Mom, Can We Get a Dog (& a Sibling)? I Don’t Want to Get Crohn’s Disease

Posted on by

M Xue et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Volume 22, Issue 9, 1889 – 1897.e12. Open Access! Environmental Factors Associated With Risk of Crohn’s Disease Development in the Crohn’s and Colitis Canada – Genetic, Environmental, Microbial Project

Methods: The authors prospectively followed 4289 healthy first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with CD from the Crohn’s and Colitis Canada – Genetic, Environmental, Microbial (CCC-GEM) project. Regression models identified environmental factors associated with future CD onset and their association with pre-disease biological factors, including altered intestinal permeability measured by urinary fractional excretion of lactulose to mannitol ratio (LMR); gut inflammation via fecal calprotectin (FCP) levels; and fecal microbiome composition through 16S rRNA sequencing.

Key findings:

  • Over a 5.62-year median follow-up, 86 FDRs developed CD
  • Living with a dog between ages 5 and 15 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .034) was associated with decreased CD risk
  • Living with a dog was associated with reduced LMR, altered relative abundance of multiple bacterial genera, and increased Chao1 diversity.
  • Living with a large family size in the first year of life (HR, 0.43; P = .016) was associated with decreased CD risk
  • Having a bird at the time of recruitment (HR, 2.78; P = .005) was associated with an increased CD risk (though there were relatively few FDRs with birds at baseline, n=136)
  • Limitations: questionnaire-based assessments of environmental exposure can be subject to recall bias

My take (borrowed from authors): “Our findings contribute to the growing evidence supporting the potential health benefits of exposure to pets, particularly dogs, as a potential preventive strategy for individuals at risk of developing CD.” Having a dog during childhood may reduce the later risk of CD by ~40%.

Related blog posts:

Blog Case Report: A Persistent Elevated AST in Teen with IBD and ADHD

Posted on by

A recent case reminded me of the quote by Helena Ravenclaw in Harry Potter: “”If you have to ask, you’ll never know. If you know, you need only ask.”

One of my colleagues recently diagnosed a teenage boy with ulcerative colitis. His past medical history was notable for ADHD. At the time of his evaluation, he was noted to have an elevated AST.

Labs:

  • June: AST 143, ALT 8, Hepatitis B immune
  • August: AST 190, ALT 10, Albumin 4.7, T protein 7.3, T bili 0.4, D bili 0.1, Alk phos 168; GGT 10, CPK 93

The concern at the time was whether his elevated AST should preclude using his ADHD medicine and whether there was an underlying liver disease. Based on the pattern of liver enzyme abnormalities, it was suspected that the patient had macro AST. A blood test was sent to the Mayo clinic and confirmed this diagnosis:

“”The sample was investigated for the presence of macro AST by polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation. Serum AST activity = 316 U/L. The AST result post-PEG precipitation = 22 U/L. The results obtained are positive for the presence of macro AST (93% of activity precipitated with PEG). Based on validation studies performed at the Mayo Clinic, a cut-off of >80% AST activity precipitated by PEG indicates the presence of macro AST.” This test is rarely ordered at the Mayo Clinic and is ordered as a miscellaneous test; it is not on the Mayo Clinic’s regular test menu.

Internet description of macro AST: Macro-aspartate aminotransferase (macro AST) is a rare, benign condition that causes a persistent elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels in the blood. It’s caused by the binding of AST to immunoglobulins, which results in a high molecular weight macroenzyme that’s excreted from the serum more slowly than normal.

My take: Macro AST diagnosis is useful –it helps eliminate the concern for other conditions. Since it is quite uncommon, it is easier to think of this problem once you have seen it before.

Related blog posts:

Grand Point View Overlook at Canyonlands National Park

Dr. Praveen Goday: Tips on Managing Feeding Problems (Part 2)

Posted on by

Dr. Goday gave our group a great lecture on pediatric feeding disorders. I’ve included many of his slides along with some of my notes. There may be errors in omission and transcription on my part.

