MEDICAL BULLETIN BOARD

Medical Bulletin Board

Read Article

Mauna Kea Technologies Announces Publication of a Meta-analysis Demonstrating Cellvizio’s Significant Role in Detection of Esophageal Dysplasia and Cancer

Results demonstrate a significant increase in the detection rate of neoplasia when Cellvizio is used as an adjunct to the standard of care, underscoring the key role of advanced imaging in slowing the rapid growth of esophageal cancer Meta-analysis builds on recent data demonstrating that the use of Cellvizio is also associated with lower health services utilization and fewer overall endoscopy procedures

Paris and Boston, July 6, 2022 – 6:00 pm CEST – Mauna Kea Technologies (Euronext: MKEA, ‘Mauna Kea’) inventor of Cellvizio®, the multidisciplinary probe and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (p/nCLE) platform today announced the peer-reviewed publication of a new meta-analysis in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) entitled “High definition probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy review and meta-analysis for neoplasia detection in Barrett’s esophagus”1. The study demonstrates that the addition of Cellvizio as an adjunct to guide biopsies provides a significantly higher diagnostic yield for dysplasia and cancer and reduces sampling error compared to random four-quadrant biopsies alone, the standard of care.

Existing endoscopic screening and surveillance methods are insufficient in detecting Barrett’s Esophagus or esophageal cancer, as using the Seattle Protocol standard of care alone is prone to sampling error and poor sensitivity and specificity. At Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) in May 2022, Dr. Bashar Qumseya presented data2 based on roughly 5 million people and showing that, among those ages 45 to 64, esophageal cancer (EAC) rate nearly doubled from 2012 to 2019. Moreover, the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus – the only known precursor to EAC – rose by about 50% in this age group in the same period. In the TIGE meta-analysis, the authors included 9 studies for a total of 688 patients and 1,299 lesions and assessed the benefits of probe-based CLE (pCLE) as an adjunct to random 4-quadrant biopsies in the surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus for dysplasia and early EAC detection. Perpatient pCLE pooled sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value were 96%, 93%, and 98%, respectively. Compared to random biopsies, the per-patient pooled absolute and relative detection rate increases of neoplasia with pCLE were significant and equal to 5% and 243%, respectively.

Separately, at the ENDO 2022 World Congress of GI Endoscopy in May 2022, the results of a retrospective multi-center chart review3 of 60 patients with Barrett’s esophagus who were referred for endoscopic surveillance or treatment were presented. The authors were examining differences in gastroenterology health services utilization for eight items/ services among patients treated using Cellvizio as an adjunct versus standard of care alone. The Cellvizio cohort had 1.04 fewer endoscopies and anesthesia services, 7.49 less biopsy bottles, 1.30 fewer ablations, and 1.46 less brush cytology services. Therefore, the researchers concluded that Cellvizio is associated with an overall lower burden to the healthcare system.

“The results from these studies demonstrate that there are better tools that are easily accessible to physicians who are working to improve the detection rate of screening and surveillance programs, and ultimately reverse the alarming rise in prevalence of esophageal cancer,” said Nicolas Bouvier, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Mauna Kea Technologies. “Better detection rates and a lower utilization of healthcare services make Cellvizio a valuable adjunct to the standard of care in hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers alike.”

About Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal Cancer

Barrett’s Esophagus, often abbreviated as BE, is a condition that results from chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), where the lining of the esophagus at the junction of the stomach undergoes significant physiological changes that can often be detected only with thorough screening and surveillance. Chronic GERD affects approximately 5-10% of the population globally, and if left unmanaged can progress to BE without proper surveillance. BE is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), one of the fastest growing causes of cancer deaths with very poor 5-year survival rates.

About Mauna Kea Technologies

Mauna Kea Technologies is a global medical device company that manufactures and sells Cellvizio®, the real-time in vivo cellular imaging platform. This technology uniquely delivers in vivo cellular visualization which enables physicians to monitor the progression of disease over time, assess point-in-time reactions as they happen in real time, classify indeterminate areas of concern, and guide surgical interventions. The Cellvizio platform is used globally across a wide range of medical specialties and is making a transformative change in the way physicians diagnose and treat patients.

For more information, visit: maunakeatech.com

ASPEN MALNUTRITION AWARENESS WEEK: HELPING GI CLINICIANS INTERVENE AND TREAT MALNUTRITION

On September 19-23, 2022, during Malnutrition Awareness WeekTM, gastroenterologists and other healthcare professionals can gain new insights and tools to detect and treat malnutrition in their patients. This annual educational campaign presented by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) will include five live CME webinars and a wide array of complimentary resources addressing malnutrition in adult and pediatric patients. Malnourished patients have longer hospital stays, twice the need for rehab or long-term care, and a 3.4 times higher rate of hospital deaths. In addition to its human toll, malnutrition raises hospital costs by 73% and can cost an additional $10,000 in hospital readmission stays.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates are among the growing number of organizations that support Malnutrition Awareness Week. The live webinars—which are free to ASPEN members and supporting organizations—start at 12 noon ET each day of that week. They will be offered on:

September 19: Malnutrition in the Older Adult: Identification and Intervention in the Community Setting
September 20: Diagnosing Malnutrition in the Adult Patient: Updates on Current Approaches
September 21: Addressing and Standardizing Malnutrition from a Regulatory Perspective
September 22: Applying Latest Findings from Notable Malnutrition Publications to Practice 
September 23: Challenges in Treating Malnutrition in Adult and Pediatric Patients with Hepatic and Renal Diseases

Each of the webinars provide 1-1.5 CME credits. Early registration is recommended as webinar capacity is limited.

In ASPEN’s Malnutrition Solution Center are complimentary access to nutrition screening and assessment tools, fact sheets, videos, podcasts, and more.

Visit nutritioncare.org/MAW to register for the webinars and to access the resources.

About ASPEN

The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition is dedicated to improving patient care by advancing the science and practice of nutrition support therapy and metabolism. It is an interdisciplinary organization whose members are involved in the provision of clinical nutrition therapies, including parenteral and enteral nutrition. With members from around the world, ASPEN is a community of dietitians, nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, physicians, scientists, students, and other health professionals from every facet of nutrition support clinical practice, research, and education.

For more information about ASPEN, please visit nutritioncare.org

TENURED AAAHC FACULTY AND EXPERT SURVEYORS TO LEAD VIRTUAL CONFERENCE FOR AMBULATORY PRACTICES

Robust Agenda Features Standards Guidance, Quality Improvement Award Winners

(Skokie, Ill.) July 11, 2022 — On August 1-3, 2022, the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC) will host its summer 2022 Achieving Accreditation virtual conference. The flagship event is designed to provide essential insights for currently accredited primary care facilities, office-based surgery centers, and ambulatory surgery centers, as well as organizations seeking to gain an understanding of AAAHC Standards and accreditation readiness.

The immersive, three-day Achieving Accreditation conference offers participants an in-depth review of practical applications to AAAHC Standards, including an introduction to the new v42 Standards and related terminology. Using a blend of live discussion groups and video sessions, Achieving Accreditation provides physicians, clinical managers, nurses, and administrators the opportunity to polish their existing skillsets while gaining up-todate guidance on Standards in preparation for initial accreditation or reaccreditation and to stay accreditation ready throughout the 1095 Strong journey.

“Participants attend our highly regarded Achieving Accreditation conference with questions and the desire to connect with peers,” said Noel Adachi, MBA, president and CEO of AAAHC. “AAAHC expert faculty and staff guide attendees through essential content in a collaborative format creating the foundation for the 1095 Strong, quality every day philosophy with relevant insights and a host of new peer contacts.”

Led by esteemed AAAHC faculty and surveyors, attendees will gain experience through tailored quality improvement (QI) workshops, group collaboration, and a variety of interactive peer panels and elective breakout sessions led by industry experts. August sessions will cover a wide range of relevant topics including promoting workplace mental health, advanced infection prevention, and Life Safety Code.

As an added value, virtual conference attendees will have 24/7 access to learning opportunities that will extend beyond the event, with select program content available in the days leading up to Achieving Accreditation. Plus, the entire conference recording will be available for one month after the event for participants interested in delving deeper on their own time. Achieving Accreditation participants can receive up to 15 AEUs, 2 IPCH (Infection Prevention Contact Hours), and up to 17.5 CEUs.

The August Achieving Accreditation conference will also feature a special presentation to unveil the winners of the coveted 2021-22 Bernard A. Kershner Innovations in Quality Improvement (QI) Award and People’s Choice Award.

“As a former co-winner of the Kershner QI Award, I can appreciate each and every finalist and their focus on improving patient safety through noteworthy quality improvement studies in their organizations,” said Julie

Lynch, MS, BSN, RN, director, Institute for Quality Improvement. “Everyone will want to participate in the unveiling of our 2021-22 Kershner QI Award winners.”

To round-out this year’s robust lineup of educational seminars and events, AAAHC will host a live, in-person Achieving Accreditation conference on December 2-3, 2022 at the Red Rock Las Vegas. “AAAHC looks forward to welcoming industry members back with twodays of engaging, onsite instruction,” added Adachi.

For additional details about the Achieving

Accreditation program, including online registration and a complete session agenda, please visit: aaahc.org/Achieving

About AAAHC

Founded in 1979, AAAHC is the leader in ambulatory health care accreditation, with more than 6,600 organizations accredited. We accredit a wide range of outpatient settings, including ambulatory surgery centers, office-based surgery facilities, endoscopy centers, student health centers, medical and dental group practices, community health centers, employer-based health clinics, retail clinics, and Indian/Tribal health centers, among others. AAAHC advocates for the provision of high-quality health care through the development and adoption of nationally recognized standards. We provide a valuable survey experience founded on a peer-based, educational approach to onsite review. The AAAHC Certificate of Accreditation, along with specialized programs including Advanced Orthopaedic Certification and Patient-Centered Medical Home Certification, demonstrates an organization’s commitment to providing safe, high-quality services to its patients—every day of the 1,095-day accreditation cycle. AAAHC Accreditation and Certification Programs are recognized by third-party payors, medical professional associations, liability insurance companies, state and federal agencies, and the public.

For more information on AAAHC, please visit: aaahc.org

Download Tables, Images & References

DISPATCHES FROM THE GUILD CONFERENCE, SERIES #47

Updates on the Use of Biosimilars for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Read Article

Biologic therapy with monoclonal antibodies has been an effective strategy for improving outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. These therapies remain expensive. Over the past several years, biosimilars have entered the marketplace in the United States with the promise of reducing costs. Biosimilar’s are biological products that are similar but not identical to the original biologic agent. This review discusses several aspects of biosimilars, including how they are approved as well as the latest data supporting their use in inflammatory bowel disease.

INTRODUCTION

Biologic therapy with monoclonal antibodies has been an effective strategy for improving outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. While they are effective, these therapies are also expensive. Over the past several years, biosimilars have entered the marketplace in the United States with the promise of reducing costs. Biosimilars are biological products that are similar, but not identical to an original biologic agent.1 The first anti-TNF biosimilar was approved in the United States in 2016,2 but they were used in Europe for a few years prior. As the number of biosimilars continues to increase, it will be important to understand how these agents are approved and what are the data supporting their use in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

The Basics

Biosimilars are biologic products that are highly similar to a previously approved reference or originator biologic therapy, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components (Table 1).3 The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stipulates that there should not be any clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency (efficacy) with the originator biologic.3 Biosimilars are characterized as having the same amino acid sequence as the originator biologic, however there may be subtle differences in glycosylation that could influence the pharmacology and immunogenicity of the biosimilar.1 Hence, to be approved by the FDA, a biosimilar must demonstrate not only functional and structural similarities to the originator biologic, but also similar pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy.1,4

As of December 2021, a total of 11 biosimilar monoclonal antibodies for inflammatory bowel disease have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States.2 Four of these are infliximab derived biosimilars and 7 are adalimumab derived biosimilars (Table 2). Although multiple adalimumab biosimilars have been approved, they will not be available for use in the United States until 2023. Each biosimilar has a unique, nonproprietary name designed to distinguish it from the originator and from other biosimilars.

Each biosimilar name consists of the base compound (i.e. infliximab or adalimumab) and then a 4-letter suffix that has no inherent meaning (Table 2).5 Key definitions related to biosimilars are listed in Table 1.

How Biosimilars are Approved

In the United States, biosimilars are approved as part of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.3 This act created an abbreviated licensure pathway for new biologic products to be marketed as either biosimilar or interchangeable with a previously approved originator product. Of note, biosimilarity and interchangeability are Table 1. Key Definitions related to Biosimilars4 distinct categories, and not synonymous (Table 1).4 The types of studies required for biosimilar approval are similar to those for an originator biologic, however their purpose and focus is slightly different (Figure 1). An originator biologic must show safety and efficacy as a novel agent. In contrast, a biosimilar application must show similarity to an originator through the following: 1) analytical studies (structural and functional) showing the product is highly similar to the originator, 2) animal studies, including an assessment of toxicity, and 3) a comparative clinical study in one or more indications for which the originator is licensed that demonstrates safety, purity, and potency of the proposed biosimilar product as well as similar immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics as the originator biologic.6 Another key difference for biosimilar approval compared to originator biologic is the need for fewer clinical trials to obtain approval across all indications. This abbreviated approval process is based on a weighted reliance on analytic similarity with the originator product and the totality of the, evidence based on the above types of studies for the biosimilar. This process is called extrapolation and involves using the biosimilar clinical trial data from one or two indications as rationale for approval across other indications for which the originator biologic is approved.6 Extrapolation is a key for reducing biosimilar development costs and expediting time to market. Extrapolation is not automatic and requires scientific justification through a totality of the evidence from human pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies, clinical safety/efficacy studies (including immunogenicity), and pharmacovigilance studies for that biosimilar and disease state in question.5 Although the above approval process for biosimilars is regulated by the FDA, both IBD patients and providers may still have concerns when a biosimilar is approved for IBD but not formally tested via a phase III clinical trial in IBD patients. Although observational studies from Europe were reassuring with regard to similarity in outcomes before biosimilars were approved in the US, it is nonetheless helpful to have both controlled and updated real world data conducted specifically in IBD patients to help inform their use in this population.

Clinical Studies Evaluating Biosimilars in IBD

Clinical studies evaluating biosimilar use in IBD patients can be categorized into those that examine outcomes for new starts (biosimilar vs. originator), non-medical switching (group of originator patients are switched to biosimilar), true switch (originator and biosimilar patients are each switched to the other agent), and interchangeability studies. Interchangeability studies require specially designed trials to receive this designation from the FDA. These studies typically include at least 3 switches between products for at least 2 exposure periods.1,4

Clinical Trial Data for Biosimilarity in IBD Patients

The NOR-SWITCH trial was a double-blind, noninferiority study of patients receiving originator infliximab who were randomly assigned to either continue this treatment or switch to infliximabdyyb.7 Of the 482 enrolled subjects who underwent randomization and treatment assignment, 155 had Crohn’s disease and 93 had ulcerative colitis. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint disease worsening by non-invasive scores (including the Harvey-Bradshaw Index and partial Mayo score for the IBD subgroups, respectively). Subgroup analysis of the IBD patient population, analyzed by per-protocol analysis and adjusted for the duration of reference Infliximab use demonstrated noninferiority both globally as well as within both IBD subgroups.7 Moreover, there were no systematic differences seen between groups for inflammatory markers (e.g. fecal calprotectin, c-reactive protein), anti-drug antibodies, pharmacokinetics, safety, or number of patients in clinical remission at one year. 7

A controlled trial in biologic-naïve patients with active Crohn’s randomized participants to infliximab vs. infliximab-dyyb for 30 weeks, and subsequently re-randomized patients to continue versus crossover and continue through 54 total weeks of observation.8 The investigators assessed a primary endpoint of clinical response by Crohn’s Disease Activity Index-70 (CR-70) criteria at week 6; secondary endpoints included CR-70 at weeks 30 and 54. The investigators found that infliximab-dyyb met the non-inferiority margin of 20% and showed no concerning differences in safety compared to the originator infliximab.8 Finally, the VOLTAIRE-CD trial randomized patients with Crohn’s to receive either adalimumab or adalimumab-adbm for 4 weeks (induction), and then continue therapy until week 46. At week 24, patients were unmasked and those on originator adalimumab were switched to adalimumab-adbm.9 Investigators found similar response and remission rates at week 4, 24, and at week 48, based on Crohn’s disease Activity Index-70 (CR-70) criteria, CR-100 criteria, and a CDAI score less than 150 points (remission). The investigators reported that adalimumab-adbm met the non-inferiority margin for pre-specified outcomes and showed no concerning differences in adverse events or drug related adverse events.9

Clinical Trial Data for Interchangeability

An interchangeable biosimilar is one that meets the additional requirement of showing it produces the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and that the risk in terms of safety and efficacy is not reduced by switching back and forth between the biosimilar and originator biologic (Table 1).10 The design of studies for a designation of interchangeability are outlined by the FDA and are different than those needed to receive approval as a biosimilar. A biosimilar approved as an interchangeable product means that the FDA has concluded it may be substituted for the reference product without consulting the provider. The specific implications and regulations are governed by each state’s pharmacy board.10 In 2021, the FDA designated the first interchangeable anti-TNF biosimilar.11 In a phase III randomized trial (Voltaire-X, NCT 03210259), 238 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were first all treated with originator adalimumab during a lead in period. They were then randomized to either continue originator adalimumab or undergo a switch to adalimumab-adbm, then switch back to originator adalimumab, and finally switch back again to adalimumab-adbm. At week 32, the authors found no meaningful difference in PK, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. At the time of this writing, only one other biosimilar, not used in IBD, has received an interchangeable designation by the FDA (insulin glargine-yfgn).11

Real World Data for Biosimilars in IBD Patients

The number of publications, whether editorials, patient surveys, clinical trials, or observational studies regarding the use of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease has increased from 6 publications in 2013 to an average of 70-90 per year since 2017. Real world-data on biosimilar use specific to IBD patients, while not a substitute for a controlled clinical trial, nonetheless have been useful in bridging knowledge gaps that have resulted from extrapolating biosimilar trial data in other disease states to IBD patients. These real-world studies have been critical for answering the safety and efficacy of biosimilars in IBD patients for new starts and medical switches,12-16 and more recently for newer biosimilars and multiple switches.17-19 To date, studies continue to confirm that biosimilars are highly similar to originator biologics and do not show any meaningful difference in terms of safety, efficacy, or immunogenicity.20

Society Statements on Biosimilars

The Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation published an updated position statement in 2020 regarding biosimilars and IBD. Among several recommendations, they stated the Foundation was not opposed to single transitions of patients in clinical remission but was opposed to multiple switches due to lack of data supporting the safety and efficacy of such a strategy in patients with IBD.21 They also emphasized a process for shared decision making and transparency, for both the provider and patient, when a substitution was to occur.21 These recommendations are in line with the 2017 position statement from the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization (ECCO),22 but a bit different that the 2020 Joint Canadian Association of Gastroenterology/Crohn’s and Colitis Canada Position statement, which did not endorse non-medical switching from originator to biosimilar infliximab.23

The Future

The biosimilar landscape for the future holds significant promise but also some risk for confusion and uncertainty as more of the currently approved anti-TNF biosimilars become fully available and on the market. Competition holds the best promise for increasing affordability and access for biologic therapies. However increased competition leads to more choices and an increased probability of patients on different biosimilars from one year to the next as patients change insurance plans. Thus it is likely we will see more de-facto multiple switch situations rather than care guided by FDA designated interchangeability or switch trials. Add to this, the increase likelihood over time that patients may not be switching from an originator to a biosimilar but from one biosimilar to another, and it is likely that there will not be a clean clinical trial to inform all permutations of clinical scenarios. Even so, there is reason for optimism as the GI community continues to do what it has been doing to date, looking at the totality of the data regarding the role of biosimilars in IBD care, applauding those that invest in high quality trials assessing interchangeability and efficacy/safety specifically in IBD patients, and continuing to encourage highquality real-world studies to fill in the remaining clinical information gaps. To date, studies continue to confirm that biosimilars are highly similar to their originator biologic and do not show any meaningful difference in terms of safety, efficacy, or immunogenicity.

