Category Archives: Pediatric Gastroenterology Intestinal Disorder

Rejected! Most Stool is Not Good Enough for FMT

Posted on by

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.

Cumberland Island

Cumberland Island -Main Road

Not Using and Stopping Therapy in IBD

Posted on by

Two recent articles show that a lot of patients are not receiving much therapy in inflammatory bowel disease.

  • Moreno-Rincon E et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015; 21: 1564-71.
  • Melesse DY et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015; 21: 1615-22.

In the first article, a multicenter retrospective study of 102 patients, the authors examined the relapse rates of patients with ulcerative colitis who had withdrawal of thiopurines.  They defined “significant clinical relapse” (SCR) as “the occurrence of UC typical signs or symptoms requiring a rescue therapy such as oral or intravenous corticosteroids, biological therapy, immunosuppressant drugs, recapture with TP [thiopurine] or surgery.”

Key findings:

  • Overall SCR was 32.35%.
  • Predictors of relapse included pancolitis (HR 5.01) and duration of treatment with thiopurines (HR 0.15).

Among those without relapse, the mean duration of remission prior to withdrawal of thiopurines was 54 months compared with 34 months in those who relapsed. In figure 2, the authors note that the rate of relapse was 19.2% for those who received >48 months of thiopurine treatment compared with a 45% rate of relapse for those who received treatment for 13-47 months.  The authors note that several studies have shown higher relapse rates than reported in this cohort and that interruption of therapy is associated with a considerable risk of relapse.

Limitations: small retrospective study and the expectation that their SCR would capture the true relapse rate.

The second study, using a Manitoba database, shows a strikingly-high rate of nonuse of medical therapy. Between 1996-2012, 3902 patients with IBD were identified; 47% with Crohn’s disease (CD) and 53% with ulcerative colitis (UC).  While only 11.7% of IBD patients did not have medication dispensed in the first year after diagnosis, beyond this period, “roughly half of all patients with IBD have not used IBD-specific medications in the previous year.”  The authors are not certain how much nonuse is due to nonadherence or nonprescription. They note that there was higher nonuse in patients with CD, possibly due to use of surgical treatment.  However, they note that multiple medications have been shown to reduce postsurgical relapse in CD.

My take: There are a lot of patients off therapy, both due to withdrawal of therapy when doing well and others due to nonadherence or nonprescription.  With or without overt symptoms, these studies make one wonder whether undertreatment will lead to long-term complications or whether there could be a significant number of patients who are overtreated.  Either way, it remains quite difficult to predict which patients will do well off medical therapy.

Broadcasters Really Know the Key Points to Winning!

Broadcasters Really Know the Key Points to Winning!

What HBV Testing is Needed Before Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy

Posted on by

As noted in a previous blog post (What’s Going on with Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B?):

Hepatitis B Reactivation risk & recommendation: (For all of the specifics — Full text article link)

  • High risk of reactivation (>10%): B cell depleting agents (eg. rituximab, ofatumumab), anthracycline derivatives (eg. doxorubicin, epirubicin), and daily moderate to high dose steroids (>10 mg) for at least 4 weeks. Recommendation: Use HBV prophylaxis
  • Moderate risk of reactivation (1-10%): anti-TNF therapy, integrin inhibitors (eg. ustekinimab, vedolizumab), tyrosine kinase inhibitors, low-dose steroids daily (<10 mg/day) for at least 4 weeks.  Recommendation: Use HBV prophylaxis if HBsAg-positive but not if only anti-HBc-positive
  • Low risk of reactivation (<1%): azathiopurine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate. Recommendation: No antiviral prophylaxis required.

For those interested in a more detailed summary of the recommendations: AGA Website HBV Reactivation Recommendations

In line with the reactivation risk, a new study (and editorial) (M Barone et al. Hepatology 2015; 62: 40-6; editorial BP Perillo. Hepatology 2105; 62: 16-8) indicates that for those receiving tumor necrosis inhibitor (anti-TNF) monotherapy, hepatitis B screening requires only checking HBsAg. The study examined a total of 1218 Caucasian rheumatologic patients (receiving biologic agents) between 2001-12. In this cohort, the authors identified 179 patients who had a previously resolved HBV infection; 146 treated with anti-TNF, 14 with rituximab, and 19 with other biologic therapy. Key finding: HBV reactivation was not seen in these patients.

Bottomline: For most pediatric patients receiving anti-TNF monotherapy (eg. infliximab, adalimumab), screening with HBsAg alone should suffice.

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.

