Fecal Transplantation: “Frozen is as Good as Fresh”

Besides pointing out that someone could make $13,000 per year selling their stool, a recent Washington Post story summarized a JAMA study (JAMA. 2016;315(2):142-149. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.18098) which indicated that frozen stool works as well as fresh stool in treating Clostridium difficile infection.

In this study:

Design: Randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial enrolling 232 adults with recurrent or refractory CDI, conducted between July 2012 and September 2014 at 6 academic medical centers in Canada.

Key finding: In the per-protocol population, the proportion of patients with clinical resolution was 83.5% for the frozen FMT group and 85.1% for the fresh FMT group

Washington Post Summary In fecal matter transplants, frozen is as good as fresh

Here’s an excerpt:

The new study, led by McMaster University’s Christine H. Lee and published Tuesday in JAMA, found that patients given donations that had been frozen for up to 30 days fared just as well as those given fresh samples…

Lee and her colleagues administered one or two FMT enemas to 178 patients, splitting them into two groups to compare freshly-harvested samples and ones that had been frozen and defrosted. Thirteen weeks later, 85 percent of the fresh patients were diarrhea-free. In the frozen group, the success rate reached 83.5 percent – a margin that allows Lee and her team to dub the treatment “noninferior.”

Related blog posts:

Bryce Canyon

Bryce Canyon.  This is where I was told to beware of ‘poison rock’ —  one drop can kill you

High Endoscopy Complication Rate After Intestinal Transplantation

A recent study (J Yeh et al. JPGN 2015; 61: 636-40) indicated a high rate of endoscopy complications in pediatric patients who have undergone intestinal transplantation.

Key points:

  • Complications: In this single-center study with 1770 endoscopies (1014 sessions), the serious GI complication rate was 1.8% (32/1770).  The complications included 11 GI perforations, 13 GI bleeds, 6 GI hematomas, 1 gastric mucosa avulsion, and 1 distention from retained air. The authors’ database was not designed to capture cardiopulmonary complications.
  • In comparison, the authors note that adults without intestinal transplantation have an estimated a perforation rate of 0.09% and serious complication rates (GI and non-GI complications) of 0.15% for upper endoscopy and of 0.2% for colonoscopy. In addition, a large pediatric study of non-transplant patient endoscopies, found a perforation rate of 0.014% for EGDs and 0.028% for colonoscopies. Thus, the authors are reporting a perforation rate (11 of 1770) that is more than 20-fold higher than this pediatric study’s colonoscopy perforation rate.
  • Their techniques are well-described. For example, “for ileoscopies, 2 to 3 sites each consisting of 2 to 3 biopsies were also taken every 5 to 10 cm from the distal graft…typically surveyed up to 50 to 60 cm from the ostomy or ileocolonic anastomosis.”
  • The reasons for endoscopy were most frequently related to diarrhea/stool output in 35% and for surveillance in 32%.
  • The other interesting finding was that “of histology-proven rejections, 45% had normal-appearing endoscopies.”

The authors recommend that patients with intestinal transplantation should have endoscopy at a specialized center with teams who are intimately familiar with these children.

My take: I worry that the high complication rates reported at this center may indicate that individuals (perhaps in training) who are less familiar with the patient’s anatomy are performing many of these endoscopies.  I think individuals very familiar with the patient’s anatomy are best-suited to perform these endoscopies; this may limit some individuals at these specialized centers and may include some skilled endoscopists outside of intestinal transplant centers.

Related blog postSomething Bad is Going to Happen | gutsandgrowth

Galapagos

Galapagos

 

PPIs Alter the Microbiome

A couple of comments –today’s blog (below) and yesterday’s blog both point out potential concerns with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).  There is a danger that when publications emphasize the potential consequences of PPI use (including NPR’s recent piece on kidney disease and PPIs) that physicians and families will overlook the value of these medications.

With regard to the benefits of PPIs, there are a large number of studies supporting the effectiveness of PPIs for various GI conditions.  As a result, there is little being published on drug effectiveness at this time.  On a daily basis, these medications prevent a great deal of suffering, heal esophagitis, heal ulcers and contribute to improved health.  If one looks only at the negative side of the ledger, this could create harm.

My personal belief is that when PPIs are used, that it is important to consider both the advantages and the disadvantages.  If the benefits are unclear, this increases the necessity of evaluating the risks, especially in vulnerable populations.  In addition, when the benefits are unclear, determining the length of therapy and/or performing appropriate diagnostic workup becomes essential.

