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:

 

 

Change the Name: “Functional” is Lousy

Posted on by

A recent commentary explains why “functional” pain is such a lousy term (JAMA Pediatr. Published online June 02, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.530 –thanks to Ben Gold for this reference).  In pediatric GI practice, functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) constitute a large part of clinical work.

The author, Neil Schechter from the Chronic Pain Program in Boston, makes several important observations:

  • “There is general dissatisfaction with the terminology.”  This stems from the fact that “in common parlance today, functional disorders are typically assumed to be a product of psychological distress.” Yet, parents/patients are “not ready to accept a strictly psychological explanation.”
  • The idea that functional pain is solely a psychological disturbance is inaccurate.  Though, anxiety and depression are common associated problems which often contribute to symptoms.  He states that “hyperexcitability” of the nervous system is “the core biological link and final common pathway for the creation of functional pain disorders.”
  • This category should be labeled dysfunctional pain.  “In effect, calling pain ‘functional’ is like calling disease, ‘ease.'”
  • These disorders frequently respond to centrally acting therapies including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acupuncture.
  • “The search for an appropriate term for these pain problems is far more than semantic…[a patient’s] understanding of their illness is clearly linked to their compliance with medical advice…it may stem their desire for additional costly investigation.”
  • Dr. Schechter proposes the term “primary pain disorder.”  “Unlike Shakespeare’s rose, functional pain would benefit from a new name.”

Take-home message: I wish I had written this commentary.  Explaining “functional” pain and “irritable bowel syndrome” are Sisyphean tasks.  Better nomenclature could ease the burden.  Join me in abandoning the use of the word “functional.”

In the same issue, an editorial on the “Role of Celiac Disease Screening for Children with Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders” (JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(6):514-515. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.5418) comments on a study (JAMA Pediatr. 2014; 168(6):555-60) in the same issue which reports a 4-fold higher prevalence of celiac disease among children who meet clinical criteria for irritable bowel syndrome.  The study reports the results from a cohort of 992 children identified with recurrent abdominal pain in a primary care setting.  In the editorial, the authors note:  “When grouped together, the prevalence rate of celiac disease among all children with FGIDs (IBS included) approaches 2%.  Celiac disease screening in this population would result in a positive tTG-IgA test result in 4%…However, 53% of all positive test results would be falsely elevated.”  As such the editorial advocates in favor of screening for celiac disease in children with IBS but not all FGIDs.

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.

 

 

Does Chemotherapy Cause Hepatitis C Viral Relapse?

Posted on by

A recent study (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1051-54) examined whether a sustained virological response (SVR) to hepatitis C (HCV)can be undermined by chemotherapy.

In this study with 30 patients who had an SVR before cancer diagnosis, chemotherapy, started at a median of 72 months after SVR, did not induce a viral relapse in any patient.

 

Measles, Seizures and Sometimes Death due to Vaccine Delays and Avoidance

Posted on by

Three recent news items provide more up-to-date reasons for childhood vaccines.

1. Delaying vaccines may increase seizures –here’s the link and an excerpt (from NY Times):

“Some parents postpone their children’s vaccinations because they believe the delay decreases the risk. But a new study finds the opposite may be true.

The analysis, published online in Pediatrics, involved 5,496 children born from 2004 to 2008 who had seizures in the first two years of life.

For children who received any of their shots as recommended before age 1, there was no difference in the incidence of seizure in the 10 days after vaccination compared with the period before vaccination. But compared with giving it in the first year, giving the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine at 16 months doubled the incidence of seizure, and giving the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine at that age increased it almost six times.”

 

2. Rate of measles infections at 20 year high –here’s the link and an excerpt: (from USA Today)

“The USA has the most measles cases in 20 years…The confirmed case count for 2014, as of May 23, was 288 and growing, the CDC says. That number includes 138 cases from Ohio, where the biggest outbreak is ongoing – and where the actual count is 166 as of Thursday, according to the state Health Department.

The nationwide total is the highest for late May since 1994, when 764 cases were reported, the CDC says. It surpasses the 220 cases reported in all of 2011, which was the most in the post-2000 era.

“This is not the kind of record we want to break, but should be a wake-up call for travelers and for parents to make sure vaccination records are up to date,” said Anne Schuchat, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases. Schuchat…Before the measles vaccine became available in 1963, the virus infected about 500,000 Americans a year, causing 500 deaths and 48,000 hospitalizations.