References

  1. Buchner AM, Schneider Y, Lichtenstein GR. Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116(1):45-56.
  2. Biosimilar Product Information.  https://www.fda.gov/ drugs/biosimilars/biosimilar-product-information. Accessed March 1, 2022.
  3. Biosimilars.  https://www.fda.gov/drugs/therapeutic-biologics-applications-bla/biosimilars. Accessed March 1, 2022.
  4. Biosimilar and Interchangeable Products.  https://www. fda.gov/drugs/biosimilars/biosimilar-and-interchangeableproducts. Accessed March 1, 2022.
  5. Nonproprietary naming of Biological Products.  https://www. fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Nonproprietary-Naming-ofBiological-Products-Guidance-for-Industry.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2022.
  6. Biosimilar Development, Review, and Approval.  https:// www.fda.gov/drugs/biosimilars/biosimilar-developmentreview-and-approval. Accessed March 1, 2022.
  7. Jorgensen KK, Olsen IC, Goll GL, et al. Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 compared with maintained treatment with originator infliximab
  8. Ye BD, Pesegova M, Alexeeva O, et al. Efficacy and safety of biosimilar CT-P13 compared with originator infliximab in patients with active Crohn’s disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority study. Lancet. 2019;393(10182):1699-1707.
  9. Hanauer S, Liedert B, Balser S, Brockstedt E, Moschetti V, Schreiber S. Safety and efficacy of BI 695501 versus adalimumab reference product in patients with advanced Crohn’s disease (VOLTAIRE-CD): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;6(10):816-825.
  10. Prescribing Biosimilar and Interchangeable Products. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/biosimilars/prescribing-biosimilar-and-interchangeable-products. Accessed March 1, 2020.
  11. FDA Approves Cyltezo, the First Interchangeable Biosimilar to Humira. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pressannouncements/fda-approves-cyltezo-first-interchangeablebiosimilar-humira. Accessed March 1, 2020.
  12. Ho SL, Niu F, Pola S, Velayos FS, Ning X, Hui RL. Effectiveness of Switching from Reference Product Infliximab to Infliximab-Dyyb in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in an Integrated Healthcare System in the United States: A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched, Non-Inferiority Cohort Study. BioDrugs. 2020;34(3):395404.
  13. Meyer A, Rudant J, Drouin J, Coste J, Carbonnel F, Weill A. The effectiveness and safety of infliximab compared with biosimilar CT-P13, in 3112 patients with ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019;50(3):269-277.
  14. Meyer A, Rudant J, Drouin J, Weill A, Carbonnel F, Coste J. Effectiveness and Safety of Reference Infliximab and Biosimilar in Crohn Disease: A French Equivalence Study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(2):99-107.
  15. Armuzzi A, Fiorino G, Variola A, et al. The PROSIT Cohort of Infliximab Biosimilar in IBD: A Prolonged Follow-up on the Effectiveness and Safety Across Italy. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2019;25(3):568-579.
  16. Fiorino G, Manetti N, Armuzzi A, et al. The PROSIT-BIO Cohort: A Prospective Observational Study of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treated with Infliximab Biosimilar. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23(2):233-243.
  17. Fischer S, Cohnen S, Klenske E, et al. Long-term effectiveness, safety and immunogenicity of the biosimilar SB2 in inflammatory bowel disease patients after switching from originator infliximab. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2021;14:1756284820982802.
  18. Hanzel J, Jansen JM, Ter Steege RWF, Gecse KB, D’Haens GR. Multiple Switches From the Originator Infliximab to Biosimilars Is Effective and Safe in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021.
  19. Trystram N, Abitbol V, Tannoury J, et al. Outcomes after double switching from originator Infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 and biosimilar SB2 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a 12-month prospective cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021;53(8):887-899.
  20. Ebada MA, Elmatboly AM, Ali AS, et al. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis about the safety and efficacy of infliximab biosimilar, CT-P13, for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019;34(10):1633-1652.
  21. Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation Position Statement Biosimilars.  https://www.crohnscolitisfoundation.org/sites/ default/files/2019-06/biosimilars-statement-needs_0.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2022.
  22. Danese S, Fiorino G, Raine T, et al. ECCO Position Statement on the Use of Biosimilars for Inflammatory Bowel Disease-An Update. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(1):26-34.
  23. Moayyedi P, Benchimol EI, Armstrong D, Yuan C, Fernandes A, Leontiadis GI. Joint Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and Crohn’s Colitis Canada Position Statement on Biosimilars for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol. 2020;3(1):e1-e9.
  24. Olech E. Biosimilars: Rationale and current regulatory landscape. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016;45(5 Suppl):S1-10.

Download Tables, Images & References

NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #223

The Clinician’s Toolkit for the Adult Short Bowel Patient Part II : Pharmacologic Interventions

Read Article

The care of patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS) varies considerably. Patients seek a reasonable return to a normal life after surgery resulting in SBS, as well as a path to optimize their health going forward. Clinicians involved in the management of these patients struggle with the complexity of care and heterogenicity between patients. Medications play a key role in addressing altered GI function and managing symptoms that result from extensive intestinal resection. The shotgun approach to medication management is well intentioned, but not recommended. Treatment should instead be individualized for each patient based on functional capacity of the remaining GI anatomy. A pharmacologic treatment plan should be developed using a methodical, stepwise approach. Medications utilized in the treatment of SBS include antimotility agents, antisecretory agents, antimicrobials (for treatment of bacterial overgrowth), and intestinal growth factors. The purpose of Part II of this series is to guide the clinician on the availability of medications and to develop a pharmacologic treatment plan that improves the quality of life for patients with SBS.

INTRODUCTION

Short bowel syndrome (SBS) is a complex malabsorptive disorder that most often results from an extensive intestinal resection due to a number of gastrointestinal pathologies. Management of SBS therefore is a challenge for clinicians nationwide and across multiple healthcare disciplines. Patients with SBS struggle to maintain adequate fluid, electrolyte, and nutritional status Specialist UVA Health     Charlottesville, VA and benefit from diet modification, oral rehydration solutions (ORS), supplemental electrolytes, minerals, and vitamins aimed at replacing intestinal losses, and medications that often target high stool or ostomy output. Parenteral nutrition (PN) or intravenous (IV) fluid/electrolytes may be required, especially during the process of intestinal adaptation that occurs within the initial months to years following extensive surgical resection. 

The extent of malabsorption in patients with SBS will vary depending on the length and location of remaining bowel, its functional status, and the length of time since the last surgical resection. Treatment must therefore be individualized and take these factors into consideration. Medical management of SBS should focus on supportive care and symptom control. Pharmacologic treatment can work synergistically with dietary modification and ORS therapy to help control high stool outputs, minimize fluid and electrolyte losses, enhance intestinal absorption, and decrease PN/IV requirements. Medications are specifically targeted to treat the multiple factors that contribute to diarrhea in patients with SBS, including rapid intestinal transit, increased GI secretions, bacterial overgrowth, and malabsorption of fat and bile salts. Intestinal growth factor therapy offers another targeted approach in the treatment of SBS. 

It is important to avoid the impulse to start multiple medications at the same time. This shotgun approach does not allow the clinician the ability to distinguish between what may be helping versus what is not, or worse, not allow the clinician to distinguish the source of potential adverse reactions. Patients with SBS often complain that the medical community fails to recognize the condition or appreciate its complexity. Healthcare professionals who are well-intentioned may be providing patients with inaccurate advice due to lack of experience managing SBS. Part I of this series discussed the role of diet and hydration therapies in the management of SBS.1 The purpose of Part II is to guide the clinician on the availability and use of medications aimed at managing SBS.

Diarrhea Everywhere

Although patients with SBS deal with many challenging issues, high stool output often manifests as their primary complaint. Dealing with the need to make frequent trips to the bathroom and concern for fecal incontinence or a leaking ostomy have been reported to have a deleterious effect on lifestyle, physical function, activities of daily living, and the ability to travel.2 This is why clinicians should make considerable effort to control stool output when managing patients with SBS. In addition to the tangible improvements in quality of life, decreasing stool output will potentially minimize the risk of complications resulting from malabsorption of fluids and nutrients. Short-term complications of high stool output include dehydration, electrolyte abnormalities, and metabolic acidosis. Long-term complications of high stool output can include malnutrition, dehydration, chronic kidney disease, and metabolic bone disease.

First: Don’t Make Diarrhea Worse

Medication Considerations

Essentially all orally administered medications are absorbed in the small intestine, so clinicians must anticipate impaired absorption in patients with SBS who often have rapid transit through the small intestine. Patients who have stomas may report the presence of unabsorbed tablet or capsule fragments within their ostomy effluent. Switching from a solid dosage form to a liquid formulation has been recommended as a method to improve absorption, but this recommendation is theoretical and not evidence based. In fact, liquid formulations may contribute to increased stool output if the liquid medication contains sugar alcohol/s. Sugar alcohols (sorbitol, mannitol, xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, erythritol, lactitol) are often added to liquid medication preparations to enhance solubility and palatability, but are potent cathartics that can lead to an osmotic diarrhea. See Table 1 for a list of commonly prescribed liquid preparations that contain sugar alcohol. It is also problematic to use sustained, controlled, delayed, slow-release, or enteric-coated medications in patients with SBS as the reduced intestinal surface area will result in accelerated transit times and reduced absorptive capacity. It is important to note that patients do not just malabsorb food and liquids in SBS, but medications as well. This in turn will alter the intended pharmacokinetic properties of these medications. Instead, consider an immediate release oral dosage form, chewable oral formulation, or alternative administration routes (e.g., transdermal, sublingual, rectal, and subcutaneous) when available or appropriate.

Antidiarrheal Medications Used to Slow Intestinal Transit

Patients with SBS experience accelerated intestinal motility. Opioids or opioid receptor agonists are often used to slow intestinal transit by inhibiting intestinal smooth muscle contraction. This allows more time for fluid and nutrient absorption and an increased capacity of the small intestine. Opioid agonists may also contribute to an antidiarrheal effect through an inhibition of GI secretions.

Medications Containing Sugar Alcohol only slow gut transit, but also provide improved rectal function by increasing anal sphincter tone.3 Unlike its effect within the central nervous system (CNS), the bowel slowing effect of opioids is not impacted by the development of tolerance.4 Therefore, effective doses may remain constant for months to years. 

Table 2 provides a list of antidiarrheal agents used to slow intestinal transit time in patients with SBS. Both loperamide and diphenoxylate are considered first-line antimotility agents, although loperamide is typically considered the preferred agent for initial therapy. If aggressive dosing of loperamide and/or diphenoxylate fails to achieve a desired response, it is reasonable to consider a more potent opioid narcotic. The advantages and disadvantages of each antimotility agent are provided in Table 2 and can be used as a guide for selecting the appropriate agent(s). Tips for Use of Antidiarrheal Agents:

1. Check for Clostridium difficile prior to starting therapy, or when suspicion for infection arises (yes, even end jejunostomies and ileostomies can acquire C. diff infection).5

  • Antidiarrheal agents should be both scheduled and taken 30-60 minutes before meals/snacks to achieve maximum benefit.
  • Start with a single first-line agent, typically loperamide.
  • Dosage of loperamide should be escalated in a stepwise manner, allowing at least 2-3 days in the hospital setting while the patient is well monitored, and 3-5 days in the home setting after each dosage increase to assess response. Stop increasing dose if benefit is observed, adverse events occur, or the recommended maximum dosage is reached

(see Table 2). Tolerance is typically limited by obstructive symptoms, so carefully monitor for the presence of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain or distention.

  • Advise patients to purchase/request generic loperamide in large bottle quantities (less costly). Avoid blister packs (sometimes difficult to open).14
  • If loperamide offers no benefit, or is not tolerated, switch to diphenoxylate/atropine.
  • If loperamide provides partial (but suboptimal) improvement, add diphenoxylate/atropine and increase the dose in a stepwise manner as above.
  • Consider use of systemic opioid narcotic agents if maximum recommended doses of the first-line agents fail. 
  • Start at a low dose (see Table 2) and advance in a stepwise manner as above. 

The use of opioid agents containing acetaminophen is considered by the FDA to have a lower abuse potential (C-III) when compared to the use of codeine or morphine as a single agent (C-II), which allows the ability to prescribe refills. But be cautious of the potential hepatotoxic effects of acetaminophen, especially when given

  • long-term or at high doses. Patients should be instructed not to exceed 4g/ day of acetaminophen or consume alcohol when using this drug.  
  • Consider stopping diphenoxylate and

possibly stopping loperamide when switching to use of an opioid narcotic. It is daunting for patients to maintain this high pill count if stool output can be controlled with a stronger, single antidiarrheal agent.

  • A bedtime dose (and sometimes a higher bedtime dose) may help minimize trips to the bathroom at night.
  • Provide patients with guidelines for dosage titration as therapeutic response may vary with alterations in diet and/or changes in the course of their disease. 
  • Patients should be instructed to decrease or hold antimotility agents if they experience nausea, vomiting, or abdominal pain/ cramping. They may also need to decrease the dose if they experience excessive CNS effects, such as sedation or mental status changes.

Medications Used to Reduce GI Secretions

Following extensive intestinal resection, gastric secretions are often increased for the first 6-12 months after surgery due to loss of feedback mechanisms from the resected bowel. The sheer volume of secretions then contributes to total fecal losses. Gastric hypersecretion will also result in the dumping of acidic contents into the proximal small bowel and can alter normal fat digestion through the denaturation of pancreatic enzymes and destabilization of bile acids. Treating gastric hypersecretion not only decreases the sheer volume of secretions, but also helps to restore the intestinal pH back to that which optimizes pancreatic enzyme and bile salt activity. Table 3 provides a list of medications used to reduce GI secretions. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are typically considered first-line agents

and are highly effective early after intestinal resection. Histamine type 2 receptor (H2) antagonists are considered second-line because of their decreased efficacy relative to PPIs in patients with high outputs.6,7 Even though the gastric acid hypersecretion response is typically transient following intestinal resection, the use of antisecretory agents is often continued long-term as attempts to stop the therapy can be associated with worsening stool output.6 It is still worthwhile to periodically try stopping therapy and measuring effect on stool volume–if it goes up without other changes, then the patient still needs it. The decision to continue antisecretory therapy long-term should be individualized based on observed benefit versus risk of adverse effects. Long-term use of PPIs has been associated with hypomagnesemia, osteoporosis, kidney disease, and vitamin B12 deficiency.8-10 However, the quality of evidence supporting these associations is consistently low to very low. The magnitude of absolute risk of developing an adverse effect with long-term use of a PPI for individual patients is in fact modest.11 It is prudent to periodically reevaluate patients on long-term PPIs to ensure they are prescribed the lowest dose sufficient to manage their condition.

Clonidine and octreotide are alternative antisecretory agents that have been used in patients with SBS. Clonidine inhibits intestinal fluid secretion by stimulating alpha-adrenergic

Tips for Use of Antisecretory Agents:

  • An antisecretory agent should be initiated immediately following extensive small bowel resection and maintained for at least 6 months.
  • Use of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) agent is typically preferred to a H2 antagonist.
  • Patients with SBS often require doses that are higher than those used for treatment of reflux disease due to malabsorption.
  • H2 antagonists, if effective, offer the advantage of compatibility with the PN formulation.
  • The decision to continue PPI/H2 antagonist therapy long-term should be individualized based on observed benefit versus risk of developing adverse effects.
  • Monitor for acid rebound if PPI/H2 antagonist therapy is discontinued, which can manifest as a significant increase in stool volume.
  • Octreotide may be considered when other measures fail to stabilize fluid and electrolyte balance (see limitations in Table 3). Its use should periodically be reevaluated for efficacy.
  • Clonidine may offer an option for controlling diarrhea, but is rarely used in clinical practice due to its blood pressure lowering effect (see limitations in Table 3).

Other Medications Used in SBS(but maybe shouldn’t be)

Patients with SBS may find themselves on a myriad of medications that offer little to no benefit that will not only increase pill burden, but can potentially worsen symptoms and nutrient losses. For this reason, medications used to treat SBS should be introduced in a stepwise manner that allows adequate time for assessment of efficacy/ safety, and time for necessary dosage adjustment, before adding another agent. Medications that do not demonstrate a measurable clinical effect should be stopped. Agents with no proven benefit in the management of SBS include glutamine and probiotics. Although potential for harm is low, they are typically not recommended because they increase pill burden and create an unnecessary expense (again, with no benefit). Other agents with limited therapeutic benefit for treatment of SBS (and potential for harm if not used appropriately) include bile acid binders and pancreatic enzymes. Bile acid binders, including cholestyramine, colestipol, and colesevelam, are specifically used for treatment of choleretic diarrhea. This type of secretory diarrhea occurs in patients with limited ileal resections (<100 cm) and a colon-incontinuity. When bile salts enter the colon, they

Medications Used in SBS (but maybe shouldn’t be)

Patients with SBS may find themselves on a myriad of medications that offer little to no benefit that will not only increase pill burden, but can potentially worsen symptoms and nutrient losses. For this reason, medications used to treat SBS should be introduced in a stepwise manner that allows adequate time for assessment of efficacy/ safety, and time for necessary dosage adjustment, before adding another agent. Medications that do not demonstrate a measurable clinical effect should be stopped. Agents with no proven benefit in the management of SBS include glutamine and probiotics. Although potential for harm is low, they are typically not recommended because they increase pill burden and create an unnecessary expense (again, with no benefit). Other agents with limited therapeutic benefit for treatment of SBS (and potential for harm if not used appropriately) include bile acid binders and pancreatic enzymes. Bile acid binders, including cholestyramine, colestipol, and colesevelam, are specifically used for treatment of choleretic diarrhea. This type of secretory diarrhea occurs in patients with limited ileal resections (<100 cm) and a colon-incontinuity. When bile salts enter the colon, they are metabolized by bacteria to form lithocholic acid, which is caustic to the colonic mucosa and thus stimulates water secretion. It is important to realize that choleretic diarrhea is uncommon in patients with intestinal failure due to SBS as the length of ileal resection is typically > 100 cm. In the setting of extensive small bowel resections, bile acid binders can theoretically exacerbate diarrhea

po, by mouth; BID, twice daily; QID, 4 times per day

and fat malabsorption by binding up the few bile acids that are present. Another limitation to their use is that they can interfere with absorption of essentially any medication taken by mouth.

Tips for Use of Bile Acid Binders:

  • Indicated for treatment of choleretic diarrhea in patients with limited ileal resection (< 100cm) and colon-in-continuity.
  • Do not use in patients with a jejunostomy or ileostomy.
  • It is recommended that all other oral medications be administered at least 1 hour before or 4 hours after taking a bile acid binder.
  • Monitor for development of worsening diarrhea, fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies, and impaired absorption of concomitant medications.

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, a concentrated porcine derived formulation that contains lipase, amylase, and protease, has been considered for treatment of fat malabsorption when pancreatic insufficiency is suspected.  It is important to recognize that pancreatic exocrine secretion is largely intact in patients with SBS.  Pancreatic enzymes may not function normally due to gastric acid hypersecretion or in the setting of altered GI anatomy (e.g., roux en y) that results in inadequate mixing of pancreatic enzymes with nutrients.4 In practice, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy is unlikely to benefit patients with SBS unless antisecretory agents fail to manage gastric acid hypersecretion (leading to pancreatic insufficiency) or if underlying pancreatic exocrine insufficiency exists.

Tips for Use of Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement:

  • Note: pancreatic fecal elastase should not be used in SBS patients to assess pancreatic insufficiency as the high stool volume dilutes the elastase giving a factitious low result.
  • Empiric use of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy may be considered for treatment of fat malabsorption when pancreatic insufficiency is suspected, such as:
    • Chronic pancreatitis
    • Pancreatic resection
    • Roux-en-Y anastomosis or other similar altered GI anatomy that creates a mismatch between pancreatic enzymes and nutrients
  • Starting dose is 500 lipase units/kg per meal and should be titrated as needed based on clinical symptoms, degree of steatorrhea, and fat content of the diet. 

Adjunctive Therapies

Adjunctive agents that offer targeted treatment of an underlying condition include sodium bicarbonate for metabolic acidosis caused by high losses of bicarbonate (Table 4) and antibiotics for treatment of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) (Table 5). Several factors increase the risk of SIBO in patients with SBS, including altered GI anatomy and use of anti-motility and acid-suppressing agents that disrupt normal bacterial flora and permit overgrowth. Symptoms include diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloating, gas, and foul-smelling stool output. When treating this condition, repeated courses of antibiotic therapy are often necessary. Rotation of antibiotic agents and inclusion of antibiotic-free intervals may help decrease risk of developing resistant bacterial strains and improve overall long-term success in managing SIBO. If symptoms persist despite antibiotic therapy, consider reducing dosages of anti-motility and acid-suppressing medications.

Intestinotrophic Agents

Glucagon-like peptide-2 (GLP-2) Analog

Intestinal growth factor therapy offers a more targeted pharmacologic approach in the treatment of SBS. Glucagon-like peptide-2 (GLP-2) is an intestinal hormone that plays an important role in maintaining the structure and function of the intestine to facilitate absorption. GLP-2 is secreted by enteroendocrine L cells of the terminal ileum and proximal colon in response to luminal nutrients.

