physical or psychological dependence.  Weaning from PEG is to prevent relapse of constipation.
  • There is no evidence to support loss of efficacy.
  • The phenomenon of “lazy bowel syndrome” in which there is worsened colonic function has not been described due to PEG; though, patients with underlying motility problems have had these problems misattributed to PEG use.
  • Despite anecdotal reports of tremors, tics, and obsessive-compulsive behavior in children taking PEG, there has been no evidence of a causal relationship.  “These events …are still under investigation, but the FDA has decided that no action is necessary.”  The authors note that the co-occurrence of neuro-behavioral problems and constipation is well-recognized in children with and without laxative use.

Clinical Pearl: Stimulant Laxatives After Repaired Anorectal Malformations:

  • “In children with constipation after repaired anorectal malformations, …stimulant laxatives (eg. senna) should be the laxative of choice.” (J Pediatr Surg 2017; 52: 84-8)

My take (borrowed from the authors): “PEG has rapidly become the treatment of first choice for children with functional constipation.”

Related blog posts:

 

How Many Kids with Reflux Actually Have Reflux?

A terrific recent retrospective study (LB Mahoney, S Nurko, R Rosen. J Pediatr 2017; 189: 86-91) examined how often children with reflux symptoms actually have reflux.

This study reviewed 45 children ≥5 years (mean age 11.8 years) who had undergone both upper endoscopy and impedance pH study (off PPI therapy). Inclusion criteria: no erosive esophagitis. Common symptoms included heartburn, abdominal pain, chest pain, and regurgitation.

Definitions:

  • Nonerosive reflux disease –had abnormal esophageal acid exposure
  • Reflux hypersensitivity -had normal acid exposure but had a positive symptom association to acid or nonacid reflux
  • Functional heartburn -had normal acid exposure and negative symptom association

Key findings:

  • 44% had functional heartburn, 29% with reflux hypersensitivity (27% acid, 2% nonacid), 27% had nonerosive reflux disease (NERD)
  • Response to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was not predictive of reflux phenotype: 58% with NERD, 67% with reflux hypersensitivity, and 55% with functional heartburn. Response to PPI was stated as “at least some symptomatic improvement with PPI use.”  There was not a difference in PPI response among those who received a dose <1 mg/kg and those ≥1 mg/kg.
  • Microscopic esophagitis was present in 17% in NERD, 25% with reflux hypersensitivity, and in 20% of functional heartburn

While this study has limitations, including referral bias, it is likely that these patients are typical for many pediatric gastroenterologists. The authors note that typical patients were “patients who underwent a PPI trial but continued to have persistent symptoms.”

My take: In a pediatric gastroenterology setting, the most common reason for “reflux” is actually functional heartburn.  Thus, in those with persistent symptoms, evaluation with endoscopy and pH probe is worthwhile, especially as there has been more attention to potential risks of PPI therapy.

Related blog posts:

View from Asheville, NC

Diet and Stress in Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis

When it comes to eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), I sometimes worry that some treatments are worse than the disease, depending on the severity of the EoE. A recent study (C Case et al. JPGN 2017; 65: 281-84) indicates that dietary therapy is often stressful for families.

This study examined children ages 2-18 during an annual American Partnership for Eosinophilic Diseases (APFED.org) patient education conference. What I found most interesting was Table 3. “Stress associated with eosinophilc esophagitis.”

Some of the data:

  • In response to ‘how stressful do you find the following since your child’s diagnosis of EoE?’ Family structure at mealtimes: Not stressful 13.5%, somewhat stressful 21.6%, moderate stressful 16.2%, significant stressful 32.4%, and severe stressful 16.2%
  • In response to ‘how stressful do you find the following since your child’s diagnosis of EoE? Buying and cooking separate foods/meals for your child: Not stressful 2.6%, somewhat stressful 21.1%, moderate stressful 21.1%, significant stressful 31.6%, and severe stressful 23.7%
  • In response to ‘how stressful do you find the following since your child’s diagnosis of EoE? Financial strain due to cost of food: Not stressful 10.5%, somewhat stressful 21.1%, moderate stressful 18.4%, significant stressful 23.7%, and severe stressful 36.3%
  • What is your current stress level in response to your child’s EoE? Not stressful 2.6%, somewhat stressful 15.8%, moderate stressful 36.8%, significant stressful 42.1%, and severe stressful 2.6%
  • 62% of respondents indicated that child’s EoE has affected marital relationship.