Grand Tetons from Jackson Lodge

Grand Tetons from Jackson Lodge

Is It Right? Anti-TNF Therapy Does Not Fix IBD-Related Anemia

Posted on by

A surprising study (Koutroubakis, IE et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015; 21: 1587-93) of prospectively-collected data from 430 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) showed that the rate of anemia did not change after 1 year in patients treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy and oral iron.

The data was derived from 2010-2012 and included 324 patients with Crohn’s disease (51.6% females) with a median age of 41 years.  Anemia was defined as hemoglobin (Hb) <13 g/dL in men and <12 g/dL in women.  Patients with Hb <10 g/dL were considered to have severe anemia. Key findings:

  • Prevalence of anemia in IBD patients treated with anti-TNF was 38.1% at baseline and then 36.6% at 1 year.
  • Severe anemia was identified in 10% at baseline and 9.9% at 1 year.
  • A hematopoietic response with a Hb ≥2 g/dL was observed in 33.6% (n=45 of 134 anemic patients) and 14 (40%) of those with severe anemia.
  • There were 45 new anemic patients at 1 year; 64.4% were nonresponders to anti-TNF treatment.
  • Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, the author noted that use of immunomodulators was associated with an odds ratio of 2.56 of improvement in hemoglobin levels.

The authors state that anemia is the most common extra intestinal manifestation of IBD and remains underappreciated.  Anemia in IBD correlates with the extent of intestinal disease and activity.

Bottomline: “Use of anti-TNF therapy had only a modest effect on patients’ Hb level.”

From related post: IBD Update January 2015 (Part 2)

Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014; 20: 2266-70.  This study with 749 patients from Sweden showed that a large number of inflammatory bowel disease patients did not receive with iron supplementation: “Only 46% of patients with anemia were treated with iron supplementation or blood transfusion.”  This study showed frequent persistence of anemia one year after diagnosis, especially in children. At time of diagnosis, 55% of children and 27% of adults had anemia and 28% and 16% at one year followup, respectively.

My take: Treatment of the underlying IBD, often helps anemia.  However, in some patients treating the anemia with iron may help improve symptoms as much or more than other aspects of treatment.

Related blog post: Microcytic Anemia Review | gutsandgrowth

Sandy Springs, Georgia

Sandy Springs, Georgia

 

Ulcerative Colitis with Questionable Response to Fecal Transplant

Posted on by

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is not going to be a “magic bullet” for most patients with inflammatory bowel disease. So far, it is unclear whether FMT works at all.  A recent study (full text link: Rossen NG et al. Gastroenterol 2015; 145: 110-8) with only 37 patients echo that experience. Here is the abstract:

Background & Aims

Several case series have reported the effects of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for ulcerative colitis (UC). We assessed the efficacy and safety of FMT for patients with UC in a double-blind randomized trial.

Methods

Patients with mild to moderately active UC (n = 50) were assigned to groups that underwent FMT with feces from healthy donors or were given autologous fecal microbiota (control); each transplant was administered via nasoduodenal tube at the start of the study and 3 weeks later. The study was performed at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam from June 2011 through May 2014.

The composite primary end point was clinical remission (simple clinical colitis activity index scores ≤2) combined with ≥1-point decrease in the Mayo endoscopic score at week 12. Secondary end points were safety and microbiota composition by phylogenetic microarray in fecal samples.

Results

Thirty-seven patients completed the primary end point assessment. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 7 of 23 patients who received fecal transplants from healthy donors (30.4%) and 5 of 25 controls (20.0%) achieved the primary end point (P = .51). In the per-protocol analysis, 7 of 17 patients who received fecal transplants from healthy donors (41.2%) and 5 of 20 controls (25.0%) achieved the primary end point (P = .29). Serious adverse events occurred in 4 patients (2 in the FMT group), but these were not considered to be related to the FMT. At 12 weeks, the microbiota of responders in the FMT group was similar to that of their healthy donors; remission was associated with proportions of Clostridium clusters IV and XIVa.

Conclusions

In this phase 2 trial, there was no statistically significant difference in clinical and endoscopic remission between patients with UC who received fecal transplants from healthy donors and those who received their own fecal microbiota, which may be due to limited numbers. However, the microbiota of responders had distinct features from that of nonresponders, warranting further study. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01650038.

Related blog posts:

Cumberland Island

Cumberland Island

 

New Therapy for Celiac Disease: Larazotide Acetate

Posted on by

A recent randomized controlled trial study (Gastroenterol 2015; 148: 1311-9) examined the effectiveness of larazotide acetate in 342 adults with Celiac disease (CD) who had ongoing symptoms despite the use of a gluten-free diet for at least 12 months.