Feeding tubes:

  • If taking >75% of feeds orally, only 13% still needing tube feeds 6 months later.  If taking <25%, 81% still needing tube feeds 6 months later (needs a GT)
  • Bridle: Dr. Goday recommends using up to 8 weeks.  If needing longer, GT placement is recommended
  • If needing an NG tube more than 3 months (possibly 6 months), GT placement is recommended
  • Pre-op studies are not predictive of who will need GJ feedings vs GT feedings

Medications:

  • Cyproheptadine -Dr. Goday prefers single night time dose, usually cycles medicine (2 weeks on, 1 week off), uses as early as 8 months of age.  Watch for adverse effects on behavior.
  • Mirtazapine -often used in older children and adolescents though effects on appetite wane with usage.  Dosed as an oral disintegrating tablet.  Typically, 7.5 mg in older children and 15 mg in adolescents.
  • Vitamins -Gummy vitamins are NOT complete vitamins, Nano VM -minimal taste powder (costly)

Choking phobia

  • Can occur with pharyngitis
  • Usually needs EGD and sometimes anxiolytic

Formulas:

  • No clear nutritional role for toddler step-up formulas
  • Dr. Goday often will use infant formula between 1-2 yrs of life rather than pediasure in those without growth concerns.  Pediasure may reduce acceptance of solid foods (due to its sweet taste)
  • Get help from your nutritionists in kids with limited diets

Autism:

  • Avoid adding medication/vitamins to the ‘one food/formula that child will take.’  He may stop taking that food/formula too

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  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.

Dr. Praveen Goday: Tips on Managing Feeding Problems (Part 1)

Posted on by

Dr. Goday gave our group a great lecture on pediatric feeding disorders. I’ve included many of his slides along with some of my notes. There may be errors in omission and transcription on my part.

Differences between picky eating, pediatric feeding disorder, and ARFID

  • 70% of picky eating is inherited.
  • If there are sequelae from picky eating, this indicates that the child has a pediatric feeding disorder.  There are 4 potential domains to pediatric feeding disorders: medical dysfunction, feeding skills dysfunction, nutritional dysfunction and psychosocial dysfunction (this is more subjective than other domains)
  • Pediatric feeding disorder (PFD) is a better term than “behavior” feeding disorder because many children have underlying contributing disorders like eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) or aspiration/swallow dysfunction
  • ARFID is a diagnosis used by psychologists. It is when purely psychosocial concerns leads to nutrition dysfunction. The diagnosis is likely best used in older children who are mostly neurotypical and have normal development.  In younger children, it is important to assess for underlying disorders like oromotor discoordination and EoE

Strategies to prevent picky eating:

  • Breastfeeding (varied tastes in breastmilk)
  • Responsive feeding (feeding when hungry)
  • Solids [lumpy] (especially 6-9 months)
  • Multiple-varied exposures
  • Prevention/treatment: Praise at meal times, non-food rewards, Ellyn Satter’s advice (parents decide when, where, and what is offered & child decides how much

Increased risk of developing picky eating: FPIES, multiple allergies

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  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.

Where Will We Be Without Formulas for Premature Babies?

Posted on by

S.A Abrams, R.J. Shulman. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.08.028. Open Access! What would happen in the United States if there were no cow milk-based preterm infant nutritional products: Historical perspective and evaluation of nutrient-related challenges

Background: “Recent legal action (1) has raised the possibility that preterm cow milk-based infant nutritional products (PCMBPs) may either not be produced and available in the United States or may require parental consent and warnings making them extremely difficult for caregivers to use and families to accept (2).”

Key points:

  • “Evidence that unfortified human milk is inadequate to meet the nutrient needs of small preterm infants has been present for over 100 years (6). Until the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, there were limited widely available solutions to either fortify or replace human milk for preterm infants and these were often based on providing feedings of concentrated evaporated cow milk; now recognized as woefully inadequate and unsafe (7 ). At that time, specialized formulas that were high in energy, protein, and micronutrients were widely introduced into the market. Early studies confirmed faster growth of infants fed such products compared to unfortified human milk or full-term formula (8) and their use became widespread by by the mid-1980s.”
  • “The availability of PCMBPs as well as a human milk-based human milk fortifier has led to relatively less frequent and severe nutritional failure in very low birth weight, less than 1500 g (VLBW) infants than in earlier eras. Nonetheless growth failure remains a current problem, especially in the smallest of infants, that is, those less than 1000 g birth weight and less than 25 weeks post-menstrual age at birth (12).”
  • “Inadequate growth and mineralization can be expected to lead to long-term developmental disability, bone demineralization, and frank rickets”
  • “Even with such improvements in policy to support breastfeeding and human milk donations, it is unlikely that an all human milk-based diet could be available for many years if ever for most of the preterm infants born in the US each year, either in the NICU or after hospital discharge.”
  • “Supplements for infants who are over a year of age.. are not suitable for preterm infants, especially those in the first 6 to 9 months after birth. They have relatively high osmolality and nutrient levels, would pose substantial risks of intolerance, and would not meet the specific nutrient requirements of this population.”
  • “The process of individualizing or creating multi-component fortification strategies would be daunting and carries risks of contamination, preparation errors, and tolerance issues. Without proper fortification, preterm infants are at a high risk of growth failure and its associated negative impacts on development and even survival.”