Patients with an extensive intestinal resection are therefore thought to have limited GLP-2 secretion in response to a meal. Teduglutide is a recombinant human GLP-2 analog approved for use in adults and children 1 year of age and older with SBS who are dependent on IV fluid or parenteral nutrition. Patients enrolled in the STEPS trial were dependent on PN/IV at least 3 days per week, on a stable medical regimen, and at least 1 year out from their last intestinal resection.17 Sixty-three percent of patients receiving teduglutide achieved at least a 20% reduction in PN/IV volume requirements at week 20 and maintained that response at week 24, compared to 30% in the placebo group. At week 24, the PN/IV volume was reduced by a mean of 4.4 L/wk compared to baseline vs 2.3 L/wk in the placebo group. The greatest reductions in intravenous support were observed in those with higher baseline PN/IV volume requirements, whereas those with lower baseline PN/IV volume requirements and a colon-in-continuity were more likely to achieve enteral autonomy. Sustained efficacy has been demonstrated with long-term use of teduglutide.18

The most common side effects of teduglutide are abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension, fluid overload, swelling/blockage of a stoma, and injection site reactions. As a growth factor, it has the potential risk for accelerated neoplastic and colon polyp growth although this has not been identified in post-marketing studies to date. In addition, biliary disease (cholecystitis, cholangitis, cholelithiasis) and pancreatitis have been reported in the original clinical trials. Due to these potential risks, the FDA requires a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program that involves documentation that prescribers have been trained and are aware of these risks and that patients are informed. Teduglutide is an expensive medication that requires prior authorization to initiate therapy and renewal of authorization every 3-12 months, depending on the insurance provider. Patients may be required to apply for financial assistance programs to assist with high co-pay coverage. Insurance providers look for documentation that patients benefit from therapy (i.e., achieve at least a 20% reduction in PN/IV volume requirements) and have not developed complications before authorizing renewal of therapy.

Tips for Use of Teduglutide:

  • Patients should meet all the following criteria before using Teduglutide: o Diagnosed with SBS.
    • Dependent on PN/IV therapy on a stable regimen.
    • Able to tolerate an oral diet. If patients are not eating and drinking, they are less likely to achieve benefit from the medication.
    • No history of any cancer within the past 5 years, particularly GI cancers.
    • No active mucosal disease, including active Crohn’s disease or strictures. 
    • Not pregnant or seeking to become pregnant.
    • Already optimized on diet/hydration therapy, antidiarrheal agents, and antisecretory agents.
    • Able to reliably adhere to the prescribed therapy and the necessary monitoring.
  • A colonoscopy with removal of polyps should be done within 6 months prior to starting teduglutide, repeated at the end of 1 year of treatment, and subsequently done at least every 5 years.
  • Teduglutide dose is 0.05 mg/kg subcutaneously once daily. Reduce dose by 50% for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 due to extensive renal excretion and prolonged elimination halflife seen in subjects with renal impairment.19 This can be accomplished by reducing the dose to 0.025 mg/kg daily or 0.05 mg/kg every other day. 
  • Teduglutide is provided as a kit that provides 30 vials. Each vial provides a maximum dose of 3.8 mg. Therefore, when the daily dose exceeds 3.8 mg (i.e., for patients weighing >76 kg) the patient will require 2 kits per month.
  • Close monitoring of nutrition and hydration status is required during the initial days to weeks of therapy to determine appropriate PN/IV weaning. Monitor urine output, weight, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine, and serum electrolytes/minerals weekly upon initiation of teduglutide. Frequency of monitoring can decrease after the first month of therapy, if stable. Weekly phone calls and routine clinic follow-up visits are required to ensure safe and appropriate use of teduglutide. More frequent follow-up may be required in individuals with cardiac comorbidities. Consider the following PN/IV weaning strategies:
    • Decrease overall parenteral fluid intake by increments of 10-20% if urine output exceeds baseline by 10-20%. Maintain a target urine output of 1-2 L daily. o
    • Reduce parenteral calorie intake by increments of 10-20% if body weight exceeds target weight.
    • Reduce parenteral electrolyte/mineral intake and transition to oral supplementation as appropriate, based on laboratory monitoring.
    • Incorporate oral multivitamin and mineral supplementation when PN frequency is less than 7 days per week.
  • To monitor for biliary and pancreatic disease, check bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, lipase, and amylase at baseline (within 6 months prior to starting teduglutide) and every 6 months.
  • Monitor for increased absorption of oral medications, especially those medications with a narrow therapeutic index, by assessing drug levels (if available) and/or clinical response. Patients are at risk of drug toxicity if reductions in oral medication dosages are not taken, as appropriate. This often requires communication with the patient’s primary care provider upon initiation of teduglutide.

Other GLP-2 analogs currently under investigation include glepaglutide and apraglutide. They have a longer elimination half-life, when compared to teduglutide, and offer the potential advantage of once weekly dosing. Neither are FDA approved as of yet.

Under Investigation

GLP-1 Analog

Another medication currently under investigation for treatment of SBS is vurolenatide. It is a longacting GLP-1 analog that exhibits properties distinctly different than GLP-2. Like GLP-2, GLP-1 is secreted by enteroendocrine L cells of the terminal ileum and proximal colon in response to luminal nutrients and patients with extensive intestinal resection are thought to have limited GLP-1 secretion. The function of GLP-1 is to inhibit gastric emptying and slow intestinal motility and is thought to help mediate the socalled ileal break.20 These properties may help improve nutrient absorption and decrease stool output when used in patients with SBS and offer another targeted treatment option.21 It is not a growth factor and therefore does not carry the risk of accelerating growth of abnormal cells, and as such, can be considered in those with underlying gastrointestinal cancers. There are currently several GLP-1 analogs approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition to the GI effects of GLP-1, it plays an important role in glucose homeostasis by stimulating insulin synthesis and insulin secretion in response to a meal. Its use can be associated with reduced food intake by its effect on promoting satiety. For those who may want to consider using an existing GLP-1 analog for treatment of SBS (not as a study participant), it is not likely to be authorized by insurance at this time.

CONCLUSION

Patients with SBS can experience debilitating diarrhea that can negatively impact health outcomes and quality of life. The medical management of diarrhea is challenging and requires a thoughtful, stepwise approach. Because diarrhea associated with SBS is due to multiple etiologies, and the patient population is heterogeneous, multiple medications may be required and an individualized approach is necessary to optimize the therapy plan. Remember, always consider the total pill burden in these patients. For more resources, see Table 6.

References

  1. Parrish CR, Wall B. The Clinician’s Toolkit for the Adult Short Bowel Patient Part I: Nutrition and Hydration Therapy. Pract Gastroenterol. 2022;June(6):32-53.
  2. Winkler MF, Hagan E, Wetle T, et al. An exploration of quality of life and the experience of living with home parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2010;34:395-407.
  3. Read M, Read NW, Barber DC, et al. Effects of loperamide on anal sphincter function in patients complaining of chronic diarrhea with fecal incontinence and urgency. Dig Dis Sci 1982;27:807-814.
  4. Schiller LR. Antidiarrheal drug therapy. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2017;19:18.
  5. Squeo GC, Hoang SC. Ileostomy and C. difficile Infection. Pract Gastroenterol. 2021;Sept(9):30-34
  6. Bechtold ML, McClave SA, Palmer LB, et al. The pharmacologic treatment of short bowel syndrome: new tricks and novel agents. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2014;16,article number:392.
  7. Jeppesen PB, Staun M, Tjellesen L, et al. Effect of intravenous ranitidine and omeprazole on intestinal absorption of water, sodium, and macronutrients in patients with intestinal resection. Gut 1998;43:763-769.
  8. Thomson AB, Sauve MD, Kassam N, et al. Safety of the long-term use of proton pump inhibitors. World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:2323-2330.
  9. Markovits N, Loebstein R, Halkin H, et al. The association of proton pump inhibitors and hypomagnesemia in the community setting. J Clin Pharmacol 2014;54:889-895.
  10. Lam JR, Schneider JL, Zhao W, et al. Proton pump inhibitor and histamine 2 receptor antagonist use and vitamin B12 deficiency. JAMA 2013;310:2435-2442.
  11. Freedberg DE, Kim LS, Yang YX. The risks and benefits of long-term use of proton pump inhibitors: Expert review and best practice advice from the American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterol 2017;152:706-715.
  12. Buchman AL, Fryer J, Wallin A, et al. Clonidine reduces diarrhea and sodium loss in patients with proximal jejunostomy: a controlled study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2006;30:487-491.
  13. McDoniel K, Taylor B, Huey W, et al. Use of clonidine to decrease intestinal fluid losses in patients with high-output short-bowel syndrome. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2004;28:265-268.
  14. Sagor GR, Ghatei MA, O’Shaughnessy DJ, et al. Influence of somatostatin and bombesin on plasma enteroglucagon and cell proliferation after intestinal resection in the rat. Gut 1985;26:89-94.
  15. Bass BL, Fischer BA, Richardson C, et al. Somatostatin analogue treatment inhibits postresectional adaptation of the small bowel in rats. Am J Surg 1991;161:107-112. 
  16. Pimentel M, Saad RJ, Long MD, et al. ACG clinical guideline: Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:165-178.
  17. Jeppesen PB, Pertkiewicz M, Messing B, et al. Teduglutide reduces need for parenteral support among patients with short bowel syndrome with intestinal failure. Gastroenterol 2012;143:14731481.
  18. Schwartz LK, O’Keefe SJ, Fujioka K, et al. Longterm teduglutide for the treatment of patients with intestinal failure associated with short bowel syndrome. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2016;7(2):e142.
  19. Nave R, Halabi A, Herzog R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of teduglutide in subjects with renal impairment. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2013;69:1149-1155.
  20. Hunt JE, Holst JJ, Jeppesen PB, et al. GLP-1 and Intestinal Diseases. Biomedicines. 2021 Apr 5;9(4):383.
  21. Hvistendahl M, Brandt CF, Tribler S, et al. Effect of liraglutide treatment on jejunostomy output in patients with short bowel syndrome: An openlabel pilot study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2018;42(1):112-121.

Download Tables, Images & References

A CASE REPORT

Rare and Unexpected Cause of Large Bowel Obstruction

Read Article

INTRODUCTION

Cholecystocolic fistula is a rare form of biliaryenteric fistulae that typically form between the gallbladder and hepatic flexure. The presence of cholecystocolic fistula is usually an incidental finding seen during cholecystectomy.1 When presenting with symptomatic disease, surgical treatment, fistula takedown and possible colon resection are indicated.1 Patients usually present with atypical symptoms, especially in elderly.1 Subtle signs and symptoms, such as abdominal pain and diarrhea are most frequently associated with chronic onset of cholecystocolic fistulas.2 An uncommon complication of gallstone disease is an impaction in the colon from a stone that travels through the cholecystocolic fistula.1

In high-risk patients, depending on the gallstone size and location, retrieval is accomplished by endoscopy.3 Otherwise, management of large bowel obstruction may be treated surgically. Despite modern diagnostic tools, this condition can be missed. Therefore, we focus our case on the unpredictability of gallstones and its gastrointestinal complications.

Case Report

We present an 80-year-old woman with no known prior medical history who presented to the emergency department with complaints of epigastric pain, nausea and emesis. She denied bowel habit changes, but she reported her stools were intermittently loose. She also denied any presence of hematochezia or melena. On admission, she was afebrile and all other vitals were in normal limits. Her examination revealed a diffusely tender abdomen to mild palpation. Admission bloodwork was significant for leukocytosis of 14.9 K/uL, normal liver biochemistries and lactic acid within normal range. Clinical findings prompted imaging with acute abdominal series which revealed pneumobilia and ileus. Computed tomography of the abdomen confirmed the fistula location and noted a 3 cm wide gallstone (yellow arrow) within the hepatic flexure causing large bowel obstruction and fistulous tract (green arrow), [Figure 1]. Further investigation led to a hepatobiliary (HIDA) scan, which revealed findings of a fistulous tract between the gallbladder and hepatic flexure (blue arrow) of the colon with cystic duct patency. The HIDA scan showed gallbladder activity seen around 25 minutes. The activity was subsequently seen draining preferentially into what appeared to be a fistulous tract between the gallbladder and hepatic flexure of the colon almost immediately (blue arrow) [Figure 2]. Gastroenterology was consulted for direct visualization with colonoscopy revealing an obstructed colon at the hepatic flexure from a gallstone with ischemic mucosal changes requiring surgical intervention. The patient was promptly taken for exploratory laparotomy revealing a large mobile mass within the transverse colon. Due to the viability of the colon, a colotomy was performed to extract the massive gallstone [Figure 3]. The colotomy was also used to identify the cholecystocolic fistula, which was confirmed by an intraoperative cholangiogram. The fistula was taken down, resected and mucosa was repaired. Surgical intervention was successful and without complications. The patient made a full recovery and was discharged home in stable condition.

Discussion

Gallstones are a rare cause for intraluminal large bowel obstruction and symptoms are not always pronounced.4 The occurrence of large bowel obstruction by a gallstone through a cholecystocolic fistula is a rare complication of gallbladder disease. The underlying pathophysiology of cholecystocolic fistulas is related to chronic inflammation due to gallstones, however, other mechanisms have been described, including gallbladder malignancy, previous gastric surgery, prior cholecystectomy and penetrating abdominal wounds.5 The commonly described symptom in cholecystocolic fistula is diarrhea related to malabsorption due to bile acids bypassing enterohepatic recirculation in the terminal ileum and having a laxative effect in the colon.4,5 Additionally, the presence of a mechanical bowel obstruction can cause overflow fecal incontinence. In less severe cases, symptoms can be nonspecific and preoperative diagnosis often fails to show such a rare condition.6  The gallbladder size and symptomatology of our patient was suggestive of chronic subclinical disease. Fortunately, in this case, diagnostic imaging was able to find the source to achieve a diagnosis. Therefore, it quickly identified the need for appropriate evaluation with colonoscopy prior to surgery. The acuity of this case makes it high risk for biliary sepsis due to the cholecystocolic fistula communicating with an intestinal lumen, a site with very high bacterial load.7 Sepsis was not detected in this case and the patient underwent an uncomplicated surgical extraction of the gallstone by colotomy with closure and repair of the cholecystocolic fistula.

CONCLUSION

Ischemia and sepsis are critical points in a patient with large bowel obstruction caused by a massive gallstone through a fistulous tract, therefore a diagnosis and intervention should be made promptly. This case demonstrates the collaborative interventions of subspecialties and importance of endoscopic evaluation along with contemporary diagnostic methods prior to surgical intervention of a large bowel obstruction caused by gallstone.

References

  1. Balent E, Plackett TP, Lin-Hurtubise K. Cholecystocolonic fistula. Hawaii J Med Public Health. 2012;71(6):155-157.
  2. Spangler R, Van Pham T, Khoujah D, Martinez JP. Abdominal emergencies in the geriatric patient. Int J Emerg Med. 2014;7:43. Published 2014 Oct 21. doi:10.1186/ s12245-014-0043-2
  3. Wang W, Liu B, Qi K, Shi X, Jin Z, Li Z. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic laser lithotripsy and lithotomy through the lumen-apposing metal stent for giant gallbladder stones. VideoGIE. 2020;5(7):318-323. Published 2020 May 7. doi:10.1016/j.vgie.2020.03.005
  4. Reddy AK, Dennett ER. Cholecystocolonic fistula: a rare intraluminal cause of large bowel obstruction. CaseReport s 2016;2016:bcr2016217141.
  5. Costi R, Randone B, Violi V, Scatton O, Sarli L, Soubrane O, Dousset B, Montariol T. Cholecystocolonic fistula: facts and myths. A review of the 231 published cases. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2009;16(1):8-18. doi: 10.1007/s00534-008-0014-1. Epub 2008 Dec 17. PMID: 19089311.
  6. Lianos G, Xeropotamos N, Bali C, Baltoggiannis G, Ignatiadou E. Adult bowel intussusception: presentation, location, etiology, diagnosis and treatment. G Chir. 2013;34(9-10):280-283.
  7. Munro R, Sorrell TC. Biliary sepsis. Reviewing treatment options. Drugs. 1986 May;31(5):449-54. doi: 10.2165/00003495-198631050-00004. PMID: 3086069.

Download Tables, Images & References

NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #222

The Clinician’s Toolkit for the Adult Short Bowel Patient Part I: Nutrition and Hydration Therapy

Read Article

The care of patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS) varies nationwide. How do we know? Because we receive emails and phone calls from patients and clinicians all over the country (and even outside the country) desperate for help. SBS patients also present to clinic suffering with SBS (or undiagnosed SBS) with very little to no education provided to them. Patients just want a reasonable life back, and to take the best care of their health going forward; clinicians want to help their patients achieve just that. This article aims to address the most common diet and hydration issues that SBS patients struggle with and to provide clinicians with the tools to successfully improve both nutrition and hydration status as well as the overall health and well-being of the adult SBS patient.

Introduction

The gastrointestinal (GI) tract is an intricate and carefully orchestrated food-processing organ designed to digest and absorb the foods and beverages that enter it. Significant loss of the primary absorptive surface area resulting in short bowel syndrome (SBS) will require modifications to the oral diet for the remaining GI tract to compensate for this loss. SBS is defined as < 200cm or >75% of working small bowel (SB—not to be confused with SBS) lost.1 It is also described as an inability to nourish and hydrate an individual while consuming a normal diet and fluid intake. Luminal nutrients from food intake (or enteral infusion in some) are paramount to the GI tract adaptation process for those with SBS; these nutrients initiate the signaling in the GI tract through the secretion of enterohormones that control intestinal motility, absorption, and adaptation.2,3 The most common etiologies that can result in SBS in adults are found in Table 1.4,5

SBS is not just about the loss of SB absorptive surface area causing malabsorption, but encompasses all the regulatory processes that the diseased or resected SB segment controls such as: gastric emptying, motility and transit time, and gastric secretions.6,7 The loss of this “gut intelligence” results in:

  • Intestinal hurry making it difficult for nutrients to have enough time to be absorbed before being excreted
    Poor mixing of pancreatic and biliary secretions with ingested nutrients making digestion of fat particularly challenging
  • Too much acid entering the upper gut from gastric hypersecretion can denature pancreatic enzymes and destabilize bile salts rendering micelle formation ineffective
  • A diminished bile salt pool if too much ileum is resected as the bile salts will be lost in the stool instead of reabsorbed through enterohepatic circulation, and
  • Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth due to loss of the ileocecal valve, or areas of stricture, narrowing, or slowed motility. 

The SB primarily absorbs the vast majority of nutrients ingested. However, in addition to avid absorption of sodium and water, the colon can also absorb up to 500 calories per day through the generation of short chain fatty acids from fiber fermentation.8 Therefore, the presence of a colon can significantly improve the outcome of an individual with SBS and substantially improve survival. In most settings, recruitment of any remaining colon should be performed.
Given the complex malabsorptive disorder associated with SBS, it is difficult for patients to nourish and hydrate themselves without the help of diet modification and attention to oral hydration, selective use of medications, and when necessary, parenteral nutrition or intravenous fluids. Negotiating all aspects of care required of individuals with SBS challenges even the fittest of our patients and exhausts the rest. Patient and caregivers buy into a near fulltime job with honorary degrees in medicine, nursing, physical therapy, pharmacy, dietetics and more. Clinicians on the other hand (many without formal training or experience with SBS), suddenly find themselves in the role of air traffic control at Chicago O’Hare on a Friday night with serious weather approaching when dealing with the complexity that is SBS. Part I of this two-part series will address the most common diet and hydration issues seen in clinic that SBS patients struggle with and will provide clinicians with the tools to successfully improve both nutrition and hydration status, and in turn, overall health and well-being of the adult short bowel patient.

A Word about Anti-motility Medications

While diet and hydration therapy are critical for the success of the SBS patient, most will also require antimotility medications to slow intestinal transit and optimize digestion and absorption of nutrients and fluids in the SB. Often, providers simply prescribe these medications with a flexible dosing schedule of two, three or four times daily. However, taking antimotility medications consistently in a scheduled fashion 30-60 minutes prior to meals will slow gastric emptying, improve digestion, and allow increased nutrient and fluid contact time with intestinal mucosa for increased absorption and reduced stool output.9 There are some patients who will benefit from liquid antimotility agents or crushing the tablet to increase efficacy of the medication. The clinician should discuss proper timing of antimotility medications with meals when talking to SBS patients about diet and hydration. It is imperative for SBS patients to understand why providers might order these medications and how to administer the drugs to optimize absorption. Part II of this series will provide more in-depth information about medication use and abuse in the SBS patient.10

Diet and Nutrition Therapy

Because different sections of the GI tract have different responsibilities, understanding normal anatomy and physiology, with knowledge of the patient’s remaining GI anatomy, will help the clinician tailor the diet to the individual SBS patient. A crucial role of the dietitian is to translate alterations in digestion and nutrient absorption after a bowel resection into a meal plan that not only meets the individual’s preferences and lifestyle but is also presented in a manner that the patient can understand. The patient must be informed of not only what they need to avoid, but more importantly, what they can eat, and the amount and frequency of meals and snacks. Clinicians should ideally start with a good 2 to 3-day diet record of what is normally consumed and then tailor the meal plan—it may feel less like taking things away when readjusting the diet that the patient is familiar with. Expertise in the SBS diet highlights the role of the dietitian as an invaluable team member to these patients. 

The SBS diet is quite similar for those with and without a colon, however, there are some important differences. Table 2 lists the general SBS diet guidelines and Table 3 provides recommendations specific to remnant anatomy. 