Larazotide acetate is a locally acting, nonsystemic 8-amino acid oral peptide which is a tight junction (TJ) regulator.  “Larazotide acetate appears to prevent opening of intestinal TJs by promoting TJ assembly and actin filament rearrangement, which prevents gluten from reaching the intestinal submucosas and triggering an inflammatory response.”

Screen Shot 2015-06-01 at 8.35.51 PM

Patients received either placebo, 0.5 mg, 1 mg, 2 mg three times daily. The majority of patients had normalized serology at the start of the study.  Key findings:

  • “The 0.5 mg dose showed a 26% decrease in celiac disease patient-reported outcome symptomatic days (P =.017), a 31% increase in improved symptom days (P =.034), a 50% or more reduction from baseline of the weekly average abdominal pain score for 6 or more of 12 weeks of treatment (P =0.022), and a decrease in the nongastrointestinal symptoms of headache and tiredness (P =0.010).”
  • The 1- and 2-mg doses were no different from placebo for any end point.
  • Safety was comparable to placebo.

The authors state that is unclear why the higher doses were not effective “but may involve peptide aggregation … reducing activity in vivo.”

Bottomline: There would be a benefit for an adjunct to a gluten-free diet due to the difficulty in adherence and due to ongoing symptoms in some despite the use of a GFD; in some cases, symptoms may be induced by inadvertent deviation from GFD.  More data is needed to determine if larazotide acetate will be useful in this role.

Related blog post: Good Educational Two Minute Celiac Video | gutsandgrowth

The Connection Between Anxiety and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Posted on by

Why is it that reflux is so much worse during periods of anxiety and depression?

A recent prospective study (Kessing BF et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 1089-1095) of 225 consecutive patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) looks into this issue.  All patients underwent ambulatory 24-hour pH-impedance (pH-MII) monitoring and had assessment of anxiety/depression with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

GERD was defined by having pathologic acid exposure time and/or positive temporal correlation between the occurrence of symptoms ad reflux episodes. Hypersensitivity to reflux was considered if there was physiologic acid exposure times while having temporal association between reflux episodes and symptoms.  Functional heartburn indicated the presence of symptoms with a normal pH-MII.

Key findings:

  • 147 patients had GERD and 78 had functional heartburn; 36 patients were considered hypersensitive to gastroesophageal reflux.
  • Among patients with GERD (including patients with hypersensitivity), increased anxiety/depression levels were associated with more severe retrosternal pain/burning. However, anxiety/depression were NOT associated with an increased number of reflux episodes or number of symptoms reported on pH-MII.
  • Patients with functional heartburn had higher levels of anxiety than patients with GERD.

Bottomline: Anxiety is associated with increased GERD symptoms.  In addition, anxiety is more prevalent in patients with functional heartburn.

Briefly noted: Review (Lipa S, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 1058-67) of 4 trials with 153 analyzed patients:  “Stretta [radiofrequency ablation] for patient with GERD does not produce significant changes, compared with sham therapy, in physiologic parameters, including time spent at pH less than 4, LESP, ability to stop PPIs, or HRQOL.”.

Related blog posts:

Cumberland Island

Cumberland Island

Complications with G-tube Placement

Posted on by

Two recent studies highlight the risks with gastrostomy tube (G-tube) placement.

  • McSweeney ME, et al. J Pediatr 2015; 166: 1514-9.
  • Jacob A, et al. J Pediatr 2015; 166: 1526-8.

The first study, a chart review of 591 patients, identified a 10.5% major complication rate and ~25% complication rate overall.  By far the most common complication for both major and minor complications was stoma infections.  In this study, the g-tube used was the Corflo PEG tubes using a pull-procedure.  Perioperative antibiotics (i.e. cefazolin for 24 hrs) were administered. Exchange of g-tubes (to a skin-level device) took place at 6 months in most patients.  Major complications were defined as an unplanned adverse event necessitating additional hospitalization, surgery or interventional procedure.

Key findings:

  • Cumulative incidence of major complications was 2.4% within 48 hours, 5.8% with 1 month, 9.2% within 6 months, and 14.7% at 12 months post-G-tube placement
  • Among the 62 patients experiencing major complications, 55 of the 72 were due to infections, 6 were dehiscence of PEG at exchange, 2 were due to granulation needing surgery, 2 were due to colon perforation, and 1 due to pneumoperitoneum.  Other major complications included: 1 aborted PEG procedure, 1 post-PEG cardiopulmonary arrest, 3 malfunctioning PEG tubes, and 1 failure to exchange PEG tube for a skin-level device.

Overall, this study shows a fairly high rate of significant complications and that their occurrence was usually not in the immediate post-operative period.