Also, for pediatric gastroenterologists reading this blog, it is important to realize that my blog’s following is tiny in comparison to the circulation of the Journal of Pediatrics and news organizations like NPR.  Therefore, we need to engage our pediatrician/family medicine colleagues to help make sure that PPIs are used effectively.  I am looking forward to the January 26 NASPGHAN webinar on this topic.

——–

The degree to which proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) affect the gut microbiome is unclear.  A recent study of 12 healthy volunteers (DE Freedberg et al. Gastroenterol 2015; 149: 883-85, Clearing Out My Desk | gutsandgrowth) indicated that this was not much; however, an even more recent study (F Imhann et al. Gut 2015 December 9 (Gut doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310376)suggests otherwise (abstract below) -their conclusion: “On a population level, the effects of PPI are more prominent than the effects of antibiotics or other commonly used drugs.”  

Link: Proton pump inhibitors affect the gut microbiome

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the top 10 most widely used drugs in the world. PPI use has been associated with an increased risk of enteric infections, most notably Clostridium difficile. The gut microbiome plays an important role in enteric infections, by resisting or promoting colonisation by pathogens. In this study, we investigated the influence of PPI use on the gut microbiome.

METHODS: The gut microbiome composition of 1815 individuals, spanning three cohorts, was assessed by tag sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. The difference in microbiota composition in PPI users versus non-users was analysed separately in each cohort, followed by a meta-analysis.

RESULTS: 211 of the participants were using PPIs at the moment of stool sampling. PPI use is associated with a significant decrease in Shannon’s diversity and with changes in 20% of the bacterial taxa (false discovery rate <0.05). Multiple oral bacteria were over-represented in the faecal microbiome of PPI-users, including the genus Rothia (p=9.8×10(-38)). In PPI users we observed a significant increase in bacteria: genera Enterococcus, Streptococcus, Staphylococcus and the potentially pathogenic species Escherichia coli.

CONCLUSIONS: The differences between PPI users and non-users observed in this study are consistently associated with changes towards a less healthy gut microbiome. These differences are in line with known changes that predispose to C. difficile infections and can potentially explain the increased risk of enteric infections in PPI users. On a population level, the effects of PPI are more prominent than the effects of antibiotics or other commonly used drugs.

My take: It is likely that the effects on the microbiome are even more notable in infants/younger children; in neonates, the changes in the microbiome could increase the risk of serious diseases like necrotizing enterocolitis.

Related blog posts:

Yosemite

Yosemite

The Prosecution Rests…PPIs on Trial

For physicians who use proton pump inhibitors in a cavalier manner, a recent review (CM Stark, CM Nylund. J Pediatr 168: 16-22) provides a sobering reassessment of the potential side effects and potential complications of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).  After finishing the article, the impression left was of a lawyer putting these medications on trial for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Here were the key points:

Infectious disease: PPI-induced hypochloridia is known to alter the gastrointestinal bacteria motif, allowing certain normally absent or depleted pathogenetic microorganisms to survive and proliferate.  This can lead to all of the following:

  • small bowel bacterial overgrowth
  • increased gastrointestinal infections (including Clostridium difficile, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and acute viral gastroenteritis)
  • pneumonia (particularly community acquired pneumonia and hospital acquired pneumonia)
  • upper respiratory infections
  • spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

The magnitude of these associations is discussed in detail in the review.

Gastrointestinal disease: Use of PPIs has been associated with an increased incidence of the following:

  •  celiac disease which persisted after excluding prescriptions in the year preceding diagnosis (association does not prove causation)
  • benign gastric fundic polyps
  • rebound acid hypersecretion

Malabsorption: PPIs can affect absorption of multiple nutrients, though more studies are needed, particularly in the pediatric age group.

  • calcium: “there is significant evidence to suggest that PPI use can alter calcium and bone metabolism…associated with an increased risk of hip fractures in older adults….It is reasonable to hypothesize that PPI administration during adolescence and early adulthood could decrease an individual’s peak bone density.”
  • magnesium: PPI have been hypothesized to affect magnesium absorption.  “A study of 366 Canadian patients hospitalized with hypomagnesemia…found PPIs [were] associated with a 43% increased risk of hospitalization.”  More studies are needed to determine the whether this risk is truly significant.
  • iron, vitamin B12, and vitamin C absorption may be affected by PPI use.