About Dietary Oxalate Restriction in SBS

Oxalate kidney stones are of concern for individuals with SBS and some colon in continuity. In the normal GI tract, dietary calcium and oxalate bind to form an insoluble complex that passes unabsorbed in the stool.12 However, when dietary fat is malabsorbed, the fat will preferentially bind to calcium leaving oxalate free in the gut lumen. Free, unbound oxalate passes into the colon where it is readily absorbed across the mucosa into the bloodstream, is then filtered by the kidney, and can bind to blood calcium forming insoluble calcium-oxalate kidney stones.13 As oxalate is not absorbed by the SB, calcium oxalate stones are only expected to occur in the setting of a colon in continuity (although patients without a colon are at higher risk for dehydration and therefore stone formation).14

Kidney stones are not only extremely painful to pass, but if left in the kidney can lead to end stage kidney disease. The last thing someone with SBS needs is reliance on hemodialysis or a kidney transplant. Prevention of calcium-oxalate kidney stones is the best approach. Limit dietary fat in those with a colon. Be mindful that treating bile acid malabsorption with bile acid binders can worsen fat malabsorption, further enhancing oxalate absorption in the colon. Work to balance bile salt sequestration and dietary fat restriction. Of note, for those with > 100 cm of terminal ileum lost (or dysfunctional due to disease), the normal compensatory increase in bile acid synthesis cannot keep up to maintain the intraluminal bile acid pool. As a result, these patients should not be put on bile acid sequestrants or steatorrhea will worsen.15

The best defense against kidney stone formation is to flush the oxalate through the urinary tract by maintaining a urine output > 1500 mL/day.16 A calcium citrate supplement taken with meals will correct metabolic acidosis, if present, and in addition, the calcium will bind free oxalate in the intestinal lumen to prevent absorption. Avoid using calcium carbonate in the setting of acid suppression (proton pump inhibitor or H2-receptor antagonist); the calcium will not solubilize at the higher pH, making it unavailable to bind oxalate.6 A low oxalate diet on top of the SBS diet becomes very restrictive and should only be necessary once a patient has “earned it” by developing a kidney stone or hyperoxaluria. A 24-hour urine collection for volume and urine oxalate can help decipher need for dietary oxalate restriction and increased daily urine volume is warranted when there is concern for calcium oxalate kidney stone formation.

Essential Fatty Acids

Essential fatty acids (EFA) are required for health and development. Good sources of EFAs are plantbased oils such as sunflower, soybean, and walnut. Those with SBS who are dependent on parenteral nutrition and receiving less than 1 g soy-based lipid emulsion/kg/week are at risk of developing EFA deficiency.1 Clinical signs of EFA are dry, scaly, or red patches of skin. Assessment for EFA deficiency (triene-tetraene ratio on a fatty acid panel) is suggested as part of the routine monitoring of micronutrient levels.

Hydrating the SBS Patient

Attaining adequate hydration can be very difficult for patients with end ileostomies;17 it is even more difficult for those with SBS with SB stomas (without a colon in continuity). Renal impairment in the short bowel patient has been well documented.18,19 Most clinicians are aware that individuals with SBS will have difficulty meeting nutritional requirements without diet modification, selected medications, and possibly parenteral nutrition. What is not so apparent is how well they can achieve hydration goals or what hydration goals are for an individual patient. Although serum laboratory values provide clues, they are not the most reliable criteria to assess hydration status; some are only abnormal when significant volume contraction occurs, or worse, acute kidney injury. It is therefore incumbent upon the clinician to ensure both nutrition and hydration adequacy (see Table 4 for signs and symptoms). Clinicians should always ask:

  1. Can the patient nourish themselves?
  2. Can the patient hydrate themselves?
  3. How will each of the above be monitored to ensure success?

to have patients periodically measure their 24hour urine volume to ensure they can make a minimum of 1000-1200 mL/day. Keep in mind, there is nothing wrong with making more urine (ask any nephrologist), but there is a lot wrong with not making enough. Another promising measure of adequate hydration status is a morning spot urine sodium.20 For those with kidney stones, collaboration with the managing nephrologist or urologist may help to determine the appropriate 24-hour urine volume for a particular patient. Remember, the goal for hydration is to protect kidney function and prevent end stage renal disease and future dialysis-dependence.

Hydration Management

Unfortunately, more than one SBS patient has been advised to “just drink more” when they have presented to clinic or the emergency room with dehydration as healthcare providers have presumed the patient was just not drinking enough. However, the true problem in SBS is the lack of absorptive surface area for both salt and water; that their remaining bowel just cannot absorb enough of the fluid consumed. In fact, a vicious cycle of drinking (often hypotonic or hypertonic fluids) can develop in SBS patients who experience an uncontrollable desire to constantly drink fluids. This is caused by chronic, severe, dehydration. In the same way that the patient malabsorbs food and feels constantly hungry (as they are starving); the same is true for the patient who cannot sufficiently absorb enough fluid; they feel constantly and insatiably thirsty. When a patient feels thirsty, they are already dehydrated. Hence, the cycle is perpetuated by drinking more fluids, aggravating diarrheal losses, leading to more thirst, and more drinking yet. Furthermore, there are patients who, no matter what they drink (including oral rehydration solutions [ORS]), only add to their stool or ostomy losses and worsen dehydration. Some patients just need IV fluids, at least until enough adaptation occurs. It is very important for clinicians to identify these patients before deterioration of their renal function occurs. See Table 5 for common scenarios patients report or experience.

Table 6 illustrates the experience of one such patient who thought she was supposed to drink a lot because she had a high output stoma (she was drinking primarily oral rehydration therapy, some water, and 6 ounces of coffee). Her oral fluid intake was reduced every 2 weeks with no other changes to demonstrate to her how much her drinking was driving her unwanted high ostomy output. This underscores how important it is to not only have patients record what they are eating, but what, and how much they are drinking.

Maintaining euvolemia and sodium balance while ingesting common oral liquids can be dependent on the presence or absence of a colon. With a colon segment in continuity, many SBS patients can tolerate hypotonic fluids without excessive fluid losses.21 However, without a colon in continuity, high ostomy outputs are commonly encountered when excess fluid losses result from consuming either hypertonic or hypotonic fluids. Table 7 lists common types of beverages based on their tonicity. It is not enough to suggest to a SBS patient what to drink, but equally as important to teach how to drink, especially how much to drink. It is recommended that in SBS, patients drink small amounts of fluids with meals to ease passage of the food bolus. However, the majority of fluid intake should come from sipping all day long between meals as fluids are more efficiently absorbed when consumed in small amounts, frequently, and between meals.22 Some patients need to be educated on this behavior. A smaller volume of liquid prevents a surge of fluid in the small intestine. This surge can reduce fluid absorption rates through the SB as opposed to absorption.23 In particular, for those with a SB ostomy, excessive fluid intake or drinking too fast (regardless of the fluid type), will lead to a significant loss of fluid, further worsening dehydration. Therefore, good practice is to advise patients of their daily fluid volume goal (which is patient dependent) and encourage sipping these fluids over the course of a day. Until urine output is adequate and stable, 24-hour urine volume should be measured and monitored to optimize volume status and protect kidney function. It may be necessary to demonstrate to patients how the oral fluids they are consuming drive stool output. This can be accomplished by asking the patient to decrease oral fluid intake to only 500mL over 24 hours and have them measure both urine and stool/ostomy output to illustrate the effect of the limited oral fluid intake. However, do not try this without a mechanism to ensure hydration of the patient. Oral Rehydration Solutions (ORS)

In those SBS patients without a colon, additional sodium is often required since every liter of stool output contains 90-110mEq of sodium (2 g sodium or 1 teaspoon table salt).24 However, this amount of salt is usually unpalatable, so consumption of salty foods and ORS is necessary to effectively replace sodium losses. Water absorption in the SB is dependent on the sodium-glucose co-transport system which draws glucose and sodium across the epithelial membrane in equimolar fashion, while allowing for water absorption via paracellular passage.25 Commercial and homemade ORS recipes are based on this premise, and therefore, need similar concentrations of sodium and glucose to allow for water absorption and ultimately hydration of the individual. See Table 8 for examples of commercial ORS (and ORS recipes that can be made at home).

ORS, while lifesaving in many, is not a panacea for all patients with SBS. When starting ORS, it is advisable to have the patient sip 1-2 cups throughout the day while tracking 24-hour urine output. If urine output increases without significant increase in stoma or diarrheal output, then it is ok to slowly increase the daily ORS volume to somewhere between 1-2 liters/day. However, if slowly sipping ORS throughout the day leads to significantly increased stoma output (without a concomitant increase in urine output, or worse, a decrease in urine production), then the ORS trial has failed, and the patient should reduce the consumption of ORS. Before declaring an ORS trial a failure, make sure the patient is slowly sipping the ORS throughout the day and not rapidly consuming the solution just to finish it.

Vitamins and Minerals

Many SBS patients will require vitamin and mineral supplementation throughout their lifetime. The sites of remaining bowel, health of the bowel, intestinal transit time, and nutrient quality of the habitual diet will influence the need for supplementation. Micronutrients of concern, specific to SBS, include fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K), vitamin B12, folate, calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron, copper, and selenium.26 Rapid intestinal transit, chronic vomiting, and parenteral multivitamins less than five days a week (if parenteral support dependent), may necessitate water-soluble vitamin supplementation. The exception to this rule is for vitamin B12; all SBS patients will need routine monitoring for vitamin B12 deficiency by checking both serum B12 and methylmalonic acid on a periodic basis. This is an area ripe for study.27

Table 9 lists examples of oral vitamin and mineral supplements that might be needed by those with SBS. Remember, micronutrient absorption can improve with bowel adaptation and therefore, lifelong monitoring of serum vitamin and mineral levels, as well as a periodic nutrition focused physical exam are essential for the SBS patient. Clinicians monitoring micronutrient levels must recognize that inflammation, acute illness, and hypoproteinemia, can alter transport protein concentrations leading to factitious serum and plasma levels making results difficult to interpret.29,30 It is critical that clinicians do not rely solely on biochemical interpretations to develop micronutrient treatment strategies when a deficiency is suspected. 

Bone health is an excellent example of the need for comprehensive assessment to determine the need for supplementation. Since calcium, vitamin D, and magnesium absorption are often suboptimal in those with SBS, periodic DEXA scans are recommended to evaluate bone density to guide therapy and prevent metabolic bone disease (Table 10).1

Conclusion

Maintaining both nutrition and hydration status are central components to the care of patients with SBS. Failure to attend to these key issues puts the SBS patient at risk for malnutrition, weight loss, nutrient deficiencies, dehydration (with or without electrolyte disarray), nephrolithiasis, and, worse-case scenario, for acute kidney injury, and over time, loss of renal function. With careful education regarding principles of nutrition and hydration, this will set the SBS patient on a path to ensure good health and protection of their renal function. Lifelong monitoring and support from a healthcare team are necessary in all SBS patients as management goals can change over time. Table 11 provides a summary of common clinical blunders and the suitable solution in the care of SBS patients. See Table 12 for SBS-related resources for the clinician.

References

  1. Cuerda C, Pironi L, Arends J, et al. ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition in chronic intestinal failure. Clin Nutr. 2021;40:5196-5220.
  2. Ziegler TR, Fernandez-Estivanz C, Gu LH, et. al. Distribution of the H+/peptide transporter PepT1 in human intestine: upregulation expression in the colonic mucosa of patients with short-bowel syndrome. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;75:922-930.
  3. Matarese LE, O’Keefe SJ, Kandil HM, et al. Short bowel syndrome: Clinical guidelines for nutrition management. Nutr Clin Pract. 2005;20(5):493-502.
  4. Dabney A, Thompson J, DiBaise J, et al. Short bowel syndrome after trauma. Am J Surg. 2004;188:792-795.
  5. Dumronggittigule W, Marcus EA, DuBray BJ, et al. Intestinal failure after bariatric surgery: Treatment and outcome at a single-intestinal rehabilitation and transplant center. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019 Jan;15(1):98-108.
  6. Massironi S, Cavalcoli F, Rausa E, et al. Understanding short bowel syndrome: Current status and future perspectives. Dig Liver Dis. 2020 Mar;52(3):253-261.
  7. Parrish CR, DiBaise JK. Managing the Adult Patient with Short Bowel Syndrome. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2017 Oct;13(10):600-608.
  8. Mortensen PB, M R Clausen MR. Short-chain fatty acids in the human colon: relation to gastrointestinal health and disease. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1996;216:132-48.
  9. Chan L-N, DiBaise JK, Parrish CR. Short bowel syndrome in adults, Part 4B A guide to front line drugs used in the treatment of short bowel syndrome. Pract Gastroenterol. 2015;4:32-38.
  10. Kumpf V, Parrish. The Clinician’s Toolkit for the Adult Short Bowel Patient: Part II – Pharmacologic Intervention. Pract Gastroenterol. 2022;July(7): in press.
  11. Marteau P, Messing B, Arrigoni E, et al. Do patients with short-bowel syndrome need a lactose-free diet? Nutrition, 1997;13(1):13-16.
  12. Mitchell T, Kumar P, Reddy T, et al. Dietary oxalate and kidney stone formation. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2019 Mar 1;316(3):F409-F413.
  13. Nightingale JMD. The management of intestinal failure: methods to reduce the severity. Pro Nutr Soc. 2003;62:703710.
  14. Rudzinski M, Lawinski M, Gradowski L, et. al. Kidney stones are common in patients with short-bowel syndrome receiving long-term parenteral nutrition: A predictive model of urolithiasis. JPEN J Parent Enteral Nutr. 2022;46(3):671-677.
  15. Hofmann AF, Hagey LR. Bile acids: chemistry, pathochemistry, biology, pathobiology, and therapeutics. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2008 Aug;65(16):2461-83.
  16. Borghi L, Meschi T, Amato F, et al. Urinary volume, water and recurrences in idiopathic calcium nephrolithiasis: a 5-year randomized prospective study. J Urol. 1996;155(3):839-843.
  17. Squeo GC, Parrish CR. High output ileostomies: preventing acute kidney injury. Pract Gastroenterol. 2022;2:28-39.
  18. Agostini F, Sasdelli AS, Guidetti M, et al. Outcome of kidney function in adults on long-term home parenteral nutrition for chronic intestinal failure. Nutrition. 2019 Apr;60:212-216.
  19. Wang P, Yang J, Zhang Y, et al. Risk Factors for Renal Impairment in Adult Patients withShort Bowel Syndrome. Front Nutr. 2021 Jan 18;7:618758.
  20. Pedersen AKN, Rud C, Wilkens TL, et al. A single urine sodium measurement may validly estimate 24-hour urine sodium excretion in patients with an ileostomy. J Parent Enteral Nutr. 2020;44(2):246-255.
  21. Kelly DG, Nadeau J. Oral rehydration solution: a “low-tech” oft neglected therapy. Nutr Issues Gastroenterol 2004;28:5162.
  22. Sentongo TA. The use of oral rehydration solutions in children and adults. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2004;6:307-313.
  23. Modigliani R, Bernier JJ. Absorption of glucose, sodium, and water by the human jejunum studied by intestinal perfusion with a proximal occluding balloon and at variable flow rates. Gut 1971;12:184-193.
  24. Nightingale JMD, Lennard-Jones JE, Walker ER, et al. Oral salt supplements to compensate for jejunostomy losses: comparison of sodium chloride capsules, glucose electrolyte solution, and glucose polymer electrolyte solution. Gut 1992;33:759-761.
  25. Ofei SY, Fuchs GJ 3rd. Principles and Practice of Oral Rehydration. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2019 Dec 7;21(12):67.
  26. Pironi L, Arends U, Bozzetti F, et al. ESPEN guidelines on chronic intestinal failure in adults. Clin Nutr. 2016;35:247-307.
  27. Wall EA. Vitamins: Supplementation and monitoring. In; Short Bowel Syndrome: Practical Approach to Management. Eds, DiBaise JK, Parrish CR, Thompson JS. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016, pp. 155-170.
  28. Wall B. Micronutrient Supplementation and Monitoring in Short Bowel Syndrome. under Resources, then educational resources for Clinicians at: SBSCurbside.org; accessed 5/20/22.
  29. Krenitsky J. Management of trace elements in short bowel syndrome. In; Short Bowel Syndrome: Practical Approach to Management. Eds, DiBaise JK, Parrish CR, Thompson JS. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016, pp. 171-182.
  30. Berger MM, Shenkin A, Schweinlin A, et al. ESPEN micronutrient guidelines. Clin Nutr. 2022; in press.
  31. Faisal S, Mirza FS. Sublingual vitamin D3 effective in a patient resistant to conventional vitamin D supplementation. AACE Clin Case Rep. 2020 Sep 24;6(6):e342-e345.
  32. Holick MF. Biological Effects of Sunlight, Ultraviolet Radiation, Visible Light, Infrared Radiation and Vitamin D for Health. Anticancer Res. 2016;36(3):1345-56.

Download Tables, Images & References

DISPATCHES FROM THE GUILD CONFERENCE, SERIES #46

Safety of IBD Medication During Pregnancy and Conception for Men and Women with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Read Article

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has an increasing prevalence worldwide, including young adults. Fertility and pregnancy safety are common topics of concern in this patient population. Maintaining fertility and achieving healthy maternal and fetal outcomes are dependent on disease severity. Steroid free remission for at least three months prior to conception increases the likelihood of sustained remission throughout pregnancy and decreases the risk of pregnancy related complications for both the mother and child. Data from large registries, including PIANO (Pregnancy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Neonatal Outcomes), has demonstrated that biologics and thiopurines are low risk during pre-conception, pregnancy, delivery, and lactation. Children with in utero or breastmilk exposure to these medications are not at increased risk of infection during their first year of life and achieve developmental milestones at a rate consistent with that of the general population. Methotrexate must be avoided due to the risk of teratogenicity. Data to support use of small molecule therapies during pregnancy and breastfeeding is lacking at this time.

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is commonly diagnosed between the ages of 18 and 35 years of IBD today. This number is anticipated to go up old, a period when many patients are considering further. The increasing prevalence of IBD in young having children of their own.1 The prevalence of IBD
is continuing to rise, and there are approximately 3.1 million people in the U.S. who carry a diagnosis
of IBD today. This number is anticipated to go up further. The increasing prevalence of IBD in young
adults makes conception and pregnancy in IBD a topic of high importance for gastroenterology providers.2

Fertility

Infertility is defined as the inability to conceive after 12 months of regular, unprotected sexual intercourse.3 In the IBD population, however, a referral to a fertility specialist is suggested after 6 months.4 There are multiple factors that play a role in fertility including psychological factors, history of bowel surgery, zinc deficiency, certain medications, and alcohol and tobacco use.

IBD medications that may contribute to male infertility include methotrexate and sulfasalazine.5 5-aminosalicyclic acid (5-ASA) typically does not impact fertility,6 but sulfasalazine is associated with reversible oligospermia and should be discontinued three to four months prior to attempted conception.7,8

Methotrexate can also result in oligospermia which is reversible with discontinuation of the drug. Biologics and thiopurines do not have any documented impact on fertility.9,10 Data on the fertility risk of approved small molecule drugs, tofacitinib and ozanimod, are lacking at this time.11,12

Other medications used to manage conditions associated with IBD must also be considered. Anxiety and depression have a high prevalence in the IBD population, and the use of psychotropic drugs is common.13 Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors can cause ejaculatory dysfunction, increased ejaculation latency, and alteration in circulating hormones.14,15 Furthermore, opioid analgesics significantly increase the risk of erectile dysfunction.16,17,18 Zinc deficiency may also be a contributing factor to infertility and levels should be checked when this is a concern.19

Fertility in women is not impacted by most IBD medications. However, methotrexate should be discontinued in women three months prior to conception due to the risk of teratogenicity.