Cases this year have been reported in 18 states and New York City. Ninety percent have been among people who have not been vaccinated or have unknown vaccination status, according to the CDC. Most of the patients report religious, philosophical or personal reasons for avoiding vaccines.”

 

3. When parents withhold vaccines, vulnerable children get sick and sometimes die  –here’s the link (reference noted from Eric Benchimol’s twitter feed) and an excerpt:

“Jason Lawson recalled a terrifying 10 days in B.C. Children’s Hospital when his son Beckett was six, after Beckett became severely ill from chicken pox.

At the time, Beckett was still receiving a maintenance dose of chemotherapy to kill potential cancer cells. That treatment also suppressed Beckett’s immune system.

When an unvaccinated child at the school passed on chicken pox, the consequences were dire — at one point the virus got into Beckett’s liver and started to do damage, which in some cases can be irreversible….

Lawson said he’s speaking out to remind families that protecting their friends and neighbours is another good reason to make the effort.“

Take home message:  With every medical intervention, there are risks and benefits.  Those who forego vaccines increase the risk for themselves, their families and friends.

Related blog posts:

 

 

“If all you have is a hammer…”

Posted on by

In my training, one of my mentors would be critical of the mentality “scope first, think second.”  He was concerned that too many gastroenterologists/pediatric gastroenterologists used endoscopy as a tool simply “because if all you have is a hammer, the world looks like a nail.”

A recent publication (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 963-69) on first glance, however, provides ammunition to the “scope first” gastroenterologists and undermines the concept that “functional” GI disorders vastly outnumber “organic” GI disorders.  The key finding was that esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) provided an “accurate” diagnosis in 38%.  This included reflux esophagitis in 21%, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in 5%, eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) in 4%, H pylori in 2%, celiac disease 0.6%, and Crohn’s disease 0.4%. This finding is dramatically higher than previous studies.  In fact, in a recent published study (Understanding Idiopathic Nausea | gutsandgrowth) on idiopathic nausea, a control group of patients with chronic abdominal pain had a normal endoscopy in 100%!

In this prospective study of 290 children (ages 4-18 years with a mean age of 11.9 years), the primary indication for upper endoscopy was chronic abdominal pain.  Of this 290, 216 had at least 1 alarm feature and 125 had at least 2 alarm features.  Alarm features were considered to be the following:

  • Nighttime awakening 33.3%
  • Weight loss 15.6%
  • Family history of IBD 8.4%
  • Vomiting 7.8%
  • Dysphagia 6.9%
  • Nocturnal diarrhea 6.7%
  • Gastrointestinal bleed 5.8%
  • Chronic diarrhea 5.8%
  • Unexplained fever 4.4%
  • Arthralgia 4.0%
  • Growth failure 2.4%
  • Perirectal disease 0.7%
  • Delayed puberty 0.2%

There is little debate that abdominal pain in combination with true alarm symptoms (True red flags in recurrent abdominal pain | gutsandgrowth) merits further evaluation.  The aspect of this report that is worthy of close inspection is the diagnostic yield in the 74 patients without alarm symptoms.  The authors note that 25 (33.7%) had a diagnosis established with EGD including 16 with reflux esophagitis, 4 with EGE, 2 with EoE, 1 with erosive esophagitis, 1 with celiac and 1 with H pylori.  The diagnostic criteria for EGE included ≥10 eosinophils per hpf in the stomach and ≥20 eosinophils per hpf in the duodenum.

The authors note that the diagnostic yield was based on gross endoscopic findings in procedure notes or histologic changes in biopsy reports; “final pathology report on biopsies provided the data source for histologic diagnosis.”

In my opinion there are multiple flaws of this prospective study.

1. There is a very high rate of reflux esophagitis in both the alarm group and the non-alarm group patients with chronic abdominal pain.  Of the entire cohort (n=290), the authors identified reflux esophagitis in 21% and this was “primarily histologic esophagitis.”  Furthermore, the authors state that “the presence or response to PPI therapy was not predictive of esophagitis or GERD.”  So, the obvious problems:

  • Presence of histologic reflux esophagitis varies widely based on the interpreting pathologist.  In a prospective study, more than one pathologist interpreting the histology would be useful.
  • Presence of histologic reflux esophagitis does not exclude the likelihood of coexisting functional disorders (related blog post: Why didn’t patient with documented reflux get better with PPI …).  As a practical matter, “slight” or “focal” esophagitis on histology has questionable real-world relevance in pediatric gastroenterology.
  • The authors acknowledge, “current expert consensus indicates that histology has limited value in evaluating pediatric GERD.”  Yet this diagnostic finding is one of the reasons why the authors claim that EGD is so valuable.

2. In the entire cohort, the authors try to validate their findings by indicating that identification of a diagnosis led to medical therapy that was “effective in approximately 67%” of children with short-term followup. (Only 81% had short-term followup outcomes available).  Yet, there is no control group.  How many children with chronic abdominal pain will improve for a short period without an EGD-based diagnosis?  The answer: a lot of them.

3. Limitations include selection bias toward those with more severe symptoms or alarm symptoms.  In addition, this study included only a small number who were considered to have no alarm symptoms.  Finally, the short-term followup makes conclusions about the response to therapy questionable.

This study will be a useful reference for any pediatric gastroenterologist who wants to justify the need for an endoscopy.  The authors note “the majority of children in our study (93%) met criteria for functional gastrointestinal disorders, and a significant proportion (38%) still had significant histologic findings.  Therefore, we conclude the Rome III criteria alone are not sufficient to identify children who require upper endoscopy, and screening for alarm symptoms has limited utility.”

In my opinion, the reliance on histology as well as selection bias weaken the findings of this study.  If a patient with a histologic diagnosis of reflux (or several other entities) and a presentation of chronic abdominal pain does not improve, the pediatric gastroenterologist should remember that only “a poor carpenter blames his tools.”

Bottomline: EGD remains an important tool in evaluating abdominal pain.  However, I think this study substantially overestimates its utility.

Related blog posts:

 

 

 

 

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:

An Inside Look at the VA: “Hidden Lists” and “Watershed Moment”

Posted on by

Here’s a different view of the VA, from a practicing physician, and an excerpt:

“Nowhere else than at the VA have I felt as much that I was a part of something greater than myself. We “care for him who shall have borne the battle” in a system that, for all its woes, remains a singular presence in the confused patchwork of medical care that is American medicine. Enter the VA medical system and you know that your critical medical data are available to every provider at every VA hospital in the country in ways unimaginable in the private sector; you know that care delivered in the VA system often meets or exceeds the quality standards of the private sector.1You know, moreover, that you and the person sitting next to you in the waiting room will get the same level of care, because there is no mysterious and fickle insurer to reckon with at the end of the appointment.

I don’t know what happened in Phoenix or elsewhere, what those hidden lists hold, what grief lies there. I wish those reporting on this scandal would do more to separate issues of access to care from problems with the quality of care. I do know that, all around the country, physicians who trained at the VA or who have chosen to live out their medical career with the VA have their own hidden lists, their indelible memories of men and women who entrusted their care to us. Let us continue to work for them.”

A second article “Watershed Moment,” summarizes the current problems and what needs to be done.  Here’s an excerpt:

“Yet access to care, particularly to outpatient appointments, has been an enduring problem for the VA, as documented in multiple reports from the OIG and the Government Accountability Office (GAO)… A key reason was inconsistency in the recording and tracking of wait times according to the “desired date,” defined as the date by which a patient wants to be seen or a health care provider wants him or her to be seen.1 A preliminary VA audit showed that 13% of scheduling staff — at 64% of the 258 surveyed facilities — had been instructed to enter a different desired date than that requested by the veteran, though it remains unclear what proportion of these changes represents willful falsification.2

There is anecdotal evidence that scheduling issues led to adverse health outcomes for veterans in Phoenix and elsewhere; more systematic assessments are under way. However, there is precedent for concern, since a September 2013 OIG report concluded that delayed gastroenterology consultations for colon-cancer screening had led to delayed diagnoses for more than 50 veterans, some of whom ended up dying of colon cancer.3

Beyond access to care, health system performance should be evaluated on the basis of health outcomes, the quality and safety of the care delivered, patient satisfaction, and costs. In many of these domains, the VA has kept pace with or surpassed private-sector health systems

 

The VA is a historic institution with a long tradition of providing care to former military service members. In recent years, the agency has made progress in addressing a backlog of disability claims and in sharply reducing veterans’ homelessness. In the 1990s, VA health care, facing a similar crisis of confidence and bipartisan calls for privatization, was transformed into a more technologically advanced, decentralized, and quality-oriented system. Now it needs to protect the best elements of its infrastructure, built around longitudinal, holistic care of each veteran, while embarking on another round of reforms.“