Cardiovascular/Renal/Microbiome:

  • Cardiac: In adults, PPI use has been associated with adverse cardiac events.  The pathophysiology could have been pediatric implications.  PPIs can increase asymmetrical dimethylarginine (ADMA) which is an endogenous inhibitor of nitric oxide synthase.
  • Renal: PPIs have been associated with cases of acute interstitial nephritis
  • Microbiome: “PPIs alter the microbiome.”  Decreased diversity of the microbiome has been associated with a large number of medical conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, necrotizing enterocolitis as well as many non-gastrointestinal conditions.  “The temporality of dysbiosis and subsequent disease development has  not been explored fully for most conditions.”

My take: PPIs can be life-saving and disease-altering medications.  At the same time, (per authors) “PPIs should not be prescribed without consideration for all short- and long-term side effects.”

Related blog posts:

Screen Shot 2016-01-07 at 6.33.04 PM

This Webinar Will Review Issues with Regard to Optimal PPI Usage and Includes My Esteemed Colleagues (Dr. Gold and Dr. Garza)

This NASPGHAN Webinar Will Review Issues with Regard to Optimal PPI Usage and Includes My Esteemed Partners (Dr. Gold and Dr. Garza)

Chronic Hepatitis B in North American Children

As part of the Hepatitis B Research Network (HBRN), 343 children were enrolled in 7 U.S. and Canadian centers.  A recent study (KB Schwarz et al. J Pediatr 2015; 167: 1287-94) provides data on HBV epidemiology and a related commentary by Brian McMahon (1186-7) provides some useful advice on what is needed to further reduce HBV infection.

88 children were not enrolled.  More than half of these patients refused to participate, the other reasons included language barriers or inability to comply with follow-up.

Key findings:

  • 78% of the subjects in this study were Asian
  • 55% were adopted.  This high adoption rate likely skews some of the data because (according to the associated editorial) “children with HBV in the US..most are likely to be children of parents who immigrated to the US from endemic countries and not adoptees.”
  • 97% had international origins with either the child or a parent born abroad
  • HBV genotype B was most common (43%) followed by genotype C (32%), D (16%), A (5%), E (4%) or multiple (<1%).

In the editorial, Dr. McMahon notes that ascertaining the rate of a birth dose of HBV vaccine would be of interest.  In many countries, vaccination is started at ≥2 months and this is unlikely to prevent HBV transmission.  Two important public health issues for North America:

  • “First, all pregnant women, especially those foreign-born, need to be screened for HBsAg and if positive, their infants should receive HBV vaccine and hepatitis B immune globulin immediately after birth.”
  • “Second, all foreign-born children and adults who immigrate to the US or Canada should be tested for HBsAg.”

My take: This study provides an up-to-date snapshot of tertiary care for children with HBV in North America.  There are many opportunities to curtail (or hopefully eliminate) the impact of HBV in our communities and around the world.

AASLD Guideline (Nov 2015): Treatment of Chronic HBV 

Related blog posts:

San Diego Zoo

San Diego Zoo

“Good Job Making the Diagnosis”

Briefly noted: JA Leon et al. Gastroenterol 2015; 149: 1697-99.  Case report of Job syndrome (Autosomal-Dominant Hyper-IgE syndrome) mimicking Crohn’s disease in a 37 yo with perianal fistula, and weight loss. Clues to the diagnosis: “Recurrent skin abscesses and respiratory infections, eczema, marked elevation of serum IgE, eosinophilia, and mucocutaneous candidiasis are the hallmark of the infectious and immunologic features…Boils and furuncles almost always occur and characteristically lack of the usual inflammatory findings…”cold” abscesses…associated with markedly increase IgE or eosinophil levels, should always raise a suspicion for AD-HIES.”

Related blog post: Add it to the list | gutsandgrowth

The Push to Improve Diagnosis

The Institute of Medicine’s (now called the National Academy of Medicine) “Improving Diagnosis in Health Care” (the link includes a link to a 1-hour briefing) is receiving a lot of attention. One recent commentary (H Singh, ML Graber. NEJM 2015; 373: 2493-95) elaborates on this issue. The IOM reports notes that “diagnostic errors affect at least 1 in 20 U.S. adults in outpatient settings each year, or 12 million adults per year.”

The report recommends “strengthening teamwork, reforming the teaching of diagnosis, ensuring that health information technology (IT) supports the diagnostic process, measuring and learning from errors in real-world practice, promoting a culture of diagnostic safety, reforming the malpractice and reimbursement systems, and increasing research funding.”