Most surgical management for IBD does not impact fertility in men or women, including limited bowel resection or surgical management of perianal disease. However, total colectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis is associated with a 3-fold higher rate of infertility among women and attributed to fallopian tube scarring from pelvic dissection.20,21,22

Pre-Conception Disease Activity

Patients should achieve at least three months of steroid free remission, both clinical and endoscopic, prior to conception. The importance of remission should be emphasized with all women of childbearing age to ensure that they are in optimal health for conception if and when the time comes.4,23 Women with IBD who conceive while in remission will remain in remission 80% of the time whereas those with active disease will either continue to have active or worsening disease in over 60% of cases.24,25 Active disease during pregnancy portends a poor outcome for the mother and fetus and will increase the likelihood of eclampsia, preterm birth, low birth weight, small for gestational age, and poor maternal weight gain leading to intrauterine growth restriction.26-28 On the other hand, pregnancy outcomes in IBD patients with quiescent disease are similar to the general population.29,30

IBD Heritability

Misconceptions regarding heritability have led to voluntary childlessness among men and women with IBD. While genetic inheritance plays a strong role in IBD, other modifiable factors influence heritability including environmental exposures such as tobacco smoke, diet, and air pollution.31 It is suspected that the interaction of genetics under environmental conditions is what leads to the increased incidence of IBD among family members.32

Healthcare Maintenance

Optimizing maternal health prior to conception is critical. Alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs, and cannabis should all be discontinued. Continued opioid use during pregnancy can lead to neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and long-term neurodevelopmental consequences.33,34 Furthermore, women should aim for a healthy body mass index (BMI); increased pre-pregnancy BMI can lead to gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorder, and Caesarean delivery.35

All patients should be up to date with ageappropriate cancer screening including colon cancer screening in those with more than 8 years of colitis, regular pap smears in women, and annual total body skin exams for all patients on thiopurines and biologic therapies.36

Nutrition

Women planning pregnancy should supplement with folic acid 400 micrograms (μg) daily. A minimum of 2 grams of folate daily is suggested for those with a prior small bowel resection or active small bowel disease. Vitamin D supplementation is recommended for all patients, and its administration may decrease the risk of flares in those with ulcerative colitis.37 Vitamin D, zinc, folate, vitamin B12 and other nutritional markers should be evaluated pre-pregnancy and thereafter as needed.4,38-40

Pregnancy Coordinated Care

Coordinated care among multiple specialties and teams is needed to ensure good maternal and fetal outcomes.41,42 A gastroenterologist, ideally one who specializes in IBD, should follow the patient throughout pregnancy, seeing the patient at least once during the first or second trimester and as needed thereafter.4 A maternal fetal medicine specialist should be involved early in pregnancy, regardless of disease activity. A nutritionist, mental health provider, and lactation specialist knowledgeable about IBD drugs may be of assistance as well.4

Disease Flare

Disease activity can increase during pregnancy leading to adverse outcomes. Controlling disease activity prior to conception and during pregnancy with the appropriate medical therapy can mitigate the risk of spontaneous abortion, preterm birth, and labor complications (Figure 1).43

As in non-pregnant IBD patients, when disease activity flares, infection must be ruled out first with evaluation of stool studies. In pregnancy, diagnostic evaluation to obtain objective evidence of inflammation with non-invasive markers is preferred. Inflammatory markers such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) may not be as reliable in the pregnant patient, although monitoring overall trends can be helpful.44 Fecal calprotectin (FCP) does rise in correlation with disease activity as well.45,46 Imaging studies can be pursued to obtain further objective information, and MRI without gadolinium or intestinal ultrasound (where available) is preferred.

A flexible sigmoidoscopy can be safely performed during any trimester without sedation and limited preparation with enemas and is preferred over pan-colonoscopy.47 However, when necessary, a complete colonoscopy can be performed in the pregnant patient as well.48 The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines suggest placing the patient in the left lateral tilt position to avoid decreased maternal and placental perfusion.49

Treating a disease flare may consist of using a short course of steroids, increasing medication dose, and changing therapy. When medical therapies prove ineffective, surgery can be pursued, preferably during the second trimester. The threshold for surgery in pregnancy is higher but the indications are the same as those in the non-pregnant population – obstruction, perforation, abscess, severe hemorrhage, or acute refractory disease.

Medication Use and Safety

Medication safety is a significant concern among patients who are considering conception or pregnancy.50 Data from the PIANO (Pregnancy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Neonatal Outcomes) registry as well as European registries has shown that most IBD drugs do not result in adverse outcomes including congenital malformations, spontaneous abortion, preterm birth, low birth weight, increased infections during the child’s first year of life, or inability to achieve developmental milestones.27,51

Here we will discuss the various medication categories in depth.

5-aminosalycylic acid

5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) agents are low risk during pregnancy and should be continued.52,53 Sulfasalazine does interfere with folate metabolism and carries a theoretical risk of interfering with DNA and RNA synthesis in the fetus, increasing the risk of neural tube defects. However, sulfasalazine can be continued throughout pregnancy along with folic acid supplementation at an increased dose of 2 mg per day.54

Corticosteroids

Corticosteroids may be necessary for disease flare management during pregnancy, but this is not without risk. Children born to mothers who had intrapartum exposure to corticosteroids or in the three months prior to conception were found

to be at increased risk for preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birth weight, intrauterine growth restriction and neonatal intensive care unit admission.55 Steroids should be used at the lowest dose and shortest duration possible. Due to its high first-pass metabolism, budesonide is considered lower risk in pregnancy.

Methotrexate

Methotrexate use during pregnancy is associated with spontaneous abortion and embryotoxicity and must be discontinued at least three months prior to conception.56 This is the only IBD medication to date that is absolutely contraindicated in pregnancy due to its greater than acceptable risk.

Thiopurines: 6-mercaptopurine and azathioprine

Patients who are taking thiopurines pre-conception to maintain remission can continue on their regimen through pregnancy. Data on thiopurines from the PIANO registry has shown no increase in spontaneous abortions, congenital malformations, low birth weight, preterm birth, rates of infection in the child, or developmental delays.57-61 Notably, there may be an increased incidence of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with thiopurine use.62 Thiopurines should not be started in pregnancy given small but unpredictable risk of leukopenia and pancreatitis as well as slow onset.

Biologic Therapies

Intrapartum use of biologic therapies does not worsen pregnancy or neonatal outcomes, including the risk for intensive care unit admission, infections, and developmental milestones.51,57 These medications can be continued throughout pregnancy. Pre-pregnancy weight should be used for dosing. Changes in drug levels during pregnancy are negligible and do not warrant closer monitoring during this time.63,64

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents used in IBD, including infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab, are low risk for pregnant patients and their offspring. Dosing can continue throughout pregnancy.65,66

Natalizumab and vedolizumab are integrin receptor antagonists and are also low risk in pregnancy.67,68-70,51 While vedolizumab does carry a more favorable side effect profile compared to anti-TNF agents, a study comparing outcomes in anti-TNF and vedolizumab exposed pregnancies found that there was no difference in rates of prematurity, live births, congenital anomalies, or miscarriages.71

Ustekinumab, an interleukin-12/23 antagonist, can also be continued during pregnancy; health outcomes in the exposed mother and child are comparable to those of the general population.51,72,73

Small Molecule Drugs

Unlike monoclonal antibodies which began active transfer across the placenta in the second trimester, small molecules can cross the placenta during the first trimester.

Tofacitinib, a janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and ozanimod, a sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor agonist, are both approved for use in ulcerative colitis.74,75 At this time, there is inadequate data to make conclusions on their safety in pregnancy.

Delivery

Mode of Delivery

The obstetrician should determine the mode of delivery. The two scenarios where the patient’s gastroenterologist suggests method of delivery is if the patient has active perianal disease or a history of ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA). In these situations, a C-section may be recommended due to the risk of fourth-degree laceration and anal sphincter dysfunction with vaginal delivery.76,77,78,79 Anorectal motility may be impacted by IPAA construction and vaginal delivery independently of each other. It is therefore suggested that vaginal delivery be avoided in patients with a history of IPAA to avoid compounding the risk.

Anticoagulation

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is elevated in the pregnant IBD patient during pregnancy, and up to 6-12 weeks postpartum, compared to pregnant non-IBD patients.80,81 VTE prophylaxis is indicated during hospitalization and potentially thereafter depending on the patient’s individual risk factors. Unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparin, and warfarin are safe for breastfeeding women.4,82

Postpartum Care of Mother

In the first six months postpartum, one third of patients will experience a postpartum flare.83,84 De-escalating IBD therapy during or immediately postpartum is a predictor of a postpartum flare.84 As long as there are no signs of infection, biologic therapies can be resumed as scheduled 24 hours after a vaginal delivery and 48 hours following a C-section.4,85 Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can be used for pain relief but for the shortest duration possible to avoid disease flares. Opioids should be utilized for the shortest duration possible as well, particularly in the breastfeeding woman, to avoid infant sedation.86

Contraception

Contraception should be addressed postpartum. Non-estrogen containing, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is preferred due to the increased risk of VTE associated with exogenous estrogen use87,88 and the reduced efficacy of oral contraceptives in those with active small bowel inflammation and prior small bowel resection.4,89

Post-Delivery Care of Baby

Breastfeeding

All biologics and thiopurines used for IBD management are present in low to undetectable levels in breastmilk and can be continued without interruption.90,91 There is no data to support a “pump and dump” method after an injection or infusion of a biologic.

On the other hand, the active metabolite of methotrexate is detectable in breastmilk and most sources recommend not breastfeeding on methotrexate.

5-ASA therapies can be continued in breastfeeding as well. Alternatives to sulfasalazine are preferred since the sulfapyridine metabolite transfers to breastmilk and may cause hemolysis in infants born with a glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency.91

There is not enough data on small molecule therapies in IBD at this time to support breastfeeding safety.

The transfer of steroids to the child via breastmilk does occur but at subtherapeutic levels.4 Budesonide has high first pass metabolism and is low risk during breastfeeding.92,93

Vaccines and Infection Risk

If a child’s mother was exposed to any biologic agents (excluding certolizumab) during the third trimester, any live vaccines should be withheld in the first six months of life. In the United States, this currently only applies to the vaccine against rotavirus, administered at 2 months of age.4,94 All other vaccines can proceed on schedule as indicated by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. Children are demonstrated to achieve immunity even when exposed to IBD therapies through breastmilk.95

A child with in utero exposure to biologic therapies does not have an increased risk of infection in the first year of life when compared to the general population. This further applies to biologic exposed children attending day care, a setting that is known to increase incidence of infection in children.96

Developmental Milestones

Infant exposure to biologics and thiopurines either in utero and/or through breastmilk has not been shown to result in any developmental delays. The PIANO study measured developmental milestones at 48 months from birth and found no differences when compared to validated population norms.51 This again holds true when looking at childhood development up to 7 years of age in patients born to IBD-affected mothers.97

CONCLUSION

Pregnancy and fertility should be addressed in all IBD patients considering conception. Fertility, pregnancy outcomes for the mother, and the health of the offspring are all impacted by disease activity. Maternal and fetal outcomes are largely dependent on appropriate IBD care pre-conception and achieving steroid-free remission. Data from the PIANO registry has demonstrated that IBD medications, with the exception of methotrexate, can be used without interruption during pregnancy and breastfeeding. There is inadequate data on small molecule therapies at this time to recommend their use. Fertility in men and women is also negatively impacted by disease activity. While certain medications may be implicated in oligospermia or sperm dysfunction in men, these effects are reversible with discontinuation of the drug.

References

  1. Windsor JW, Kaplan GG. Evolving Epidemiology of IBD. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2019;21:40.
  2. Ye Y, Manne S, Treem WR, et al. Prevalence of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Pediatric and Adult Populations: Recent Estimates From Large National Databases in the United States, 2007-2016. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020;26:619-625.
  3. Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: Definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem 2018;62:2-10.
  4. Mahadevan U, Robinson C, Bernasko N, et al. Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Pregnancy Clinical Care Pathway: A Report From the American Gastroenterological Association IBD Parenthood Project Working Group. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2019;25:627-641.
  5. Hammami MB, Mahadevan U. Men With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Sexual Function, Fertility, Medication Safety, and Prostate Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:526-534.
  6. O’Morain C, Smethurst P, Dore CJ, et al. Reversible male infertility due to sulphasalazine: studies in man and rat. Gut 1984;25:1078-84.
  7. Collen MJ. Azulfidine-induced oligospermia. Am J Gastroenterol 1980;74:441-2.
  8. Birnie GG, McLeod TI, Watkinson G. Incidence of sulphasalazineinduced male infertility. Gut 1981;22:452-5.
  9. Mouyis M, Flint JD, Giles IP. Safety of anti-rheumatic drugs in men trying to conceive: A systematic review and analysis of published evidence. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2019;48:911-920.
  10. Bermas BL. Paternal safety of anti-rheumatic medications. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2020;64:77-84.
  11. Levy RA, de Jesus GR, de Jesus NR, et al. Critical review of the current recommendations for the treatment of systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases during pregnancy and lactation. Autoimmun Rev 2016;15:955-63.
  12. McConnell RA, Mahadevan U. Use of Immunomodulators and Biologics Before, During, and After Pregnancy. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016;22:213-23.
  13. Barberio B, Zamani M, Black CJ, et al. Prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;6:359-370.
  14. Beeder LA, Samplaski MK. Effect of antidepressant medications on semen parameters and male fertility. Int J Urol 2020;27:39-46.
  15. Montejo AL, Llorca G, Izquierdo JA, et al. Incidence of sexual dysfunction associated with antidepressant agents: a prospective multicenter study of 1022 outpatients. Spanish Working Group for the Study of Psychotropic-Related Sexual Dysfunction. J Clin Psychiatry 2001;62 Suppl 3:10-21.
  16. Burr NE, Smith C, West R, et al. Increasing Prescription of Opiates and Mortality in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases in England. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;16:534-541 e6.
  17. Crocker JA, Yu H, Conaway M, et al. Narcotic use and misuse in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014;20:2234-8.
  18. Zhao S, Deng T, Luo L, et al. Association Between Opioid Use and Risk of Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis. J Sex Med 2017;14:1209-1219.
  19. El-Tawil AM. Zinc deficiency in men with Crohn’s disease may contribute to poor sperm function and male infertility. Andrologia 2003;35:337-41.
  20. Lee S, Crowe M, Seow CH, et al. The impact of surgical therapies for inflammatory bowel disease on female fertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;7:CD012711.
  21. Bartels SA, D’Hoore A, Cuesta MA, et al. Significantly increased pregnancy rates after laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: a cross-sectional study. Ann Surg 2012;256:1045-8.
  22. Beyer-Berjot L, Maggiori L, Birnbaum D, et al. A total laparoscopic approach reduces the infertility rate after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a 2-center study. Ann Surg 2013;258:275-82.
  23. Pedersen N, Bortoli A, Duricova D, et al. The course of inflammatory bowel disease during pregnancy and postpartum: a prospective European ECCO-EpiCom Study of 209 pregnant women. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013;38:501-12.
  24. Hashash JG, Kane S. Pregnancy and Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2015;11:96-102.
  25. Miller JP. Inflammatory bowel disease in pregnancy: a review. J R Soc Med 1986;79:221-5.
  26. Cornish J, Tan E, Teare J, et al. A meta-analysis on the influence of inflammatory bowel disease on pregnancy. Gut 2007;56:830-7.
  27. Leung KK, Tandon P, Govardhanam V, et al. The Risk of Adverse Neonatal Outcomes With Maternal Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2021;27:550-562.
  28. O’Toole A, Nwanne O, Tomlinson T. Inflammatory Bowel Disease Increases Risk of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2015;60:2750-61.
  29. Lee HH, Bae JM, Lee BI, et al. Pregnancy outcomes in women with inflammatory bowel disease: a 10-year nationwide population-based cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2020;51:861-869.
  30. Kim MA, Kim YH, Chun J, et al. The Influence of Disease Activity on Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Crohns Colitis 2021;15:719-732.
  31. Turpin W, Goethel A, Bedrani L, et al. Determinants of IBD Heritability: Genes, Bugs, and More. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:1133-1148.
  32. Bennett RA, Rubin PH, Present DH. Frequency of inflammatory bowel disease in offspring of couples both presenting with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 1991;100:1638-43.
  33. Conradt E, Flannery T, Aschner JL, et al. Prenatal Opioid Exposure: Neurodevelopmental Consequences and Future Research Priorities. Pediatrics 2019;144.
  34. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 762: Prepregnancy Counseling. Obstet Gynecol 2019;133:e78-e89.
  35. Ding XX, Xu SJ, Hao JH, et al. Maternal pre-pregnancy BMI and adverse pregnancy outcomes among Chinese women: Results from the C-ABCS. J Obstet Gynaecol 2016;36:328-32.
  36. Farraye FA, Melmed GY, Lichtenstein GR, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Preventive Care in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:241-258.
  37. Battistini C, Ballan R, Herkenhoff ME, et al. Vitamin D Modulates Intestinal Microbiota in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Int J Mol Sci 2020;22.
  38. Lee S, Metcalfe A, Raman M, et al. Pregnant Women with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Are at Increased Risk of Vitamin D Insufficiency: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Crohns Colitis 2018;12:702709.
  39. Ward MG, Kariyawasam VC, Mogan SB, et al. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Functional Vitamin B12 Deficiency in Patients with Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015;21:2839-47.
  40. Battat R, Kopylov U, Szilagyi A, et al. Vitamin B12 deficiency in inflammatory bowel disease: prevalence, risk factors, evaluation, and management. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014;20:1120-8.
  41. de Lima A, Zelinkova Z, Mulders AG, et al. Preconception Care Reduces Relapse of Inflammatory Bowel Disease During Pregnancy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14:1285-1292 e1.
  42. Selinger C, Carey N, Cassere S, et al. Standards for the provision of antenatal care for patients with inflammatory bowel disease: guidance endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology and the British Maternal and Fetal Medicine Society. Frontline Gastroenterol 2021;12:182-187.
  43. Mahadevan U, Sandborn WJ, Li DK, et al. Pregnancy outcomes in women with inflammatory bowel disease: a large community-based study from Northern California. Gastroenterology 2007;133:1106-12.
  44. Tandon P, Leung K, Yusuf A, et al. Noninvasive Methods For Assessing Inflammatory Bowel Disease Activity in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review. J Clin Gastroenterol 2019;53:574-581.
  45. Kammerlander H, Nielsen J, Kjeldsen J, et al. Fecal Calprotectin During Pregnancy in Women With Moderate-Severe Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:839-848.
  46. Julsgaard M, Hvas CL, Gearry RB, et al. Fecal Calprotectin Is Not Affected by Pregnancy: Clinical Implications for the Management of Pregnant Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2017;23:1240-1246.
  47. Ko MS, Rudrapatna VA, Avila P, et al. Safety of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in Pregnant Patients with Known or Suspected Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Dig Dis Sci 2020;65:2979-2985.
  48. Cappell MS, Fox SR, Gorrepati N. Safety and efficacy of colonoscopy during pregnancy: an analysis of pregnancy outcome in 20 patients. J Reprod Med 2010;55:115-23.
  49. Committee ASoP, Shergill AK, Ben-Menachem T, et al. Guidelines for endoscopy in pregnant and lactating women. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:18-24.
  50. Aboubakr A, Riggs AR, Jimenez D, et al. Identifying Patient Priorities for Preconception and Pregnancy Counseling in IBD. Dig Dis Sci 2021;66:1829-1835.
  51. Mahadevan U, Long MD, Kane SV, et al. Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes After Fetal Exposure to Biologics and Thiopurines Among Women With Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterology 2021;160:1131-1139.
  52. Diav-Citrin O, Park YH, Veerasuntharam G, et al. The safety of mesalamine in human pregnancy: a prospective controlled cohort study. Gastroenterology 1998;114:23-8.
  53. Rahimi R, Nikfar S, Rezaie A, et al. Pregnancy outcome in women with inflammatory bowel disease following exposure to 5-aminosalicylic acid drugs: a meta-analysis. Reprod Toxicol 2008;25:271-5.
  54. Norgard B, Czeizel AE, Rockenbauer M, et al. Population-based case control study of the safety of sulfasalazine use during pregnancy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001;15:483-6.
  55. Odufalu FD, Long M, Lin K, et al. Exposure to corticosteroids in pregnancy is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes among infants of mothers with inflammatory bowel disease: results from the PIANO registry. Gut 2021.
  1. Weber-Schoendorfer C, Chambers C, Wacker E, et al. Pregnancy outcome after methotrexate treatment for rheumatic disease prior to or during early pregnancy: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014;66:1101-10.
  2. Nielsen OH, Gubatan JM, Juhl CB, et al. Biologics for Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Their Safety in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020.
  3. Coelho J, Beaugerie L, Colombel JF, et al. Pregnancy outcome in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with thiopurines: cohort from the CESAME Study. Gut 2011;60:198-203.
  4. Sheikh M, Nelson-Piercy C, Duley J, et al. Successful Pregnancies with Thiopurine-Allopurinol Co-Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. J Crohns Colitis 2015;9:680-4.
  5. Kanis SL, de Lima-Karagiannis A, de Boer NKH, et al. Use of Thiopurines During Conception and Pregnancy Is Not Associated With Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes or Health of Infants at One Year in a Prospective Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15:12321241 e1.
  6. Mahadevan U, Dubinsky MC, Su C, et al. Outcomes of Pregnancies With Maternal/Paternal Exposure in the Tofacitinib Safety Databases for Ulcerative Colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:2494-2500.
  7. Kanis SL, Modderman S, Escher JC, et al. Health outcomes of 1000 children born to mothers with inflammatory bowel disease in their first 5 years of life. Gut 2021;70:1266-1274.
  8. Picardo S, Seow CH. The impact of pregnancy on biologic therapies for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2020;44-45:101670.
  9. Flanagan E, Gibson PR, Wright EK, et al. Infliximab, adalimumab and vedolizumab concentrations across pregnancy and vedolizumab concentrations in infants following intrauterine exposure. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2020;52:1551-1562.
  10. de Lima A, Zelinkova Z, van der Ent C, et al. Tailored anti-TNF therapy during pregnancy in patients with IBD: maternal and fetal safety. Gut 2016;65:1261-8.
  11. Julsgaard M, Hvas CL, Gearry RB, et al. Anti-TNF Therapy in Pregnant Women With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Effects of Therapeutic Strategies on Disease Behavior and Birth Outcomes. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020;26:93-102.
  12. Singh S, Proctor D, Scott FI, et al. AGA Technical Review on the Medical Management of Moderate to Severe Luminal and Perianal Fistulizing Crohn’s Disease. Gastroenterology 2021;160:2512-2556 e9.
  13. Wils P, Seksik P, Stefanescu C, et al. Safety of ustekinumab or vedolizumab in pregnant inflammatory bowel disease patients: a multicentre cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2021;53:460-470.
  14. Mahadevan U, Vermeire S, Lasch K, et al. Vedolizumab exposure in pregnancy: outcomes from clinical studies in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2017;45:941-950.
  15. Bar-Gil Shitrit A, Ben Ya’acov A, Livovsky DM, et al. Exposure to Vedolizumab in IBD Pregnant Women Appears of Low Risk for Mother and Neonate: A First Prospective Comparison Study. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:1172-1175.
  16. Moens A, van der Woude CJ, Julsgaard M, et al. Pregnancy outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with vedolizumab, anti-TNF or conventional therapy: results of the European CONCEIVE study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2020;51:129-138.
  17. Klenske E, Osaba L, Nagore D, et al. Drug Levels in the Maternal Serum, Cord Blood and Breast Milk of a Ustekinumab-Treated Patient with Crohn’s Disease. J Crohns Colitis 2019;13:267-269.
  18. Matro R, Martin CF, Wolf D, et al. Exposure Concentrations of Infants Breastfed by Women Receiving Biologic Therapies for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases and Effects of Breastfeeding on Infections and Development. Gastroenterology 2018;155:696-704.
  19. Feuerstein JD, Isaacs KL, Schneider Y, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis. Gastroenterology 2020;158:1450-1461.
  20. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Hanauer S, et al. Long-Term Efficacy And Safety Of Ozanimod In Moderate-To-Severe Ulcerative Colitis: Results From The Open-Label Extension Of The Randomized, Phase 2 Touchstone Study. J Crohns Colitis 2021.
  21. Lamb CA, Kennedy NA, Raine T, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults. Gut 2019;68:s1-s106.
  22. Nguyen GC, Seow CH, Maxwell C, et al. The Toronto Consensus Statements for the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Pregnancy. Gastroenterology 2016;150:734-757 e1.
  23. Foulon A, Dupas JL, Sabbagh C, et al. Defining the Most Appropriate Delivery Mode in Women with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2017;23:712-720.
  24. Hatch Q, Champagne BJ, Maykel JA, et al. Crohn’s disease and pregnancy: the impact of perianal disease on delivery methods and complications. Dis Colon Rectum 2014;57:174-8.
  25. Kim YH, Pfaller B, Marson A, et al. The risk of venous thromboembolism in women with inflammatory bowel disease during pregnancy and the postpartum period: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e17309.
  26. Hansen AT, Erichsen R, Horvath-Puho E, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease and venous thromboembolism during pregnancy and the postpartum period. J Thromb Haemost 2017;15:702-708.
  27. Bates SM, Middeldorp S, Rodger M, et al. Guidance for the treatment and prevention of obstetric-associated venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2016;41:92-128.
  28. Bennett A, Mamunes A, Kim M, et al. The Importance of Monitoring the Postpartum Period in Moderate to Severe Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2021.
  29. Yu A, Friedman S, Ananthakrishnan AN. Incidence and Predictors of Flares in the Postpartum Year Among Women With Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020;26:1926-1932.
  30. Mahadevan U, McConnell RA, Chambers CD. Drug Safety and Risk of Adverse Outcomes for Pregnant Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterology 2017;152:451-462 e2.
  31. Long MD, Kappelman MD, Martin CF, et al. Role of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Exacerbations of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 2016;50:152-6.
  32. Khalili H, Higuchi LM, Ananthakrishnan AN, et al. Oral contraceptives, reproductive factors and risk of inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2013;62:1153-9.
  33. Long MD, Hutfless S. Shifting Away From Estrogen-Containing Oral Contraceptives in Crohn’s Disease. Gastroenterology 2016;150:15181520.
  34. Centers for Disease C, Prevention. U S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59:1-86.
  35. Angelberger S, Reinisch W, Messerschmidt A, et al. Long-term follow-up of babies exposed to azathioprine in utero and via breastfeeding. J Crohns Colitis 2011;5:95-100.
  36. Drugs and Lactation Database (LactMed). 2006 ed. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine (US), 2006-2021.
  37. Vestergaard T, Jorgensen SMD, Christensen LA, et al. Pregnancy outcome in four women with inflammatory bowel disease treated with budesonide MMX. Scand J Gastroenterol 2018;53:1459-1462.
  38. Beaulieu DB, Ananthakrishnan AN, Issa M, et al. Budesonide induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease during pregnancy. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009;15:25-8.
  39. Wodi AP, Ault K, Hunter P, et al. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Children and Adolescents Aged 18 Years or Younger – United States, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:189-192.
  40. Beaulieu DB, Ananthakrishnan AN, Martin C, et al. Use of Biologic Therapy by Pregnant Women With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Does Not Affect Infant Response to Vaccines. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;16:99-105.
  41. Long MD, Siegel CA, Abraham BP, et al. Day Care Attendance and Infectious Complications in Children Born to Mothers With Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;20:706-708 e1.
  42. Friedman S, Nielsen J, Jolving LR, et al. Long-term motor and cognitive function in the children of women with inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2020.