In addition, the study documented that “half of youth were affected by worry, anger, and sadness related to specialized diets.”  As this study relied on participants at an APFED meeting, this could skew the EoE population to be more severely affected.

My take: This study shows the emotional burden that dietary treatment of EoE places on families.

Related blog posts:

Berry College

Top Anti-TNF for Ulcerative Colitis

A recent retrospective cohort study (S Singh et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 1218-25) compared infliximab and adalimumab in a nationwide Danish cohort of adults with ulcerative colitis (UC) from 2005-2014. The authors used propensity score and selected 171 patients who received infliximab (IFX) from a total of 1580 and 104 patients who received adalimumab (ADA) among a total of 139.

Key findings:

  • Patients who received ADA had higher hospitalization rates (HR 1.84) and a trend toward higher UC-related hospitalization (HR 1.71, CI 0.95-3.07) compared to IFX
  • Risk of abdominal surgery was not significantly higher in ADA patients (HR 1.35) compared to IFX
  • Serious infections were higher in ADA group, HR of 5.11 of needing hospitalization due to infections

There have been no randomized clinical trials  to determine if a specific anti-TNF agent is superior to another. In an associated editorial (MT Osterman, GR Lichtenstein, 1197-99), the authors note that while we don’t know which agent is superior, by comparing similar trials (ACT 1 & 2 for IFX and ULTRA 1 & 2 for ADA), “raw week 8 induction rates of clinical remission, clinical response, and mucosal healing are approximately 16%, 18%, and 19%, respectively, higher for infliximab”..”less dramatic differences favoring infliximab (approximately 9%, 13%, and 15%, respectively) are seen during maintenance at 1 year.”

My take: Due to the lack of randomized head-to-head studies, we do not know with certainty which anti-TNF is best for UC.  However, the data we have from retrospective cohort studies and from using raw data from prospective studies suggests that infliximab is effective in more patients.

Related blog posts:

University of Virginia Rotunda Pctures

 

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

Briefly: Notable Recent IBD Publications

Vermeire S et al. Lancet 2017; 389: 266-75.  The “FITZROY ” study examined clinical remission in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease treated with filgotinib, a orally administered selective JAK inhibitor.  This agent is 30 times more selective fo rJAK1 over JAK3. This study enrolled 174 patients in a phase II study. Key findings:

  • Among patients naive to anti-TNF agents, clinical remission (based on CDAI <150 at week 10) noted in 47% of filgotinib-treated compared with 23% of placebo group (P=.0077)
  • Among patients naive to anti-TNF agents, clinical response was noted in 67% of filgotinib-treated compared with 44% in the placebo group.

H Singh et al. Gastroenterol 2017; 153: 430-8.  Using the large Manitoba Epidemiology Database with 1.3 million population (2005-2014), the authors found that individuals with IBD had a 4.8 fold increase risk of Clostridium difficile infection.

T-D Kanneganti. NEJM 2017; 377: 694-6. This review examined the NLRP3 Inflammasome.  Neudecker et al (J Exp Med 2017; 214: 1737-52) identified microRNA miR-223 which functions “to suppress the Nlrp3 inflammasone during acute colitis.” Other useful points in this review of basic research:

  • “The majority of the immune cells in the body are located in the intestine, where they are spatially separated from more than 10 trillion microorganisms by a layer of mucus and a layer of epithelial cells.  Deterioration of this physical barrier …underlies inflammatory bowel disease.”
  • miR-223 is increased in the inflamed colon. “During inflammation, the expression of miR-223 is also upregulated..and the molecule binds to its complementary sequence in a regulatory part of Nlrp3 mRNA…lead[ing] to decreased Nlrp3 expression and the consequent dampening of interleukin-1β maturation and associated inflammation.”