My take: This report highlights an enormous challenge for the healthcare system.  While IT support in theory sounds like it could help, right now IT isn’t helping much.  Many physicians are bogged down inputting data and trying to find enough time for critical thinking.  There is a lot of work ahead.

Burden of GI Diseases in U.S.

A useful article (AF Peery et al. Gastroenterol 2015; 149: 1731-41) provides data on the huge impact that GI & Liver diseases have.

Here are some key findings:

Leading GI symptoms (Ambulatory visits) in 2010 (Table 1):

  • Abdominal pain 27.1 million
  • Diarrhea 5.6 million
  • Vomiting 5.5 million
  • Nausea 4.7 million
  • Bleeding 3.6 million

Most Common Diagnosis from Hospital Admissions in 2012 (Table 5):

  • GI hemorrhage 507,440 admissions
  • Cholelithiasis with cholecystitis 389,180 admissions
  • Acute pancreatitis 275,170 admissions
  • Intestinal obstruction 256,775 admissions
  • Appendicitis 248,080 admissions
  • Chronic liver disease/viral hepatitis 243,170 admissions

Causes of Death in U.S. in 2012 (Table 7):

  • Colorectal cancer 51,139
  • Pancreatic cancer 38,797
  • Liver/bile duct cancer 22,973
  • Cirrhosis 17,495
  • Alcoholic liver disease 17,419
Gastroenterology Cover

Gastroenterology Cover

Should Methotrexate Be Used For Ulcerative Colitis?

A recent study (F Carbonnel et al. Gastroenterol http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.10.050, article in press; thanks to KT Park twitter feed for reference) with 111 patients provides more questions than answers.  It appears that methotrexate improved clinical remission but the overall difference is fairly small; the abstract is below.

My initial impression: Immunomodulators (including methotrexate and thiopurines) have some efficacy as monotherapy agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Their role as part of combination therapy (with anti-TNF agents) has been associated with improved outcomes but how long to use combination therapy and at what dosage is still being worked out.

Here’s the abstract and a link: Methotrexate is not Superior to Placebo in Inducing Steroid-free Remission, but Induces Steroid-free Clinical Remission in a Larger Proportion of Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

Background & Aims

Parenteral methotrexate is an effective treatment for patients with Crohn’s disease but has never been adequately evaluated in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine its safety and efficacy in patients with steroid-dependent UC.

Methods

We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral methotrexate (25 mg/week) in 111 patients with corticosteroid-dependent UC at 26 medical centers in Europe, from 2007 through 2013. Patients were given prednisone (10 to 40 mg/day) when the study began, and randomly assigned to groups (1:1) given placebo or methotrexate (intramuscularly or subcutaneously, 25 mg weekly) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was steroid-free remission (defined as a Mayo score ≤ 2 with no item > 1 and complete withdrawal of steroids) at week 16. Secondary endpoints included clinical remission (defined as a Mayo clinical subscore ≤ 2 with no item > 1) and endoscopic healing without steroids at weeks 16 and/or 24, remission without steroids at week 24, and remission at both weeks 16 and 24.

Results

Steroid-free remission at week 16 was achieved by 19/60 patients given methotrexate (31.7%) and 10/51 patients given placebo (19.6%)—a difference of 12.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], –4.0% to 28.1%; P=.15). The proportions of patients in steroid-free clinical remission at week 16 were 41.7% in the methotrexate group and 23.5% in the placebo group, for a difference of 18.1% (95% CI, 1.1%–35.2%; P=.04). The proportions of patients with steroid-free endoscopic healing at week 16 were 35% in the methotrexate group and 25.5% in the placebo group—a difference of 9.5% (95% CI, –7.5% to 26.5%; P=.28). No differences were observed in other secondary endpoints. More patients receiving placebo discontinued the study because of adverse events (47.1%), mostly caused by UC, than patients receiving methotrexate (26.7%; P=.03). A higher proportion of patients in the methotrexate group had nausea and vomiting (21.7%) than in the placebo group (3.9%; P=.006).

Conclusions

In a randomized controlled trial, parenteral methotrexate was not superior to placebo for induction of steroid-free remission in patients with UC. However, methotrexate induced clinical remission without steroids in a significantly larger percentage of patients, resulting in fewer withdrawals from therapy due to active UC.

Related blog posts:

Banning Mills

Banning Mills