Download Tables, Images & References

FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #82

ERCP During Pregnancy: A Review of Safe Practices

Read Article

Introduction

Hormonal changes during pregnancy contribute to elevated cholesterol levels and a delay in gallbladder emptying, both of which can increase the risk of gallstone formation, the incidence of which is between 3-12% during pregnancy.1 The majority of pregnant patients with cholelithiasis are asymptomatic and do not require therapy. However, 1.2% of pregnant women with cholelithiasis may exhibit symptoms, including right upper quadrant discomfort, nausea, or symptoms of cholecystitis.2 Symptomatic gallstone disease is in fact the second most common abdominal emergency during pregnancy, after acute appendicitis, and may require surgical intervention.

On occasion, a stone or sludge may escape the gallbladder and lodge in the common bile duct (CBD) causing biliary colic, gallstone pancreatitis and/or obstructive jaundice. Although uncommon, choledocholithiasis during pregnancy is a challenging dilemma for treating gastroenterologists, given its complications including pancreatitis and cholangitis, which can be life threatening for both the mother and the fetus, and often necessitate immediate intervention.3,4 Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy and stone extraction is the standard of care for management of choledocholithiasis. Aside from the inherent risks of the ERCP procedure, pregnant patients face additional concerns due to the potential harm that ionizing radiation could have on the fetus.5 There have been strategies implemented to relegate the radiation risk to the fetus, such as reducing fluoroscopy time or adopting non-radiation ERCP (NR-ERCP) techniques whenever possible.

Overall, ERCP is now considered relatively safe and effective during pregnancy, and this article intends to discuss the various nuances of this clinical scenario.

Indications

Advances in imaging modalities, including abdominal ultrasound (USG), magnetic resonance imaging/cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), have generally obviated diagnostic ERCP in non-pregnant and pregnant patients. Prior to undertaking an ERCP, a strong suspicion of the presence of a CBD stone, as well as radiological assessment is essential.

ERCP should be avoided for weak indications such as preoperative cholangiography in patients with a low probability of having choledocholithiasis. Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CCY) should be done in patients thought to have an intermediate probability of a retained CBD stone, and if definite filling defect/s seen, a postoperative ERCP can be performed, thereby avoiding unnecessary preoperative ERCP.

The most common indications for performing therapeutic ERCP during pregnancy are symptomatic choledocholithiasis, obstructive jaundice, biliary pancreatitis, cholangitis or less commonly biliary or pancreatic ductal injury.

ERCP has also been utilized in pregnant patients for management of choledochal cysts, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and parasitic infestation of the biliary tree according to a few reports.6,7 ERCPs are considered therapeutic when one or more of the following procedures are performed: endoscopic sphincterotomy, stone removal, stent placement, and/or stricture dilation.8 Pancreatic endotherapy generally requires relatively lengthy fluoroscopy time, can be technically challenging, and may be associated with increased risk, and hence, it should preferentially be avoided unless absolutely indicated.

Contradictions

In serious obstetric complications such as placental abruption, imminent delivery, ruptured membranes, or eclampsia, endoscopy is generally contraindicated.

Concerns and Risks Associated with ERCP in Pregnancy

Radiation Risk to the Fetus

Exposure to ionizing radiation prenatally can have an impact on embryonic and fetal development, depending on the dose and gestational age at which the exposure occurs. Potential radiation exposure risks to the fetus can be divided into four categories: intrauterine fetal death; malformations and disturbances of growth and development; mutagenic; and carcinogenic effects. Radiation-induced damage can result in fetal growth restriction and congenital malformations, often associated with intellectual disability, as well as the possibility for increased cancer risk. Although the risk of developing cancer from radiation is low, it is a stochastic effect with no clear radiation threshold level defined.9-12 Fetal radiation exposure is not routinely assessed, and hence total fluoroscopy time is the most suitable alternative surrogate, although they do not directly correlate well. A thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) placed on the upper back in the line of primary radiation beam has been shown to best correlate with fetal radiation exposure.

Maternal Outcomes

Pancreatitis, post-sphincterotomy bleeding, perforation, and cholecystitis are among the maternal non-pregnancy related post-ERCP adverse events. The data on patients being more susceptible to post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) during pregnancy versus the general population are conflicting. The literature, however, is limited by a small sample size and its retrospective nature. A national cohort study compared data from pregnant women (n=907) to non-pregnant women (controls, n=2721) who underwent ERCP and found that PEP occurred in 12% of pregnant women and in 5% of controls (P<0.001). This higher rate was attributed to the avoidance of fluoroscopy to verify wire and catheter position, as well as time constraints to perform ERCP as soon as possible during pregnancy.13-15 In another retrospective case series involving 68 ERCPs on 65 pregnant women by Tang et al., PEP occurred in 16% of patients. However, all cases of PEP in this study were mild with no systemic or local complications.16

Fetal Outcomes

ERCP is also associated with a higher risk of preterm labor, especially when performed during the first trimester. Tang et al., observed in the same study that following ERCP, 53 patients (90%) had a full–term pregnancy, but patients who underwent ERCP during the first trimester had only 73% of deliveries at term, but a higher risk of preterm delivery (20%), and an increased risk of lowbirth-weight infants (21%).16 However, in 2019, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Azab et al. (27 studies, 1307 pregnant patients who underwent ERCP) noted that, despite the increased risk of preterm labor and low birth weight, ERCP was deemed relatively safe on the fetus without any reported cases of fetal congenital malformation or stillbirth.14 Another systematic review in 2018 showed that therapeutic ERCP has a very high rate of technical success in clearing the bile duct of gallstones, and has a relatively low and acceptable rate of maternal and fetal complications.15

Special Considerations and Modifications of ERCP During Pregnancy

A general principle in the care of women with an acute biliary tract disorder during pregnancy is to provide the most conservative management possible with the hope of delaying intervention only when

absolutely indicated, until after pregnancy or until the second trimester, when surgical intervention is relatively safest.

As previously stated, ERCP should not be used as a diagnostic procedure and instead noninvasive imaging modalities (USG, MRI/MRCP) are relied upon to achieve a diagnosis. MRCP does not require the use of paramagnetic contrast agents like gadolinium, which has been shown to cross the placenta, and is hence safe. Because of the risk of radiation exposure and low sensitivity for choledocholithiasis, computed tomography (CT) scans are generally avoided in pregnant patients,6,8,17-19 but may become necessary in rare malignancy related circumstances, or to assess severe pancreatitis.

If ERCP is planned for a pregnant patient, there are some special considerations and strategies that need to be deliberated. The primary goal of these approaches is to improve overall safety of ERCP for pregnant patient and fetus, and reducing the amount of radiation exposure to the fetus. It may be reasonable to manage asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic choledocholithiasis patients expectantly, with the understanding that there is still a risk of cholangitis and gallstone pancreatitis if stones are left untreated.6,9

Timing of ERCP

When possible, ERCP should be postponed to until after delivery or at least until the second trimester, which is regarded a relatively safer trimester to perform surgical interventions, although ERCP has been performed safely throughout all trimesters of pregnancy. To avoid fetal exposure to ionizing radiation during the period of organogenesis and the risk of spontaneous abortion, ERCP during the first trimester should be avoided, recognizing that this may not always be the case. Similarly, during the late third trimester, elective ERCP should be deferred to after delivery, if possible, to minimize fetal loss and birth related complications.6-7,17

Informed Consent, Position, Radiation Shielding, Medications and Sedation

Informed Consent: The patient and family should be extensively counseled about the indication and steps of the ERCP procedure, along with detailed discussion of expected benefits, and risks for the mother and the fetus, as well as alternatives, and obtain written informed consent from the patient.15 Involving patient’s spouse/significant other and additional family members (of patient’s choice) is essential to build trust as well as to relieve their anxiety. Although the perceived risk of radiation exposure is much greater than the actual risk, the importance of full explanation of these risks to the woman and her family prior to the exposure cannot be overemphasized.

Patient Position: During the ERCP, the patient should be placed in a left pelvic tilt or left lateral position to avoid vena cava or aortic compression. Supine position is also equally acceptable. The patient may be placed in the standard prone position if the procedure is performed early in the pregnancy or second trimester, but should be avoided in the later part of pregnancy.

Radiation Shielding: Lead shields ought to be employed to reduce radiation exposure to the fetus. They should be placed underneath the patient’s abdomen, keeping in mind that the x-ray beam originates from beneath the patient.6,20 The value of placing a second lead shield over the patient’s abdomen is unproven, and is practiced per endoscopist’s discretion.

Maternal-Fetal Monitoring: An astute monitoring is recommended during the ERCP procedure, with documentation of fetal heart tones prior to sedation and immediately upon completion of the procedure. In the first and second trimester, the procedure can be performed in GI endosuite, but in the third trimester, it is generally better to perform the procedure in Operating Room (OR) with presence of Obstetrics support, in an event of labor or other complications necessitating delivering of the baby.

Medications: Glucagon (category B) is used to reduce intestinal contraction during ERCP and has been shown to have no significant teratogenicity or other adverse effects on the mother or the fetus, so it can be used safely. Diatrizoate (category D) is a contrast agent used during ERCP to visualize the biliary tree. Because the contrast is iodine-based, transient fetal hypothyroidism is a theoretical risk; however, no convincing evidence prevents its use, especially when the risk of maternal cholangitis and its consequences on the fetus are weighed against the theoretical risk of fetal hypothyroidism. The use with no fluoroscopy requirement of a low concentration formulation of the contrast agent and a limited number of intraductal injections help further reduce this theoretical potential risk.20

Sedation: ERCP in pregnant patients should preferably be performed with anesthesia professionals, so that the patient is adequately sedated, and hemodynamics and airway are appropriately managed, while the endoscopist is able to concentrate solely on the procedure steps.9,15 Decision regarding monitored anesthesia care using Propofol versus general anesthesia with intubation should be per anesthesia professional’s prerogative, depending on patient comorbidities, clinical situation and procedural indication. Sedative medications for ERCP, such as meperidine

(Category B), propofol (Category B), fentanyl (Category C), and midazolam (Category D), are thought to be generally safe during pregnancy. Meperidine alone can be used for procedural sedation during pregnancy (preferred over category C agents such as fentanyl and morphine), followed by small doses of midazolam as needed. Propofol can cause respiratory depression rapidly and should only be used in pregnant patients with the consultation of an anesthesiologist.9,21,22 In our anecdotal clinical experience at our centers, the majority of pregnant patients underwent safe and successful ERCP with use of propofol, administered by anesthesia professionals.

Rectal Indomethacin: Rectal indomethacin is considered standard of care for prevention of postERCP pancreatitis,36 however, there is lack of data for its use in pregnant women for us to comment on its routine use. In pregnant women presenting with preterm labor or shortened cervix, which places them at risk for preterm labor and delivery, oral or vaginal or rectal indomethacin is often used as a tocolytic to prolong pregnancy by decreasing uterine contractions. However, increased neonatal complications including oligohydramnios, renal failure, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, and closure of the patent ductus arteriosus have been reported with the use of indomethacin. Since the physiological effects of single dose of rectally administered indomethacin during ERCP (especially if done during second trimester) is unclear, and given these concerns, the authors endorse this decision to be made on a case-bycase basis considering the degree of difficulty of biliary cannulation, inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation/injection and other procedural factors.

Multidisciplinary Approach

Obstetric support should be available in the event of any pregnancy-related complications. As stated before, anesthesia professionals should be preferably involved.

Modified ERCP Techniques in Pregnant Patients

A few modifications to ERCP technique could be considered in a pregnant patient, with an overall goal of minimizing procedure time and fluoroscopy time, in order to achieve best outcomes for both the mother and the fetus.

A)Techniques to Reduce Fluoroscopy Time and Exposure

The majority of our understanding of radiation effects on fetal outcomes is derived from epidemiological and observational studies from atomic radiation survivors or from animal studies. According to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), fetal growth restriction, fetal risk of anomalies, or abortion have not been reported with a dose of radiation less than 50 mGy (or 5 rad), which is much higher than the typical ERCP exposure range, which maybe as low as 0.1 – 3 mGy per procedure.14,23 Such complications may occur at radiation doses higher than 100-200 mGy, but such doses are not usual in general diagnostic radiology, especially with ERCP, where the fetus lies outside the primary beam.

During the fluoroscopy phase in an ERCP, radiation is used to visualize the anatomy of the biliary tract. It is also used to verify that the bile duct cannulation, stone extraction, and sphincterotomy are all done safely and successfully.14 Certain modifications in fluoroscopy should be employed, carefully communicated to the fluoroscopy technician assisting on the case, to reduce radiation exposure, as below:

  • Minimizing the overall fluoroscopy time by using short taps of fluoroscopy and avoiding hard copy images, which emit between 25 to 2000 mrem of radiation per procedure17
  • Utilizing the last-image hold feature to review images
  • Avoiding the use of magnification
  • Using low-dose-rate pulsed fluoroscopy and collimating the x-ray beam to the smallest field possible.6 (Figures 3A and 3B) Collimation prevents unnecessary exposure of anatomy outside the area of interest, and it also improves image quality by producing less scatter radiation from these areas.

For confirmed choledocholithiasis, sphincterotomy and stone extraction need be performed (Figure-1). Biliary strictures and leaks are generally treated with stenting.20,24 To further minimize radiation use in a pregnant patient, a two-stage approach can also be employed in complicated pancreatobiliary pathologies, wherein the initial ERCP is done as a temporary measure using minimal or no fluoroscopy, and typically includes biliary sphincterotomy and stent placement, and the subsequent ERCP is definitive in the post-partum period, with required detailed interventions.25

B) Techniques to Avoid Radiation

Radiation-free ERCP for biliary stone removal in pregnant patients has been shown to be successful in various case reports and series.

Radiation-Free ERCP Techniques

  • In a pregnant patient with previous sphincterotomy, successful biliary cannulation can be performed without use of fluoroscopy, using a choledochoscope (SpyglassTM), as reported by Girotra et al., with accurate localization of biliary calculi and successful removal.26 Complete clearance of the bile duct can also be confirmed using choledochoscopy (Figures 3C and 3D). Placement of a biliary stent is optional; to prevent recurrent biliary events during pregnancy, especially if the gallbladder is still in-situ with more confirmed stones/sludge. This stent can later be removed post partum, once CCY is accomplished.
  • For pregnant patients with native papilla, an empirical bile aspirate guided technique is used, which includes biliary cannulation using a sphincterotome, followed by bile aspiration to confirm biliary access, and then sphincterotomy, and stone extraction with a balloon catheter. This technique may miss additional stones due to the lack of a clear definition of the ductal system. However, most residual stones, if present, should pass without difficulty with an adequate sphincterotomy.17,24,27-31 Alternately, a biliary stent can be placed temporarily until postpartum period, as discussed above.

Imaging-Guided Techniques

Transabdominal ultrasound, EUS or choledochoscopy/cholangioscopy can be used to provide imaging guidance.

The use of trans-abdominal ultrasound during ERCP procedure has the benefit of allowing realtime visualization, wire placement confirmation, and observation of stone clearance.32

EUS is now widely available and can be used to determine common bile duct diameter, as well as the number, morphology, and size of bile duct stones (Figure 2), and can sometimes eliminate the need for an ERCP, in cases where stones spontaneously pass.15,33-34 Choledochoscopy is a helpful tool, not only for visualizing calculi and confirming ductal clearance as previously discussed, but also for disrupting choledocholithiasis with laser therapy or electrohydraulic lithotripsy.15 Therefore, to confirm clearance of the common bile duct, one could consider using EUS or choledochoscopy, in order to minimize radiation use.35

The potential disadvantages of not using radiation may include the possibility of a lengthier procedure time, difficulty with visually confirming bile duct cannulation, inadvertent cystic duct cannulation, remnant biliary stones and difficulty recognizing bile leak or stricture.31 As per the systematic review by Azab et al., radiation-free techniques do not appear to decrease the fetal and pregnancy related complications, but they seem to reduce the rates of non-pregnancy complications.14

CONCLUSION

Therapeutic ERCP during pregnancy can be safely and effectively performed, when definitively indicated. A multidisciplinary approach should be adopted, wherein an experienced endoscopist performs the procedure, with assistance of anesthesia professionals, with a parallel active involvement of obstetricians and surgeons, to manage any potential peri-procedural pregnancy related issues. The procedure should be scheduled during the second trimester, which is generally deemed safest for any surgical intervention. First trimester (early organogenesis period) and late third trimester (higher chances of obstetric complications) are generally avoided, if possible. The general principle while performing ERCP during pregnancy should be to minimize the amount of radiation that the fetus is exposed to, and as a result, radiation-avoidance strategies have been suggested and proven to be effective in smaller series.

References

  1. Ko CW, Beresford SA, Schulte SJ, Matsumoto AM, Lee SP. Incidence, natural history, and risk factors for biliary sludge and stones during pregnancy. Hepatology. 2005;41(2):359-365.
  2. Schwulst SJ, Son M. Management of Gallstone Disease During Pregnancy. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(12):1162-1163.
  3. Wu W, Faigel DO, Sun G, Yang Y. Non-radiation endoscopic retro grade cholangiopancreatography in the management of choledocholithiasis during pregnancy. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(6):691-700.
  4. Celaj S, Kourkoumpetis T. Gallstones in Pregnancy. JAMA. 2021;325(23):2410.
  5. Arce-Liévano E, Del Río-Suárez I, Valenzuela-Salazar C, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography results for the treatment of symptomatic choledocholithiasis in pregnant patients: A recent experience at a secondary care hospital in Mexico City. Rev Gastroenterol Mex (Engl Ed). 2021;86(1):21-27.
  6. Muniraj T, Jamidar PA. ERCP in Pregnancy. In: Baron TH, ed. ERCP. Third edition. Elsevier;2019:282-287.e2.
  7. Daas AY, Agha A, Pinkas H, Mamel J, Brady PG. ERCP in pregnancy: is it safe?. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2009;5(12):851-855.
  8. Smith I, Gaidhane M, Goode A, Kahaleh M. Safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in pregnancy: Fluoroscopy time and fetal exposure, does it matter? World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;5(4):148-53.
  9. ASGE Standard of Practice Committee, Shergill AK, Ben-Menachem T, et al. Guidelines for endoscopy in pregnant and lactating women. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76(1):18-24.
  10. De Santis M, Cesari E, Nobili E, Straface G, Cavaliere AF, Caruso A. Radiation effects on development. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2007;81(3):177-182.
  11. Wagner LK, Lester RG, Saldana LR. Exposure of the pregnant patient to diagnostic radiations: a guide to medical management. Philadelphia: Lippincott;1985.
  12. Baron TH, Schueler BA. Pregnancy and radiation exposure during therapeutic ERCP: time to put the baby to bed? Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(4):832-834.
  13. Inamdar S, Berzin TM, Sejpal DV, et al. Pregnancy is a Risk Factor for Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in a National Cohort Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(1):107-114.
  14. Azab M, Bharadwaj S, Jayaraj M, et al. Safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2019;25(6):341-354.
  15. Cappell MS, Stavropoulos SN, Friedel D. Systematic review of safety and efficacy of therapeutic endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography during pregnancy including studies of radiation-free therapeutic endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;10(10):308-321.
  16. Tang SJ, Mayo MJ, Rodriguez-Frias E, et al. Safety and utility of ERCP during pregnancy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3 Pt 1):453461.
  17. Al-Hashem H, Muralidharan V, Cohen H, Jamidar PA. Biliary disease in pregnancy with an emphasis on the role of ERCP. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;43(1):58-62.
  18. Anderson SW, Rho E, Soto JA. Detection of biliary duct narrowing and choledocholithiasis: accuracy of portal venous phase multidetector CT. Radiology. 2008;247(2):418-427.
  19. Moon JH, Cho YD, Cha SW, et al. The detection of bile duct stones in suspected biliary pancreatitis: comparison of MRCP, ERCP, and intraductal US. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(5):1051-1057.
  20. Hass DJ. Risks of Endoscopy in Special Populations: The Pregnant and the Elderly. Tech Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;9(4):236-241.
  21. Cappell MS. The fetal safety and clinical efficacy of gastrointestinal endoscopy during pregnancy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2003;32(1):123-179.
  22. Cappell MS. Sedation and analgesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy during pregnancy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin North Am. 2006;16(1):1– 31.
  23. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetric Practice. Committee Opinion No. 656: Guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy and lactation. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(2):e75e80.
  24. Jamidar PA, Beck GJ, Hoffman BJ, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in pregnancy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90(8):1263-1267.
  25. Sharma SS, Maharshi S. Two stage endoscopic approach for management of choledocholithiasis during pregnancy. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2008;17(2):183-185.
  26. Girotra M, Jani N. Role of endoscopic ultrasound/SpyScope in diagnosis and treatment of choledocholithiasis in pregnancy. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(28):3601-3602.
  27. Ersoz G, Tekesin O, Ozutemiz AO, Gunsar F. Biliary sphincterotomy plus dilation with a large balloon for bile duct stones that are difficult to extract. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57(2):156-159.
  28. Agcaoglu O, Ozcinar B, Gok AF, et al. ERCP without radiation during pregnancy in the minimal invasive world. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(6):1275-1278.
  29. Yang J, Zhang X, Zhang X. Therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography among pregnant women with severe acute biliary pancreatitis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23(5):437-440.
  30. Akcakaya A, Ozkan OV, Okan I, Kocaman O, Sahin M. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during pregnancy without radiation. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(29):3649-3652.
  31. Shelton J, Linder JD, Rivera-Alsina ME, Tarnasky PR. Commitment, confirmation, and clearance: new techniques for nonradiation ERCP during pregnancy (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67(2):364368.
  32. Li S, Dargavel C, Muradali D, May GR, Mosko JD. Real-time transabdominal ultrasound-guided ERCP is feasible and effective in pregnancy: a case series. Endosc Int Open. 2020;8(10):E1504-E1507.
  33. Shah JN, Bhat YM, Hamerski CM, Kane SD, Binmoeller KF. Feasibility of nonradiation EUS-based ERCP in patients with uncomplicated choledocholithiasis (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84(5):764-769.
  34. Sethi S, Thosani N, Banerjee S. Radiation-Free ERCP in Pregnancy: A “Sound” Approach to Leaving No Stone Unturned. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(9):2604-2607.
  35. Brewer Gutierrez OI, Godoy Brewer G, Zulli C, et al. Multicenter experience with digital single-operator cholangioscopy in pregnant patients. Endosc Int Open. 2021;9(2):E116-E121.
  36. Elmunzer BJ, Scheiman JM, Lehman GA, et al. A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1414-1422.

Download Tables, Images & References

MEDICAL BULLETIN BOARD

Medical Bulletin Board

Read Article

Compulink Partners with Promptly to Provide Cutting Edge Patient Engagement

Company adds full suite of mobile patient engagement tools to its all-in-one EHR solution

Newbury Park, CA – Compulink Healthcare

Solutions, a leader in specialty specific all-in-one EHR solutions, has announced its partnership with Promptly, provider of the leading comprehensive web-based patient experience suite on the market, to deliver new mobile-friendly patient engagement tools for its Advantage SMART Practice®  solution.

Dubbed Advantage Patient Experience™, this suite is comprised of easy-to-use features providing patients with the latest in mobile device convenience, while simultaneously reducing the administrative burden on office staff. 

Some of the features of Advantage Patient Experience include:

  • Smart online scheduling allowing patients to self-schedule with real-time availability using a simple Q&A for selecting the correct appointment type.
  • Automated Waitlist functionality which reaches out to patients automatically when the system detects a cancellation on a provider’s schedule.
  • Patient kiosk accessible from mobile phone or in-office tablet for easy update of patient information, scanning of driver’s license/ insurance card, e-sign of consents, and friction-less payment. Kiosk supports over 100 languages.
  • Mobile check-in feature with geo-location services that automatically checks patient in when they arrive at the office and alerts patients to drive times to the office.
  • Multi-level patient messaging via text, email, or interactive voice response.
  • Text-to-pay supporting virtual wallets.
  • Patient cost estimator using real-time data to provide patients with price transparency and accelerate collections while satisfying the No Surprises Act.
  • Fully automated vision insurance eligibility for Ophthalmic businesses.

“We believe this suite of state-of-the-art patient engagement tools will allow our clients to provide more personalized care to their patients at a substantially lower cost to the practice”, said Link Wilson, CEO and Product Architect. “Self-serve features like online scheduling and balance alerts with text-to-pay not only provides added convenience for patients but helps improve cashflow and bottom line business profitability.”

Compulink’s Advantage SMART Practice, all-in-one database solution includes a specialtyspecific EHR, practice management, inventory management, patient engagement, ASC, E-commerce, and Optical POS (for ophthalmic practices). The company also provides an expert revenue cycle management service for its clients. Advantage is 2015 ONC Certified for MIPS. Compulink is used by more than 25,000 providers in over 4,900 locations, 70 ASCs, and 19 universities and colleges. 

“We are extremely excited about this partnership with Compulink. Adding our patient experience suite to their comprehensive solution gives these organizations all the tools they need to automate their practices,” said Dr. Anish Kapur, President of Promptly. “The feedback we have gotten from our mutual clients has been fantastic. When our two systems are implemented at a practice, they work harmoniously to alleviate staff shortages and stresses while eliminating tedious front office tasks, increasing revenue, and improving patient satisfaction.”

About Compulink Healthcare Solutions

A leader in specialty specific EHR and Practice Management for 37 years, our all-in-one solution enables today’s private practice to deliver personalized patient care more efficiently for better outcomes and financial performance. With more smart features to automate patient flow and speed documentation, Compulink offers the industry’s only EHR solution that adapts to your workflow.

About Promptly LLC

Promptly is a comprehensive web-based patient experience and automation suite designed for medical practices to enhance patient touchpoints, accelerate patient payments and automate processes to support your team while combating staffing shortages.

Find out more at: PromptlyCheckIn.com

PHATHOM PHARMACEUTICALS SUBMITS

Vonoprazan Nda to Fda for the Treatment of Erosive Esophagitis

FLORHAM PARK, N.J., March 14, 2022 –

Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: PHAT), a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing novel treatments for gastrointestinal diseases, announced today that it has submitted a new drug application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the use of vonoprazan as a treatment for adults for the healing of all grades of erosive esophagitis (EE) and relief of heartburn, and maintenance of healing of all grades of EE and relief of heartburn. Erosive esophagitis, a major type of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), affects approximately 20 million people in the U.S. In addition to experiencing troubling heartburn symptoms, patients with inadequately treated EE

may progress to more severe diseases including Barrett’s esophagus, a condition in which esophageal tissue changes can progress to cancer.

“The submission of this NDA is another exciting step towards bringing the first major innovation to the U.S. GERD market in over 30 years,” said Azmi Nabulsi, M.D., Chief Operating Officer at Phathom. “Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are currently the standard of care for EE yet approximately half of all U.S. patients progress their lines of therapy annually. We believe there is great interest among patients and healthcare providers for new treatment options to address the shortcomings of current treatment. If approved, vonoprazan has the potential to satisfy the large unmet needs of millions of patients and set a new treatment paradigm in EE.”

This NDA is based on the positive data previously announced from Phathom’s pivotal Phase 3 PHALCON-EE trial, a randomized, doubleblind, multicenter trial that enrolled 1,024 patients with EE in the U.S. and Europe and compared vonoprazan to lansoprazole, a standard of care PPI, in the healing and maintenance of healing of

EE, and heartburn symptom relief. PHALCONEE successfully met its primary endpoints and key secondary superiority endpoints.

About Erosive Esophagitis

Erosive esophagitis is a condition characterized by the presence of breaks, or erosions, in the esophageal tissue caused by constant irritation of the mucosal surface and subsequent loss of defense mechanisms against acid and digestive enzymes. Chronic erosive esophagitis can lead to complications including peptic stricture, a narrowing of the esophagus that causes difficulty swallowing, and Barrett’s esophagus, a condition in which esophageal tissue changes can progress to cancer. Uncontrolled reflux disease can also result in extra-esophageal diseases such as respiratory problems, chest pain, angina, and increased mortality.

About PHALCON-EE

PHALCON-EE was a randomized, double-blind, two-phase, multicenter, Phase 3 trial that enrolled 1,024 patients with EE in the U.S. and Europe. The first phase of the trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan 20 mg administered oncedaily (QD) compared to lansoprazole 30 mg QD for the healing of EE for up to eight weeks. The second phase of the trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan 10 mg QD and 20 mg QD compared to lansoprazole 15 mg QD for the maintenance of healing of EE for 24 weeks. Both phases also evaluated heartburn symptoms.

About Vonoprazan

Vonoprazan is an investigational, oral small molecule potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB). P-CABs are a novel class of medicines that block acid secretion in the stomach. Vonoprazan has shown the potential to have rapid, potent, and durable anti-secretory effects as a single agent in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and in combination with antibiotics for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. The FDA has awarded qualified infection disease product (QIDP) status and granted Fast Track designation to vonoprazan in combination with both amoxicillin and clarithromycin and with amoxicillin alone for the treatment of H. pylori infection. Phathom in-licensed the U.S., European, and Canadian rights to vonoprazan from Takeda, which completed 19 Phase 3 trials for vonoprazan and received marketing approval in Japan and numerous other countries in Asia and Latin America.

About Phathom

Phathom Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel treatments for gastrointestinal diseases and disorders. Phathom has in-licensed the exclusive rights in the United States, Europe, and Canada to vonoprazan, a novel potassium competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) in late-stage development for the treatment of acidrelated disorders. For more information about Phathom, visit the Company’s website at www. phathompharma.com and follow the Company on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Forward Looking Statements

The Company cautions you that statements contained in this press release regarding matters that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are based on the Company’s current beliefs and expectations. The inclusion of forward-looking statements should not be regarded as a representation by the Company that any of its plans will be achieved. Actual results may differ from those set forth in this press release due to the risks and uncertainties inherent in the Company’s business, including, without limitation: we may not obtain regulatory approval of our NDAs for the treatment of H. pylori, erosive esophagitis, or the other indications in which we are developing vonoprazan; even if we receive regulatory approval, the Company may experience delays in its plans to commercially launch vonoprazan in particular as we currently have a limited marketing and no sales organization and have no experience as a company in commercializing products; the Company may experience delays in designing and initiating a Phase 3 on-demand study in NERD, including in the event that the FDA does not agree with the Company’s study design or its interpretation of the data; the Company will require substantial additional financing to achieve its goals and may not be able to obtain such financing on acceptable terms, or at all; the Company’s dependence on third parties in connection with product manufacturing, research and preclinical and clinical testing; regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries; unexpected adverse side effects or inadequate efficacy of vonoprazan that may limit its development, regulatory approval and/ or commercialization, or may result in recalls or product liability claims; previously granted QIDP and Fast Track designations may be withdrawn or not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or extended exclusivity, and would not assure FDA approval of vonoprazan; the Company’s ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for vonoprazan; the Company’s ability to comply with its license agreement with Takeda; the Company’s ability to maintain undisrupted business operations due to the ongoing presence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, including delaying or otherwise disrupting its clinical trials, manufacturing and supply chain, and other risks described in the Company’s prior filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including under the heading “Risk Factors” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and any subsequent filings with the SEC. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date hereof. All forward-looking statements are qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement, which is made under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Evoendo Announces Us Fda 510(K) Clearance for Single-use Unsedated Transnasal Endoscopy (Tne) System

EvoEndo’s Single-Use Endoscopy System or the “EvoEndo System” eliminates the need for general anesthesia or conscious sedation during routine upper endoscopic procedures •            The EvoEndo System is being distributed by Micro-Tech Endoscopy USA with commercial sales slated to begin following completion of first clinical cases at several pediatric facilities

DENVER, CO – EvoEndo®, Inc. (“EvoEndo”), a medical device company developing systems for Unsedated Transnasal Endoscopy (TNE), has announced the receipt of 510(k) clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to begin marketing and sale of the EvoEndo® SingleUse Endoscopy System. The clearance follows EvoEndo’s distribution agreement with MicroTech Endoscopy USA, Inc. (“Micro-Tech”), which will begin a phased distribution of the EvoEndo System into hospitals and ASCs in the United States.

EvoEndo was founded in 2017 by Dr. Joel Friedlander, a Pediatric Gastroenterologist at Children’s Hospital of Colorado, and is led by Chief Executive Officer Dr. Heather Underwood, an experienced medical device and technology entrepreneur, and alumna of the Stanford University Biodesign Program. While traditional endoscopy requires patients to undergo general anesthesia or sedation, the EvoEndo System combines sterile, single-use, flexible endoscopes, a portable video controller, and a take-home “comfort kit” containing virtual reality (VR) goggles for patient entertainment and distraction during the procedure to allow for unsedated transnasal endoscopy. The EvoEndo System ultimately enables safer and more cost-effective upper endoscopic procedures for patients, doctors, and hospitals. The FDA clearance is the latest milestone for EvoEndo, who also announced the completion of a $10.1M equity financing round last June.

Heather Underwood, Chief Executive Officer at EvoEndo, commented, “Receiving FDA 510(k) clearance for the EvoEndo System will allow us to execute on our mission of enabling a safer, faster, and more affordable alternative to sedated endoscopy for both pediatric and adult patients. This is an exceptional accomplishment for our team and validates our ongoing commitment to transform best practices in endoscopy and support the broader adoption of unsedated procedures throughout the U.S.” “With today’s announcement, we are one step closer towards making unsedated endoscopies the standard of care within the medical community,” said Joel Friedlander, Chief Medical Officer and Co-Founder of EvoEndo. “We are thrilled to receive this clearance and proud to be on the forefront of a new and innovative system to help diagnose and treat pediatric and adult patients.”

“The EvoEndo® Model LE Single-Use

Gastroscope addresses critical clinical needs in current pediatric and adult endoscopy practice and is a prime example of the innovative medical technology we strive to provide to our network,” stated Micro-Tech USA President Chris Li. “A combination of the smaller scope size, larger biopsy channel, coupled with a sterile single-use device can help save valuable procedure time and cost. We look forward to further growing our partnership with EvoEndo and to the successful completion of initial clinical cases.”

The EvoEndo System is only intended for use by medical professionals. Physicians and other medical providers interested in learning more about EvoEndo’s TNE system or to schedule demonstrations and training can contact the company here.

About EvoEndo®

EvoEndo®, Inc. is a medical device company developing systems that enable unsedated endoscopic procedures through a combination of sterile single-use, flexible endoscopes and VRbased patient distraction. EvoEndo’s technology allows pediatric patients and adults alike to receive routine endoscopies in a clinic setting without the use of general anesthesia or sedation, while reducing complexity, cost, and patient/provider apprehension.

To learn more, please visit: evoendo.com/

About Micro-Tech Endoscopy USA

Since 2000, Micro-Tech Endoscopy has been focused on creating top-quality products for endoscopic diagnosis, and therapeutic medical devices that allow physicians to provide the highest level of care. By partnering with doctors dedicated to innovation, Micro-Tech is committed to bringing better devices to market, with unparalleled speed, at an economical price, and without the burden of contracts. Micro-Tech does not compromise on quality and does not believe customers should either.

Micro-Tech Endoscopy has operations in America, Asia, and Europe and leverages this global reach to rapidly commercialize and refine the products it brings to its clinician partners. Micro-Tech’s team has a wealth of experience in the field and in-depth understanding of both product and use cases.

With the health care industry transforming rapidly, Micro-Tech Endoscopy is dedicated to setting the pace as a disruptor. Micro-Tech is more than a medical technology company, it is building a community of healthcare innovators and making health care more value-driven.

Smart Medical Systems’ G-eye® Colonoscope Is Now Fda Cleared on Olympus’ Pcf Colonoscope Series, Making It Available in the United States on the Commonly Used Models of All Leading Endoscopy Brands Fda has approved the use of G-EYE® with Olympus’ 510(k) cleared PCF colonoscopes

RA’ANANA, Israel, – SMART Medical Systems Ltd., a developer and manufacturer of innovative endoscopy products, announced an additional FDA clearance for its G-EYE® Colonoscope, based on Olympus’ 510(k) cleared PCF colonoscope series. With this additional FDA clearance, G-EYE® is now available for use in the U.S. market on the commonly used colonoscope models of all three leading endoscopy brands – OLYMPUS, FUJIFILM, and PENTAX Medical.

“The ability to offer G-EYE® on colonoscope brands and models commonly used and widely available in the United States is an important milestone for SMART Medical, patients, and endoscopists,” said Gadi Terliuc, Chief Executive Officer of SMART Medical. “The majority of U.S. endoscopists now have the option to utilize our cutting-edge technology, which has been shown in clinical studies to improve visualization compared with standard colonoscopy, while using their preferred brand and model of colonoscope. We are very excited to have completed our portfolio of U.S. G-EYE® offerings and believe that the widespread availability of the technology on the commonly used colonoscope models has the potential to accelerate adoption of G-EYE® colonoscopy as the standard of care.”

The G-EYE® Colonoscope is a 510(k) cleared colonoscope, remanufactured by SMART to include a proprietary balloon at its distal bending section. Withdrawal of the G-EYE® Colonoscope with the balloon moderately inflated during colonoscopy assists in controlling the colonoscope’s field of view and positioning. A published study (GIE 2019; 89: 545-53) demonstrated that G-EYE® can improve colonoscopy outcomes compared with standard colonoscopy across several metrics, including increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR) by 28%, detecting 47% more adenomas per patient (APP), 62% more advanced and large adenomas, and 142% more flat adenomas.

“We expect that this FDA clearance of the G-EYE® Colonoscope based on Olympus’ PCF scopes, which many Olympus users prefer over traditional adult-sized colonoscopes, will enhance our ability to capture a substantial portion of the U.S. colonoscopy market,” said Brian Cochrane, Chief Commercial Officer of SMART’s U.S. subsidiary. “We are committed to becoming the standard of care in colonoscopy, and this FDA clearance is an important step toward achieving this critical goal.”

About SMART Medical Systems

SMART Medical Systems is a pioneer in the development and manufacture of innovative medical devices in the field of gastro-intestinal (GI) endoscopy. SMART’s unique approach is to address key challenges in contemporary endoscopy while using available brand name endoscopes. SMART’s CE Marked and FDAcleared NaviAid™ and G-EYE® product families are commercially distributed in key global markets. With its partnership with FUJIFILM and PENTAX Medical, SMART’s G-EYE® colonoscopy solution is currently adopted by two of the three industry leaders in GI endoscopy imaging. SMART is headquartered in Israel, and operates in the United States through its wholly-owned subsidiary, SMART GI Inc.

For more information, please visit: smartmedsys.com/us/

Download Tables, Images & References

DISPATCHES FROM THE GUILD CONFERENCE, SERIES #45

Screening for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Who, What, When, and Why

Read Article

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the fastest growing causes of cancer worldwide. Two interventions are proven to improve HCC outcomes: early detection of HCC and treating the underlying cause of liver disease. In this review, we present best practices for HCC screening and evaluation. We highlight patient selection (namely patients with hepatitis B virus infection and anyone with cirrhosis), modality (ultrasound with alfa-fetoprotein with mention of alternatives), and the ideal sequence of events for patients from diagnosis to curative therapy.

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a growing public health threat.1 Its global incidence has increased rapidly with incidence rates expected to climb further particularly among Black and Hispanic persons.2 The median survival of HCC is 11 months, however morbidity and mortality vary by stage of disease and management strategies.3

Crucially, less than half of HCC is discovered at an early stage, reducing the possibility of curative therapy.4 While there are limited randomized controlled trials on HCC screening, existing studies have shown HCC detection and subsequent curative therapy is significantly increased in patients undergoing screening with ultrasound and serum biomarkers, than those not screened.5 This review aims to describe the at-risk populations and mechanisms for HCC screening in accordance with the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines.

Epidemiology

Cirrhosis is the primary risk factor for HCC, accounting for 80-90% of HCC with an annual incidence of 2-4%.6,7 HCC is more common among men and older persons.8 The highest incidence is among people with uncured/viremic hepatitis C and uncontrolled hepatitis B infections.9,10 Globally, however, Asia and sub-Saharan Africa still comprise the majority of HCC due to endemic Hepatitis B infection (HBV), a major risk factor for HCC.11 Concurrently, the rising tide of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), considered the hepatic component of metabolic syndrome, has eclipsed hepatitis C in its contribution to the burden of HCC.

Prevention of HCC

HCC prevention is limited to prevention of chronic liver disease in general, including HBV vaccination. Much like cervical cancer, HCC can arise from an oncogenic viral infection. In areas where HBV is endemic, approximately 70% of HCC patients test positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg).12 HCC in children is generally the result of perinatal transmission.13 The HBV vaccine has reduced transmission. The United States adopted a universal HBV infant vaccination policy in 1991 including testing of all pregnant patients for HBsAg and prophylaxis for their infants, infant vaccination, and vaccination of adults in high risk groups.14 While this program hasn’t been optimally implemented in America, evaluation of universal childhood HBV vaccination programs in countries like Taiwan show a significant reduction in HCC in postvaccine birth cohorts compared to prevaccine cohorts.15

HBV Treatment

In general, therapeutic control of HBV can both reduce but not eliminate the risk of HCC.16 A large RCT from Taiwan assigned patients with HBVrelated cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis to receive lamivudine or placebo to evaluate liver disease progression, including HCC. While the study was terminated early due to major differences between the treatment and placebo group, HCC was noted to occur in significantly fewer patients in the lamivudine group (3.4%) compared to those receiving placebo (8.8%).17

Hepatitis C Treatment

Cure, or sustained virologic response (SVR), of hepatitis C is associated with a lower risk HCC. HCV eradication also reduces the risk of HCC,18,19 but the risk of HCC can remain elevated, particular among older persons with low platelets or albumin, high liver stiffness or Fibrosis-4 indices, and those who are actively drinking alcohol.18,20

Lifestyle Considerations

There is limited data regarding diet and lifestyle interventions for HCC risk. A number can be inferred, however, from observational data. A study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database found the population attributable fraction of diabetes and obesity (hallmarks of NAFLD), to have a 37% contribution to HCC development.21 As metabolic syndrome is a pro-carcinogenic state, targeting metabolic risk factors may be an important part in HCC risk mitigation.

Use of greater than 80g of alcohol per day can increase risk of HCC nearly 5-fold.22 Alcohol is a multiplier of risk, even for persons with viral hepatitis.23

Why Screen for HCC?

Early HCC diagnosis remains difficult for many reasons. There are neither symptoms nor physical exam findings early in the disease course specific to HCC. Liver enzyme or function testing is similarly inadequate.24 Symptomatic disease is often locally advanced or metastatic with few therapeutic options that have limited efficacy, despite recent advances in systemic HCC therapeutics. Whereas patients detected at late stages have a median survival less than one year, patients detected at an early stage can undergo curative therapy and achieve 5-year survival exceeding 70%.4,25 Early stage HCC can be cured through ablation, surgical resection, or liver transplantation. Given that late-stage HCC is associated with reduced survival, poor quality of life, and can only be treated with expensive systemic therapies, efforts to identify early-stage HCC are cost-effective.26

As the principal risk factors for HCC are identifiable – cirrhosis and hepatitis B – screening can be targeted towards those most likely to benefit. Competing risks, such as life-limiting comorbidities and frailty, may play a role in deciding to enroll a patient in a screening. Among those with HBV, men >40 years old, females >50 years old, and those with a family history of HCC should be screened.27

How to Screen? (Table 1.)

First, while many patients with cirrhosis have subspecialists who assume responsibility, most do not. In evaluation of primary care physician (PCP) practices, a recent survey study demonstrated nearly a third of PCPs defer HCC screening to subspecialists.28 Effective cancer screening is a balance of accuracy of the test, ease of utilization, and cost effectiveness. Early screening algorithms proposed screening with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). However, limitations with AFP soon became obvious, including serum elevations in the absence of HCC, remaining normal in setting of HCC, and inability for AFP to necessarily detect early stage tumors.29 A seminal study by Sheu et al. noted normal AFP in nearly half of patients presenting with hepatomas less than 5cm, which would have otherwise been missed.30 Ultrasound (US) was later introduced as a cost effective imaging modality for screening; the first RCT for HCC screening with US and AFP showed close to 40% reduction in HCC associated mortality compared to those with no screening, with a mortality rate ratio of 0.63 (95% CI 0.41, 0.98) with a 58% adherence rate. Given limitations of AFP alone, the AASLD recommends using ultrasound (with or without AFP) every 6 months. Computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been investigated mainly as diagnostic modalities for HCC, and data for their use in HCC screening are limited. Not only are CT and MRI more costly than US, but radiation exposure and availability, respectively, have precluded their inclusion in national guidelines. However, they may be considered for screening in patients with central obesity or hepatic parenchymal heterogeneity secondary to cirrhosis.27 Recently, some centers have adopted ‘abbreviated MRI’ as a way of screening for HCC using contrast-enhanced sequences with data suggesting high sensitivity and patient acceptability.31 Finally, there are emerging data regarding novel blood-based biomarkers for screening but these are not ready for practice implementation.

What to do When I Find Something?

Prompt diagnostic evaluation is the cornerstone of HCC screening effectiveness, as tumor stage at diagnosis is the single strongest prognostic indicator.4 Unlike many other cancers, HCC diagnosis can be established with imaging without definitive need for biopsy. However, not all nodules seen by ultrasound are HCC. When a suspicious lesion is found, patients should undergo crosssectional diagnostic imaging with a multiphasic CT or MRI. Owing to the differential blood supply of the liver (primarily portal veinous blood) and HCC (primary arterial), the timing of contrast phase can identify lesions as HCC or not. Liver lesions are categorized and interpreted according to the American College of Radiology criteria for Liver Imaging Reporting and data system (LI-RADS).32 Lesions are classified from definitely benign (LIRADS 1) to definitely HCC (LI-RADS 5), as well as non-HCC malignancy (LI-RADS M) and noncategorizable (LI-RADS NC). For LI-RADS 4 lesions and above, the AASLD recommends a multidisciplinary discussion, with biopsy in select cases, or follow up imaging in 3 months. Treatment options for HCC include curative therapies such as surgical resection, locoregional therapy (ablation or radiation), palliative therapies (chemoembolization, radioembolization), or organ transplantation. Each stage of the evaluation from diagnosis to selection of treatment options to follow-up benefits from the coordination of a multidisciplinary team.

Conclusion

HCC is increasingly common and the best available tool to reduce its morbidity and mortality is screening. Screening should be performed for patients with cirrhosis and/or hepatitis B. At this time, best practice includes semi-annual ultrasound and AFP. Nodules should be evaluated using multiphasic cross-sectional imaging. Diagnosed HCC should be evaluated by multidisciplinary clinics.

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2018;68(6):394-424
  2. Petrick JL, Kelly SP, Altekruse SF, McGlynn KA, Rosenberg PS. Future of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Incidence in the United States Forecast Through 2030. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2016;34(15):1787-94 doi: 10.1200/jco.2015.64.7412[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
  3. Greten T, Papendorf F, Bleck J, et al. Survival rate in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective analysis of 389 patients. British journal of cancer 2005;92(10):1862-68
  4. Njei B, Rotman Y, Ditah I, Lim JK. Emerging trends in hepatocellular carcinoma incidence and mortality. Hepatology 2015;61(1):191-99
  5. Zhang B-H, Yang B-H, Tang Z-Y. Randomized controlled trial of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 2004;130(7):417-22
  6. Kanwal F, Hoang T, Kramer JR, et al. Increasing prevalence of HCC and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Gastroenterology 2011;140(4):1182-88. e1
  7. Fattovich G, Stroffolini T, Zagni I, Donato F. Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: incidence and risk factors. Gastroenterology 2004;127(5):S35-S50
  8. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2011;61(2):69-90 doi: 10.3322/caac.20107[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
  9. Jhaveri R. Screening for hepatitis C virus: how universal is universal? Clinical therapeutics 2020;42(8):1434-41
  10. Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al. Screening for hepatitis C virus infection in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Jama 2020;323(10):970-75
  11. El-Serag HB. Hepatocellular Carcinoma. New England Journal of Medicine 2011;365(12):1118-27 doi: 10.1056/ nejmra1001683[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
  12. Okuda K, Ishak KG. Neoplasms of the Liver: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
  13. Chang MH, Chen DS, Hsu HC, Hsu HY, Lee CY. Maternal transmission of hepatitis B virus in childhood hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 1989;64(11):2377-80
  14. Schillie S, Vellozzi C, Reingold A, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus infection in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recommendations and Reports 2018;67(1):1
  15. Chang M-H, You S-L, Chen C-J, et al. Decreased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatitis B vaccinees: a 20-year follow-up study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009;101(19):1348-55
  16. Papatheodoridis GV, Chan HL-Y, Hansen BE, Janssen HL, Lampertico P. Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B: assessment and modification with current antiviral therapy. Journal of hepatology 2015;62(4):956-67
  17. Liaw Y-F, Sung JJ, Chow WC, et al. Lamivudine for patients with chronic hepatitis B and advanced liver disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2004;351(15):1521-31
  18. Ioannou GN, Beste LA, Green PK, et al. Increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma persists up to 10 years after HCV eradication in patients with baseline cirrhosis or high FIB-4 scores. Gastroenterology 2019;157(5):1264-78. e4
  19. Nahon P, Layese R, Bourcier V, et al. Incidence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Direct Antiviral Therapy for HCV in Patients With Cirrhosis Included in Surveillance Programs.
    Gastroenterology 2018;155(5):1436-50.e6 doi: 10.1053/j. gastro.2018.07.015[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
  20. Semmler G, Meyer EL, Kozbial K, et al. HCC risk stratification after cure of hepatitis C in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease. J Hepatol 2021 doi: 10.1016/j. jhep.2021.11.025[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
  21. Welzel TM, Graubard BI, Quraishi S, et al. Populationattributable fractions of risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States. The American journal of gastroenterology
    2013;108(8):1314
  22. Morgan TR, Mandayam S, Jamal MM. Alcohol and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004;127(5):S87-S96
  23. De Bac C, Stroffolini T, Gaeta GB, Taliani G, Giusti G. Pathogenic factors in cirrhosis with and without hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter Italian study. Hepatology 1994;20(5):1225-30
  24. Attwa MH, El-Etreby SA. Guide for diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. World journal of hepatology
    2015;7(12):1632
  25. De Toni EN, Schlesinger-Raab A, Fuchs M, et al. Age independent survival benefit for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) without metastases at diagnosis: a population-based study. Gut 2020;69(1):168-76
  26. Parikh ND, Singal AG, Hutton DW, Tapper EB. Cost-effectiveness of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance: an assessment of benefits and harms. Official journal of the American College of Gastroenterology| ACG 2020;115(10):1642-49
  27. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, et al. Diagnosis, S taging, and M anagement of H epatocellular C arcinoma: 2018 P ractice G uidance by the A merican A ssociation for the S tudy of L iver D iseases. Hepatology 2018;68(2):723-50
  28. Simmons OL, Feng Y, Parikh ND, Singal AG. Primary care provider practice patterns and barriers to hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2019;17(4):766-73
  29. Lok AS, Lai CL. α-Fetoprotein monitoring in Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection: role in the early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 1989;9(1):110-15
  30. Sheu JC, Sung JL, Chen DS, et al. Early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma by real-time ultrasonography. A prospective study. Cancer 1985;56(3):660-66
  31. Woolen SA, Singal AG, Davenport MS, et al. Patient preferences for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance parameters. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2022;20(1):204-15. e6
  32. Tang A, Bashir MR, Corwin MT, et al. Evidence supporting LI-RADS major features for CT-and MR imaging–based diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review. Radiology
    2018;286(1):29-48

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE PEDIATRIC LITERATURE

From The Pediatric Literature

Read Article

ECMO and the Risk of Cholestasis in Children

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-saving procedure which provides oxygen while removing carbon dioxide to critically ill patients by removing blood from a patient before returning it via a circuit. The returning blood is not pulsatile which can lead to hepatic injury and direct hyperbilirubinemia (DHB), and the occurrence of DHB in the setting of ECMO is associated with increased patient mortality. The authors of this study looked at risk factors for pediatric patients on ECMO developing DHB or experiencing mortality.

This single-center retrospective study at a tertiary medical center evaluated all pediatric patients under eight years of age who received ECMO over a 10-year period (2010-2020). Children on ECMO for less than 48 hours duration were excluded from the study, and DHB was defined as a direct bilirubin level greater than 1 mg / dL. Causes for ECMO and ECMO duration were determined, and risk factors for DHB which included total parenteral nutrition (TPN), continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), and central cannulation were evaluated. Illness severity while on ECMO included two scores: the vasoactive-ionotropic score (VIS) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score. Finally, outcomes were compared between patients with DHB on ECMO and a control group consisting of patients without

DHB on ECMO.

A total of 106 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) were included in the study, and 51% of patients were male while 46% of patients were neonates. The median age at time of ECMO was 0.2 years (range 0-2.3 years), and the most common cause leading to ECMO was post-surgical care for congenital heart disease (39%). The median time spent on ECMO was 8 days (range 5-19 days), and 34% of patients on ECMO developed DHB. None of the patients with DHB while on ECMO had underlying previous liver disease. Serum AST and ALT were not significantly different between patients with DHB and the control group at the time of ECMO initiation. Neonates were not at a higher risk of developing DHB while on ECMO. TPN was utilized in 83% of patients, and central cannulation was utilized in 34% of patients; neither therapeutic was a risk factor for DHB. However, patients who developed DHB while on ECMO spent a significantly longer time on ECMO (19 days (interquartile range or IQR 8-30 days)) versus 6 days (IQR 4-13 days, P<0.001) and were significantly more likely to require CRRT (50% versus 13%, P<0.001). A total of 46 of the 106 patients (43%) died, and patients with DHB were statistically more likely to die while on ECMO compared to the control group (72% versus 29%, P<0.001). Although the APACHE II score was not significantly different between study groups at the time of ICU admission, logistic regression analysis demonstrated that DHB development during ECMO was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate independent of the VIS score or CRRT use (P=0.006).

This retrospective study provides some initial insight as to potential causes of mortality for children with DHB undergoing ECMO. The simple presence of DHB was a risk factor for mortality in this study, and CRRT was a possible aggravating risk factor. The authors state that more work is needed to prevent DHB from occurring in children receiving ECMO.

Alexander E, O’Sullivan D, Aganga D, Hassan S, Ibrahim S, Absah I. Clinical implications for children developing direct hyperbilirubinemia on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2022; 74: 333-337.

Malnutrition in Children with Congenital Heart Disease

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is a common pediatric congenital disorder worldwide, and malnutrition can be a co-morbidity in children with CHD leading to poor health outcomes. The authors of this study performed a meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of malnutrition in children with CHD before and after cardiac surgery. This meta-analysis followed the guidelines of the PRISMA statement (http://www.prisma-statement. org/), and the authors searched for several CHD terms utilizing an “or” for combination wording through several large medical databases. Crosssectional or cohort studies were identified through September 2021 with an emphasis on preoperative and postoperative malnutrition. Malnutrition (underweight, stunting, and wasting) was defined by using World Health Organization z-scores in which “underweight” was defined as a weight-forage z-score less than -2; “stunting” was defined as a height-for-age z-score less than -2; and “wasting” was defined as a weight-for-height z-score of less than -2.  

The authors initially found 3415 publications; however, only 39 studies fit all inclusion criteria (33 studies on malnutrition in the preoperative period; 17 studies on malnutrition in postoperative period). Using these specific studies, the metaanalysis determined that 79,719 patients were evaluated preoperatively for underweight status; 78,572 patients were evaluated for stunting; and 77,249 patients were evaluated for wasting. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale demonstrated that all such studies were of moderate to high quality. Pooled estimate analysis determined that 27.4% (95% CI, 21.7-34.0) of children with CHD were underweight, 24.4% (95% CI, 19.5-30.0) of children with CHD had stunting, and 24.8% (95% CI, 19.3-31.3) of children with CHD had wasting. Q testing further demonstrated that children with CHD had significantly more malnutrition compared to healthy children with no CHD (for underweight, Q = 16.24, P < .0001; for stunting, Q = 6.21, P = .013 for stunting; for wasting Q = 66.82, P < .0001).

Post-operative CHD repair improved malnutrition prevalence from 33.1% (95% CI, 26.2-40.8) at one month to 7.2% (95% CI, 4.7-10.8) at 12 months; improved stunting prevalence from 18.2% (95% CI, 10.8-29.0) at one month to 8.9% (95% CI, 4.5-16.7) at 12 months; and improved wasting prevalence from 22.1% (95% CI, 13.2-24.5) at one month to 5.4% (95% CI, 2.4-11.7) at 12 months. Of note, significant heterogeneity between studies using I2 testing was present when a pooled analysis was done for patients with underweight, stunting, and wasting. The main cause of heterogeneity depended on the continent where the study was performed. Funnel plot and Egger test analysis demonstrated no publication bias for the factors of overweight and stunting although this effect was seen for wasting.

This study demonstrates that malnutrition is a significant issue in pediatric patients with CHD, and surgical correction of CHD may improve malnutrition. However, this study also demonstrates significant outcome heterogeneity when studies throughout the world are considered. Welldefined definitions of outcomes in the setting of malnutrition and CHD are sorely needed, and better research is needed for preoperative malnutrition management (supplemental feedings, dietician management, etc.).

Diao J, Chen L, Wei J, Shu J, Li Y, Li J, Zhang S, Wang T, Qin J. Prevalence of malnutrition in children with congenital heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatrics 2022; 242: 39-47.

Download Tables, Images & References

Jojobet GirişjojobetmeritbetcasibomCasibom girişcasibomromabetJojobet GirişcasibomcasibomcasibomjojobetMadridbetMadridbetcasibom giriştaraftarium24justin tvbetgaranti girişganobetpokerklasjojobetjojobetromabetMarsbahis GüncelCasibommatbetJojobetGrandPashaBet destekDeneme bonusu veren siteler 2026GrandPashaBet Şikayetjojobet girişholiganbetCasibom GirişJojobet GirişJojobet Giriş