The second study was a prospective study of 183 children undergoing a one-step percutaneous G-tube using the MIC-KEY introducer kit.  This one-step button requires insertion of three gastropexy anchors, dilatation of gastrostomy tract, and button measurement.  The authors evaluated the safety technique and the learning curve.

Key Findings:

  • In the first 6-month period, the authors noted a 17% failure rate; this declined to 0-7% in the following 6-month study periods.
  • The time for placement improved from 21 minutes during the first 6-months to 12 minutes during the sixth 6-month study period
  • The authors highlighted several advantages: 1. lower peristomal infection rate (10.6% compared to their historical control of 29% with pull-PEG); the PEG avoids need to bypass the oropharynx. 2. One procedure/anesthetic for a skin-level device.
  • In the article, the results indicate that there are clearly tradeoffs for these advantages: after the initial learning curve, their remained complications in the majority (65%), mostly mild complications which included accidental button removal (35%), gastric heterotopy (24%), and peristomal leakage (15%).  Also, 35% of patients returned for a replacement tube before the planned date because of intragastric balloon deflation.
  • The cost savings with this one-step button were estimated to be 11% lower.

Bottomline: While g-tubes remain important in caring for children with feeding problems, there is not a magic bullet to eliminate complications.  Understanding the frequency of these problems and discussing them with families will help them be addressed promptly.

Related blog posts:

Resource:

www.feedingtubeawareness.com  This site contains a terrific PDF download which explains enteral tubes in an easy to understand style along with good graphics. “What You Need to Know Now, A Parent’s Introduction to Tube Feeding is the guidebook that every parent wished they had when they were first introduced to feeding tubes.”

How High Can You Go with Adalimumab?

Posted on by

A recent study (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015; 21: 1047-53) explored the “Efficacy and Safety of Adalimumab 80 mg Weekly in Luminal Crohn’s Disease.”

Methods: Between 2011-2012, 42 adults with active Crohn’s disease, defined by CDAI > 150 and an objective marker of inflammation, had a dose escalation of adalimumab to 80 mg weekly in prospective multi center study.

  • Objective markers could include CRP >0.5 mg/dL, fecal calprotectin >300 mcg/g, radiologic evidence or endoscopic evidence
  • Only 4 patients were receiving concomitant immunomodulators (& none were started)
  • There were no reports of adalimumab drug levels

Findings: At 14 weeks, 33.3% achieved a clinical remission (CDAI <150) and 23 (54.8%) had a clinical response.  These patients had associated improvements in CRP.  The authors do not report on serious adverse events; all AEs “were consistent with previous experience with this drug.”

Take-home point: The authors do not recommend this approach in routine clinical practice at this time.  However, it would seem that some patients with low adalimumab trough levels (and no anti-drug antibodies) may benefit from high doses of adalimumab

Briefly noted:

Fumery M, et al. JPGN 2015; 60: 744-48.  This retrospective study identified 27 children who received adalimumab (ADA) after infliximab failure.  Though ADA was well-tolerated, 8 (30%) had primary nonresponse to ADA and an additional 5 (26%) had ADA failure by 1 year.

Huang EY, et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015; 21: 963-72.  “Exposure to dexamethasone in mice led to substantial shifts in gut microbiota over a 4-week period.” Take-home point: Corticosteroids may have both direct and indirect impacts on the microbiome as one mechanism of influencing disease response

Related blog posts:

Zoo Atlanta

Zoo Atlanta

Will Infliximab Worsen Flare-ups Associated with Cytomegalovirus Infection?

Posted on by

Another look (Pillet S, et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015; 21: 1580-86) at Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) examines 109 flareups in 73 patients who were receiving maintenance therapy with anti-TNF therapy.

This was a single-center prospective observational study.  CMV load was determined with PCR based on a pair of biopsies. DNA load was either undetectable, mild (10-250 copies/mg of tissue) or high (>250 copies/mg of tissue). 69 patients with anti-TNF therapy were compared with 40 patients receiving azathioprine. Key findings:

  • CMV reactivation was noted in 35% of anti-TNF therapy patients and 38% in azathioprine patients.
  • Among 45 patients requiring infliximab optimization, clinical remission was not significantly impacted by the presence of CMV reactivation.
  • 17 of 20 who had repeat biopsies 8 weeks later had stable or decreased CMV load.

Bottomline: This prospective, small study shows that “in patients with moderate-to-severe UC, treatment with anti-TNF mab does not increase the risk of colonic CMV infection.”  In addition, “no adverse influence of CMV colonic infection was observed in patients with flare-up treated by anti-TNF mabs.”

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.

Zoo Atlanta

Zoo Atlanta