My take: Experts in the field of neonatal nutrition are worried that recent litigation will negate decades of nutritional advances in neonatal care. This is a very real threat. In addition to more complications, the litigation will result in much greater expenses for all infants/families.

Related blog post: Proliferation of Formula Lawsuits In Necrotizing Enterocolitis

Canyonlands National Park, Utah

GLP-1 Obesity Medication for 6-11 Year Olds

Posted on by
  • CK Fox et al. NEJM 2024; https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2407379. Liraglutide for Children 6 to <12 Years of Age with Obesity — A Randomized Trial
  • T Barrett et al. NEJM 2024 (editorial);/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2410560. Childhood Obesity and GLP-1 Receptor Agonists — A Coming of Age?

Background: The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues liraglutide and semaglutide are approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for long-term weight management in adolescents 12 years of age or older with obesity, as adjunct treatments to lifestyle interventions.14-19 These medications act centrally to increase satiety signaling, reduce appetite and energy intake, and decrease food reward; these medications also increase postprandial insulin levels, reduce glucagon secretion, and delay gastric emptying.

Methods: this phase 3a (SCALE kids) trial, which consisted of a 56-week treatment period and a 26-week follow-up period, we randomly assigned children (n=82) (6 to <12 years of age) with obesity, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive either once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide at a dose of 3.0 mg (or the maximum tolerated dose) or placebo, plus lifestyle interventions.

Key findings:

  • At week 56, the mean percentage change from baseline in BMI was −5.8% with liraglutide and 1.6% with placebo
  • A reduction in BMI of at least 5% occurred in 46% of participants in the liraglutide group and in 9% of participants in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio, 6.3)
  • The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders, which were reported in 45 of 56 participants (80%) in the liraglutide group and in 14 of 26 participants (54%) in the placebo group. Three cases of vomiting in the liraglutide group were considered by investigators to be serious (each required emergency care); however, none of the events required hospitalization and all resolved without sequelae.
  • In the treated group, improvements were also observed in diastolic blood pressure and the glycated hemoglobin level
  • The editorial: “Fox et al. provide much-needed evidence for the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in young children with obesity, offering a therapeutic option in prepubertal children with severe obesity as an adjunct to healthy lifestyle interventions.”

My take: It is good that there are now effective therapeutic pharmaceutical options for obesity, especially for those developing complications. Long term studies are needed as the effects of these medications on weight are not sustained in those who stop them. Given the need for indefinite therapy, other public health measures are needed to try to reverse the high prevalence of obesity.

Related blog posts:

Vancomycin for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholantgitis

Posted on by

E Ricciuto et al. Aliment pharmacol ther 2024; 59: 1236-1247. Oral vancomycin is associated with improved inflammatory bowel disease clinical outcomes in primary sclerosing cholangitis-associated inflammatory bowel disease (PSC-IBD): A matched analysis from the Paediatric PSC Consortium

This was a retrospective study from 54 centers with 113 PSC-IBD pediatric patients receiving vancomycin (median age 12.7 years, 63% male). The matched cohort included 70 vancomycin-treated and 210 untreated patients. Clinical remission was defined as physician global assessment (PGA) of zero. It is noted that the Pediatric PSC consortium included 1362 patients at the time of this study; only 11% (n=113) were treated with vancomycin for at least 3 months. The median dose of vancomycin was 17 mg/kg/day and median duration was 2.5 years.

Key findings:

  • Vancomycin was associated with greater odds of IBD clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] 3.52, 95% CI 1.97-6.31; adjusted OR [aOR] 5.24, 95% CI 2.68-10.22).
  • Vancomycin was associated with increased odds of endoscopic remission (aOR 2.76, 95% CI 1.002-7.62; N = 101 with data), and with lower CRP (p = 0.03) and higher hemoglobin and albumin (both p < 0.01).
  • At baseline, prior to vancomycin, 34% (30/88) were in clinical remission; this increased to 60% (52/86) after 6 months of treatment. After ~ 1 year, 71% (55/78) of children treated with vancomycin were in remission, compared with 35% who had not receive the antibiotics.
  • Ursodeoxycholic acid use: 53% for vancomycin-treated and 82% of control group (P<0.001). Other cotherapies were similar including infliximab (36% vs. 27%) and vedolizumab (13% vs 7%)
  • Only 28 vancomycin-treated patients had baseline and f/u colonoscopy data available. 46% of this subgroup had endoscopic remission compared to 26% of matched untreated controls.

In the discussion, the authors acknowledge the limitations of a retrospective observational study. RCTs are quite difficult with rare disorders, especially in children. In addition, the exact mechanisms for vancomycin efficacy remain unclear -possibly microbial changes or its effects on bile acids. They note that many patients treated with vancomycin had mild clinical activity at baseline. Though, even this population may benefit with resolution of clinical inflammation which could reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.

My take: In patients with PSC-IBD, the use of vancomycin for IBD should be a consideration especially in those who have not responded adequately to other treatments.

Related blog posts:

NEJM: Pharmacologic Treatment of Reflux in Infants?

Posted on by

JR Barzilay et al. N Engl J Med 2024;391:960-962. Medication for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Infants.

A recent case vignette of a 3 month old with reflux symptoms without response to dietary changes and positioning offers two potential management options. “Option 1” author advocates for use of a PPI (which I do NOT agree with):

“If conservative measures have been performed appropriately and a pediatric gastroenterology referral has been made, I would consider a short trial of medication, in accordance with guidelines from the North American and European Societies for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.2… in my experience, many pediatric gastroenterologists would conclude, on the basis of clinical symptoms, that the infant may have reflux esophagitis and would prescribe a trial of medication before considering invasive diagnostic procedures…There is no convincing evidence to support a difference between PPIs and histamine2-receptor antagonists in controlling symptoms of reflux.3 I recommend a 4-week trial of omeprazole with continuation of the nonpharmacologic treatments. If the medication is not effective, I would consider increasing the dose before terminating the trial. A PPI should not be discontinued abruptly if it has been used for several weeks, since rebound gastric hyperactivity may occur.”

“Option 2” author argues against use of medications:

“Gastric-acid inhibitors such as PPIs are often used in infants such as this one, even though there are no published studies supporting treatment.2 Several studies have indicated that PPIs and histamine2-receptor antagonists are ineffective for treating symptoms associated with infant reflux in the absence of endoscopically proven esophagitis.2….PPIs have been associated with bacterial overgrowth, respiratory infections, viral gastrointestinal illness, drug interactions, and adverse long-term bone health. The current recommendation from the North American and European Societies for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition is to use PPIs (or histamine2-receptor antagonists if PPIs are contraindicated or unavailable) only in infants who have endoscopy-proven esophagitis.4“

My take:

  1. It is a mistake to publish this vignette reinforcing the idea that using a PPI in this setting is a good medical decision. Though use of a PPI is common in infants, it is rarely beneficial
  2. The vignette missed an opportunity to emphasize that some infants with reflux symptoms have oropharyngeal dysfunction, especially in those with brief resolved unexplained events (BRUEs)
  3. “Option 1” lists several fallacies —a. most pediatric GIs would NOT conclude that this infant would have reflux esophagitis –most reflux is non-erosive (especially in infants), b. even if PPIs were effective, there is not a strong argument for a 4 week trial in this age group. If PPIs were effective, response to treatment should be much quicker, and c. in this age group, a slow wean off PPIs is unnecessary. There is no proof that there is rebound gastric hyperactivity in infants.

Related blog posts:

Descanso Gardens in Los Angeles

OpenBiome Suspending FMT Shipments

Posted on by

Link: OpenBiome Voluntarily Suspends FMT Shipments

An excerpt:

On September 29, 2024, OpenBiome will voluntarily suspend the distribution of investigational Fecal Microbiota Transplants (FMT) for patients with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (C. diff)...

Recent interaction with the FDA has informed our decision to voluntarily suspend the distribution of all investigational FMT as we continue to seek clear direction on aligning our operations with the final Enforcement Policy published in 2022. Our commitment has always been to adhere to FDA regulations and guidelines for the manufacture and distribution of investigational FMT as a therapeutic option for patients with C. diff. Thus, this is not a safety or quality matter. Investigational FMT preparations provided by OpenBiome are manufactured and distributed in compliance with current good manufacturing practices (cGMP).    

We continue to hear from clinicians, our frontline partners, that despite the availability of FDA-approved therapeutics, there remain patients who do not respond to these treatments and, according to clinical guidelines, should have access to traditional FMT. ..

  1. Contact us. If you have a patient suffering from severe or fulminant C. diff, please contact us at 617-575-2201 or info@openbiome.org to discuss options.
  2. Share your thoughts. We believe the FDA would benefit greatly from hearing directly from survivors and their advocates about the urgent need for continued access to rigorously screened and tested FMT. If you or your C. diff patients are willing, please submit comments to ocod@fda.hhs.gov with a copy to Dr. David Kaslow, director Office of Vaccines Research and Review, at david.kaslow@fda.hhs.gov, and Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Research and Evaluation at peter.marks@fda.hhs.gov. Or you may share your experiences with us directly using this FORM.  

My take: As FDA-approved therapeutics have not received a pediatric indication, NASPGHAN involvement to try to keep FMT available for children would be a worthwhile endeavor. In the absence of having FMT available from OpenBiome, NASPGHAN experts could provide guidance on best practices for refractory C diff.

Related blog posts:

From a Nursery in Santa Barbara

How Quickly Does Upadacitinib Work for Crohn’s Disease Symptoms?

Posted on by

JF Colombel. et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 22: 1668-1677. Open Access! Upadacitinib Reduces Crohn’s Disease Symptoms Within the First Week of Induction Therapy

This study was a post hoc analysis included pooled data from 2 phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, 12-week induction trials (U-EXCEL and U-EXCEED) and 1 maintenance trial (U-ENDURE). The study included 1021 patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) (n = 674 UPA45; n = 347 PBO).

Key findings:

  • Upadacitinib 45 mg taken once daily resulted in rapid relief from CD symptoms within 5 to 6 days of treatment initiation and improved clinical outcomes starting at week 2.
  • The present analysis demonstrates symptomatic relief as early as day 5 to 6 for patients receiving UPA, with 16.7% of patients experiencing daily SF/APS clinical remission by day 5. 
  • The first achievement of daily stool frequency/abdominal pain score (SF/APS) clinical remission occurred earlier with UPA45 (median, 13 d) vs PBO (median, 32 d)
  • Patients treated with UPA45 showed improved rates of SF/APS clinical remission (21.1% UPA45 vs 8.9% PBO) and clinical response (58.8% UPA45 vs 37.9% PBO) starting at week 2 (both P ≤ .01).

In their discussion, the authors note that time to response to treatment with upadacitinib compares favorably to other advanced therapies:

“Vedolizumab resulted in symptomatic improvement within 2 to 4 weeks of treatment initiation16; ustekinumab led to clinical response and remission at week 3 or 6, depending on the dose.17 Similarly, of the time points analyzed, clinical response and/or clinical remission was observed as early as week 2 for risankizumab, 5 infliximab,18 and certolizumab pegol,19 and as early as week 1 for adalimumab.20,21“

My take: The rapid response seen in many patients indicate that upadacitinib can be a steroid-sparing therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease.

Unrelated article: E Louis et al. JAMA 2024; doi:10.1001/jama.2024.12414. Risankizumab for Ulcerative Colitis: Two Randomized Clinical Trials

Key findings:  Among the 975 patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, analyzed in the induction trial, 1200 mg of risankizumab significantly increased the rates of clinical remission at 12-week follow-up compared with placebo (20.3% vs 6.2%, respectively). Among 548 patients included in the primary efficacy analysis for the maintenance trial, 180 mg of risankizumab and 360 mg of risankizumab significantly increased the rates of clinical remission (40.2% and 37.6%, respectively) compared with placebo (25.1%).

Related blog posts: