FROM THE LITERATURE

From The Literature

Read Article

Sleep Position and Gastroesophageal Reflux

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of spontaneous sleep positions on the occurrence of nocturnal gastroesophageal reflux in patients referred for ambulatory pH impedance reflux monitoring, including the concurrent sleep position measured using a sleep position measurement device that measured left, right, supine, and prone positions.

A total of 57 patients were evaluated, observing a significantly shorter acid exposure time in the left (median 0.0%, P25-P75, 0.0%-3.0%), compared with the right lateral position (median 1.2%, 0.0%-7.5%), and the supine position (median 0.6%, 0.0%-8.3%). The esophageal acid clearance time was significantly shorter in the left lateral decubitus position (median 35 seconds, 16115 seconds), compared with the supine (median 76 seconds, 22-257 seconds), and the right lateral positions (median 90 seconds, 26-250 seconds).

It was concluded that the left lateral decubitus position was associated with shorter nocturnal esophageal acid exposure time and faster esophageal acid clearance, compared with the supine and right lateral decubitus positions, as clinically suspected.

Schuitenmaker, J., van Dijk, M., Renske, N., et al.  “Association Between Sleep Position and Nocturnal Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Study Using Concurrent Monitoring of Sleep Position and Esophageal pH and Impedance.” American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 112, February 2020, pp. 348-351.

IBD Treated Patients with Anti-TNFa Response to Vaccination for COVID-19

Patients with IBD treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNFa biologics), are at high risk for vaccine-preventable infections. To study and assess the serologic responses to messenger RNACoronavirus Disease 2019 vaccine and its safety profile in patients with IBD stratified according to therapy, and compared with healthy controls (HCs), a prospective, controlled multicenter Israeli study was carried out. Those enrolled received 2 BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) doses. Anti-spike antibody levels and functional activity, anti-TNFa levels and adverse events (AEs) were detected longitudinally.

Overall, 258 subjects: 185 IBD (67 with antiTNFa, 118 non-anti-TNFa, and 73 HCs) were studied. After the first vaccine dose, all HCs were seropositive. Approximately 7% of patients with IBD, regardless of treatment, remained seronegative. After the second dose, all subjects were seropositive. However, anti-spike levels were significantly lower than anti-TNFa treated, compared with non-anti-TNFa treated patients and HCs. 

Neutralizing and inhibitory functions were both lower in anti-TNFa treated, compared with non-anti-TNFa treated patients and HCs. AntiTNFa drug levels and vaccine responses did not affect anti-spike levels. Infection rate and AEs were comparable in all groups. IBD activity was unaffected by BNT162b2. 

It was concluded that in this prospective study in patients with IBD stratified according to treatment, all patients mounted serologic response to 2 doses of vaccine; however, its magnitude was significantly lower in patients treated with antiTNFa, regardless of administration timing and drug levels. The vaccine was safe. As vaccine serologic response longevity in this group may be limited, vaccine booster dose should be considered.

Edelman-Klapper, H., Zittan, E., Shitrit, A., et al. on behalf of the “Responses to Covid19 vaccine Israeli IBD Group (RECOVER).” Gastroenterology 2022; Vol. 152, pp. 454-467.

Viremia in Chronic HBV with DNA Less than 2000 IU/mL

From 3 tertiary hospitals, untreated patients were enrolled with compensated cirrhosis with persistent serum HBV DNA levels less than 2000 IU/mL; LLV was defined as having at least 1 detectable serum HBV DNA (20-2000 IU/mL) episode, whereas maintained virologic response (MVR) was defined as having persistently undetectable serum HBV-DNA (<20 IU/ mL). When serum HBV-DNA was >2000 IU/ mL during follow-up, AVT was administered according to guidelines. Study end points were development of cirrhotic complication event (CCE), or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). 

Among 567 patients analyzed, cumulative HCC risk at 3, 5, and 7 years and was comparable between LLV (n = 391) vs MVR (n = 176) groups (5.7%, 10.7% and 17.3% vs 7.2%, 15.5%, and 19.4%), respectively. CCE risk was also comparable between 2 groups (7.5%, 12.8% and 13.7% vs 7.8%, 12.3% and 14.6%), respectively. By multivariate analysis, LLV (vs MVR), was not associated with HCC or CCE risks, with adjusted HR of 1.422 and 1.816, respectively.

Inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis yielded comparative outcomes between the 2 groups, regarding HCC and CCE risks, with HR ratios of 0.903 at 1.192, respectively.

It was interpreted that episodic LLV among untreated patients with compensated cirrhosis does not increase the risk of disease progression compared with MVR status. Need for AVT for episodic LLV should be reevaluated. 

Lee, H., Park, S., Lee, Y., et al.  “Episodic Detectable Viremia Does Not Affect Prognosis in Untreated Compensated Cirrhosis with Serum Hepatitis B Virus DNA <2000 IU/mL. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2022; Vol. 117, pp. 288-294.

BMI Association with Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer

There is an established association of body mass index (BMI) with colorectal cancer (CRC), and with the increasing obesity prevalence among younger generations. An attempt to evaluate the association of BMI at different ages during early adulthood with early onset CRC was carried out among 6602 patients with CRC and 7950 matched controls who were recruited in 2003 to 2020 in a population-based, case-controlled study from Germany, with 747 patients and 621 controls younger than 55 years and included in the analysis.

Self-reported height and weight at ages 20 years and 30 years and at approximately 10 years before diagnosis were recorded in personal interviews. Associations of BMI with early-onset CRC were estimated using multiple logistic regression. 

Compared with participants with BMI less than 25, those with BMI greater than 30 (obesity) at ages 20 years and 30 years and approximately 10 years before diagnosis were interviewed at 2.56, 2.06, and 1.88-fold risk of early onset CRC. The association of BMI with early-onset CRC risk was particularly pronounced among and essentially restricted to the majority of participants with no previous colonoscopy.

It was concluded that obesity at early adulthood is strongly associated with increased risk of early-onset CRC. 

Hengjing, L., Boakye, D., Chen, X., et al. “Associations of Body Mass Index at Different Ages with Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.” Gastroenterology, 2022; Vol. 162, pp. 1088-1097.

Symptoms after Acute Gluten Exposure in Celiac Disease and NCGS

Treated patients with celiac disease (CeD) and nonceliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), report acute, transient, incompletely understood symptoms after suspected gluten exposure. To determine whether (i) blinded gluten exposure induces symptoms, (ii) subjects accurately identify gluten exposure, and (iii) serum interleukin-2 (IL-2) levels distinguish CeD from NCGS subjects after gluten exposure.

A total of 60 subjects (n = 20 treated, healed CeD; n = 20 treated NCGS; n = 20 controls) were block randomized to a single, double-blind sham (rice flour), or 3-g gluten challenge with 72-hours followup. Twelve serial questionnaires (pain, bloating, nausea, and fatigue), and 10 serial plasma samples were collected. Mucosal permeability was assessed using both urinary lactose-13C mannitol ratios and endoscopic mucosal impedance.

A total of 35 of 40 (83%) subjects with CeD and NCGS reported symptoms with gluten (8 CeD, 9 NCGS), and sham (9 CeD and 9 NCGS), compared with 9 of 20 (45%) controls after gluten (n = 6) and sham (n = 3). There was no significant difference in symptoms among groups. Only 2 of 10 subjects with CeD and 4 of 10 NCGS identified gluten, whereas 8 of 10 subjects with CeD and 5 of 10 NCGS identified sham. A significant plasma IL-2 increase occurred only in subjects with CeD after gluten, peaking at 3 hours and normalizing within 24 hours postchallenge, despite no significant intestinal permeability change from baseline. 

It was concluded that symptoms did not reliably indicate gluten exposure in either subjects with CeD or NCGS. IL-2 production indicates rapid onset, gluten-induced T-cell activation in CeD, despite longstanding treatment. The effector site is unknown, given no increased intestinal permeability after gluten.

Cartee, A., Choung, R., King, K., et al.  “Plasma IL-2 and Symptoms Response After Acute Gluten Exposure in Subjects with Celiac Disease or Non-celiac Gluten Sensitivity.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 2022; Vol. 117, pp. 319-326.

Early Onset Colorectal Neoplasia

To determine the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in individuals between 45 and 49 years old or even younger in the United States, an analysis was carried out using a large, nationally represented data set of almost 3,000,000 outpatient colonoscopies to determine the prevalence of, and risk factors for colorectal neoplasia among patients aged 18 to 54. 

High quality colonoscopies were analyzed from AMSURG ambulatory endoscopic centers

(ASCs) that report the results from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium (GIQuIC). Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for EOCRC (early onset colorectal cancer).

Increasing age, male sex, white race, family history of CRC, and examinations for bleeding or screening were all associated with higher odds of APLs (advanced premalignant lesions) and CRC (colorectal cancer). Among patients aged 45-49, 32% had any neoplasm, 7.5% had APLs and 0.5% had CRC. Rates were almost as high in those aged 40-44. Family history of CRC portended neoplasia rates 5 years earlier. Race of APLs were higher in American Indian/Alaskan Natives, but lower among Blacks, Asians and Hispanics, compared with White counterparts. Prevalence of any neoplasia and APL gradually increased between 2014 and 2019 in all age groups.

It was concluded that these data provide support for lowering the screening age from 45 for all average-risk individuals. 

Trivedi, P., Mohapatra, A., Morris, M., et al. “Prevalence and Predictors of Young Onset Colorectal Neoplasia: Insights from a Nationally Representative Colonoscopy Registry.”  Gastroenterology 2022;  Vol. 162, pp. 1136-1146.

Download Tables, Images & References

NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #221

More than Just Weight Loss: Understanding the Toll of Malnutrition on the Body

Read Article

Protein-calorie malnutrition is associated with a variety of adverse clinical outcomes including delayed wound healing, nosocomial infections, hospital readmissions, and increased hospital length of stay. Identifying malnutrition is vital to prevent these adverse outcomes and to hasten recovery. Starvation and inflammation affect muscle mass and adipose tissue as well as the body’s ability to utilize nutrition and hydration. Changes to body cell mass alone do not explain the profound impact that malnutrition has on clinical outcomes. This paper will explore the impact that malnutrition has on different organ systems and how treatment may need to be modified for the malnourished patient.

INTRODUCTION

Malnutrition in the hospitalized patient is of this article, the term “malnutrition” shall be associated with a variety of adverse clinical synonymous with adult undernutrition or, more outcomes, including increases in infectious specifically, protein-calorie malnutrition , which is defined by inadequate energy intake required for proper tissue growth and maintenance.4 For the purposes malnutrition, one must first be able to identify it. A variety of assessments exist for diagnosing malnutrition, most of which focus on both the etiology of malnutrition and its phenotypic presentation. Examples of these assessments include the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), the Malnutrition Clinical Characteristics (MCC), and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria (see Table 1).4–6 All three assessment tools recognize that inflammation can expedite the loss of muscle, fat, and body cell mass beyond what one would expect from starvation alone. As the degree of inflammation increases, protein-calorie malnutrition accelerates. The SGA breaks down the metabolic demand of illness into four simple categories: no stress (starvation without illness), low stress, moderate stress, and high stress. The GLIM criteria present four similar categories: starvation, chronic disease with minimal or no inflammation, chronic disease with inflammation, and acute disease or injury with severe inflammation. The MCC also follows this theme, but with three categories instead of four: starvation, chronic disease-related, and acute disease or injury-related. In addition to the disease burden of inflammation, these assessments describe criteria related to the etiology of malnutrition, which include reduced food intake and/or gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia) persisting greater than 2 weeks. These assessments also describe criteria related to phenotypic presentations of malnutrition, including involuntary weight loss, loss of subcutaneous fat, loss of muscle mass, fluid accumulation, and diminished functional capacity. Table 1 highlights the differences between SGA, MCC, and GLIM criteria along with questions and observations clinicians should consider when determining if malnutrition is present.

The fact that malnutrition and illness often appear in concert complicates the clinical picture of an individual with malnutrition. Inflammatory responses induced by illness or injury can alter metabolism in such a way that shorter durations of limited intake can result in a profound decrease in weight and protein stores. Systemic inflammation also induces anorexia, meaning that these individuals often avoid nutrition at a time when the body would benefit most from consistent ingestion of nutrients, particularly protein. Given that modern medicine can keep people alive much longer than naturally anticipated, it is not uncommon to encounter individuals with malnutrition as a result of prolonged illness and inflammation. This clinical picture can result in a variety of deleterious effects on many different organ systems.

Malnutrition and the Musculoskeletal System


The most apparent changes seen in the setting of malnutrition are often related to the loss of skeletal muscle and protein stores. Protein is integral to survival due to its involvement in cell structure, red blood cells, enzymes, antibodies, and collagen.7 In addition to being the body’s major source of amino acids, skeletal muscle also plays a key role in metabolic regulation.8,9 In homeostasis, and even during starvation in the absence of illness, the body works to preserve protein. During illness or after injury, however, the body adapts to fight infection and heal wounds at the expense of protein storage.7

Sarcopenia is the progressive loss of skeletal mass and function due to a combination of factors including a reduction in anabolic hormones, decreased physical activity, and low protein intake.9,10 Cachexia is the presence of weight loss and rapid muscle atrophy in the absence of simple starvation.11 Patients with underlying sarcopenia or cachexia are at a significant disadvantage if they also develop malnutrition. Weight loss and skeletal muscle loss as a result of malnutrition will likely respond to adequate nutrition. However, muscle atrophy due to decreased mobility, hormonal changes, or illness-induced inflammation will not improve with nutrition alone. As such, treatment of sarcopenia and cachexia requires not only adequate nutrition, but also physical therapy, weight bearing exercise, treatment of illness or infection, and potentially medication management to offset hormonal changes.11

Malnutrition and the Immune System

During systemic inflammation, metabolism is altered due to an increased secretion of cytokines, catecholamines, glucocorticoids, and cortisol, among other substances. These changes increase resting energy expenditure and change how the body utilizes fat and protein stores (Table 2). Triglycerides from adipose tissue provide the dominant energy source and protein is catabolized for gluconeogenesis and for the synthesis of acute phase proteins.12 These acute phase proteins are involved in regulating the immunoinflammatory response.13

Inadequate intake of protein and calories, while simultaneously catabolizing protein and mobilizing lipid, results in a rapid loss of lean body mass and subcutaneous fat. The reliance on adipose tissue to provide energy and skeletal protein as the source of amino acids to mount an immune response places the malnourished patient at a disadvantage. The malnourished obese patient with ample adipose tissue but limited lean body stores may have the energy stores to stay alive, but the inability to fight infections or heal wounds. The severely underweight patient, with limited stores of both protein and fat, would be even further disadvantaged.

Advances in critical care allow patients to survive previously deadly injuries or infections, leading to patients who now suffer from chronic critical illness. The term Persistent Inflammation, Immunosuppression, and Catabolism Syndrome (PICS) has been proposed as a new phenotype to define this subset of patients.14 There is ongoing investigation into the mechanism of PICS with some evidence suggesting that these patients experience an innate and adaptive suppression of their immune system which causes persistent low grade inflammation, immunosuppression, and chronic protein catabolism. Those suffering from PICS need a combination of physical therapy and nutrition support to improve clinically.14

A wide range of hormonal changes have been described in the setting of malnutrition. Insulinlike growth factor (IGF), one of the major anabolic hormones responsible for tissue growth, has been demonstrated to be low in severe forms of malnutrition.15 Serum cortisol levels are elevated, in part related to the presence of infections and the stress of the malnourished state. In the absence of a *REE = Resting Energy Expenditure need to metabolize carbohydrates during prolonged fasting, insulin levels are decreased.15

These alterations in hormone levels function to defend the body against malnutrition.15 Lipolysis is stimulated by elevated cortisol levels and lipogenesis is inhibited by low insulin-like growth factor, resulting in an increased supply of fatty acids to provide fuel to the brain and peripheral organs. The low insulin/glucagon ratio results in decreased glucose uptake by muscle and adipose tissue as well as increased muscle protein catabolism and increased lipolysis. Similarly, the reduction in anabolic activity (in part related to reduced insulin-like growth factor) and the increase in protein catabolism (mediated in part by the elevated cortisol level) ensure that an adequate supply of amino acids to the liver and protein synthesis continues.  When nutrition is reintroduced, especially carbohydrate, the body responds by secreting insulin. The secretion of insulin drives carbohydrate into the previously starved cells, along with potassium, phosphorus, and magnesium, causing serum levels to drop (refeeding syndrome).16 As such, nutrition should be delivered cautiously in individuals at risk for refeeding syndrome, with careful monitoring and repletion of electrolytes and vitamins.

Malnutrition and the Heart

Specific micronutrient deficiencies are well known to cause direct deleterious effects on the heart.

Severe thiamine deficiency can cause a dilated cardiomyopathy that leads to a high-output heart failure.17 Electrolyte deficiencies, especially in the setting of refeeding syndrome, can result in reduced cardiac contractility, severe arrhythmias, and rapid cardiac decompensation.17–21 The effects of proteincalorie malnutrition and starvation on the heart, however, is also notable and profound. 

In the 1940s, large autopsy studies performed on individuals with starvation showed a proportional decrease in cardiac muscle mass to the degree of muscle wasting in the rest of the body.22,23 A separate study of healthy conscientious objectors during World War II who lost an average of 25% of their body weight on a low-energy and low-protein diet for 6 months were found to have markedly decreased heart sizes on radiographs.24 Similar studies have shown reduced heart size in individuals with anorexia nervosa and kwashiorkor.25,26 Despite this reduced mass, however, a variety of compensatory mechanisms usually maintains the needs of circulation. While cardiac output and stroke volume fall with reduced myocardial mass, a reduction in body size often preserves the cardiac index and a reduction in blood volume and blood pressure also occurs.27,28 Although these compensatory mechanisms make heart failure rare in simple starvation-related malnutrition, they may not be adequate in the setting of systemic inflammation and malnutrition. As previously stated, refeeding syndrome can cause electrolyte imbalances that lead to rapid cardiac decompensation via arrhythmia. the shifts of electrolytes into cells, resulting in Moreover, carbohydrate and fat intake can lead to cardiac dysfunction and dysrhythmias.29 The the release of catecholamines and activation of the increase in energy consumption also corresponds renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis which increase to an increase in oxygen demand driving cardiac blood pressure and blood volume and augment output at a much faster pace than the atrophied cardiac muscle can accommodate. As such, cardiac failure and refeeding must remain a consideration in severely malnourished individuals.In this setting, care should be taken to slowly increase caloric intake with careful attention to electrolyte deficiencies that can rapidly develop; intravascular fluids, if needed, should be provided with caution and close monitoring.

Malnutrition and the Gut

The gastrointestinal mucosa plays a major role in preventing bacterial translocation into the systemic circulation, and failure of this intestinal barrier is increasingly recognized to play a role in the development of organ failure and infectious complications. A range of evidence argues that the intestinal barrier function is compromised in malnourished individuals.30–32

Poor dietary intake and environmental exposures in children can lead to a vicious cycle in which an alteration in gut microbiota triggers gut barrier dysfunction, pathogen translocation, and impaired absorption.30 In malnourished adults, gut barrier dysfunction is also present. One study indirectly suggested altered mucosal immunity in malnutrition, after reporting higher levels of systemic antibodies to food proteins (gliadin and B-lactoglobulin) in malnourished individuals.31 A follow up study assessing gastrointestinal permeability using the lactulose mannitol test and endoscopic biopsies showed that intestinal barrier function was severely impaired in malnourished patients compared to healthy controls.32

Malnutrition and the Lungs

Malnutrition has several potential deleterious effects on the respiratory system, including reduced exercise capacity, loss of respiratory muscle function, and reduced lung defense mechanisms.33,34 The loss of muscle mass that occurs with sarcopenia and malnutrition has important implications for the respiratory system as inspiration and expiration rely on the diaphragm, external intercostal muscles, and abdominal muscles. In this setting, malnutrition can clearly impair respiratory function through reduced respiratory muscle mass and contractile force.

Additionally, malnutrition can also depress lung defense mechanisms. Respiratory muscles described above are important to generate effective coughing.33,34 Recent weight loss, reduced respiratory muscle strength, and a clinical diagnosis of malnutrition have all been associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.35–38 Higher rates of post-operative pneumonia and atelectasis have been noted in protein-depleted patients.39 Furthermore, the prevalence of malnutrition has been prospectively shown to be associated with expiratory muscle weakness and decreased chest wall expansion after upper abdominal surgery, with an associated higher chance of postoperative pulmonary complications.40

Malnutrition and the Brain

The energy demands of the brain are high relative to the size of the organ, accounting for at least 20% of the body’s energy consumption.41 Imaging studies have demonstrated that individuals with anorexia nervosa can have smaller brain volumes and less grey matter.42 After treatment and weight gain, some studies report full recovery of this brain atrophy,42–45 while other studies report partial recovery.46,47

In adult patients, the association between malnutrition and cognitive function is largely studied in the context of cognitive decline and post-operative delirium. In the geriatric population, malnutrition has been associated with cognitive decline,48–50 early stage Alzheimer’s disease, and behavioral psychiatric symptoms of dementia.49 Rosted et al. found that for patients admitted to a geriatric department, delirium is associated with malnutrition and individuals with both had four times the mortality risk in one month follow-up, a seven fold risk of discharge to a nursing home, and a longer length of hospital stay by 3 days.51 Due to the nature of these studies, it is not possible to conclude if decreased nutritional status is an early result of cognitive decline or if malnutrition exacerbates cognitive decline.

Post-operative delirium is associated with increased hospital length of stay, decreased health related quality of life, lower functional abilities, increased post-operative resources, higher readmission rates, and increased mortality.52–54 Developing delirium after hip fracture repair was found to be independently associated with being at

risk of malnutrition or being frankly malnourished.55 The same was found to be true for post-operative coronary artery bypass graft patients, where those with severe malnutrition were nearly three times more likely to develop post-operative delirium.52 Malnutrition and the Skin

Malnutrition is associated with an increased risk of pressure ulcer development56–58 and delayed wound healing.59 This is partly because nutrition is necessary to support cell metabolism and collagen formation. Collagen, the most abundant protein in the human body, is the main structural protein found in the extracellular matrix.60 In order for a wound to heal, the body needs protein either from an exogenous source or from the breakdown of lean body mass. Providing adequate carbohydrate and fat for energy can spare protein for cell structure and collagen synthesis. Insufficient energy intake will force the body to turn to muscle as a source of amino acids for gluconeogenesis.60

The patient presenting with malnutrition will struggle to heal wounds until their nutritional status is improved. Furthermore, the presence of a wound increases energy and protein needs, so that established malnutrition, if not properly attended to, worsens. The malnourished obese patient may be the most at risk for wound healing complications. In a state of low LBM, there is competition between using protein to heal wounds and using protein to rebuild LBM.7,58 In addition, adipose tissue is hypo-perfused and skin folds provide moist areas for bacterial growth.58 This combination means wounds are ripe for infection, dehiscence, and ischemia.

Lastly, vitamin, mineral, and trace element deficiencies often coincide with malnutrition and these deficiencies may impair wound healing. Vitamin C is necessary for synthesizing collagen, improving activation of leukocytes and macrophages, and increasing wound tensile strength.7,58 Vitamin A is involved in protein synthesis, epithelization, and fibroblast deposition of collagen.7,58 Zinc is a cofactor for collagen formation that liberates vitamin A from the liver and serves as a potent antioxidant.7,58 Vitamin E, copper, and iron also have roles in collagen formation.58 Current guidelines do not recommend routinely supplementing these micronutrients for wound healing, but do recommend checking for and correcting deficiencies if clinical signs and symptoms warrant.58 It is also important to ensure patients receive adequate vitamins and minerals throughout their hospital course.

CONCLUSION

While malnutrition alone can be detrimental to the body, it can be especially costly when combined with acute and chronic illness. The interplay between malnutrition and inflammation can create a cascade of physiological changes that hasten the loss of lean body mass, increase nutritional requirements, and affect the function of vital organ systems. These changes require careful consideration during treatment. Nutrition and hydration should be introduced early, but cautiously; electrolytes and vitamin levels should be monitored and corrected as appropriate, and physical therapy should be incorporated to preserve lean body mass. Identifying and treating malnutrition in cooperation with medical management reduces the risk of complications and improves patient outcomes.

References

  1. Isabel T. D. Correia M. The impact of malnutrition on morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay and costs evaluated through a multivariate model analysis. Clini Nutr. 2003;22(3):235-239.
  2. Lew CCH, Yandell R, Fraser RJL, et al. Association Between Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017;41(5):744-758.
  3. Lim SL, Ong KCB, Chan YH, et al. Malnutrition and its impact on cost of hospitalization, length of stay, readmission and 3-year mortality. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(3):345-350.
  4. White JV, Guenter P, Jensen G, et al. Consensus statement: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition: characteristics recommended for the identification and documentation of adult malnutrition (undernutrition). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2012;36(3):275-283.
  5. Detsky AS, McLaughlin, Baker JP, et al. What is subjective global assessment of nutritional status? JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1987;11(1):8-13.
  6. Jensen GL, Cederholm T, Correia MITD, et al. GLIM Criteria for the Diagnosis of Malnutrition: A Consensus Report from the Global Clinical Nutrition Community. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2019;43(1):32-40.
  7. Demling RH. Nutrition, Anabolism, and the Wound Healing Process: An Overview. Eplasty. 2009;9:e9.
  8. Bülow J, Ulijaszek SJ, Holm L. Rejuvenation of the term sarcopenia. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2019;126(1):255-256.
  9. Janssen I, Ross R. Linking age-related changes in skeletal muscle mass and composition with metabolism and disease. J Nutr Health Aging. 2005;9(6):408-419.
  10. Duerksen DR, Laporte M, Jeejeebhoy K. Evaluation of Nutrition Status Using the Subjective Global Assessment: Malnutrition, Cachexia, and Sarcopenia. Nut Clin Pract. 2021;36(5):942-956.
  11. Jeejeebhoy KN. Malnutrition, fatigue, frailty, vulnerability, sarcopenia and cachexia: overlap of clinical features. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2012;15(3):213-219.
  12. Corbett SA. Systemic Response to Injury and Metabolic Support. In: Brunicardi FC, Andersen DK, Billiar TR, et al., eds. Schwartz’s Principles of Surgery. 11th ed. McGraw-Hill Education; 2019.
    Accessed July 9, 2021. accessmedicine.mhmedical.com/content. aspx?aid=1164306215
  13. Hoffer LJ, Bistrian BR. Nutrition in critical illness: a current conundrum. F1000Res. 2016;5:2531.
  14. Mira JC, Brakenridge SC, Moldawer LL, et al. Persistent Inflammation, Immunosuppression and Catabolism Syndrome. Crit Care Clin. 2017;33(2):245-258.
  15. Soliman AT, Aref MK, Hassan AE. Hormonal changes in protein energy malnutrition. Indian J Pediatr. 1988;55(4):465-469.
  16. da Silva JSV, Seres DS, Sabino K, et al. ASPEN Consensus Recommendations for Refeeding Syndrome. Nutr Clin Pract. 2020;35(2):178-195.
  17. Grossman W, Braunwald E. High Cardiac Output States in Braunwald’s E (Ed): Heart Disease. Saunders; 1984.
  18. Frustaci A, Pennestrì F, Scoppetta C. Myocardial damage due to hypokalaemia and hypophosphataemia. Postgrad Med J. 1984;60(708):679-681.
  19. Potts JL, Dalakos TG, Streeten DH, et al. Cardiomyopathy in an adult with Bartter’s syndrome and hypokalemia. Hemodynamic, angiographic and metabolic studies. Am J Cardiol. 1977;40(6):995999.
  20. O’Connor LR, Wheeler WS, Bethune JE. Effect of hypophosphatemia on myocardial performance in man. N Engl J Med. 1977;297(17):901-903.
  21. Observations on effect of sodium selenite in prevention of Keshan disease. Chin Med J (Engl). 1979;92(7):471-476.
  22. Keys A, Brozek J, Henschel A. Circulation and Cardiac Function in: The Biology of Human Starvation: Volume I. University of Minnesota Press; 1950. Accessed August 31, 2021. https://muse. jhu.edu/book/63446
  23. Keys A, Henschel A, Taylor HL. The size and function of the human heart at rest in semi-starvation and in subsequent rehabilitation. Am J Physiol. 1947;150(1):153-169.
  24. Webb JG, Kiess MC, Chan-Yan CC. Malnutrition and the heart. CMAJ. 1986;135(7):753-758.
  25. Smythe PM, Swanepoel A, Campbell JA. The heart in kwashiorkor. Br Med J. 1962;1(5271):67-73.
  26. Isner JM, Roberts WC, Heymsfield SB, et al. Anorexia nervosa and sudden death. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102(1):49-52.
  27. Heymsfield SB, Bethel RA, Ansley JD, et al. Cardiac abnormalities in cachectic patients before and during nutritional repletion. Am Heart J. 1978;95(5):584-594
  28. Heymsfield SB, Head CA, McManus CB, et al. Respiratory, cardiovascular, and metabolic effects of enteral hyperalimentation: influence of formula dose and composition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1984;40(1):116-130.
  29. Landsberg L, Young JB. Fasting, feeding and regulation of the sympathetic nervous system. N Engl J Med. 1978;298(23):12951301.
  30. Velly H, Britton RA, Preidis GA. Mechanisms of cross-talk between the diet, the intestinal microbiome, and the undernourished host. Gut Microbes. 2017;8(2):98-112.
  31. Reynolds JV, O’Farrelly C, Feighery C, et al. Impaired gut barrier function in malnourished patients. Br J Surg. 1996;83(9):12881291.
  32. Welsh FK, Farmery SM, MacLennan K, et al. Gut barrier function in malnourished patients. Gut. 1998;42(3):396-401.
  33. Fontana GA. Before we get started: what is a cough? Lung. 2008;186 Suppl 1:S3-6.
  34. Gauld LM. Airway clearance in neuromuscular weakness. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2009;51(5):350-355.
  35. Okazaki T, Suzukamo Y, Miyatake M, et al. Respiratory Muscle Weakness as a Risk Factor for Pneumonia in Older People. Gerontology. Published online February 23, 2021:1-10.
  36. Jackson ML, Nelson JC, Jackson LA. Risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent seniors. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(5):882-888.
  37. Matsusaka K, Kawakami G, Kamekawa H, et al. Pneumonia risks in bedridden patients receiving oral care and their screening tool: Malnutrition and urinary tract infection-induced inflammation. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2018;18(5):714-722.
  38. Laaban JP. Nutrition and chronic respiratory failure. Ann Med Interne (Paris). 2000;151(7):542-548.
  39. Ferrari-Baliviera E, Pierdominici S, Sarcinelli L. Effects of the nutritional status on the respiratory system. Minerva Anestesiol. 1989;55(11):443-450.
  40. Lunardi AC, Miranda CS, Silva KM, et al. Weakness of expiratory muscles and pulmonary complications in malnourished patients undergoing upper abdominal surgery. Respirology. 2012;17(1):108-113.
  41. Magistretti PJ, Allaman I. A Cellular Perspective on Brain Energy Metabolism and Functional Imaging. Neuron. 2015;86(4):883901.
  42. Fonville L, Giampietro V, Williams SCR, et al. Alterations in brain structure in adults with anorexia nervosa and the impact of illness duration. Psychol Med. 2014;44(9):1965-1975.
  43. Swayze VW, Andersen AE, Andreasen NC, et al. Brain tissue volume segmentation in patients with anorexia nervosa before and after weight normalization. Int J Eat Disord. 2003;33(1):33-44.
  44. Wagner A, Greer P, Bailer UF, et al. Normal brain tissue volumes after long-term recovery in anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;59(3):291-293.
  45. Mainz V, Schulte-Rüther M, Fink GR, et al. Structural brain abnormalities in adolescent anorexia nervosa before and after weight recovery and associated hormonal changes. Psychosom Med. 2012;74(6):574-582.
  46. Lambe EK, Katzman DK, Mikulis DJ, et al. Cerebral gray matter volume deficits after weight recovery from anorexia nervosa. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;54(6):537-542.
  47. Roberto CA, Mayer LES, Brickman AM, et al. Brain tissue volume changes following weight gain in adults with anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2011;44(5):406-411.
  48. Verhaar BJH, de Leeuw FA, Doorduijn AS, et al. Nutritional status and structural brain changes in Alzheimer’s disease: The NUDAD project. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2020;12(1):e12063.
  49. Kimura A, Sugimoto T, Kitamori K, et al. Malnutrition is Associated with Behavioral and Psychiatric Symptoms of Dementia in Older Women with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Early-Stage Alzheimer’s Disease. Nutrients. 2019;11(8):1951
  50. Han TS, Lisk R, Osmani A, et al. Increased Association With Malnutrition and Malnourishment in Older Adults Admitted With Hip Fractures Who Have Cognitive Impairment and Delirium, as Assessed by 4AT. Nutr Clin Pract. Published online December 23, 2020.
  51. Rosted E, Prokofieva T, Sanders S, et al. Serious Consequences of Malnutrition and Delirium in Frail Older Patients. J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr. 2018;37(2):105-116.
  52. Velayati A, Vahdat Shariatpanahi M, Shahbazi E, et al. Association between preoperative nutritional status and postoperative delirium in individuals with coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A prospective cohort study. Nutrition. 2019;66:227-232.
  53. Crocker E, Beggs T, Hassan A, et al. Long-Term Effects of Postoperative Delirium in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Operation: A Systematic Review. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102(4):1391-1399.
  54. Bettelli G, Neuner B. Postoperative delirium: A preventable complication in the elderly surgical patient. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2017;87(2):842.
  55. Mazzola P, Ward L, Zazzetta S, et al. Association Between Preoperative Malnutrition and Postoperative Delirium After Hip Fracture Surgery in Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(6):1222-1228.
  56. Shahin ESM, Meijers JMM, Schols JMGA, et al. The relationship between malnutrition parameters and pressure ulcers in hospitals and nursing homes. Nutrition. 2010;26(9):886-889.
  57. Brito PA, Generoso S de V, Correia MITD. Prevalence of pressure ulcers in hospitals in Brazil and association with nutritional status—A multicenter, cross-sectional study. Nutrition. 2013;29(4):646-649.
  58. Munoz N, Posthauer ME, Cereda E, et al. The Role of Nutrition for Pressure Injury Prevention and Healing: The 2019 International Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2020;33(3):123-136.
  59. Guo JJ, Yang H, Qian H, et al. The Effects of Different Nutritional Measurements on Delayed Wound Healing After Hip Fracture in the Elderly. Journal of Surgical Research. 2010;159(1):503-508.
  60. Stechmiller JK. Understanding the Role of Nutrition and Wound Healing. Nut Clin Prac. 2010;25(1):61-68.
  61. Jensen GL. Inflammation as the Key Interface of the Medical and Nutrition Universes: A Provocative Examination of the Future of Clinical Nutrition and Medicine. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2006;30(5):453-463.

Download Tables, Images & References

FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #81

Ablation of Barrett’s Esophagus via Endoscopic Methods

Read Article

INTRODUCTION

Ablation of Barrett’s Esophagus (BE) has been a continuously changing field of study over the past two decades. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is the dominant technology for ablation as of this writing. Spray cryotherapies and older techniques including argon plasma coagulation (APC) continue to undergo scientific review to determine their place in the current landscape of tools and techniques for the ablation of BE. This article will review available technologies for performing ablation of Barrett’s esophagus.

Who to Ablate?

Non-Dysplastic Barrett’s Esophagus (NDBE)

The American Gastroenterology Association (AGA), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) clinical guidelines recommend against routine endoscopic ablation for NDBE due to low risk of annual progression (0.2-0.5%) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).1,2,3 There are valid concerns about the cost-effectiveness and safety of ablating NDBE. A comparative study published in Gastroenterology found it was more cost effective to perform endoscopic surveillance supplemented with RFA upon biopsy confirmation of HGD than to perform RFA before surveillance.1 Adverse events following ablation of BE are usually mild. Serious complications are infrequent.1 In clinical practice, some endoscopists will still ablate NDBE as it has been shown to be effective in reducing risk for progression to EAC.6,7 Patients with NDBE often ask to undergo ablation if they have significant concerns about progression of their underlying Barrett’s esophagus.

Low-Grade Dysplasia (LGD)

Patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and LGD have an annual risk of progression to EAC of approximately 0.7%.1 There is high interobserver variability when making a histopathologic diagnosis of LGD, and frequent downgrading of LGD to NDBE by expert pathologists. When biopsies showing LGD are confirmed by expert pathologists, the annual risk of progression from LGD to EAC is substantially higher than 0.7%.6 Guidelines from the AGA and ACG recommend that patients with BE and LGD undergo ablative therapy or surveillance.1,2 Current guidelines from the AGA recommend endoscopic surveillance intervals for BE with LGD at 3-6 month intervals if not ablated.2 When the endoscopist encounters a patient >3 months from initial diagnosis of LGD, it would be logical to repeat biopsies before proceeding with ablation to rule out progression.

High-Grade Dysplasia (HGD)

The management of HGD in the setting of BE is probably the least controversial. There is no question of whether to ablate these patients as data accumulated over the past decade strongly support ablation for BE with HGD. The AIM-dysplasia trial in 2011 found an 8-fold risk of progression of BE with HGD to EAC if patients did not undergo RFA.5 Given the efficacy of ablation in treatment of BE with HGD and the high rate of annual progression of BE with HGD (5-8%) to EAC, endoscopic ablation is recommended by the AGA, ACG, and BSG over endoscopic surveillance or esophagectomy.1,2,3

Esophageal Adenocarcinoma T1a

EAC T1a is an intramucosal cancer and has a low propensity for metastatic spread to lymph nodes (<2%).2 The AGA, ACG, and BSG all recommend endoscopic therapy over esophagectomy for EAC T1a.1,2,3 Endoscopic therapy includes EMR of the lesion followed by ablation. One prospective case series looking at long term outcomes of patients treated with endoscopic therapy found that onethird of all patients with EAC T1a treated with EMR alone develop recurrence.9 Given such a high rate of EAC recurrence with EMR alone, ablation is a critical component in the treatment of EAC T1a following resection.  Esophageal Adenocarcinoma T1b EAC T1b is a submucosal cancer and has a higher risk of lymph node metastasis (45%) compared to T1a.2 The AGA, ACG, and BSG are consistent in recommending that patients with EAC T1b and low risk features can be treated with endoscopic therapy.1,2,3 As with EAC T1a, EAC T1b treated endoscopically involves EMR or ESD followed by ablation. To aid the endoscopist in determining which patients are “low risk” EAC T1b amenable to endoscopic therapy, it is recommended to have a multidisciplinary discussion with surgery and oncology.3 If locoregional lymph nodes are shown to have tumor involvement, endoscopic therapy can still be considered as part of a broader treatment strategy.2

Principles of Ablation

The goal of endoscopic ablative therapy in BE is to remove the esophageal mucosal layer and completely eradicate intestinal metaplasia (CEIM), dysplasia (CE-D), or cancer. The depth of injury must be carefully controlled to avoid transmural injury, preserve the deeper layers of the esophagus, and achieve the desired effect of ablation. Superficial damage and retention of the deeper layers allows for re-epithelialization of the esophageal mucosa with a layer of neo-squamous tissue. Ablative therapies produce tissue destruction through thermal or freezing methods.10

Methods for Ablation Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA)

RFA ablation of BE tissue occurs through the generation of an alternating electrical current from a bipolar electrode array and an electrosurgical generator. The electrical current released causes a controlled thermal injury to esophageal tissue. Thermal injury leads to water vaporization, coagulation of proteins, and cell necrosis. (Figure 1) Desiccated tissue serves as an insulator and protective barrier to deeper tissues due to higher electrical resistance.11 A precise dose of thermal radiofrequency energy in the 450-500kHz range provides a consistent depth of ablation, typically down to the level of the muscularis mucosae (700-800µm).11 There are multiple catheter types available for RFA including circumferential ablation catheters (Barrx 360 Express Balloon Catheter), non-circumferential focal over-thescope ablation catheters (Barrx 60, 90, and Ultra Long RFA Focal catheters where number denotes the degrees of non-circumferential contact with mucosa), and focal through-the-scope catheters (Barrx Channel RFA Endoscopic Catheter).

Argon Plasma Coagulation (APC)

APC is an ablative method where thermal injury to BE tissue occurs by releasing argon gas from a catheter probe and igniting it with a high voltage spark, generating a stream of plasma (matter in a high energy state, wherein the electrons are very excited and are not tightly bound to individual nuclei). As the plasma contact target tissue, energy is released in the form of heat, resulting in a reliable area and depth of thermal tissue destruction. In 2016 Manner et al. introduced the method of hybrid-APC to preserve the efficacy of traditional APC but reduce adverse effects. The hybrid-APC approach involves the submucosal injection of an NaCl 0.9% solution using a flexible water-jet probe before thermal ablation with APC.

Cryotherapy Ablation

Cryotherapy ablation creates tissue destruction via alternating freeze and thaw cycles. Immediate tissue destruction occurs from ice crystal formation as water in the intracellular and extracellular tissues freezes.15 Ice crystal formation disrupts cellular membranes and denatures proteins, creating an osmotic gradient favoring water movement extracellularly, leading to cell dehydration and destruction. The extracellular matrix and architecture are maintained as they are not affected by the freezing process, which reduces scar formation. During the thawing process, intracellular ice crystals fuse together with a maximum effect reached at temperatures between -20°C to -50°C. Indirect injury to the vasculature occurs during ice crystal fusion leading to tissue necrosis and ischemia from platelet aggregation, thrombus formation, and regional hyperemia. Three forms of cryoablation have been studied for use in patients with Barrett’s Esophagus: Carbon dioxide (CO2), liquid nitrogen (LN2), and nitrous oxide (NO) based therapies.

CO2 Cryotherapy

Compressed CO2 gas is delivered to tissue via a 7F through-the-scope catheter at a rate of 6-8L/ min and a high pressure of 450-750psi. The JouleThomson effect is exploited with cryotherapy, whereby the rapid expansion of CO2 gas leads to a cooling effect with temperatures down to -78°C. The rapid expansion of CO2 gas at room temperature leads to increased intraluminal pressure inside the esophagus and stomach which can cause perforation. The catheter system for CO2 cryotherapy (Polar Wand cryotherapy device [GI Supply, Camp Hill, PA, USA]) allows for simultaneous delivery of cryogen and venting of waste CO2 gas through a cap and suction system. Delivery of CO2 cryogen at a temperature of -78°C (compared to -196°C for LN2 based cryogen) does not freeze the catheter and no heating circuit is needed to keep the catheter malleable. No FDA approved CO2 cryotherapy device is available in the USA since the Polar Wand was discontinued in 2016 by the manufacturer.

Cryotherapy with Liquid Nitrogen

Liquid nitrogen (LN2) cryogen is delivered by a through-the-scope, contact-free, low pressure (2-4 psi) catheter-based system that reaches a temperature of -196°C.6 Such a low temperature comes with challenges as the catheter can freeze, losing malleability. There is a heater circuit built into the LN2 system (truFreeze, STERIS, Mentor, OH) that allows for warm air to be delivered through the catheter and maintain catheter pliability.17 Unlike CO2 -based systems, LN2 does not have a gas ventilation system. The JouleThomson effect is a principle whereby a highly compressed gas undergoing rapid expansion at a low pressure causes a cooling effect. This is the basis for how LN2 cools tissues, but the rapid expansion of LN2 gas results in high intraluminal pressures and risks perforation. To reduce the risk of luminal perforations, a nasogastric or orogastric tube (OGT) is placed and connected to active suction for decompression. After a patient with Marfan syndrome developed a gastric perforation following three freeze-thaw cycles at 20 s duration, it is suggested to use four freeze-thaw cycles at 10 s.6

Multifocal Nitrous Oxide Cryoballoon

The multifocal nitrous oxide cryoballoon ablation system (cryoballoon focal ablation system [CbFAS]; C2 Therapeutics, Inc, Redwood City, Calif) is a novel way to deliver cryotherapy. This is a portable battery-powered contact cryotherapy system.6 A small hand-held device with an attached liquid nitrous oxide capsule is used to deliver nitrous oxide (NO) gas inside of a cryoballoon. The balloon is inflated to a pressure precisely regulated to a maximum of 3.5 psi. Once the balloon is in contact with tissues, the internal diffuser component sprays NO onto the tissues freezing the mucosa to -85°C. The diffuser system can be rotated and allows the endoscopist to target specific mucosal tissues. Dosimetry data confirmed that 10 s treatments allow for eradication of BE and subsequent squamous regeneration.

Comparative Trials

RFA is currently the first-line ablative therapy for BE. A few comparative trials on RFA vs LN2 and RFA vs APC have assessed whether these other modalities have similar efficacy, however, at of the time of writing this article non-inferiority trials against RFA do not exist.

RFA vs LN2 Cryotherapy

In a recent multicenter retrospective cohort study published in 2021, LN2 cryotherapy had similar efficacy to RFA. In the study, 162 patients with BE were treated with either LN2 cryotherapy or RFA. LN2 therapy required overall more treatment sessions, but LN2 and RFA netted similar rates of CE-D (RFA 81%, LN2 71%) and CE-IM (RFA 64%, LN2 66%).6 Another comparative trial of 94 patients undergoing LN2 or RFA for ablation of BE looked at pain intensity scores between treatment groups and found that LN2 therapy was associated with less post-procedural pain than RFA.7

RFA vs APC

The so-called BRIDE study published in 2018 is the only comparative trial between RFA vs APC for ablation among patients with BE. The BRIDE study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 171 patients randomized 1:1 to receive RFA or APC as ablative therapy. Patients had some form of advanced disease, either HGD or T1a EAC. All patients underwent endoscopic resection prior to ablative therapy. The study found similar efficacy at 24 months between the treatment arms, with CE-D of 93.5% for APC and 88.2% for RFA.

There was a lower retention rate of patients in the APC arm of the study which may have been due to a lower patient acceptability of APC. Buried BE glands were found in 6.1% of patients in the RFA group and 13.3% in the APC groups. Adverse events, including stricture rates, were similar (RFA 8.3%, APC 8.1%). RFA was also more expensive, costing $27,491 more in accumulated medical bills.

Risks and Benefits of Ablation Modalities RFA

Data on the efficacy and safety of RFA is by far more abundant compared to APC and cryotherapies. ACG guidelines from 2022 recommend RFA as the first line ablative therapy of non-nodular dysplastic BE.1 Dosimetry data is well known and a precise amount of tissue destruction occurs due to the nature of balloon-based bipolar radiofrequency energy electrodes., The durability of RFA has been repeatedly proven over the years. A prospective multicenter cohort study known as the AIMdysplasia trial published in 2011 found that RFA provided durable CE-D and CE-IM following treatment as evidenced by a low rate of disease progression over three years. Furthermore, a 2017 follow up of the AIM-dysplasia trial cohort found that among patients with BE and dysplasia who maintained CE-IM at three years, only 32% experienced a recurrence of BE. The SURF trial, a RCT of 136 patients with BE and LGD comparing RFA to surveillance alone, found that RFA reduced the risk of neoplastic progression to HGD or EAC by 25% over three years.

Risks associated with RFA include buried subsquamous BE glands which have a theoretical risk of progression to neoplasia, or adverse events such as post-operative pain, esophageal strictures, bleeding, and rarely, perforation. Rates of buried BE glands after RFA have been variable. The AIM-II trial in 2010 was a prospective, multicenter US trial looking at five year follow-up after RFA ablation of NDBE. Zero cases of buried BE glands were found after five years. The BRIDE study published in 2018 found that among 76 patients with BE treated with RFA, 6.1% had buried BE glands found on biopsy at 12 months.24 None of the patients with buried BE glands developed neoplasia.

Post-procedural pain is a common complaint with all ablative therapies, but RFA is five-times more likely to be associated with post-procedural pain than LN2 cryotherapy. Perhaps one of the best datasets available for safety of RFA is a systematic review and meta-analysis from 2016 that looked at 37 articles comprised of 9200 patients that found an overall rate of adverse events to be 8.8%, with 5.6% developing strictures, 1% bleeding, and 0.6% perforation. If endoscopic resection occurred before RFA, adverse event rates were substantially higher.

APC

Despite an initial enthusiasm for APC as an ablative therapy for BE due to the ease of its use and widespread familiarity with the technique for other indications, reports of major complications such as bleeding, strictures, and perforation have led to a decline in use. The APBANEX trial in 2006 was a multicenter prospective study of 60 patients undergoing traditional APC ablation of NDBE in which 10% of patients developed serious adverse events. Although RFA had a rate of 6.1% buried BE glands in the BRIDE study, APC was found to have a rate of 13.3%.24 A RCT from 2021 looking at APC ablation in 107 patients with BE and LGD found that there was a high adverse event rate that was directly proportional to the amount of watts used. For example, the group that underwent treatment at the 90 W level experienced an 83% adverse event rate while the 60 W group had a 48% adverse event rate. The hybrid-APC method where a pillow of 0.9% NaCl is injected prior to APC has remarkably lower rates of adverse events and a reported 2% stricture rate.14

The cost of APC may be more favorable than for RFA. The BRIDE study found that RFA incurred more costs than APC, with accumulated costs of RFA on average $33,170 vs $5,678 for APC. Efficacy of APC may be comparable to RFA, with long-term ablation outcomes after APC available from two RCTs from 2013 where 129 patients with BE underwent APC vs surveillance. A new study out of Europe showed promising results for hybrid-APC. Published in January 2022, the study included 154 patients having neoplastic BE and found that among patients treated with hybrid-APC there was a 97.7% rate of CE-D and 65.9% CE-IM.

CO2 Cryotherapy

CO2 cryotherapy dosimetry is non-existent. Efficacy of CO2 cryotherapy has been variable across studies. A prospective single case series of 30 patients treated with CO2 cryotherapy was terminated early because of low CE-IM rates of 11% and CE-D rates of 44%. One conflicting study in 2015 by Canto et. al reported that among patients undergoing CO2 cryotherapy there was a CE-D rate of 89% and CE-HGD of 94%. CO2 cryotherapy did have some advantages over LN2 cryotherapy, including less freezing of the catheter and the ventilation mechanism built into the Polar Wand reduced risk of perforations. The Polar Wand was discontinued by the manufacturer in 2016.

LN2 Cryotherapy

As with CO2 cryotherapy, there is a lack of dosimetry data surrounding LN2 treatment., Rapid expansion of a highly compressed gas via the Joule-Thompson effect, the principle by which LN2 cryotherapy causes tissue cooling, can lead to perforation. In initial studies a patient with Marfan Syndrome developed gastric perforation.19 To prevent gastric perforation an OGT is utilized during the procedure, but this tube in the esophagus can impair the endoscopists maneuverability during ablation. The ultra-cold temperatures involved (-196°C) in LN2 cryotherapy reduces catheter pliability, but a heater probe built into the catheter does help prevent the catheter from freezing.

A 2010 multicenter prospective trial of LN2 ablation in BE that included 77 patients found that 52% had adverse events including chest pain (17.6%), dysphagia (13.3%), odynophagia (12.1%), sore throat (9.6%), and strictures (4%)., Stricture rates appear to vary substantially across studies, however, and are generally much higher in those who undergo EMR before LN2 cryotherapy. A multicenter 2017 study of 88 patients undergoing LN2 cryotherapy following EMR of esophageal adenocarcinoma T1a or T1b had stricture rates of 12%.

The efficacy of LN2 cryotherapy was examined in a 2019 meta-analysis that included 386 patients. The pooled CE-D rate (83.5%) was comparable to that seen with RFA, but LN2 cryotherapy had a much lower CE-IM rate (56.5%). All patients in the study received LN2 cryotherapy, a subset as a salvage therapy after RFA, and another subset were treatment-naïve patients. It was concluded that RFA may be better as a first-line therapy, with LN2 cryotherapy an acceptable salvage therapy for RFA refractory BE.

Multifocal Nitrous Oxide Cryoballoon

The nitrous oxide cryoballoon (CbFAS system) is a novel therapy still under investigation to determine its role within the current ablation landscape. A prospective clinical trial published in 2020 looked at 120 patients undergoing CbFAS ablation of BE 1-6 cm in length, with either LGD, HGD, or EAC. Findings among the 94 patients in the per-protocol analysis found a pooled CE-D rate of 97% and a CE-IM rate of 91%. Stricture rates were higher than those seen in LN2 cryotherapy (12.5%).

CONCLUSION

Ablative therapies for BE include RFA, APC, and spray cryotherapy in the form of CO2, LN2, or NO. None of these technologies are perfect. RFA has the best safety profile of all ablative modalities and high rates of CE-D and CE-IM. RFA is more expensive than LN2 cryotherapy and is associated with higher post-operative pain. CO2 cryotherapy had one study terminated early due to poor performance and the Polar Wand was discontinued by the manufacturer in 2016. LN2 cryotherapy lacks dosimetry data and can have significant adverse event rates. LN2 cryotherapy has a similar rate of CE-D as RFA, but lower rates of CE-IM making it more suitable for salvage therapy after RFA failure. The CbFAS cryoballoon system is a novel form of NO spray cryotherapy. RFA remains the first-line treatment.

References

  1. Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, Souza RF, Yadlapati RH, Sauer BG, Wani S. Diagnosis and Management of Barrett’s Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Apr 1;117(4):559-587. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001680. PMID: 35354777.
  2. Sharma P, Shaheen NJ, Katzka D, Bergman JJGHM. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Treatment of Barrett’s Esophagus With Dysplasia and/or Early Cancer: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2020 Feb;158(3):760-769. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.051. Epub 2019 Nov 12. PMID: 31730766.
  3. Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K, Ang Y, Kang JY, Watson P, Trudgill N, Patel P, Kaye PV, Sanders S, O’Donovan M, BirdLieberman E, Bhandari P, Jankowski JA, Attwood S, Parsons SL, Loft D, Lagergren J, Moayyedi P, Lyratzopoulos G, de Caestecker J; British Society of Gastroenterology. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut. 2014 Jan;63(1):7-42. doi: 10.1136/ gutjnl-2013-305372. Epub 2013 Oct 28. PMID: 24165758
  4. Hur C, Choi SE, Rubenstein JH, Kong CY, Nishioka NS, Provenzale DT, Inadomi JM. The cost effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2012 Sep;143(3):567575. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.05.010. Epub 2012 May 21. PMID: 22626608; PMCID: PMC3429791.
  5. Shaheen NJ, Overholt BF, Sampliner RE, Wolfsen HC, Wang KK, Fleischer DE, Sharma VK, Eisen GM, Fennerty MB, Hunter JG, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR, Bennett AE, Mashimo H, Rothstein RI, Gordon SR, Edmundowicz SA, Madanick RD, Peery AF, Muthusamy VR, Chang KJ, Kimmey MB, Spechler SJ, Siddiqui AA, Souza RF, Infantolino A, Dumot JA, Falk GW, Galanko JA, Jobe BA, Hawes RH, Hoffman BJ, Sharma P, Chak A, Lightdale CJ. Durability of radiofrequency ablation in Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia. Gastroenterology. 2011 Aug;141(2):460-8.
    26 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.04.061. Epub 2011 May 6. PMID: 21679712; PMCID: PMC3152658.
  6. Ma GK, Ginsberg GG. Radiofrequency Ablation of Barrett’s Esophagus: Patient Selection, Preparation, and Performance. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2017 Jul;27(3):481-490. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2017.02.010. PMID: 28577769.
  7. Allison H, Banchs MA, Bonis PA, Guelrud M. Long-term remission of nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus after multipolar electrocoagulation ablation: report of 139 patients with 10 years of follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Apr;73(4):651-8. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.037. Epub 2010 Dec 15. PMID: 21111417.
  8. Duits LC, Phoa KN, Curvers WL, Ten Kate FJ, Meijer GA, Seldenrijk CA, Offerhaus GJ, Visser M, Meijer SL, Krishnadath KK, Tijssen JG, Mallant-Hent RC, Bergman JJ. Barrett’s oesophagus patients with low-grade dysplasia can be accurately risk-stratified after histological review by an expert pathology panel. Gut. 2015 May;64(5):700-6. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307278. Epub 2014 Jul 17. PMID: 25034523.
  9. Pech O, Behrens A, May A, Nachbar L, Gossner L, Rabenstein T, Manner H, Guenter E, Huijsmans J, Vieth M, Stolte M, Ell C. Longterm results and risk factor analysis for recurrence after curative endoscopic therapy in 349 patients with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and mucosal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut. 2008 Sep;57(9):1200-6. doi: 10.1136/gut.2007.142539. Epub 2008 May 6. PMID: 18460553.
  10. Sullivan R, Mulki R, Peter S. The role of ablation in the treatment of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus. Ther Adv Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Oct 22;14:26317745211049967. doi: 10.1177/26317745211049967. PMID: 34708203; PMCID: PMC8544766.
  11. Fleischer DE, Odze R, Overholt BF, Carroll J, Chang KJ, Das A, Goldblum J, Miller D, Lightdale CJ, Peters J, Rothstein R, Sharma VK, Smith D, Velanovich V, Wolfsen H, Triadafilopoulos G. The case for endoscopic treatment of non-dysplastic and low-grade dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus. Dig Dis Sci. 2010 Jul;55(7):191831. doi: 10.1007/s10620-010-1218-1. Epub 2010 Apr 20. PMID: 20405211.
  12. ASGE Technology Committee, Navaneethan U, Thosani N, Goodman A, Manfredi M, Pannala R, Parsi MA, Smith ZL, Sullivan SA, Banerjee S, Maple JT. Radiofrequency ablation devices. VideoGIE. 2017 Sep 28;2(10):252-259. doi: 10.1016/j. vgie.2017.06.002. PMID: 29905337; PMCID: PMC5992954.
  13. Ventre S, Shahid H. Endoscopic therapies for Barrett’s esophagus. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct 25;6:62. doi: 10.21037/ tgh.2020.02.04. PMID: 34805584; PMCID: PMC8573364.
  14. Manner H, May A, Kouti I, Pech O, Vieth M, Ell C. Efficacy and safety of Hybrid-APC for the ablation of Barrett’s esophagus. Surg Endosc. 2016 Apr;30(4):1364-70. doi: 10.1007/s00464015-4336-1. Epub 2015 Jun 24. Erratum in: Surg Endosc. 2016 Apr;30(4):1371. PMID: 26104794.
  15. Dhaliwal A, Saghir SM, Mashiana HS, Braseth A, Dhindsa BS, Ramai D, Taunk P, Gomez-Esquivel R, Dam A, Klapman J, Adler DG. Endoscopic cryotherapy: Indications, techniques, and outcomes involving the gastrointestinal tract. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 Jan 16;14(1):17-28. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v14.i1.17. PMID: 35116096; PMCID: PMC8788170.
  16. Lal P, Thota PN. Cryotherapy in the management of premalignant and malignant conditions of the esophagus. World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Nov 21;24(43):4862-4869. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i43.4862. PMID: 30487696; PMCID: PMC6250921.
  17. Hu SN, Adler DG. Endoscopic Cryotherapy: Indications and Efficacy. PRACTICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY. 2015 Nov 1;39(11):19-45.
  18. Greenwald BD, Lightdale CJ, Abrams JA, Horwhat JD, Chuttani R, Komanduri S, Upton MP, Appelman HD, Shields HM, Shaheen NJ, Sontag SJ. Barrett’s esophagus: endoscopic treatments II. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011 Sep;1232:156-74. doi: 10.1111/j.17496632.2011.06050.x. PMID:21950812; PMCID: PMC3632386.
  19. Canto MI, Shaheen NJ, Almario JA, Voltaggio L, Montgomery E, Lightdale CJ. Multifocal nitrous oxide cryoballoon ablation with or without EMR for treatment of neoplastic Barrett’s esophagus (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Sep;88(3):438-446.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.03.024. Epub 2018 Apr 5. PMID: 29626424.
  20. Fasullo M, Shah T, Patel M, Mutha P, Zfass A, Lippman R, Smallfield G. Outcomes of Radiofrequency Ablation Compared to Liquid Nitrogen Spray Cryotherapy for the Eradication of Dysplasia in Barrett’s Esophagus. Dig Dis Sci. 2021 May 5. doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-06991-7. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33954846.
  21. Solomon SS, Kothari S, Smallfield GB, Inamdar S, Stein P, Rodriguez VA, Sima AP, Bittner K, Zfass AM, Kaul V, Trindade AJ. Liquid Nitrogen Spray Cryotherapy is Associated With Less Postprocedural Pain Than Radiofrequency Ablation in Barrett’s Esophagus: A Multicenter Prospective Study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Feb;53(2):e84-e90. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000999. PMID: 29351156.
  22. Peerally MF, Bhandari P, Ragunath K, Barr H, Stokes C, Haidry R, Lovat L, Smart H, Harrison R, Smith K, Morris T, de Caestecker JS. Radiofrequency ablation compared with argon plasma coagulation after endoscopic resection of high-grade dysplasia or stage T1 adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus: a randomized pilot study (BRIDE). Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Apr;89(4):680-689. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2018.07.031. Epub 2018 Aug 1. PMID: 30076843.
  23. Peter S, Mönkemüller K. Ablative Endoscopic Therapies for Barrett’s-Esophagus-Related Neoplasia. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2015 Jun;44(2):337-53. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2015.02.014. PMID: 26021198.
  24. ASGE Technology Committee, Navaneethan U, Thosani N, Goodman A, Manfredi M, Pannala R, Parsi MA, Smith ZL, Sullivan SA, Banerjee S, Maple JT. Radiofrequency ablation devices. VideoGIE. 2017 Sep 28;2(10):252-259. doi: 10.1016/j.
    vgie.2017.06.002. PMID: 29905337; PMCID: PMC5992954.
  25. Shaheen NJ, Overholt BF, Sampliner RE, Wolfsen HC, Wang KK, Fleischer DE, Sharma VK, Eisen GM, Fennerty MB, Hunter JG, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR, Bennett AE, Mashimo H, Rothstein RI, Gordon SR, Edmundowicz SA, Madanick RD, Peery AF, Muthusamy VR, Chang KJ, Kimmey MB, Spechler SJ, Siddiqui AA, Souza RF, Infantolino A, Dumot JA, Falk GW, Galanko JA, Jobe BA, Hawes RH, Hoffman BJ, Sharma P, Chak A, Lightdale CJ. Durability of radiofrequency ablation in Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia. Gastroenterology. 2011 Aug;141(2):460-8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.04.061. Epub 2011 May 6. PMID: 21679712; PMCID: PMC3152658.
  26. Hamade N, Sharma P. Ablation Therapy for Barrett’s Esophagus: New Rules for Changing Times. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2017 Aug 17;19(10):48. doi: 10.1007/s11894-017-0589-2. PMID: 28819902.
  27. Pouw RE, Klaver E, Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FG, Weusten BL, Bisschops R, Schoon EJ, Pech O, Manner H, Ragunath K, Fernández-Sordo JO, Fullarton G, Di Pietro M, Januszewicz W, O’Toole D, Bergman JJ. Radiofrequency ablation for low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: long-term outcome of a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Sep;92(3):569-574. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.3756. Epub 2020 Mar 23. PMID: 32217112.
  28. Fleischer DE, Overholt BF, Sharma VK, Reymunde A, Kimmey MB, Chuttani R, Chang KJ, Muthasamy R, Lightdale CJ, Santiago N, Pleskow DK, Dean PJ, Wang KK. Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s esophagus: 5-year outcomes from a prospective multicenter trial. Endoscopy. 2010 Oct;42(10):781-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1255779. Epub 2010 Sep 20. PMID: 20857372.
  29. Solomon SS, Kothari S, Smallfield GB, Inamdar S, Stein P, Rodriguez VA, Sima AP, Bittner K, Zfass AM, Kaul V, Trindade AJ. Liquid Nitrogen Spray Cryotherapy is Associated With Less Postprocedural Pain Than Radiofrequency Ablation in Barrett’s Esophagus: A Multicenter Prospective Study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Feb;53(2):e84-e90. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000999. PMID: 29351156.
  30. Qumseya BJ, Wani S, Desai M, Qumseya A, Bain P, Sharma P, Wolfsen H. Adverse Events After Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients With Barrett’s Esophagus: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Aug;14(8):1086-1095. e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.04.001. Epub 2016 Apr 9. PMID: 27068041.
  31. Ventre S, Shahid H. Endoscopic therapies for Barrett’s esophagus. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct 25;6:62. doi: 10.21037/ tgh.2020.02.04. PMID: 34805584; PMCID: PMC8573364.
  32. Manner H, May A, Miehlke S, Dertinger S, Wigginghaus B, Schimming W, Krämer W, Niemann G, Stolte M, Ell C. Ablation of nonneoplastic Barrett’s mucosa using argon plasma coagulation with concomitant esomeprazole therapy (APBANEX): a prospective multicenter evaluation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Aug;101(8):1762-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00709.x. Epub 2006 Jun 30. PMID: 16817835.
  33. Wronska E, Polkowski M, Orlowska J, Mroz A, Wieszczy P, Regula J. Argon plasma coagulation for Barrett’s esophagus with low-grade dysplasia: a randomized trial with long-term follow-up on the impact of power setting and proton pump inhibitor dose. Endoscopy. 2021 Feb;53(2):123-132. doi: 10.1055/a-1203-5930. Epub 2020 Jul 10. Erratum in: Endoscopy. 2020 Oct 01;: PMID: 32650347.
  34. Sie C, Bright T, Schoeman M, Game P, Tam W, Devitt P, Watson D. Argon plasma coagulation ablation versus endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus: late outcomes from two randomized trials. Endoscopy. 2013 Nov;45(11):859-65. doi: 10.1055/s-00331344584. Epub 2013 Sep 9. PMID: 24019134.
  35. Knabe M, Beyna T, Rösch T, Bergman J, Manner H, May A, Schachschal G, Neuhaus H, Kandler J, Weusten B, Pech O, Faiss S, Anders M, Vieth M, Sehner S, Bisschops R, Bhandari P, Ell C, Ehlken H. Hybrid APC in Combination With Resection for the Endoscopic Treatment of Neoplastic Barrett’s Esophagus: A Prospective, Multicenter Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Jan 1;117(1):110-119. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001539. PMID: 34845994; PMCID: PMC8715998.
  36. Verbeek RE, Vleggaar FP, Ten Kate FJ, van Baal JW, Siersema PD. Cryospray ablation using pressurized CO2 for ablation of Barrett’s esophagus with early neoplasia: early termination of a prospective series. Endosc Int Open. 2015 Apr;3(2):E107-12. doi: 10.1055/s0034-1390759. Epub 2015 Feb 27. PMID: 26135648; PMCID: PMC4477021.
  37. Johnston CM, Schoenfeld LP, Mysore JV, Dubois A. Endoscopic spray cryotherapy: a new technique for mucosal ablation in the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999 Jul;50(1):86-92. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(99)70352-4. PMID: 10385730.
  38. Pasricha PJ, Hill S, Wadwa KS, Gislason GT, Okolo PI 3rd, Magee CA, Canto MI, Kuo WH, Baust JG, Kalloo AN.
    Endoscopic cryotherapy: experimental results and first clinical use. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999 May;49(5):627-31. doi: 10.1016/s00165107(99)70393-7. PMID: 10228263.
  39. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of endoscopic low-pressure liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy in the esophagus.Greenwald BD, Dumot JA, Horwhat JD, Lightdale CJ, Abrams JADis Esophagus. 2010 Jan; 23(1):13-9.
  40. Tsai FC, Ghorbani S, Greenwald BD, Jang S, Dumot JA, McKinley MJ, Shaheen NJ, Habr F, Wolfsen HC, Abrams JA, Lightdale CJ, Nishioka NS, Johnston MH, Zfass A, Coyle WJ. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic spray cryotherapy for esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2017 Nov 1;30(11):1-7. doi: 10.1093/dote/dox087. PMID: 28881903.
  41. Mohan BP, Krishnamoorthi R, Ponnada S, Shakhatreh M, Jayaraj M, Garg R, Law J, Larsen M, Irani S, Ross A, Adler DG. Liquid Nitrogen Spray Cryotherapy in Treatment of Barrett’s Esophagus, where do we stand? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2019 Jun 1;32(6):doy130. doi: 10.1093/dote/doy130. PMID: 30715267.
  42. Canto MI, Trindade AJ, Abrams J, Rosenblum M, Dumot J, Chak A, Iyer P, Diehl D, Khara HS, Corbett FS, McKinley M, Shin EJ, Waxman I, Infantolino A, Tofani C, Samarasena J, Chang K, Wang B, Goldblum J, Voltaggio L, Montgomery E, Lightdale CJ, Shaheen NJ. Multifocal Cryoballoon Ablation for Eradication of Barrett’s Esophagus-Related Neoplasia: A Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Nov;115(11):1879-1890. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000822. PMID: 33156107.

Download Tables, Images & References

DISPATCHES FROM THE GUILD CONFERENCE, SERIES #44

Recognizing and Managing Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Quiescent Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Read Article

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) commonly experience new or persistent gastrointestinal symptoms despite quiescent disease. These symptoms may be attributed to a wide range of etiologies, including IBD-associated complications, concomitant gastrointestinal or extra-intestinal pathologies, and medications side effects. Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) – formerly termed functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) – can be seen in up to two thirds of patients with IBD, the most common being irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). DGBIs in IBD are often under-recognized and are associated with worse quality of life, impaired mental health, and greater healthcare utilization. In this article, we provide a systemic approach to assessing GI symptoms in quiescent IBD, and focus on the overlap and interplay between IBD and DGBIs, in particular IBS, and review management options for IBS in patients with IBD.

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) encompasses barrier. Symptoms of luminal IBD reflect intestinal a spectrum of chronic inflammatory diseases of inflammation and include abdominal pain, diarrhea, the gastrointestinal tract, classically categorized occasional constipation, and bloody stool. In as Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). addition to extraintestinal manifestations such as arthritis, uveitis, and skin rashes, patients with IBD often report fatigue, poor sleep and particularly in CD, decreased quality of life. Treatment of IBD focuses on controlling clinical symptoms, achieving endoscopic healing, and preventing disease related disability. Unfortunately, despite effective therapies that induce and maintain remission of the intestinal inflammation, many patients with IBD continue to experience gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. The differential diagnosis for patients with ongoing symptoms while in remission is extensive (Table 1), but a significant proportion of these symptoms can be attributed to disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs, formerly functional gastrointestinal disorders) including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Approach to GI Symptoms in Quiescent IBD

The first step in assessing new or ongoing GI symptoms in patients with IBD is to exclude active disease. Personalized evaluation of disease activity begins by measuring inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin), imaging [computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance (MR) enterography], and/or endoscopy. In addition, the presence of enteric infections, particularly Clostridioides difficile, should be assessed. If symptoms are due to ongoing inflammation, IBD therapy needs to be adjusted accordingly. Note that non-inflammatory structural IBD complications can lead to persistent GI symptoms, such as strictures or post-operative adhesions in CD causing abdominal pain, constipation, and bloating; ileal resection causing bile acid diarrhea; or a tubular lumen in long-standing UC causing diarrhea and fecal urgency.

The differential diagnosis of new GI symptoms in quiescent IBD is wide (Tables 1 and 2). Fortunately, a detailed history, physical examination, and targeted investigation, can help lead to a diagnosis.

DGBIs in Patients with IBD

DGBIs comprise a group of disorders characterized by gastrointestinal symptoms related to any combination of the following: “motility disturbance, visceral hypersensitivity, altered mucosal and immune function, altered gut microbiota, and altered central nervous system (CNS) processing.”1 These include 33 adult and 20 pediatric disorders defined by symptoms as delineated by the Rome IV criteria. Risk factors for DGBIs include female sex, adverse childhood events, psychological trauma and other psychosocial stressors, enteric infection, disordered eating, and antibiotic use. Approximately two-thirds of IBD patients meet criteria for at least one DGBI, which is associated with significantly decreased quality of life, anxiety, depression, and increased healthcare utilization.2

The high prevalence of DGBIs in IBD may exist due to overlapping pathophysiologic features including visceral hypersensitivity, central sensitization, gut dysbiosis, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), abberant immune responses, and gut dysmotility. In addition, the bidirectional impact that exists between mental health and both DGBIs in IBD plays an important role in the co-existence of these two conditions (Figure 1, 2). IBS is a DGBI characterized by abdominal pain and altered bowel habits, either diarrhea or constipation predominant or mixed (Table 3). The prevalence of IBS in quiescent IBD is estimated at 39%.Risk factors include younger age, female sex, antidepressant use, opioid use, anxiety, depression, somatization, IBD flares, CD (more than UC), and reported lower quality of life.4

Overlap of DGBIs, IBS and IBD Pathogenesis and Interplay between IBS and IBD

Visceral Hypersensitivity: A principal component of DGBIs is visceral hypersensitivity, characterized by a reduced threshold for pain even to physiologic stimuli.5  Visceral hypersensitivity is driven by peripheral sensitization and contributors include enteric infection (postinfectious IBS), intestinal inflammation (mediated by mast cells, substance P, vasoactive intestinal peptide, and inflammatory cytokines), and trauma and psychosocial stress (mediated in part by corticotropin releasing hormone), enterochromaffin serotonin receptors, and other cell receptors/ion channels.6 Enteric infection causes localized inflammation leading to degradation of the intestinal epithelial barrier,

inducing loss of tolerance to dietary antigens. Subsequent exposure to these food antigens causes localized immune activation manifesting symptomatically as pain and altered bowel habits, as seen in IBS.7 Chronic low grade inflammation has been documented in IBS, and mast cells may be an important mediator. IBD patients in remission who have IBS also have elevated density of mucosal mast cells, 5-HT and nerve growth factor compared to healthy controls and even to patients with IBS alone.8 Transient receptor potential vanilloid type 1 (TRPV1) expression is also increased in quiescent IBD with GI symptoms. Peripheral sensitization can in part explain why patients with IBD commonly have rectal hypersensitivity (especially during disease flares), dyspepsia, esophageal pain, and pelvic and vulvovaginal pain.9

Central Sensitization: A related but distinct phenomenon is central sensitization, where abnormal connectivity within the brain and pain modulation system leads to widespread pain, hyperalgesia, allodynia, and hypersensitivity to noise and odors. Both patients with IBS and IBD have been shown to exhibit abnormal functional connectivity of neural networks in the brain pertaining to pain perception and emotional regulation. While central sensitization has long been heralded as a key mechanism in IBS, one study identified that central sensitization is actually a stronger contributor to GI symptoms in IBD than in IBS.10

Psychological Disorders: The combination of central and peripheral sensitization, as well as traumatic experiences, are thought to contribute to IBS and the multiple overlapping comorbidities, such as psychiatric illness (anxiety, depression, and somatization), but also chronic fatigue syndrome, chronic pelvic pain, and sleep disorders. While these same physical disorders are seen in patients with IBD due to their disease, psychiatric disorders are also twice as common in IBD compared with the general population. There is also evidence of a gut-to-brain bidirectional effect in IBD, where anxiety and depression increase the risk of IBD flare, severity of disease, and health care utilization, whereas a diagnosis of IBD increase the risk of developing psychiatric comorbidities in the future.11 Anxiety and depression can affect more than half of IBD patients during times of disease flare, and in a study of adults with a diagnosis of either IBD or IBS, significant post-traumatic stress was seen in 32% of those with IBD and 26% of those with IBS, highlighting the emotional impact of IBD.12

Gut Dysbiosis and Increased Intestinal Permeability: Dysbiosis feature prominently in both IBD and IBS, characterized broadly by a decrease in microbiome diversity and an imbalance between pro- and anti-inflammatory organisms. Though not clear if dysbiosis is a cause or effect of the underlying disease process, several studies point to dysbiosis being a key component in IBD pathogenesis. Decreased diversity of the microbiome combined with enrichment of pathogenic families and genera, such as Enterobacteriaceae and Bacteroides, and depletion of beneficial genera, including Lactobacilli, contribute to abnormal immune responses inducing increased intestinal permeability and local and systemic inflammation.13 In turn, increased intestinal permeability may contribute to pain and diarrhea even when IBD is in remission.14 Enteric infections are a known environmental trigger for new-onset IBD and IBD flares,15  and up to 15% of patients develop IBS after an episode of infectious diarrhea, further highlighting the role of gut dysbiosis in both conditions. In addition, increased intestinal permeability related to dysbiosis is also seen in IBS-D and post-infectious IBS, which may contribute to visceral hypersensitivity.6

Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO): SIBO has a strong association with IBD (odds ratio 9.5). It has also been associated with IBS, but the extent and significance of the association is debated.16 SIBO can cause abdominal pain, altered bowel habits, and bloating, which can all be confused with IBD or IBS symptoms. CD portends a higher likelihood of SIBO than UC, especially in patients with bowel strictures, ileocecal resection, and prior bowel surgeries. Other risk factors for SIBO in IBD include female sex, hypoalbuminemia, and longer intestinal transit times. Testing and treating for SIBO is associated with improved symptoms and outcomes in patients with IBD.17

Dysmotility: Dysmotility has been documented in IBS, but also in IBD from the esophagus to the anorectum, likely due to the effects of inflammatory cytokines on the enteric nervous system and structural change of gastrointestinal musculature. Dysmotility can contribute to reflux, chest pain, dyspepsia, gallstones, abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, rectal pain, and fecal incontinence.18

Diagnosis of IBS in Patients with IBD

However in otherwise healthy patients, IBS should be a positive diagnosis based on the Rome IV criteria and not a diagnosis of exclusion. The overlap of symptomatology between IBS and IBD requires that IBD patients undergo a judicious and limited work-up to exclude active IBD and mimickers of IBS (Table 2). In patients who meet the Rome IV criteria, a diagnosis of IBS should be made (Table 3).

Other DGBIs in IBD

While IBS is the most common DGBI in IBD, patients with IBD may experience other or multiple DGBIs. In one study, 66% of patients with IBD met criteria for one or more DGBIs, and 34% had more than one disorder. After IBS, the most common types of DGBIs include functional dyspepsia, belching disorders, disorders of nausea and vomiting, functional diarrhea or constipation, fecal incontinence, and proctalgia fugax.2 These are important diagnoses to consider in patients with ongoing symptoms despite quiescent IBD.

Treatment of IBS in Patients with IBD

Reassurance is paramount for management of DGBIs in IBD.19 Patients with IBD often fear that their symptoms are reflective of ongoing IBD activity or IBD complications, including colorectal cancer. It is important to validate their symptoms, but explain that they do not reflect ongoing inflammation from IBD. Education visà-vis the gut-brain axis and the mechanisms of IBS symptoms can be helpful. When IBS treatment is needed for symptoms significantly affecting quality of life, therapy choice should target the patient’s most pressing symptom(s) and be adjusted to the severity and combination of symptoms.

In addition to simple dietary changes, such as avoiding food triggers and ensuring adequate fluid and fiber intake, reasonable first line nonpharmacologic options for IBS include peppermint oil and probiotics. Peppermint oil (taken in an enteric coated pill formulation) has various mechanisms of action which may contribute to improving global symptoms of IBS including modulation of histaminergic and cholinergic receptors in the gut, k-opioid agonist activity, serotonergic antagonism, anti-inflammatory effects, and transient receptor potential melastatin 8 agonism. In fact, peppermint oil may be superior in efficacy to soluble fiber, antispasmodics, and neuromodulators, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 4, and is recommended for the treatment of IBS by several GI societies.20,21 Given its efficacy, favorable safety and tolerability profile, and low cost, it is a reasonable cost-effective firstline option for IBS in patients with IBD.

Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host. While probiotics are commonly used by patients and prescribed by physicians for an array of gastrointestinal diseases, probiotics are not effective in treating active IBD (except for pouchitis and mild UC), but can help with IBS symptoms in patients with IBD.22 According to a 2018 meta-analysis, probiotics are effective in treating IBS symptoms, including abdominal pain, bloating, and flatulence. Combination probiotics may be the most effective with an NNT of 7, with specific (combination of) strains being particularly effective, such as Lactiplantibacillus plantarum299v (DSM 9843) with a NNT of 3.23 One must recognize however that probiotics can exacerbate GI symptoms in a subset of patients, and some preliminary studies show an association between probiotics use and “brain fog” in IBD patients.24

Dietary modification is one of the mainstays of IBS management. The most well studied dietary intervention in IBS is the low-FODMAP diet

(LFD). In patients with IBS, fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAPs), which are poorly digested short-chain carbohydrates, contribute to IBS symptoms via induction of dysbiosis, fermentation, and osmotic potential within the lumen. The LFD consists of three parts: elimination of FODMAPs, gradual reintroduction of FODMAPs (to identify trigger foods), and personalization (to maximize liberalization of the diet as tolerated).25 Studies have consistently demonstrated efficacy of the LFD in alleviating symptoms of IBS in patients with quiescent IBD.26 Due to the restrictive nature of the LFD and related concerns about effects on the gut microbiota, potential to promote disordered eating patterns leading to increased risk of malnutrition and social isolation in an at-risk population, there is interest in exploring more liberal diets in the treatment of IBS. The Mediterranean Diet (MD), characterized by a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, whole grains, oily fish, olive oil, and red wine and low on red meat and processed foods, has shown benefit in IBS and was recently shown to be well tolerated and to improve overall GI symptoms in patients with CD.27 With any dietary therapy and intervention, it is recommended to involve a specialized dietician to educate the patient about the diet, choose foods that are tolerated by the patient with IBD, design meals that align with the patient culture, taste and lifestyle and ensure adequate and balanced nutrient intake.

There are various pharmacologic options for the management of IBS as outlined in Table 4. Therapy should be chosen to address the predominant symptom(s).28,29,30 In patients with abdominal pain, bloating, and diarrhea, a trial of antibiotics for SIBO should be considered after testing or in the presence of predisposing anatomic factors; pancreatic enzymes can also be effective in the management of these symptoms, as exocrine pancreatic insufficiency can co-exist with IBD. Fiber supplements can be used both as bulking agent in patients with diarrhea or to treat constipation (unless symptoms are due to a CD stricture, in which case the amount and type of fiber should be carefully assessed). The judicious use of neuromodulators can treat IBS symptoms as well as associated non-GI disorders: bupropion is a good option for a patient with CD and abdominal pain, depression, or anxiety, who is attempting smoking cessation, while tricyclic antidepressants can treat abdominal pain, diarrhea, and sleep disturbances.

Several psychological interventions from simple measures including routine exercise, sleep hygiene, stress reduction, and social support, to professional techniques such as mindfulness techniques, cognitive behavioral therapy, and gut-directed hypnotherapy can benefit IBS symptoms in patients with IBD. Early referral to a psychotherapist and psychiatrist should be made in patients with concomitant anxiety, depression, somatization, or trauma.

CONCLUSION

New onset or persistent GI symptoms are common in quiescent IBD. Etiologies include immunemediated/inflammatory, infectious, malabsorptive, anatomic, dysmotility, and extra-intestinal causes. After appropriate exclusion of active IBD and IBDrelated complications, a limited workup guided by a comprehensive history often leads to the diagnosis. DGBIs, particularly IBS, are common in patients with IBD and should be appropriately recognized and treated. IBS should be treated based on the predominant symptom(s) and underlying predisposing factors, and with a multidisciplinary team. It is important however to recognize that patients with quiescent IBD often have persistent GI symptoms secondary to several concomitant and overlapping etiologies and require a multifaceted approach to control their symptoms and improve their quality of life.

References

  1. Drossman, D. and Hasler, W., 2016. Rome IV—Functional GI Disorders: Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.
    Gastroenterology, 150(6), pp.1257-1261.
  2. Bryant RV, van Langenberg DR, Holtmann GJ, Andrews JM. Functional gastrointestinal disorders in inflammatory bowel disease: impact on quality of life and psychological status. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 May;26(5):916-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2011.06624.x. PMID: 21214889.
  3. Halpin, S. and Ford, A., 2012. Prevalence of Symptoms Meeting Criteria for Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 107(10), pp.1474-1482.
  4. Fairbrass KM, Selinger CP, Gracie DJ, Ford AC. Prevalence and impact of Rome IV versus Rome III irritable bowel syndrome in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021 Sep 1:e14256. doi: 10.1111/ nmo.14256. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34472157.
  5. Akbar A, Walters JR, Ghosh S. Review article: visceral hypersensitivity in irritable bowel syndrome: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic agents. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Sep 1;30(5):423-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04056.x. Epub 2009 Jun 2. PMID: 19493256.
  6. Barbara, Giovanni, et al. “Rome foundation working team report on post-infection irritable bowel syndrome.” Gastroenterology 156.1 (2019): 46-58.
  7. Aguilera-Lizarraga, J., Florens, M.V., Viola, M.F. et al. Local immune response to food antigens drives meal-induced abdominal pain. Nature 590, 151–156 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-020-03118-2
  8. Wang H, Zhao X, Cui X, et al. A Pilot Study of Clinical Evaluation and Formation Mechanism of Irritable Bowel Syndrome-like Symptoms in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients in Remission. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;27(4):612-625. doi:10.5056/jnm20151
  9. Christopher Roberts, MBBS, Ahmed Albusoda, MD, PhD, Adam D Farmer, PhD, FRCP, Qasim Aziz, PhD, FRCP, Rectal Hypersensitivity in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, Crohn’s & Colitis 360, Volume 3, Issue 3, July 2021, otab041, https://doi.org/10.1093/ crocol/otab041
  10. Midenfjord I, Grinsvall C, Koj P, Carnerup I, Törnblom H, Simrén M. Central sensitization and severity of gastrointestinal symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome, chronic pain syndromes, and inflammatory bowel disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021 Dec;33(12):e14156. doi: 10.1111/nmo.14156. Epub 2021 Apr 16. PMID: 33860970.
  11. Fairbrass KM, Lovatt J, Barberio B, et al Bidirectional brain– gut axis effects influence mood and prognosis in IBD: a systematic review and meta-analysis Gut Published Online First: 01 November 2021. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-325985
  12. Tiffany H Taft, PsyD, Alyse Bedell, MS, Meredith R Craven, MS, MPH, Livia Guadagnoli, MS, Sarah Quinton, PsyD, Stephen B Hanauer, MD, Initial Assessment of Post-traumatic Stress in a US Cohort of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Volume 25, Issue 9, September 2019, Pages 1577–1585, https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izz032
  13. Zhou Q, Zhang B, Verne GN. Intestinal membrane permeability and hypersensitivity in the irritable bowel syndrome. Pain. 2009;146(1-2):41-46. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.06.017
  14. Tamboli CP, Neut C, Desreumaux P, et al Dysbiosis in inflammatory bowel disease Gut 2004;53:1-4.
  15. Axelrad JE, Cadwell KH, Colombel J-F, Shah SC. The role of gastrointestinal pathogens in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review. Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology. January 2021. doi:10.1177/17562848211004493
  16. Black, Christopher J. “Diagnosis and investigation of irritable bowel syndrome.” Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 54 (2021): S33-S43. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16597
  17. Cohen-Mekelburg, S., Tafesh, Z., Coburn, E. et al. Testing and Treating Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth Reduces Symptoms in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Dig Dis Sci 63, 2439–2444 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620- 018-5109-1
  18. Bassotti, G., Antonelli, E., Villanacci, V. et al. Abnormal gut motility in inflammatory bowel disease: an update. Tech Coloproctol 24, 275–282 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151- 020-02168-y
  19. Keefer L, Ko CW, Ford AC. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Chronic Gastrointestinal Pain in Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction: Expert Review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Dec;19(12):2481-2488.e1. doi: 10.1016/j. cgh.2021.07.006. Epub 2021 Jul 3. PMID: 34229040.
  20. Black CJ, Yuan Y, Selinger CP, Camilleri M, Quigley EMM, Moayyedi P, Ford AC. Efficacy of soluble fibre, antispasmodic drugs, and gut-brain neuromodulators in irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Feb;5(2):117-131. doi: 10.1016/ S2468-1253(19)30324-3. Epub 2019 Dec 16. PMID: 31859183.
  21. Black, Christopher J., et al. “Peppermint oil in irritable bowel syndrome.” Gastroenterology 159.1 (2020): 395-396.
  22. Derwa Y, Gracie DJ, Hamlin PJ, Ford AC. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the efficacy of probiotics in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Aug;46(4):389- 400. doi: 10.1111/apt.14203. Epub 2017 Jun 27. PMID: 28653751.
  23. Ford AC, Harris LA, Lacy BE, Quigley EMM, Moayyedi P. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics and antibiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Nov;48(10):1044-1060. doi: 10.1111/apt.15001. Epub 2018 Oct 8. PMID: 30294792.
  24. Dadlani, Apaar1; Gala, Khushboo2; Rai, Jayesh1; Rai, Shesh1; Dryden, Gerald1 P027 Brain Fog in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and Association With Use of Probiotics, The American Journal of Gastroenterology: December 2021 – Volume 116 – Issue – p S7 doi: 10.14309/01. ajg.0000798708.22025.c0
  25. Black CJ, Staudacher HM, Ford AC Efficacy of a low FODMAP diet in irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and network meta-analysis Gut Published Online First: 10 August 2021. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-325214
  26. Cox SR, Lindsay JO, Fromentin S, Stagg AJ, McCarthy NE, Galleron N, Ibraim SB, Roume H, Levenez F, Pons N, Maziers N, Lomer MC, Ehrlich SD, Irving PM, Whelan K. Effects of Low FODMAP Diet on Symptoms, Fecal Microbiome, and Markers of Inflammation in Patients With Quiescent Inflammatory Bowel Disease in a Randomized Trial. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan;158(1):176-188.e7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.024. Epub 2019 Oct 2. PMID: 31586453.
  27. Lewis JD, Sandler RS, Brotherton C, Brensinger C, Li H, Kappelman MD, Daniel SG, Bittinger K, Albenberg L, Valentine JF, Hanson JS, Suskind DL, Meyer A, Compher CW, Bewtra M, Saxena A, Dobes A, Cohen BL, Flynn AD, Fischer M, Saha S, Swaminath A, Yacyshyn B, Scherl E, Horst S, Curtis JR, Braly K, Nessel L, McCauley M, McKeever L, Herfarth H; DINE-CD Study Group. A Randomized Trial Comparing the Specific Carbohydrate Diet to a Mediterranean Diet in Adults with Crohn’s Disease. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):837-852.e9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.047. Epub 2021 May 27. PMID: 34052278; PMCID: PMC8396394.
  28. Paine P. Review article: current and future treatment approaches for pain in IBS. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Dec;54 Suppl 1:S75-S88. doi: 10.1111/apt.16550. PMID: 34927753.
  29. Nee J, Lembo A. Review Article: Current and future treatment approaches for IBS with diarrhoea (IBS-D) and IBS mixed pattern (IBS-M). Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Dec;54 Suppl 1:S63-S74. doi: 10.1111/apt.16625. PMID: 34927757.
  30. Liu JJ, Brenner DM. Review article: current and future treatment approaches for IBS with constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Dec;54 Suppl 1:S53-S62. doi: 10.1111/ apt.16607. PMID: 34927760.

Download Tables, Images & References

NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #220

Nutritional Care of the Patient with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

Read Article

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive motor neuron disease with no effective treatment to cure, halt or reverse disease advancement. ALS can impact a person’s ability to speak, eat, move, and breathe. Malnutrition is a common complication of ALS and is associated with reduced survival time. The objective of this review is to discuss the nutritional implications of ALS and supportive strategies.

OVERVIEW

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive motor neuron disease with no effective treatment to cure, halt, or reverse disease advancement. Also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, ALS is characterized by the gradual loss of voluntary muscle movement. Depending on disease progression, a person with ALS (PALS) may lose their ability to speak, eat, move, and, eventually, breathe. The average life expectancy after diagnosis is 2-5 years.

Malnutrition in PALS is common, with studies varying its prevalence from 16% to 55%.1,2 Malnutrition, lower weight, and weight loss are associated with reduced survival time.3,4 However, many barriers exist to consuming adequate calories and protein. The objective of this review is to discuss the nutritional implications of ALS and supportive strategies.

Etiology and Disease Trajectory

Most ALS cases (90-95%) are considered sporadic, occurring randomly. Familial ties account for the remaining 5-10% cases with roughly 25-40% of these cases caused by known gene mutations (most commonly, C9ORF72 and SOD1). Military veterans are twice as likely to develop ALS, regardless of service branch or time period.5

Rate and trajectory of disease progression vary among individuals. Onset typically begins in one of two regions: limb or bulbar (or both). Limb onset ALS arises in the arms and legs, impacting manual dexterity and mobility. Bulbar onset ALS manifests in the face and neck area, altering swallowing function and speech. PALS with limb onset can later develop bulbar issues and vice versa. Less commonly, onset can present as respiratory distress from weakness in the diaphragm/intercostal region. Disease progression can be quantified using a validated tool, the ALS Functional Rating ScaleRevised (ALSFRS-R). The ALSFRS-R measures 12 aspects of physical function categorized within 4 functional domains: bulbar, fine motor, gross motor, and respiratory. Each aspect of self-reported function is scored from 0 to 4, with the total score from all 12 domains ranging from 0 (no function) to 48 (highest function).

Treatment

There are currently two drugs approved for the treatment of ALS: riluzole (Rilutek®, Tiglutik®, Exservan®) and edaravone (Radicava®). Riluzole is a glutamate antagonist approved by the FDA in 1995 to extend life by 2-4 months for PALS. Edaravone, a free-radical scavenger, was approved by the FDA in 2017 to help prevent neuronal damage from oxidative stress. The efficacy of edaravone in PALS is controversial. While earlier trials showed edaravone slowed the progression of functional loss (as determined by ALSFRS-R) in patients with early-stage ALS,6 a later trial noted no significant differences in either disease progression or respiratory function.7 Unfortunately, neither riluzole nor edaravone reverse motor neuron death or treat the underlying cause of ALS. Lack of treatment options lead many PALS to seek alternative therapies. Dietary supplement use is common though may result in drug-nutrient or nutrient-nutrient interactions. Providers and registered dietitians (RDs) should review supplement use routinely to ensure safe consumption. ALSUntangled (alsuntangled.com), a website created to educate on alternative and off-label treatments advertised for PALS, reviews many dietary supplements. Currently, clinical trials on the dietary supplements tauroursodeoxycholic acid and theracurmin are ongoing. Last, certain nutrient deficiencies (e.g., vitamin B12, copper, thiamine) may mimic ALS signs and symptoms and should be ruled out during diagnostic work-up.

Malnutrition

Malnutrition is a prognostic indicator for survival in PALS. Dardoitis et al.noted body mass index

(BMI) at diagnosis to be significantly and inversely associated with ALS survival.8 Paganoni et al. noted an obesity paradox in PALS: a “U”-shaped association between BMI and mortality, with highest survival seen in the BMI range of 30–35 kg/m2.9 Though not yet fully understood, decreased survival with BMI greater than 35 kg/m2 may be due to weight-induced physical activity burden and respiratory distress.

Malnutrition in PALS is difficult to diagnose using typical malnutrition criteria. Muscle loss from nerve degeneration is characteristic of the disease. Weight loss may be a result of disease-related muscle loss. Edema due to immobility is common in the extremities. Handgrip strength measurement may not be plausible depending on manual dexterity and may signify disease progression instead of malnutrition. Oral intake may remain unchanged, but disease-related hypermetabolism may result in weight loss. The Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and Global Leadership Initiative for Malnutrition (GLIM) should be considered when diagnosing malnutrition in PALS. Although these nutritional assessment tools incorporate some of the above criteria, malnutrition (as determined by SGA and GLIM) is noted to be an independent risk factor for reduced survival time.10

Nutrition Needs

Early in the disease, PALS may lose weight despite no changes in dietary habits. Bouteloup et al.noted 50% of PALS are hypermetabolic.11 Mean measured resting energy expenditure was 19.7 +/- 6.4% higher than calculated by the Harris Benedict equation (HBE). Despite muscle loss with disease progression, the authors noted that 80% of PALS showed no change in metabolic status over time. Typically, energy requirements are estimated at 30-35 kcal/kg/day. Alternatively, the Kasarskis equation has been proposed to estimate energy requirements in PALS.12  The equation incorporates the HBE and 6 questions from the ALSFRS-R. A web-based calculator can be found here: mednet.

mc.uky.edu/alscalculator

Protein needs in PALS are not well studied. While adequate calorie and protein intake is necessary to prevent malnutrition-related muscle loss, it is not known if increased protein intake mitigates disease-related muscle loss. In the absence of available data, registered dietitians use varying calculations for protein needs, most commonly 0.6-1.5 gm/kg/day.13

Barriers to Adequate Nutrition Intake

Despite the emphasis on adequate energy intake, PALS on average only consume 84% of calorie requirements.14 Many barriers exist to consuming adequate calories. (Table 1)

Hypermetabolism

As mentioned previously, PALS can be hypermetabolic. High calorie foods and oral supplements are often prescribed to combat increased calorie requirements.

Dysphagia

Dysphagia from oral muscle spasticity and flaccid weakness impacts up to 85% of PALS.15 It is the result of degeneration of cortical motor neurons, corticobulbar tracts, and brainstem nuclei. Mechanically altered diets can help reduce chewing difficulty and aspiration risk.

Constipation

Constipation is one of the most frequent side effects of ALS, presumed to be caused by decreased activity, diminished diaphragmatic function, subconscious hesitation to move bowels related to ambulatory weakness, medication side effects, and inadequate fiber and fluid intake.16 Constipation can make eating uncomfortable, negatively impacting intake. Constipation is treated with lifestyle modifications (fiber [caution with use in decreased mobility as fiber can worsen constipation], fluid; exercise when appropriate) and bowel medications (stool softeners, laxatives, suppositories).16 Gut microbiota may be altered in PALS,17 and research on probiotic supplementation is ongoing.18

Sialorrhea

Sialorrhea (excessive saliva) is not caused by saliva overproduction in PALS, but rather weakened oropharyngeal muscles and subsequent difficulty managing saliva. Untreated sialorrhea can result in drooling, choking on saliva, and difficulty speaking. Sialorrhea is often treated with glycopyrrolate, off-label medications (amitriptyline, scopolamine, atropine), or botulinum toxin injections into the parotid or submandibular gland. Attention to hydration is particularly important in PALS with sialorrhea. 

Mood disorders, fatigue and frontotemporal dementia (FTD)

Mood disorders (e.g., depression) can result in poor appetite. Counseling, support groups, and medications may help treat mood disorders. Fatigue often leads to skipped meals and is typically addressed with respiratory aid. FTD can inhibit adequate energy intake. FTD impacts up to 15% of PALS and causes alterations in behavior, personality and language skills.

A multidisciplinary team approach is optimal to identify and address nutrition barriers, with each team member having a unique role. (Table 2) In fact, multidisciplinary clinics have been shown to increase median survival rate by 6-10 months.19

Nutrition Support

Inadequate oral intake compounds disease-related muscle mass loss. If in line with goals of care, gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes) and enteral nutrition (EN) are recommended for PALS unable to meet nutrition needs by mouth. G-tubes can provide safe and consistent delivery of nutrition, hydration, and medications. EN often begins as supplemental and is transitioned when needed to meet full nutrition needs as the disease progresses. Depending on the degree of aspiration risk, pleasure oral feeds may be allowed for quality of life (QoL) purposes.

Observational studies suggest a survival benefit with G-tubes;20,21 however, randomized control trials comparing the benefits of EN versus continuation of oral feeding are lacking. Indications for G-tube placement in PALS include:

  • Insufficient nutrition or hydration (evidenced by weight loss, clinical signs, or serum laboratory values)
  • Chewing or swallowing difficulty (food, hydration, and/or medications)
  • Fatigue preventing adequate intake
  • Prolonged mealtime (> 45 minutes)

Some have encouraged pursuit of G-tube placement while forced vital capacity (FVC) is > 50% predicted normal value. FVC < 50% has been suggested to increase the risk of respiratory arrest during sedation/anesthesia as well as postoperative ventilator dependence. However, other studies challenge this FVC limit and suggest different risk stratifying tools.22

Physical limitations, caregiver availability and patient preferences must be considered when determining EN administration method. Table 3 lists pros and cons of each.

The benefit of G-tubes on QoL in PALS is debatable.23 While some studies note a positive association between G-tubes and QoL,24 others note a negative association.25,26 Neurologists and palliative care physicians, along with registered dietitians, respiratory therapists, and speech language pathologists (SLP), play an integral role in aiding PALS in G-tube placement decisionmaking.

SUMMARY

ALS is a terrible, fatal disease. Nutrition plays a role in survival, yet many barriers exist to optimizing nutrition status. Together, the multidisciplinary team can offer supportive strategies to enhance nutrition status in PALS.

References

  1. Desport JC, Preux PM, Truong TC, et al. Nutritional status is a prognostic factor for survival in ALS patients. Neurology. 1999;53(5):1059-1063.
  2. Slowie LA, Paige MS, Antel JP. Nutritional considerations in the management of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Am Diet Assoc. 1983;83(1):44-47.
  3. Marin B, Desport JC, Kajeu P, et al. Alteration of nutritional status at diagnosis is a prognostic factor for survival of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011;82(6):628-634.
  4. Roubeau V, Blasco H, Maillot F, et al. Nutritional assessment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in routine practice: Value of weighing and bioelectrical impedance analysis. Muscle Nerve. 2015;51:479-484.
  5. Weisskopf MG, O’Reilly EJ, McCullough ML, et al. Prospective study of military service and mortality from ALS. Neurology. 2005;64(1):32-37.
  6. Writing Group; Edaravone (MCI-186) ALS 19 Study Group. Safety and efficacy of edaravone in well defined patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(7):505-512.
  7. Lunetta C, Moglia C, Lizio A, et al. The Italian multicenter experience with edaravone in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol. 2020;267:3258–3267.
  8. Dardiotis E, Siokas V, Sokratous M, et al. Body mass index and survival from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A metaanalysis. Neurol Clin Pract. 2018;8(5):437-444.
  9. Paganoni S, Deng J, Jaffa M, et al. Body mass index, not dyslipidemia, is an independent predictor of survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve. 2011;44(1):20-24.
  10. López-Gómez JJ, Ballesteros-Pomar MD, Torres-Torres B, et al. Malnutrition at diagnosis in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and its influence on survival: Using GLIM criteria. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(1):237-244.
  11. Bouteloup C, Desport JC, Clavelou P, et al. Hypermetabolism in ALS patients: an early and persistent phenomenon. J Neurol. 2009;256(8):1236-1242.
  12. Kasarskis EJ, Mendiondo MS, Matthews DE, et al. Estimating daily energy expenditure in individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;99(4):792-803.
  13. Rio A, Cawadias E. Nutritional advice and treatment by dietitians to patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/ motor neurone disease: a survey of current practice in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Canada. J Human Nutr and Diet. 2007;20(1):3-13.
  14. Kasarskis EJ, Berryman S, Vanderleest JG, et al. Nutritional status of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: relation to the proximity of death. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996;63(1):130137.
  15. Onesti E, Schettino I, Gori MC, et al. Dysphagia in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Impact on patient behavior, diet adaptation, and riluzole management. Front Neurol. 2017;8:94.
  16. Samara VC, Jerant P, Gibson S, et al. Bowel, bladder, and sudomotor symptoms in ALS patients. J Neurol Sci. 2021;15(427):117543.
  17. Boddy, S.L., Giovannelli, I., Sassani, M. et al. The gut microbiome: a key player in the complexity of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. BMC Med. 2020;19:13.
  18. Di Gioia D, Bozzi Cionci N, Baffoni, L, et al. A prospective longitudinal study on the microbiota composition in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):153.
  19. Paipa AJ, Povedano M, Barcelo A, et al. Survival benefit of multidisciplinary care in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in Spain: association with noninvasive mechanical ventilation. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019;19(12):465-470.
  20. Spataro R, Ficano L, Piccoli F, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: effect on survival. J Neurol Sci. 2011;304:44–48.
  21. Fasano A, Fini N, Ferraro D, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, body weight loss and survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a population-based registry study. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2017;18:233–242.
  22. Kak M, Issa NP, Roos RP, et al. Gastrostomy tube placement is safe in advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurol Res. 2017;39(1):16-22.
  23. Katzberg HD, Benatar M. Enteral tube feeding for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;CD004030.
  24. Körner S, Hendricks M, Kollewe K, et al. Weight loss, dysphagia and supplement intake in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: impact on quality of life and therapeutic options. BMC Neurol. 2013;13:84.
  25. Zamietra K, Lehman EB, Felgoise SH, et al. Non-invasive ventilation and gastrostomy may not impact overall quality of life in patients with ALS. Amyotroph Lateral Scler. 2012;13:55–58.
  26. McDonnell E, Schoenfeld D, Paganoni S, et al. Causal inference methods to study gastric tube use in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurology. 2017;89(14):1483-1489.

Download Tables, Images & References

LIVER DISORDERS, SERIES #13

Hepatic Encephalopathy Treatment: Beyond Lactulose and Rifaximin

Read Article

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a devastating consequence of cirrhosis, acute liver failure, or portal hypertension that results in potentially debilitating cognitive impairment that affects patients and their caregivers. HE burdens both the patient and caregivers with substantial physical, emotional, and monetary costs, as well as health care systems with frequent hospitalizations. Understanding of the pathogenesis is limited, and this limited understanding has led to the approval of few effective treatment modalities. Current standard of care treatments include non-absorbable disaccharides (NADs) and rifaximin. Multiple other treatment modalities are gaining support as more data becomes available. Mechanisms of action for these investigational therapies include altering the gut microbiome therefore reducing bacterial production of ammonia, increasing the availability of amino acids in the body, stimulating urea synthesis, decreasing inhibitory neurotransmission, and increasing elimination of ammonia. This article discusses pertinent recent literature regarding development of these newer, non-traditional therapies.

INTRODUCTION

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a frequent complication of liver disease that affects patient morbidity and mortality and quality of life, often resulting in increased caregiver burden. Overt HE will manifest in 30-40% of cirrhotic patients during their lifetimes.1 Patients with cirrhosis and HE have a 2-fold increase rate of mortality over one year compared to cirrhotic patients without HE. It is also more costly to the health care system, as well as to families paying home caregivers, than other manifestations of cirrhosis, with 110,000 hospitalizations occurring from 2005-2009. Family member caregivers are often negatively affected given the significant time burden, as well as the detrimental emotional effects. The pathogenesis of HE is complex and poorly understood, with many studies being underpowered or containing design flaws that make further elucidation of the etiology difficult.1 The presentation of HE is also varied and nonspecific, making diagnosis and proper classification challenging. Currently, HE is classified by type of underlying disease, time course, severity of manifestations, and precipitating factors.1 Due to the unclear underlying pathogenesis and wide spectrum of presentation, data has been slow to emerge regarding potential treatment options beyond the standard of care. Current approved therapies focus on decreasing serum ammonia levels by reducing gut ammonia formation and absorption, but newer emerging therapies have been considered based on increased understanding of HE pathogenesis. These therapies focus on reduction of ammonia through decreased absorption or increased elimination, replacing anabolic constituents such as amino acids that are decreased in cirrhotic patients with HE, altering the gut microbiome through various methods, or by decreasing the end result of inhibitory neurotransmission. This article is a systematic review and analysis of the most recent and pertinent literature that support or refute the use of these novel therapies in treating HE.

I. Non-Absorbable Disaccharides
Lactulose

Non-absorbable disaccharides (NADs), such as lactulose (beta-galactosidofructose) and lactitol (beta-galactosidosorbitol), have been mainstays of treatment of HE since first described by Johannes Bircher in 1966.2 NADs reduce the effect of ammonia in induction of hepatic encephalopathy through multiple mechanisms. NADs are fermented in the colon, increasing intraluminal osmolality and reducing pH. Reducing the pH prevents the conversion of ammonium to ammonia. The increase in intraluminal osmolality results in a cathartic effect in the colon. It is also suspected that NADs beneficially affect the colonic microbiota.

A Cochrane review by Gluud et al., published in 2016 included 38 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated treatment of hepatic encephalopathy using NADs.2 There was a reduction in mortality in patients presenting with overt HE (RR=0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.94, NNT=20) but not with minimal HE. Minimal HE was defined as West Haven Criteria grade 1 which can manifest as trivial lack of awareness, change in sleep patterns, and lethargy. There were no differences in effect between lactulose and lactitol. Unfortunately, none of the included RCTs provided details on possible encephalopathy-precipitating factors which may impact the effect of NADs. Adverse events including liver failure, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatorenal syndrome, variceal bleeding were reduced as a whole with (RR=0.42), 95% CI 0.26-0.69, NNT=50). The direct cost/benefits of NAD treatment were not examined in the individual trials but these substances were felt to be cost-effective. Lactulose is inexpensive and any reduction in hospitalization duration or occurrence would reduce costs associated with HE. An RCT investigated the use of prophylactic lactulose in patients with cirrhosis who had never had an episode of overt HE. The treatment group was given lactulose while the control group was not. The investigators found that lactulose improved minimal hepatic encephalopathy in 66% of patients when measured by psychometry, figure connection test, digital symbol test, serial dot test, line tracing test, and critical flicker frequency testing at inclusion and at 3 months.3 Despite this finding, AASLD guidelines on hepatic encephalopathy do not recommend primary prophylaxis for prevention of overt HE except “in patients with cirrhosis and a known high risk to develop HE”.1 Recommended dosing is 25mL of lactulose syrup every 1-2 hours until at least two soft or loose bowel movements per day are produced, with continued maintenance of dosing to maintain two to three loose bowel movements per day.1 This treatment is FDA-approved. Use of lactulose can be limited in a clinical setting, as overuse can lead to dehydration, hypernatremia, perianal skin irritation, and aspiration. Underdosing of lactulose can also lead to breakthrough HE episodes.

II. Antibiotics
Rifaximin

Rifaximin is an oral broad-spectrum antibiotic with very low bioavailability, and antibacterial activity primarily within the colon.4 It acts on gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria and modifies the gut microbiome. It is suspected that subtle changes in the microbiome composition, in regards to Lactobacillus, Streptococcus, and Veillonella, may affect ammonia production and endotoxin release.4 A favorable microbiome is also suspected to lower the proinflammatory state of the liver by increasing intestinal epithelial homeostasis.4 A systematic review by Kimer etal. from 2014 analyzed 19 RCTs, including a total 1370 patients, and found that rifaximin had a beneficial effect on secondary prevention of HE with increased rates of full resolution RR 1.32 (95% CI 1.06-1.65) when compared to control groups including placebo, other antibiotics such as neomycin, and other disaccharides. This full resolution was not significantly different in a subgroup of patients who had undergone TIPS when compared to no treatment (RR 1.27 and 95% CI 1.00-1.53).5 Rifaximin also increased the proportion of patients who recovered from HE (RR 0.59 and 95% CI 0.46-0.76) and reduced mortality (RR 0.68 and 95% CI 0.48-0.97).5 The included RCTs had heterogeneity in how they defined recovery from HE. Although the included studies showed no clear benefit of rifaximin after TIPS, the number of patients was small and it was difficult to make definitive conclusions. Multiple studies have shown the effectiveness of adding rifaximin to lactulose for prevention of recurrent HE. Another single-center, retrospective cohort study investigated HE recurrence with rifaximin 600mg BID plus lactulose versus lactulose alone with median follow up 18 months. The rate of HE recurrence was 15.9% for the rifaximin plus lactulose group versus 33.3% for the lactulose monotherapy group.6 The current AASLD guidelines recommend rifaximin as an effective add-on therapy to lactulose for prevention of an overt HE recurrence.1 Rifaximin is also an FDAapproved treatment.

Neomycin

Neomycin has been widely used for treatment of HE. It acts to inhibit glutaminase which in turn, decreases ammonia synthesis from glutamine in the intestine.7 Although it has been widely used from an historical perspective, data supporting its efficacy in comparison to current first-line therapies is lacking. The most recent study from Strauss et al. in 1992 compared 20 patients treated with 6g neomycin qd versus 19 with placebo, and found that the time elapsed between the initiation of the medication and regression to grade zero HE was 39.11+/-23.04 hours for neomycin versus 49.47+/-21.92 for the placebo group, and this did not reach statistical significance.8 Orlandi et al. compared neomycin to lactulose in an RCT with 173 total patients. Neomycin 1g qid with 30-60g magnesium sulfate purgation were given orally to patients with grade I HE. Neomycin 2g qid with 30-60g magnesium sulfate were given to patients with grade 2 or 3 HE. The lactulose group was treated with 10-35ml of 50% lactulose syrup orally TID. Both groups were treated for 14 days and there was no significant difference between the treatments in regards to improvement in mental status, asterixis score, or ammonia levels. A limitation of this study was that the grading of HE was not standardized compared to more modern trials.9 Long-term use of neomycin can result in neuro and nephrotoxicity. Use after anesthesia is also associated with neuromuscular blockade with respiratory paralysis. AASLD guidelines state that neomycin has its advocates and can be considered as an alternative choice to treat overt HE.1 Neomycin is FDA-approved for the treatment of overt HE.

Metronidazole

Metronidazole has been studied as a potential treatment for overt HE. The mechanism of action involves metronidazole’s activity against anaerobic gut flora that have urease activity and convert urea to ammonia, thereby reducing serum ammonia levels.7 In a study from 1982, 11 patients with mild to moderate HE and 7 with severe HE were treated with neomycin 1g qd or metronidazole 0.2g qid for one week, with assessment of mental status scores at end of treatment.10 The patients were stratified using the West Haven Criteria but the study does not state what constitutes mild, moderate, or severe manifestations. Both the mild/moderate and severe HE groups showed improvement in mental status scores per West Haven Criteria and decrease in asterixis with both drugs. Mean arterial ammonia levels before and after treatment did not show a significant difference. The authors concluded that metronidazole may be just as effective as neomycin in treating overt HE.10 Long-term use has been limited by concerns of neurotoxicity, including dose-dependent peripheral neuropathy and ototoxicity, and nephrotoxicity.11 An openlabel study by Mekky, et al., in 2018 included 120 patients randomized to rifaximin or metronidazole therapy for treatment of an acute episode of overt HE.12 The number of patients who showed clinical improvement defined by any favorable change in the West Haven Criteria was not statistically different between treatment groups (p=0.412) and hospitalization duration was comparable with 4.2+/-2.1 days versus 3.9+/-1.7 days for the metronidazole and rifaximin groups, respectively. This data was obtained at the end of the treatment duration. There was no significant difference in ammonia levels from baseline in either treatment arm (160.77+/-185.mcg/dL versus 207.95+/218.mcg/dL with p=0.664 and 0.974) in the metronidazole and rifaximin groups, respectively. The authors concluded that these therapies were similar in efficacy.12 Lactulose was not compared in this study. AASLD guidelines note that the data is not strong enough to warrant use of metronidazole as maintenance therapy over rifaximin, given the potential for side effects, but that it is an alternative option for the treatment of overt HE.1 Metronidazole is not FDA-approved for treatment of HE.

Vancomycin

In addition to the well-established use of vancomycin to treat Gram-positive bacteria, it also reduces the burden of Gram-negative anaerobic rods in the stool, which in turn decreases the amount of urease available to produce ammonia.7 The mechanism of action is similar to metronidazole in this regard. The data on vancomycin’s role in HE treatment is sparse. Tarao et al. published a double blind crossover trial in which 12 patients underwent a two week course of lactulose with titration to 2-4 bowel movements per day and then all were given vancomycin 2g qd for 8 weeks, after which 6 patients discontinued vancomycin and started lactulose while the other 6 were continued on vancomycin for another 8 weeks.13 The groups then switched medications for another 8 weeks. After this, mental status was assessed using the West Haven Criteria. The grade of HE went from 2 to 0 in vancomycin treated patients with p<0.001 and resolution of HE occurred more quickly with vancomycin than with lactulose. This study was limited by the small number of participants and no clear delineation of grade of improvement with lactulose. There is very little published data on the use of vancomycin and for this reason it is not widely used to treat HE. The AASLD guidelines do not mention vancomycin as a treatment for HE.1 It is not FDA-approved for this indication.

III. Alternative Therapies Branched Chain Amino Acids

Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) have been investigated as a potential treatment for hepatic encephalopathy, but data is very limited and there are no strong head to head trials. Cirrhotic patients have a general deficiency of circulating amino acids compared to healthy controls as a result of nutritional derangements, and have excess muscle catabolism. This has been documented in prior studies. Skeletal muscle plays an important role in serum ammonia reduction. BCAAs have been postulated to reduce malnutrition and consequent reduction in muscle mass, thereby improving ammonia metabolism.14 One Cochrane review identified 16 RCTs with 827 participants with cirrhosis treated with BCAAs vs other interventions including no intervention, NADs, antibiotics, or diet. There was no difference in mortality between the BCAA intervention group and the other interventions treated as a group (RR=0.88, 95% CI 0.69-1.11).14 CAAs were associated with a beneficial effect on HE compared to controls consisting of placebo, diets, lactulose, or neomycin (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.88), and on subgroup analysis the benefit was associated with oral but not intravenous (IV) BCAA (oral RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.88 versus IV RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61-1.08). The specific beneficial effect was heterogeneous between the trials and reflected the contemporary grading at the time of data publishing, but the West Haven Criteria was predominantly used. The lack of specified benefits could be considered a weakness of this analysis. The benefit was only noted when excluding trials with a lactulose or neomycin control group. AASLD guidelines recommend oral BCAAs as an alternative or additional agent to treat patients who are nonresponsive to conventional therapy.1 The dosing of BCAA is highly variable and is based on patient weight.

L-ornithine L-aspartate

L-ornithine L-aspartate (LOLA) acts to enhance ammonia detoxification by stimulating urea synthesis in periportal hepatocytes.15 Ammonia removal by skeletal muscle is also stimulated by LOLA via promotion of ammonia incorporation with glutamate to form glutamine.15 One systematic review of LOLA’s role in HE treatment included 8 RCTs with 646 patients with cirrhosis and compared LOLA to placebo, lactulose, or probiotics. It demonstrated LOLA was more effective than placebo and equally as effective as lactulose or probiotics for improvement of overt HE and minimal HE.16 A systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 RCTs with 1023 patients showed benefit of LOLA in acute or chronic episodes of HE but not in minimal HE when compared with placebo, but the body of evidence was small.17 A subsequent review and meta-analysis pooled data from nine trials assessing the effects of LOLA on mental state improvement, and showed significant benefit with improvement occurring more often using the West Haven criteria (RR=1.36 and 95% CI 1.101.69) and by psychometric testing (RR=2.15 and 95% CI 1.48-3.14).18 A head to head trial by Poo et al. comparing LOLA to lactulose has shown that LOLA is at least equivalent to lactulose in lowering serum ammonia but provided greater improvement in mental state and number connection test scores.19 There is criticism regarding these studies as they have not used the modern definition of covert HE, instead using minimal HE. LOLA has also not been studied in patients who have undergone a TIPS procedure. Although LOLA is not available in the US, AASLD guidelines suggest IV LOLA can be used as an alternative or additional agent to treat patients nonresponsive to conventional therapy.1 It is not FDA-approved.

Albumin

In cirrhosis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and the susceptibility to bacterial infection can play a role in decompensation and the development of HE. For this reason, substances that reduce oxidative stress and inflammation may have a beneficial effect. Albumin has been shown to reduce oxidative stress and vasodilation and increase oncotic pressure. Published studies, however, have shown inconsistent benefit from the use of IV albumin. A meta-analysis recently investigated the role of albumin in the prevention of HE.20 In this metaanalysis, 6 studies with 889 patients suggested that, while albumin infusion may reduce risk of overt HE in cirrhosis, the difference was not statistically significant (p value=0.07) when compared to a control without albumin infusion. Sharma et al. investigated albumin plus lactulose versus lactulose alone with the primary endpoint being complete reversal of HE.21 In this RCT, 120 patients were randomized evenly to lactulose plus albumin (1.5g/kg/day) or standard therapy with lactulose. 75% of patients in the combination group versus 53.3% of the patients in the monotherapy group had complete reversal of HE (p=0.03). Mortality was also lower (18.3% versus 31.6%, respectively). There were also significant decreases in arterial ammonia, IL-6, IL-18, TNF-alpha, and endotoxins, with greater decreases in the combination group. A recently published study in 2021 by China, et al. randomized decompensated, hospitalized cirrhotic patients with a serum albumin level of less than 30g/L to receive either a targeted 20% albumin solution with median 200g albumin per patient for up to 14 days or until discharge, or standard care with median 20g albumin per patient.22 Primary endpoints were new infection, kidney dysfunction, or death between 3 and 15 days after initiation of treatment. 777 patients underwent randomization. The primary end points did not show significant difference between the groups and, in analyzing supplementary materials, rates of encephalopathy were not appreciably different (OR=0.91, CI 95% 0.44 to 1.86). Given these disparate findings of efficacy, the AASLD guidelines do not recommend albumin infusions for the purposes of HE prevention or treatment.1 This may change given new data and updated guidelines.

AST-120

AST-120 is a carbon microsphere adsorbent which was initially approved in Japan in 1991 in order to delay the initiation of dialysis in uremic patients.23 AST-120 has been shown to reduce oxidative stress and arterial ammonia in rat models by binding to ammonia in the lumen of the gastrointestinal tract and allowing it to be passed from the GI tract.24 The ASTUTE trial by Bajaj et al. examined the effect of AST-120 on covert HE.25 This was a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with cirrhosis patients with MELD less than or equal to 25 and covert HE. Covert HE was defined by a Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) score below the 10th percentile, or less than or equal to grade 1 HE defined by the West-Haven criteria. The patients were randomized to 12g, 6g, or placebo daily for 8 weeks. RBANS testing was performed at screening, baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks. 148 patients were enrolled, with primary endpoint being change in the RBANS criteria. There was no change noted at weeks 4 and 8, with a strong learning effect between screening and prerandomization which confounded results. Venous ammonia levels were decreased from baseline in treatment groups but increased in placebo groups. Due to the lack of robust results, more research is felt to be needed and the AASLD guidelines from 2014 do not recommend AST-120 as a treatment for HE.1

Acetyl-L-carnitine

It is hypothesized that acetyl-L-carnitine may benefit HE by increasing urea genesis and decreasing blood and brain ammonia.26 It also is hypothesized that acetyl-L-carnitine facilitates uptake of acetyl-coenzyme A in brain mitochondria which ultimately stimulates protein synthesis and prevents neuronal death. In 2019 a Cochrane review of five studies investigating this treatment and its role in treating HE was performed.27 It included 5 Italian studies with a total of 398 patients. No trial in the review reported on rates of all-cause mortality or serious adverse events. Certainty of estimates regarding the effect on quality of life and mental/physical fatigue was low. There was very low quality evidence that blood ammonia levels were reduced but HE was not graded according to a standardized criteria. These studies were felt to be underpowered, with a high risk of bias. More robust studies are needed to validate the use of acetyl-L-carnitine in HE. The AASLD guidelines of 2014 do not recommend the use of acetyl-Lcarnitine given paucity of data.1

Glycerol Phenylbutyrate

Glycerol phenylbutyrate (GPB) is a tasteless liquid compound that removes nitrogen in the form of urinary phenylacetylglutamine via an alternative pathway for ammonia waste. It is termed an ammonia scavenger. It has primarily been used to treat inherited disorders of hyperammonemia.28 A multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial to assess the ability of GPB, administered 6mL BID for 16 weeks, to decrease the incidence of HE events in cirrhotic patients who had at least two HE episodes greater than or equal to West Haven grade 2 within the past 6 months.28 178 patients were enrolled in total. In the intention to treat groups, 36% of patients taking placebo had an HE event versus 21% in the GPB group (p<0.05). Time to first event was longer (HR=0.56, p<0.05), total events were fewer (35 versus 57, p=0.04), and HE hospitalizations were fewer (13 versus 25, p=0.06) in the GPB treatment arm, compared to placebo groups. Plasma ammonia levels were lower in patients on GPB. Of note, patients taking rifaximin were eligible for enrollment if they had been on a stable dose for at least 1 month and had a qualifying HE event while taking lactulose. The results were controlled for the use of rifaximin. A limitation of this study is the low number of enrolled patients, and larger RCTs would be needed in the future to validate these results. The AASLD guidelines do not specify using GPB but are awaiting further clinical studies for an official recommendation.1

Flumazenil

In HE, the balance of neurotransmission is predominantly inhibitory due to the effect of hyperammonemia.29 HE patients are considered to have increased activity of GABA, which is the main inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain, and may be amenable to GABA/benzodiazepine antagonism. Flumazenil competitively binds to benzodiazepine receptor sites and may modulate inhibitory neurotransmission in this manner.29 Goh et al. conducted a Cochrane Review in 2017 which included 10 RCTs and 842 participants with an acute episode of overt HE.30 All RCTs compared IV flumazenil with placebo, with daily dose of flumazenil ranging from 0.2mg to 6.5mg, with total dose between 0.2mg and 19.5mg, and with duration of treatment ranging from 10 minutes to 72 hours. Flumazenil was associated with a beneficial effect on HE (RR=0.75, 95% CI 0.710.80). The beneficial effects were heterogeneous among the studies with improvement noted on EEG, subjective alertness, Number Connection Test, or Simple Reaction Time test. The benefit on HE was felt to be short-term, yet there were few adverse effects. Overall evidence supporting use of flumazenil for treatment of HE was felt to be low. The AASLD guidelines acknowledge this transient improvement in mental status, and mention that it may be most beneficial to avoid assisted ventilation or to differentiate diagnostic situations involving benzodiazepine toxicity.1

PEG

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is postulated to work in ameliorating HE due to it being highly effective as an osmotic laxative to facilitate the removal of fecal nitrogen.31 Hoilat et al. published a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the utility of PEG in comparison to lactulose.31 The review examined four RCTs with a total of 229 patients. The studies utilized the HE Scoring Algorithm (HESA), which is an adaptation of the West Haven Criteria using both subjective and objective indicators, to gauge the effect of PEG versus lactulose on HE. Two RCTs with a total of 98 patients demonstrated a lower average HESA score at 24 hours post treatment in the PEG group compared to the lactulose group (MD(Mean deviation)= -0.68, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.31, p<0.001). Of these patients, there was also was a higher proportion of patients who had a reduction of HESA score by greater than or equal to 1 at 24 hours post-treatment in the PEG group (RR=1.40, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.67, p<0.001). Two RCTs showed a higher proportion of patients had HESA score of 0 at 24 hours in the PEG group (RR=4.33, 95% CI 2.27 to 8.28, p<0.001). There was no difference between groups in regards to hospital length of stay (MD= -1.00, 95% CI -1.99 to -0.01, p=0.05). Several limitations of this metaanalysis are the inclusion of studies with a small number of patients and the fact that the authors did not perform publication bias analysis. This meta-analysis did not include studies that utilized a treatment arm with both PEG and lactulose. An RCT by Ahmed et al. compared PEG plus lactulose to lactulose alone in regards to HE resolution.32 29 patients were randomized to the dual treatment arm and 31 to lactulose monotherapy. There was a shorter median time to HE resolution in the dual therapy arm [4.5(3 to 9) days versus 9(8 to 11) days; p=0.023]. Adverse events included mainly diarrhea. There was also improved survival at 28 days with the dual therapy arm (93.1% versus 67.7%, p=0.010) but the difference was not statistically different at 90 days. The AASLD guidelines from 2014 note that no publications were forthcoming on the use of laxatives in HE at that time.1 This may change with future guidelines.

FMT

It has been shown that cirrhotic patients with HE have a gut microbiome with a reduced amount of beneficial species, such as Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae, with increased amounts of pathogenic species such as Enterobacteriaceae.33,34 This has been postulated to increase systemic inflammation, which in turn can lead to deficits in cognition. Bajaj et al. in 2017 performed an open-label RCT where 20 patients with recurrent HE were randomized to receive FMT from a donor with high amounts of Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae versus standard of care (SOC) with lactulose and rifaximin alone.35 The primary outcome was serious adverse events with secondary outcomes including changes in cognitive function at day 20, and changes in microbiota composition. 80% of SOC participants had adverse events, as compared to 20% of FMT participants, in whom the adverse events were felt to be FMTunrelated (p=0.02). Events that occurred in the SOC arm include pneumonia, chest pain, portal vein thrombus, anemia, gastroenteritis, and variceal bleeding. Five SOC and zero FMT participants developed recurrent HE during the follow-up period of 150 days (p=0.03). A secondary outcome was improvement in cognition. The FMT arm showed significant improvement in psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES) and EncephalApp Stroop testing with p=0.003 and p=0.01, respectively. There was a relative increase in beneficial microbial taxa post-FMT relative to patients on SOC. Limitations of this study were small sample size and the lack of a placebo arm. Bajaj et al. subsequently conducted another RCT on a group of 15 patients with HE randomized to FMT capsules or lactulose/rifaximin, with pre- and post-treatment endoscopies performed to obtain duodenal and sigmoid biopsies.36 PostFMT duodenal microbial diversity was increased, with higher levels of Ruminococcaceae and Bifidobacteriaceae with lower Streptococcaceae and Veillonellaceae (p=0.01). Reduction in Veillonellaceae was also noted in post-FMT sigmoid biopsies (p=0.04). There was reduction in markers of inflammation, including interleukin-6 and serum LBP in the FMT group. This proved that FMT increased beneficial taxa and decreased pathogenic strains, although no clinical endpoints were assessed in this study. The AASLD guidelines of 2014 do not mention FMT as a treatment for HE but, given emerging data, may appear in future versions.1

Probiotics

As noted above, the gut microbiota in patients with liver disease has been shown to be altered to include more pathogenic strains. It has been theorized that probiotics may reduce harmful ammonia-producing bacteria, decrease ammonia absorption by decreasing pH, and decrease intestinal permeability.37 A Cochrane Review by Dalal et al. in 2017 analyzed 21 trials with 1420 participants comparing probiotics with placebo or lactulose. The most commonly used probiotic product was VSL#3.37 When compared to placebo, there was no effect on all-cause mortality with probiotics (RR=0.58, 95% CI 0.23-1.44), however failure to improve HE score was lower (RR=0.67, 95% CI 0.56-0.79), adverse events were lower (RR=0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.51), and plasma ammonia concentration was lower (MD -8.29 micromol/L, 95% CI -13.17 to -3.41). The efficacy data on these items when probiotics were compared to lactulose was unclear due to low quality of evidence. All metrics including all-cause mortality, lack of recovery, and adverse events had large confidence intervals that crossed one. The authors concluded that there was a high risk of bias and random error with overall low quality of evidence. Probiotics may be considered over no treatment, given their overall safety, although a clear therapeutic benefit has not been established. High-quality RCTs are needed to further investigate the role of probiotics in HE. The AASLD guidelines of 2014 do not specifically recommend for probiotic use but they do not recommend against it.1

Diet

Malnutrition is a common complication of cirrhosis and is associated with muscle wasting. The loss of skeletal muscle prevents adequate removal of circulating ammonia and contributes to worsening encephalopathy.38 This was demonstrated in a study by Nardelli et al. in 2019 which investigated the relationship between skeletal muscle mass and composition and the risk of progression from minimal to overt HE.38 64 patients with cirrhosis had computed tomography to analyze skeletal muscle index. Skeletal muscle index was determined using CT to calculate the L3 muscle Hounsfield units (HU) to determine if it was consistent with known ranges for skeletal muscle or if it represented sarcopenia. They found that alteration in muscle composition (myosteatosis) (62.5% versus 12.5%, p<0.001) and sarcopenia (84% versus 31%, p<0.001) were more frequent in patients who had minimal HE versus no HE. The development of overt HE was independently associated with myosteatosis and sarcopenia. The rationale for this is that skeletal muscle acts to detoxify and metabolize ammonia. A reduction in skeletal muscle results in a reduction in ammonia clearance. Amodio et al. created a consensus document in 2013 to explain methods for investigating sarcopenia in cirrhotic patients.39 Hand-grip dynamometry was found to be both a sensitive and specific marker for body cell mass depletion and correlated with total protein body stores, but unfortunately is not a strong predictor of outcomes in women. There is a system called the Royal Free Hospital-Nutritional Prioritizing Tool (RFH-NPT) that can be administered in under 3 minutes and has excellent reproducibility and external validity in assessing nutritional status. It can be carried out by nonspecialist staff in a clinic setting and is noted in Figure 1.

Cirrhotic patients have increased resting energy expenditure, due to reductions in hepatic glycogen. As a result, there is increased use of amino acids which must be offset by daily intake of 1.2-1.5g protein/kg body weight to maintain nitrogen balance.40 Daily energy intake should be 35-40kcal/ kg body weight. Fasting for longer than 3-6 hours should be avoided by eating small, frequent meals throughout the day, including a protein-based bedtime snack. The authors did not identify any high quality studies demonstrating the impact of diet intervention on hepatic encephalopathy.

CONCLUSION

The standard of care in treating hepatic encephalopathy has been non-absorbable disaccharides and rifaximin but there are newer therapies that are emerging that seek to modify multiple targets in the complex pathogenesis pathway leading to hepatic encephalopathy. Many of these therapies are supported by data that is not robust or has been subject to bias, but some have increasing support in the literature. This support may continue to grow as we better understand the underlying factors precipitating hepatic encephalopathy. Moving forward, larger clinical trials with robust methodology and minimization of inherent bias will be needed to support the addition of these therapeutic options to the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy.

References

  1. Vilstrup H, Amodio P, Bajaj J, Cordoba J, Ferenci P, Mullen K, Weissenborn K, and Wong P. Hepatic encephalopathy in chronic liver disease: 2014 practice guideline by the European association for the study of the liver and the American association for the study of liver diseases. J Hepatol 2014;61:642-659. Doi: 10.1016/j. jhep.2014.05.042.
  2. Gluud LL, Vilstrup H, Morgan MY. Nonabsorbable disaccharides for hepatic encephalopathy: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Hepatology. 2016 Sep;64(3):908-22. doi: 10.1002/ hep.28598. Epub 2016 May 20. PMID: 27081787.
  3. Sharma P, Sharma B, Agrawal A, Sarin S. Primary prophylaxis of overt hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis: An open labeled randomized controlled trial of lactulose versus no lactulose. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012;27(8):1329-1335.
  4. Caraceni P, et al. The Use of Rifaximin in Patients With Cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2021, 74(3):1660-1673.
  5. Kimer N, Krag A, Moller S, Bendtsen L, Gluud L. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the effects of rifaximin in hepatic encephalopathy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40(2): 123-132.
  6. Kang SH, Lee YB, Lee JH, Nam JY, Chang Y, Cho H, et al. Rifaximin treatment is associated with reduced risk of cirrhotic complications and prolonged overall survival in patients experiencing hepatic encephalopathy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2017; 46:845-855.
  7. Jawaro T, Yang A. Dixit D, Bridgeman MB. Management of Hepatic Encephalopathy: A Primer. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2016;50(7):569-577. Doi: 10.1177/1060028016645826.
  8. Strauss E, Tramote R, Silva EP, Caly WR, Honain NZ, Maffei RA, de Sá MF. Double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing neomycin and placebo in the treatment of exogenous hepatic encephalopathy. Hepatogastroenterology. 1992 Dec;39(6):542-5. PMID: 1483668.
  9. Orlandi F, Freddara U, Candelaresi MT, et al. Comparison between neomycin and lactulose in 173 patients with hepatic encephalopathy: a randomized clinical study. Dig Dis Sci 1981;26:498–506.
  10. Morgan M, Read A, Speller D. Treatment of hepatic encephalopathy with metronidazole. Gut, 1982,23,1-7.
  11. Phonsamran, P.V., Kim J.W., Abbott, J.C. et al. Pharmacotherapy for Hepatic Encephalopathy. Drugs 70,1131-1148 (2010). https:// doi.org/10/2165/10898630-000000000-00000.
  12. Mekky M, Riad A, Gaber M, Abdel-Malek M, Swifee Y. Rifaximin versus metronidazole in management of acute episode of hepatic encephalopathy: An open labeled randomized clinical trial. Arab Journal of Gastroenterology. June 2018;19(2):76-79.
  13. Tarao K, Ikeda T, Hayashi K, et al. Successful use of vancomycin hydrochloride in the treatment of lactulose resistant chronic hepatic encephalopathy. Gut 1990;31:702–6.
  14. Gluud LL, Dam G, Les I, et al. Branched-chain amino acids for people with hepatic encephalopathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;5(5):CD001939. Published 2017 May 18. Doi; 10.1002/14651858. CD001939.pub4.
  15. Butterworth, R.F., McPhail, M.J.W. L-Ornithine L-Aspartate (LOLA) for Hepatic Encephalopathy in Cirrhosis: Results of Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-Analyses. Drugs. 2019;79:31-37. https://doi.org/10/1007/s40265-018-1024-1.
  16. Bai M, Yang Z, Qi X, Fan D, Han G. L-Ornithine L-aspartate for hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;28:783-92.
  17. Goh ET, Stokes CS, Vilstrup H, GluudLL, Morgan MY. L-Ornithine L-aspartate for hepatic encephalopathy: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Hepatol. 2017;66;131.
  18. Butterworth RF, Kircheis G, Hilger N, McPhail MJW. Efficacy of L-ornithine L-aspartate for the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy and hyperammonemia in cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
    J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2018;8:301-3. https://doi.org/10/1016/j. jceh.2018,05.004.
  19. Poo JL, Gongora J, Sanchez-Avila F, Aguilar-Castillo S, GarciaRamos G, Fernandez-Zertuche M, et al. Efficacy of oral L-ornithine L-aspartate in cirrhotic patients with hyperammonemic hepatic encephalopathy. Results of a randomized, lactulose-controlled study. Ann Hepatol. 2006;5:281-8.
  20. Bai Z, Bernardi M, Yoshida E, Li H, Guo X, Mendez-Sanchez N, Li Y, Wang R, Deng J, Qi X. Albumin infusion may decrease the incidence and severity of overt hepatic encephalopathy in liver cirrhosis. Aging. 2019;11(19):8502-8525. https://doi. org/10.18632/aging.102335.
  21. Sharma B, Singh J, Srivastava S, Sangam A, Mantri A, Trehanpati N, Sarin, S. Randomized controlled trial comparing lactulose plus albumin versus lactulose alone for treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. J Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017;32(6):1234-1239.
  22. China L, et al. A Randomized Trial of Albumin Infusions in Hospitalized Patients with Cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 2021;384:808817. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022166.
  23. Rahimi R, Rockey D. Hepatic Encephalopathy: Pharmacological Therapies Targeting Ammonia. Semin Liver Dis 2016;36(01):4855. DOI: 10/1055/s-0036-1571298.
  24. Bosoi CR, Parent-Robitaille C, Anderson K, Tremblay M, Rose CF. AST-120 (spherical carbon adsorbent) lowers ammonia levels and attenuates brain edema in bile duct-ligated rats. Hepatology 2011;53(6):1995-2002.
  25. Bajaj J, et al. AST-120 (Spherical Carbon Adsorbent) in Covert Hepatic Encephalopathy: Results of the Astute Trial. Su1685. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(5):S-997-S997.
  26. Malaguarnera M. Acetyl-L-carnitine in hepatic encephalopathy. Metabolic Brain Disease. 2013;28(2):193-9. PUBMED: 23389620.
  27. Marti-Carvajal AJ, Gluud C, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, MartiAmarista CE. Acetyl-L-Carnitine for patients with hepatic encephalopathy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD011451. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD011451.pub2. Accessed 11 October 2021.
  28. Rockey DC, Vierling JM, Mantry P, et al. HALT-HE Study Group. Randomized, double-blind, controlled study of glycerol phenylbutyrate in hepatic encephalopathy. Hepatology 2014;59(3):1073-1083.
  29. Alimirah M, Sadiq O, Gordon S. Novel Therapies in Hepatic Encephalopathy. Clinics in Liver Disease, 2020-05-01;23(2):303315.
  30. Goh E, Andersen M, Morgan M, Gluud L. Flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 8. Art. No: CD002798. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD002798.pub4. Accessed 11 October 2021.
  31. Hoilat GJ, Ayas MF, Hoilat JN, et al. Polyethylene glycol versus lactulose in the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Gastroenterology 2021;8:e000648. Doi: 10.1136/bmjgast-2021-000648.
  32. Ahmed S, Premkumar M, Dhiman RK, et al. Combined PEG3350 Plus Lactulose Results in Early Resolution of Hepatic
    Encephalopathy and Improved 28-Day Survival in Acute-onChronic Liver Failure. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 2020 Oct. DOI: 10.1097/mcg.0000000000001450. PMID: 33060437.
  33. Chen Y, Yang F, Lu H, Wang B, Chen Y, Lei D, et al. Characterization of fecal microbial communities in patients with liver cirrhosis. Hepatology 2011;54:562-572.
  34. Bajaj JS, Heuman DM, Hylemon PB, Sanyal AJ, White MB, Monteith P, et al. Altered profile of human gut microbiome is associated with cirrhosis and its complications. J Hepatol 2014;60:940-947.
  35. Bajaj J, Kassam Z, Fagan A, et al. Fecal microbiota transplant from a rational stool donor improves hepatic encephalopathy: A randomized clinical trial. December 2017; 66(6):1727-1738. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29306.
  36. Bajaj J, Salzman N, Acharya C, et al. Fecal Microbial Transplant Capsules are Safe in Hepatic Encephalopathy: A Phase 1, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial. November 2019;70(5):1690-1703. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.30690.
  37. Dalal R, McGee RG, Riordan SM, Webster AC. Probiotics for people with hepatic encephalopathy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, issue 2. Art. No.: CD008716. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008716.pub3. Accessed 12 October 2021.
  38. Nardelli S, Lattanzi B, Merli M, Alessio F, Gioia S, Ridola L, Riggio O. Muscle Alterations Are Associated With Minimal and Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis. Hepatology. November 2019;70(5):1704-1713.
  39. Amodio P, Bemeur C, Butterworth R, Cordoba J, Kato A, Montagnese S, Uribe M, Vilstrup H, Morgan M. The nutritional management of hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis: International society for hepatic encephalopathy and nitrogen metabolism consensus. July 2013;58(1):325-336.
  40. Rakoski MO, McCammon RJ, Piette JD, Iwashyna TJ, Marrero JA, Lok AS, Langa KM, Volk ML. Burden of cirrhosis on older Americans and their families: analysis of the health and retirement study. Hepatology. 2012 Jan;55(1):184-91. Doi: 10.1002/hep.24616. PMID: 21858847.

Download Tables, Images & References

FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #80

Techniques and Outcomes of ERCP in Patients with Billroth II Anatomy

Read Article

ERCP in patients with Billroth II can be challenging even in experienced hands because of altered anatomy. The challenges include afferent limb intubation, reaching the duodenal papilla, and selective cannulation. In general, side-viewing endoscope is preferred but it is mostly operator dependent and when the afferent limb is long, colonoscope or single or double-balloon enteroscope can be useful. Similarly, the choice of sphincterotomy technique depends on the individual endoscopist’s preference. The risk of complications like perforation, bleeding, cholangitis, and pancreatitis can be higher with ERCP in Billroth II patients when compared to native anatomy.

INTRODUCTION

Billroth II reconstruction is performed disease, and management of devascularization when more extended distal gastrectomy is injuries of the stomach secondary to trauma. The required, and it preserves jejunal continuity choice of reconstruction depends on the remnant not duodenal continuity. The procedure involves anatomy available for reconstruction and from anastomosing the remnant stomach to the proximal jejunum in an end-to-side fashion. The afferent limb is from the duodenum and an efferent limb extends distally. The common indications for Billroth II procedure are to treat malignant tumor in the distal lower two-thirds of the stomach, complications of peptic ulcer disease (perforation, bleeding, and duodenal stricture), neuroendocrine ulcer the previous studies, Roux-en-Y reconstruction appears to be well tolerated with better quality of life when compared to Billroth II.1 Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is technically difficult in patients with Billroth II as the papilla can only be reached through the afferent limb and the papillae of vater appears upsidedown compared with its orientation in native anatomy.2 In this review article, we will discuss the technical challenges of ERCP in Billroth II using different types of endoscopes, complications, and outcomes of ERCP as patients with this anatomic reconstruction are still encountered in clinical practice.

The Billroth II anastomosis is constructed after the proximal stomach is transected at the antrum and the duodenum is divided distal to the pyloric ring. Billroth II gastrojejunostomy anastomosis can be of two types, anastomosis involving the entire gastric division edge (polya) or part of the entire gastric division edge (Hofmeister).3 In the polya technique, the gastrojejunal anastomosis includes the entire length of the gastric resection line, whereas in the Hofmeister technique, the half of the gastric resection line closest to the lesser curvature is sutured, and the lower half closest to the greater curvature is anastomosed to the proximal jejunum. The anisoperistaltic anastomosis (afferent loop on the lesser curvature) helps the biliopancreatic secretions that reach the lesser curvature to empty along the greater curvature of the stomach and prevents biliary reflux. An infracolic anastomosis prevents the jejunal loop from narrowing as it traverses the mesocolon. Retrocolic position when compared to precolic decreases delayed gastric emptying.4 A precolic gastroenterostomy is necessary when the lesser cavity is inaccessible among patients undergoing palliative gastrectomy.

The common indications for Billroth II reconstruction include gastric cancer (lesions in the lower two-thirds of the stomach), leiomyoma, complications of ulcer disease (gastric outlet obstruction, bleeding, perforation), and devascularization injury to stomach.5-7

The perioperative outcomes among patients with gastric cancer are similar in both Rouxen-Y and Billroth II groups in terms of morbidity, mortality, and nutritional impairment.8 The rate of anastomotic inflammation and biliary reflux is higher with Billroth II when compared to Roux-en-Y group.9 Roux-en-Y has a higher rate of delayed gastric emptying when compared to Billroth II.10

Technical Challenges of ERCP in Billroth II Anatomy

The inability to reach the papilla is one of the most common causes for the failure of ERCP in patients with altered anatomy. The various factors that contribute to the difficult access to the papilla include the length of the afferent limb, limbing of the duodenoscope in the remnant stomach, excess

angulation of the afferent limb, and the presence of braun anastomosis.11,12 Braun anastomosis is creating an enteroenterostomy between the afferent and efferent limbs to divert food to the efferent limb to prevent bile reflux.13 While some authors report differences in the papillary access failure rates using the duodenoscope (31.8%) and forwardviewing endoscopes (8.65%), others showed similar papillary access failure rates with different endoscopes.14,15 In situations where the afferent limb could not be intubated or advancing within the afferent limb is challenging, the use of a frontviewing endoscope, changing the position to supine or prone position, and manual compression in the epigastric region can help reduce the limbing of the endoscope.16,17

Selective cannulation of the bile duct can be challenging in patients with Billroth II anatomy because of the inverted orientation of the papilla and, by extension, the pancreatic duct and the common bile duct (CBD). (Figure 1) The elevator on the side-viewing duodenoscope allows precise manipulation during the cannulation step of the ERCP and the success rate of cannulation is higher when the side-viewing endoscope is used when compared with the forward-viewing endoscope.18 A transparent cap can, to some extent, overcome the lack of an elevator on the forwardviewing endoscope as it enhances the stability of the endoscope and provides a higher degree of anatomic alignment between the catheter and the desired duct during selective cannulation.18 In terms of the endoscopic view, the position of the working channel is very important. The position of the working channels is different for each of the endoscopes. Selective cannulation can be attempted by matching the orientation of the position where the catheter emerges on the endoscopic view and the position of the papilla, although in practice this can be difficult, especially with a forward viewing instrument.

Sphincterotomy

In patients with Billroth II reconstructions, because of the reversed anatomy, a biliary sphincterotomy should be undertaken in the direction of 5 o’clock instead of 11 o’clock. The choice of the sphincterotomy technique depends on the individual endoscopist’s preference. The various methods of performing sphincterotomy in patients with Billroth II include standard sphincterotomy, reverse sphincterotomy (Billroth II sphincterotome) and needle-knife sphincterotome guided by biliary endoprosthesis. Wire-guided standard sphincterotome (PreCurved Double Lumen Sphincterotome, Cook Medical, Limerick, Ireland) endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is performed using a side-viewing or forwardviewing endoscope, a guidewire is first inserted in the bile duct and then a standard sphincterotome was used to perform the EST.19 Wire-guided BII sphincterotome (Billroth II Sphincterotome, Cook Medical, Limercik, Ireland) EST using a side-viewing or forward-viewing endoscope is performed by using a Billroth II sphincterotome after cannulation of the bile duct with a guide wire.19 Needle-knife (Huibregtse Triple Lumen Needle Knife, Cook Medical, Limerick, Ireland) EST guided by biliary endoprosthesis using a side-viewing or forward-viewing endoscope is performed in three steps (cannulation of the bile duct using a guide wire, insertion of a biliary stent, and the biliary stent is used as a guidance while cutting the papilla with a needle knife).19

When the cutting scores were compared by the three different techniques (standard sphincterotome, Billroth II sphincterotome and needle-knife sphincterotome), the needle knife was significantly superior to the others and Billroth II sphincterotome had significantly shorter time consumption when compared to the others.19 Abdelhafez et al. showed the efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy using standard sphincterotome, BII sphincterotome, and needle knife guided by endoprosthesis were 2.2±3.0, 6.3±2.8, 8.9±1.5 (blinded videotypes rated by an ERCP expert using mean and standard deviation on a scale of 0-10) respectively.19 The study did not find any significant difference in the efficacy of the endoscopic sphincterotomy using forward or side-viewing endoscopes. Also, the mean and standard deviation for the duration (seconds) of different endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques using standard sphincterotome, B II sphincterotome, and needle knife guided by endoprosthesis showed 249.8±105.9, 163.5±80.7, and 243.4±37.8 respectively.19 There was no significant difference between the duration of different endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques using forward or side-viewing endoscopes.

Endoscopic transpapillary balloon dilation (EPBD) can be safe and effective in Billroth II patients for the removal of large CBD stones without ES but some authors recommend ES before EPBD to prevent pancreatitis and ES can guide the ballooning direction for the effective removal of bile duct stone.20,21

duodenoscope. In most patients, the ampulla can be reached with this device. If this is not the case, the duodenoscope can be changed to a forwardviewing gastroscope or an adult or pediatric colonoscope. The afferent limb is usually located in the lesser curvature of the stomach, but in practice identifying the afferent limb is often a matter of trial and error. If there is no evidence of bile on the intubated limb and if the endoscope is in the left abdominal quadrant toward the pelvis on the fluoroscopic image, the other limb should be accessed. In situations where the afferent limb is tight with sharp angulations, a catheter and a soft angled guidewire can be advanced to the duodenal stump under fluoroscopic guidance to determine if it is feasible to proceed with the duodenoscope. Fluoroscopy often provides critical clues as to which limb has been intubated, as the endoscope should still arc towards the right upper quadrant.

Cannulation can be performed using standard straight ERCP catheters (ERCP-1-HKB, Cook Endoscopy, Winston Salem, North Carolina, USA) or bendable catheters (Swing Tip, Olympus Medical, Tokyo, Japan).22 In patients with Billroth II, some find straight catheters to be more useful as the direction for cannulation is at the 5 o’clock position and steerable catheters can guide to the papilla. Other practitioners simply start with a sphincterotome as these can often be rotated to accommodate the inverted ampulla and simplify cannulation. Technical success is defined by access to the papilla and cannulation of the desired duct (biliary or pancreatic). Clinical success is achieved by extraction of the stone from the bile duct, stent placement for benign or malignant stricture, and achieving biliary or pancreatic drainage.17

Types of Endoscopes

The choice of the endoscope for ERCP in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy depends on the operator preference. The forward-viewing endoscope allows to enter the afferent limb easily and safely because of the advantage to see the lumen en face.23 The disadvantages with the forward-viewing endoscope are its shorter working length, which may create problems reaching the papilla (especially in patients with a long afferent limb) and the lack of elevator.24 The cap assisted forward-viewing endoscope can

aid in better identification of the afferent limb by allowing better maneuvering around acute angulations.25 The cap provides a fixed distance between the jejunal wall and tip of the endoscope and allows easier cannulation of the papilla. On the other hand, the side-viewing endoscope has the advantage of having a long working length and an elevator. However, with the side-viewing endoscope it is not always possible to see the lumen en face which makes it challenging to enter the afferent loop and increases the risk of small bowel perforation.26

The anterior oblique-viewing endoscope has the advantage of both forward-viewing and side-viewing endoscope by providing both good visibility and the presence of elevator helps in the cannulation of the desired duct.27 This device is not in widespread use. When the efferent limb is too long to reach the afferent limb, a colonoscope or a single-balloon or double-balloon enteroscope (DBE) with a wide working channel can be useful.28 A colonoscope can often reach the ampulla in patients with Billroth II anatomy. A balloon-assisted enteroscope can help to overcome sometimes the sharp angulation of the gastrojejunal anastomosis and can advance deep into the small intestine when compared to side-viewing or standard forward-viewing endoscopes.29,30 The disadvantages of balloonassisted enteroscopy include difficulty in obtaining an en face view of the papilla, the fact that they can be technically demanding to operate and requires expertise, and the need for specialized equipment.31

Risk Factors for ERCP and Complications

Looping during scope insertion can be a risk factor for perforation during ERCP in patients with Billroth II anatomy. Perforation can occur via the tip or the shaft of the endoscope. The shape of endoscope insertion upon reaching the target site in patients with Billroth II reconstruction can be J type or looped (L) type. J type is a simple scope configuration that makes it easy to reach the ampulla, while L type scope insertion forms a loop and makes it challenging to reach the ampulla.32 In patients with Billroth II reconstruction, loop-shaped insertion of the endoscope upon reaching the ampulla is strongly associated with perforation.32 Intestinal adhesions from Billroth II

reconstruction can also lead to perforation during ERCP and it is unclear if antecolic or retrocolic gastrojejunostomy is more strongly associated with intestinal adhesions.32

Surgically altered anatomy is a risk factor for perforation while performing ERCP. Previous studies showed that the overall rate of perforation during ERCP with normal anatomy, Roux-en-Y and Billroth II were 0.35%, 2.0-11.1%, and 5.6-7.7% respectively, illustrating the increased risk in these patients.26,33-36 Perforations usually occur when the afferent limb is entered near the duodenojejunal flexure resulting in tear of the jejunal wall, rather than direct perforation by the tip of the scope.26 Perforations can also occur after sphincterotomy, which is estimated to occur in 1.5-5% patients with Billroth II anatomy.37 The rate of perforation with sphincterotomy is higher with Billroth II anatomy because of the inverted position and there is often a paucity of information regarding the direction of cutting, and length of the sphincterotomy.26

Perforations are more common at the acute angled site of the afferent limb.38 Perforations after sphincterotomy can be intraperitoneal or retroperitoneal. Most retroperitoneal perforations can be managed conservatively by bowel rest, nasogastric biliary decompression, and antibiotics.

When the rates of complications are compared using different endoscopes, more adverse events have been reported with the use of side-viewing endoscope, although most favor this device in the context of Billroth II ERCP. Park et al. showed that the rate of bowel perforation vs. post-ERCP pancreatitis using side-viewing, forward-viewing, balloon-assisted, oblique-viewing, and dual-lumen endoscope in Billroth II anatomy were 3.6% vs. 1.8%, 1.7% vs. 4.1%, 4.1% vs. 3.0%, 1.2% vs. 1.8%, and 3.1% vs. 1.6 % respectively.31 Similarly, bleeding with side-viewing, forward-viewing, and oblique-viewing endoscope occurred in 1.9%, 1.4%, and 0.6% respectively.31 The rates of bowel perforation vs. post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with Billroth II anatomy who underwent endoscopic sphincterotomy, EST+ Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), EPBD, and endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) have been reported to be 3.5% vs. 1.2%, 1.3% vs. 3.7%, 2.0% vs. 6.5%, 1.8% vs. 2.3% respectively.31 Similarly, bleeding with EST, EST+EPBD, and EPLBD were reported to be 1.7%, 1.3%, and 1.8% respectively.31 Published outcomes following ERCP in Billroth II patients are shown in Table 1.

CONCLUSION

ERCP in Billroth II can be technically challenging but safe in experienced hands. In general, sideviewing endoscope with or without endoscopic sphincterotomy can aid in the successful cannulation and lead to both technical and clinical success. However, the choice of endoscope sometimes depends on the endoscopists preference, the patient’s specific surgical anatomy, and the indication for the procedure. Single or double balloon enteroscope can be useful when the afferent limb is too long to reach and careful planning prior to the procedure can reduce the risk of complications. Prompt recognition of adverse events like perforation, cholangitis, pancreatitis, and bleeding can lead to effective management and improve the outcomes of ERCP in Billroth II patients.

References

  1. Zong L, Chen P. Billroth I vs. Billroth II vs. Roux-en-Y following distal gastrectomy: a meta-analysis based on 15 studies. Hepatogastroenterology. 2011;58(109):1413-1424.
  2. Osnes M, Rosseland AR, Aabakken L. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic papillotomy in patients with a previous Billroth-II resection. Gut. 1986;27(10):1193-1198.
  3. Piessen G, Triboulet JP, Mariette C. Reconstruction after gastrectomy: which technique is best? J Visc Surg. 2010;147(5):e273-283.
  4. Csendes A, Burgos AM, Smok G, Burdiles P, Braghetto I, Diaz JC. Latest results (12-21 years) of a prospective randomized study comparing Billroth II and Roux-en-Y anastomosis after a partial gastrectomy plus vagotomy in patients with duodenal ulcers. Annals of surgery. 2009;249(2):189-194.
  5. Folli S, Dente M, Dell’Amore D, et al. Early gastric cancer: prognostic factors in 223 patients. The British journal of surgery. 1995;82(7):952-956.
  6. Choi YB, Oh ST. Laparoscopy in the management of gastric submucosal tumors. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(8):741745.
  7. Zittel TT, Jehle EC, Becker HD. Surgical management of peptic ulcer disease today–indication, technique and outcome. Langenbeck’s archives of surgery. 2000;385(2):8496.
  8. Tran TB, Worhunsky DJ, Squires MH, et al. To Roux or not to Roux: a comparison between Roux-en-Y and Billroth II reconstruction following partial gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2016;19(3):994-1001.
  9. Lee MS, Ahn SH, Lee JH, et al. What is the best reconstruction method after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer? Surg Endosc. 2012;26(6):1539-1547.
  10. Shimoda M, Kubota K, Katoh M, Kita J. Effect of billroth II or Roux-en-Y reconstruction for the gastrojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a randomized controlled study. Annals of surgery. 2013;257(5):938-942.
  11. Lin LF, Siauw CP, Ho KS, Tung JC. ERCP in post-Billroth II gastrectomy patients: emphasis on technique. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94(1):144-148.
  12. Safrany L, Neuhaus B, Portocarrero G, Krause S. Endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy. Endoscopy. 1980;12(1):16-22.
  13. Vogel SB, Drane WE, Woodward ER. Clinical and radionuclide evaluation of bile diversion by Braun enteroenterostomy: prevention and treatment of alkaline reflux gastritis. An alternative to Roux-en-Y diversion. Annals of surgery. 1994;219(5):458-465; discussion 465456.
  14. Kim MH, Lee SK, Lee MH, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and needle-knife sphincterotomy in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy: a comparative study of the forward-viewing endoscope and the side-viewing duodenoscope. Endoscopy. 1997;29(2):8285.
  15. Wang F, Xu B, Li Q, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with surgically altered anatomy: One single center’s experience. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(52):e5743.
  16. Byun JW, Kim JW, Sung SY, et al. Usefulness of Forward-Viewing Endoscope for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Billroth II Gastrectomy. Clin Endosc. 2012;45(4):397-403.
  17. Caglar E, Atasoy D, Tozlu M, Altinkaya E, Dogan S, Senturk H. Experience of the Endoscopists Matters in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Billroth II Gastrectomy Patients. Clin Endosc. 2020;53(1):82-89.
  18. Park TY, Bang CS, Choi SH, et al. Forward-viewing endoscope for ERCP in patients with Billroth II
    gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(11):4598-4613.
  19. Abdelhafez M, Frimberger E, Klare P, Haller B, Schmid RM, von Delius S. Comparison of endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques after Billroth II gastrectomy using a novel mechanical simulator. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(12):5342-5347.
  20. Heo JH, Kang DH, Jung HJ, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile-duct stones. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2007;66(4):720-726; quiz 768, 771.
  21. Lee TH, Hwang JC, Choi HJ, et al. One-Step Transpapillary Balloon Dilation under Cap-Fitted Endoscopy without a Preceding Sphincterotomy for the Removal of Bile Duct Stones in Billroth II Gastrectomy. Gut Liver. 2012;6(1):113117.
  22. Bove V, Tringali A, Familiari P, et al. ERCP in patients with prior Billroth II gastrectomy: report of 30 years’ experience. Endoscopy. 2015;47(7):611-616.
  23. Sen-Yo M, Kaino S, Suenaga S, et al. Utility of the
    Anterior Oblique-Viewing Endoscope and the DoubleBalloon Enteroscope for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Billroth II Gastrectomy. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:389269.
  24. Lin CH, Tang JH, Cheng CL, et al. Double balloon endoscopy increases the ERCP success rate in patients with a history of Billroth II gastrectomy. World journal of gastroenterology. 2010;16(36):4594-4598.
  25. Park CH, Lee WS, Joo YE, Kim HS, Choi SK, Rew JS. Cap-assisted ERCP in patients with a Billroth II
    gastrectomy. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2007;66(3):612615.
  26. Faylona JM, Qadir A, Chan AC, Lau JY, Chung SC. Small-bowel perforations related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy. Endoscopy. 1999;31(7):546-549.
  27. Nakahara K, Okuse C, Suetani K, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography using an anterior obliqueviewing endoscope in patients with altered gastrointestinal anatomy. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(4):944-950.
  28. Okabe Y, Ishida Y, Kuraoka K, Ushijima T, Tsuruta O. Endoscopic bile duct and/or pancreatic duct cannulation technique for patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy. Dig Endosc. 2014;26 Suppl 2:122-126.
  29. Osoegawa T, Motomura Y, Akahoshi K, et al. Improved techniques for double-balloon-enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World journal of gastroenterology. 2012;18(46):6843-6849.
  30. Chu YC, Su SJ, Yang CC, Yeh YH, Chen CH, Yueh SK. ERCP plus papillotomy by use of double-balloon enteroscopy after Billroth II gastrectomy. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2007;66(6):1234-1236.
  31. Park TY, Song TJ. Recent advances in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in Billroth II gastrectomy patients: A systematic review. World journal of gastroenterology. 2019;25(24):3091-3107.
  32. Takano S, Fukasawa M, Shindo H, et al. Risk factors for perforation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in post-reconstruction intestinal tract. World J Clin Cases. 2019;7(1):10-18.
  33. Enns R, Eloubeidi MA, Mergener K, et al. ERCP-related perforations: risk factors and management. Endoscopy. 2002;34(4):293-298.
  34. Bagci S, Tuzun A, Ates Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with Billroth II anastomosis. Hepatogastroenterology. 2005;52(62):356-359.
  35. Itoi T, Ishii K, Sofuni A, et al. Long- and short-type double-balloon enteroscopy-assisted therapeutic ERCP for intact papilla in patients with a Roux-en-Y anastomosis. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(3):713-721.
  36. Shimatani M, Matsushita M, Takaoka M, et al. Effective “short” double-balloon enteroscope for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP in patients with altered gastrointestinal anatomy: a large case series. Endoscopy. 2009;41(10):849854.
  37. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 1991;37(3):383-393.
  38. Park TY, Kang JS, Song TJ, et al. Outcomes of ERCP in Billroth II gastrectomy patients. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2016;83(6):1193-1201.
  39. Costamagna G, Mutignani M, Perri V, Gabrielli A, Locicero P, Crucitti F. Diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy. Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 1994;57(2):155-162.
  40. Hintze RE, Veltzke W, Adler A, Abou-Rebyeh H. Endoscopic sphincterotomy using an S-shaped sphincterotome in patients with a Billroth II or Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy. Endoscopy. 1997;29(2):74-78.
  41. Bergman JJ, van Berkel AM, Bruno MJ, et al. A randomized trial of endoscopic balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones in patients with a prior Billroth II gastrectomy. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2001;53(1):19-26.
  42. Swarnkar K, Stamatakis JD, Young WT.
    Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography after Billroth II gastrectomy-safe provision in a district general hospital. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2005;87(4):274-276.
  43. Cicek B, Parlak E, Disibeyaz S, Koksal AS, Sahin B. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with Billroth II gastroenterostomy. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. 2007;22(8):1210-1213.
  44. Nakahara K, Horaguchi J, Fujita N, et al. Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using an anterior oblique-viewing endoscope for bile duct stones in patients with prior Billroth II gastrectomy. J Gastroenterol. 2009;44(3):212-217.
  45. Choi CW, Choi JS, Kang DH, et al. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation in Billroth II gastrectomy patients with bile duct stones. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. 2012;27(2):256-260.
  46. Jang HW, Lee KJ, Jung MJ, et al. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation alone is safe and effective for the treatment of difficult choledocholithiasis in cases of Billroth II gastrectomy: a single center experience. Dig Dis Sci. 2013;58(6):1737-1743.
  47. Yao W, Huang Y, Chang H, Li K, Huang X. Endoscopic
    Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Using a DualLumen Endogastroscope for Patients with Billroth II Gastrectomy. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2013;2013:146867.
  48. Kawamura T, Mandai K, Uno K, Yasuda K. Does singleballoon enteroscopy contribute to successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy? ISRN Gastroenterol. 2013;2013:214958.
  49. Iwai T, Kida M, Yamauchi H, Imaizumi H, Koizumi W. Short-type and conventional single-balloon enteroscopes for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with surgically altered anatomy: single-center experience. Dig Endosc. 2014;26 Suppl 2:156-163.
  50. Katanuma A, Isayama H. Current status of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with surgically altered anatomy in Japan: questionnaire survey and important discussion points at Endoscopic Forum Japan 2013. Dig Endosc. 2014;26 Suppl 2:109-115.
  51. Kim KH, Kim TN. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for the retrieval of bile duct stones after prior Billroth II gastrectomy. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(2):128-133.
  52. Cheng CL, Liu NJ, Tang JH, et al. Double-balloon enteroscopy for ERCP in patients with Billroth II anatomy: results of a large series of papillary large-balloon dilation for biliary stone removal. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3(3):E216222.
  53. Ki HS, Park CH, Jun CH, et al. Feasibility of cap-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with altered gastrointestinal anatomy. Gut Liver. 2015;9(1):109-112.
  54. Yane K, Katanuma A, Maguchi H, et al. Short-type singleballoon enteroscope-assisted ERCP in postsurgical altered anatomy: potential factors affecting procedural failure. Endoscopy. 2017;49(1):69-74.
  55. Wang S, Liu W, Sun S, et al. Clinical evaluation of double-channel gastroscope for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy. Prz Gastroenterol. 2016;11(3):163-169.
  56. Wu WG, Mei JW, Zhao MN, et al. Use of the Conventional Side-viewing Duodenoscope for Successful Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Postgastrectomy Patients. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;50(3):244-251.
  57. Shimatani M, Hatanaka H, Kogure H, et al. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography Using a Short-Type Double-Balloon Endoscope in Patients With Altered Gastrointestinal Anatomy: A Multicenter Prospective Study in Japan. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(12):1750-1758.
  58. Mbatshi G, Macken EJ, De Schepper HU, Piessevaux H, Deprez PH, Moreels TG. Comparison of side-viewing duodenoscope and single-balloon enteroscope to perform ERCP in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy. Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2017;80(4):493-497.
  59. Sakai Y, Tsuyuguchi T, Mikata R, et al. Utility of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography on biliopancreatic diseases in patients with Billroth II-reconstructed stomach. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;9(3):127-132.
  60. Li T, Wen J, Bie LK, Lu Y, Gong B. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones in Billroth II gastrectomy patients. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2018;17(3):257-262.
  61. Li JS, Zou DW, Jin ZD, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in Billroth II gastrectomy patients: Outcomes and potential factors affecting technical failure. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2019;25(6):355-361.
  62. Li JS, Zou DW, Jin ZD, et al. Predictive factors for extraction of common bile duct stones during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in Billroth II anatomy patients. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(6):2454-2459.
  63. Tokuhara M, Shimatani M, Mitsuyama T, et al. Evaluation of complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using a short type double balloon endoscope in patients with altered gastrointestinal anatomy: a single-center retrospective study of 1,576 procedures. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. 2020;35(8):1387-1396.
  64. Sirin G, Hulagu S. Double balloon enteroscopy improves ERCP success in patients with modified small bowel anatomy. North Clin Istanb. 2020;7(2):131-139.
  65. Yang MJ, Kim JH, Hwang JC, et al. Outcomes and Loop Pattern Analysis of a Road-Map Technique for ERCP with Side-Viewing Duodenoscope in Patients with Billroth II Gastrectomy (with Video). J Pers Med. 2021;11(5).
  66. Coskun O, Odemis B. A comparative study of side-viewing duodenoscope and forward-viewing gastroscope to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(8):4222-4230.
  67. Cho E, Park CH, Kim Y, Cho SY. Impact of Scope Exchange from a Long Single Balloon Enteroscope to a Gastroscope during Enteroscopy-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy. Gut Liver. 2021.

Download Tables, Images & References

LIVER DISORDERS, SERIES #12

Cutting the Fat in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Read Article

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) affects 30% of individuals in the United States. Up to one-third of patients with NAFLD go on to develop nonalcoholic steatohepatitis or NASH, which is characterized by inflammation and fibrosis leading to cirrhosis. As opposed to simple fat in the liver, NASH, if left untreated,can progress to advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, liver decompensation, and liver-related death. NAFLD isassociated with the metabolic syndrome and patients with NAFLD have a higher risk of cardiovascularrelated death and development of diabetes. The gold standard for the diagnosis of NAFLD or NASHis liver biopsy; however, this has its limitations due to its invasiveness. The utilization of non-invasivemeasurements of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis are evolving to replace liver biopsy. There are currently noapproved therapies for the treatment of NASH nor accepted standard of care. The therapeutic options forNASH are largely limited to lifestyle modification and treatment of underlying conditions such as diabetesand hyperlipidemia. Several agents have been evaluated as potential treatments for NASH by improvingliver inflammation but have a limited effect on reducing hepatic fibrosis. Currently there are severalagents in development which show promise in reduction of hepatic fat content, inflammation, and fibrosis. In summary, the obesity epidemic and its association with the metabolic syndrome have led to NAFLD and/or NASH being the leading cause of liver disease in the United States. The recognition and treatment of this disease with its associated co-morbidities will avoid the long-term complications of this disease.

Background

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control, 42.5% of adult Americans are obese.1 Obesity in association with hypertension, dyslipidemia, and/or insulin resistance constitutes the metabolic syndrome (MS).2 Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) is defined as the excessive accumulation of fat in the liver shown either by imaging or histology, in the absence of significant alcohol consumption or other secondary cause3 and is felt to be the hepatic manifestation of MS.The strong association of NAFLD with the MS and obesity has resulted in it being the number one cause of chronic liver disease.4 NAFLD is also associated with a complex relationship between environmental factors such as diet, changes in microbiota, and predisposing genetic variants.5 NAFLD may also encompass non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and progress to cirrhosis of the liver. NAFLD is defined as the presence of greater than 5% hepatic steatosis (HS) without evidence of hepatocellular injury in the form of hepatocyte ballooning. NASH is defined as the presence of greater than 5% HS and inflammation with hepatocyte injury (e.g., ballooning), with or without any fibrosis.3 NAFLD is a major health issue due to its association with MS, type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and cardiovascular disease (CVD).6 The overall prevalence of NAFLD was found to be 38% and the prevalence of NASH at 14% in a large prospective study of middle-aged US cohort. NASH is more common in Hispanics and those with obesity and type 2 diabetes.7 The most common cause of death in NAFLD patients is not from liver-related causes but rather from coronary artery disease (CAD)8 with 48% of those with NAFLD dying from complications of CVD compared to only 7% due to liver disease.9 However, those with fatty liver disease do have a higher rate of liver-related death compared to the general population.9 Studies have shown that glucose intolerance and insulin resistance have been found to occur in the early stages of chronic liver disease and subjects with NAFLD are three times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes and 50% more likely to develop the MS than the general population.10,11 Conversely, the prevalence of NAFLD in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is more than 2-fold higher than in the general population.12 Furthermore, diabetes and obesity have also been associated with the development of liver cancer,13 most likely due to the progression from NAFLD to NASH and then to cirrhosis. NASH is the most rapidly increasing indication for liver transplant in patients without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and has become the leading indication in women without HCC.14

Mechanisms of Hepatic
Damage in NAFLD/NASH

Proposed mechanisms for hepatic damage in NASH involve insulin resistance, toxicity from free fatty acids (FFA), generation of reactive oxidative species (ROS) or hormonal dysregulation. Within the hepatocyte fatty acid oxidation may occur within mitochondria, peroxisomes or endoplasmic reticulum.15 Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) isoforms may have a role in NASH due to their modulation of fatty acid uptake, beta oxidation, ketogenesis, bile acid synthesis and triglyceride turnover.16 Patients with NASH may also have increased beta-oxidation of fatty acids with elevations in lipid peroxide intermediates and reactive oxygen species.17 Gut hormones such as leptin, ghrelin, and glucagon like peptide 1 may also have a role in the pathogenesis of NASH due to their ability to inhibit lipogenesis, lipo-apoptosis, decrease free fatty acids, increase insulin secretion and glucose uptake, and exhibit anti-inflammatory actions.18

Diagnosis of NASH

The diagnosis of NASH is usually suspected in patients with obesity or those with components of metabolic syndrome who present with abnormalities in liver function testing or incidental findings of fatty changes on imaging studies of the liver. Further evaluation as to the severity of inflammation or fibrosis may consist of liver biopsy. However, due to the invasiveness of this procedure, the diagnosis of NAFLD and or NASH is increasingly being based on non-invasive measures such as aspartate aminotransferase (AST) to platelet ratio index (APRI), FIB-4 index, NAFLD fibrosis score, commercially available testing such as FibrosureTM, FibrotestTM, enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) scoreTM or imaging utilizing sheer wave elastography, transient elastography, or Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE) and proton density fraction measurements (PDFF).19 Traditionally noninvasive testing tends to have a high negative predictive value in ruling out people who have the disease rather than ruling in people who have the disease.20 Combining noninvasive testing utilizing elastography or MRE with FIB-4 testing or vibration controlled transient elastography with AST values may improve positive predictive values, increase area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and improve the detection of people who have the disease.21,22

Treatment of NASH

Currently, there are no approved medications to treat NASH and its secondary complications. Weight loss via dieting and exercise are the initial steps in treating NASH. 5% weight loss leads to reduction in hepatic fat and stabilization of fibrosis whereas 10% or more has been shown to elicit improvement in hepatic inflammation and fibrosis.23,24 In a recent 5-year follow-up of patients with NASH undergoing bariatric surgery, 84.4% had resolution of NASH with 70% showing a regression in fibrosis.25 The effects of exercise on underlying NASH are less clear, but from a large, retrospective assessment of biopsy proven NAFLD patients, moderate intensity exercise metabolic equivalents (METs) of 3.0-5.9 of total exercise per week was not associated with improvement in NASH severity or fibrosis. However, patients meeting vigorous (6 METs) activity did have improvement in NASH. A doubling of the vigorous activity recommendations was required to have a benefit on fibrosis.26 The Mediterranean diet (high complex carbohydrates, fiber and monounsaturated fats with a balanced omega 6-omega 3 ratio) has been shown to lead to reductions in hepatic fat content and improvement in components of the metabolic syndrome in the absence of weight loss.27 Nutritional counseling in association with a Mediterranean diet has been shown to elicit weight loss with normalization of hepatic enzymes, glycemic control, and hyperlipidemia.28 A recent meta-analysis of the Mediterranean diet revealed a reduction in BMI, hepatic fat, hypertriglyceridemia and homeostasis model assessment (HOMA).29 As to whether a greater benefit is seen with diet and/or exercise or weight loss remains to be elucidated. In the meantime, a healthy lifestyle of dieting and exercise are recommended in the treatment of NAFLD.

Vitamin E

Vitamin E is the most important lipid-soluble antioxidant located predominately in cell membranes, where it reduces free radicals rendering them inactive.30,31 Long-term administration of vitamin E at 800 U a day for 96 weeks decreased liver enzyme abnormalities, fat accumulation, and inflammation in patients with NASH without diabetes, but not hepatic fibrosis.32 Studies have shown that dietary supplementation with vitamin E is effective in reducing the pathologic progression of hepatic inflammation and steatosis but not fibrosis.33 In a meta-analysis of both adults and pediatric patients, administration of vitamin E was associated with a significant improvement in alanine aminotransferase (ALT), AST, fibrosis, and NAFLD activity score (NAS) at early and late follow up.34 The American Association for the Study of Liver Disease now recommends the use of vitamin E 800 units a day for the treatment of NASH in non-diabetic patients without cirrhosis.19

Silymarin

Silymarin may in fact be one of the most potent antioxidants found in nature due to the properties of free radical scavenger reactivity and favorable membrane-lipid/water partitioning it possesses.35 Studies have shown that courses of silymarin therapy reduce the biochemical and ultrasonographic changes induced by NASH to the liver.36 Silymarin has also been shown to reduce AST and ALT levels in patients with NASH compared to placebo,37 and to improve fatty infiltration of liver and liver function in children and adolescents.41 It may also be effective in preventing or alleviating many of the components of MS39 including CVD40 and diabetes.41 In a meta-analysis of 5 clinical trials in 602 patients, there was lower liver-related mortality and lower rates of hospitalization in patients treated with silymarin.42 In a clinical review of 296 patients utilizing silymarin for the treatment of liver disease, the incidence of death and serious adverse events was lower in the silymarin group with no significant adverse events.43 In a meta-analysis of eight randomized clinical trials, silymarin treatment led to a statistically significant greater reduction in the levels of transaminases compared to placebo, irrespective of weight loss.44

Carnitine

Carnitine is a naturally occurring non-essential amino acid synthesized in the body from amino acids lysine and methionine. It plays a vital role in energy production and fatty acid metabolism by shuttling fatty acids into the mitochondria of cells for energy production especially for cardiac and skeletal muscles. Studies have also shown that carnitine is helpful in insulin resistance45 and weight loss.46 Carnitine at a dose of 2 grams per day for a period of 24 weeks has also been shown to reduce hepatic enzyme abnormalities, hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance and hepatic inflammation in patients with NAFLD.47 Treatment of NAFLD patients with a combination of vitamin E, silymarin and carnitine revealed significant normalization of HOMA and fasting insulin levels, and, downtrends in AST, ALT, TC, TRG, HDL, LDL, HgbA1c, and HSCRP levels.48

Drug Candidates in Clinical Development Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor (PPAR) Agonists

Pioglitazone and Rosiglitazone are thiazolidinediones (TZD), targeting PPAR-Gamma receptors. Trials involving TZDs revealed improvements in steatosis and inflammation but not fibrosis. Rosiglitazone treatment has been shown to improve hepatic enzyme abnormalities and steatosis but not inflammation. Its use has been tempered due to concerns over an increased risk of coronary events.49 Pioglitazone elicits improvement in insulin sensitivity and hepatic inflammation but is associated with weight gain.33 Current AASLD guidelines suggest the use of pioglitazone in biopsy proven NASH in patients with and without diabetes.19 Elafibranor is a dual PPAR alpha/delta agonist that improves glucose homeostasis, increases insulin metabolism, and reduces inflammation. Studies suggest some improvement in hepatic inflammation in NASH.50 However, in the Resolve-IT phase 3 trials, a 72week treatment with elafibranor failed to reach its endpoint of NASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis in comparison to placebo.51 Data for a 16-week trial evaluating saroglitazar, a dual PPAR alpha/gamma agonist for treatment of NAFLD revealed improvements in alanine aminotransferase levels, reductions in hepatic fat content, insulin resistance and dyslipidemia in patients with NASH. No reductions in liver stiffness measurements were noted, however this study may have been limited due to small sample size.52 Lanifibranor is a panPPAR alpha/delta/gamma agonist. Data from a 24-week trial showed significant improvements in steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis.53 This drug candidate is being evaluated in a large phase 3 NASH fibrosis population.

Farnesoid X Receptor Agonist (FXR)

FXRs are nuclear receptor transcription factors, expressed in the liver, that regulate insulin sensitivity and participate in lipid metabolism. Bile acids (BAs), natural ligands of the FXRs, are synthesized in the liver and promote insulin sensitivity and decrease gluconeogenesis and circulating triglycerides when bound to FXRs. Obetacholic acid OCA (6-ethylchenodeoxycholic acid) is a synthetic BA and an FXR activator. It increases peripheral glucose uptake, enhances glucose-stimulated insulin secretion, and inhibits hepatic lipid synthesis.54 In the Regenerate trial, a significant improvement in fibrosis was seen in 23% of the OCA treated group compared with 12% of the placebo.55 However, resolution of NASH did not differ between the treated and placebo group and concerns over pruritus and recent warnings of its use in patients with primary biliary cholangitis and advanced liver disease have hampered its approval by the FDA for the treatment of NAFLD. New generations of FXR agonists are currently in clinical development, both as single agents and in combination with other drug candidates.

THR-beta Agonists

Resmetirom is an oral thyroid receptor beta agonist that selectively binds to the liver bypassing the adverse effects of excessive thyroid hormone in extra-hepatic sites. A phase 2B study showed a significant improvement in reduction of liver fat by MRI-PDFF compared to placebo after 36 weeks of treatment. There were favorable reductions in atherogenic lipids such as LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein-B, triglycerides, and lipoprotein(a).56 Data evaluating 52 weeks of therapy in non-cirrhotic patients with NAFLD revealed 52% reductions in hepatic fat by MRI PDFF and improvements in hepatic fibrosis by noninvasive measurements (26% reduction in elastography 12% for MRE measurements).57

Fatty Acid Derivative – Icosabutate

Icosabutate is an engineered eicosapentaenoic acid derivative with potent anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic effects acting primarily through the G-coupled protein receptor (GPR120) and the arachidonic acid related signaling pathways. In a 52-week phase 2b trial, subjects with biopsy confirmed NASH were randomized to icosabutate vs placebo. An interim analysis showed that treatment with icosabutate elicited reductions in ALT, AST, GGT, and ALP. Significant reductions in noninvasive fibrosis markers PRO-C3 and ELF score (both indirect markers of fibrosis) were seen. This indicates a possible role for this compound in fibrogenesis, glycemic control, and synthesis of key atherogenic lipoproteins.58

GLP-1 Agonists

Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists are licensed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and have been shown to reduce insulin resistance, decrease glucagon and free fatty acid concentrations, improve hgbA1c levels, delay gastric emptying and elicit weight loss.59 Liraglutide was compared to placebo in a phase 2 48-week trial for treatment of NASH. Thirty nine percent of patients on liraglutide had resolution of NASH in comparison to 9% in the placebo group. More patients in the placebo group (36%) had progression of fibrosis in comparison to liraglutide (9%).60 In a similar phase 2 trial, semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist with a longer half-life, demonstrated a significantly higher efficacy for NASH resolution than placebo. However, there was no significant improvement in fibrosis when evaluated by liver biopsy at week 72.61 Semaglutide is being evaluated in a large phase 3 clinical trial in patients with NASH and Fibrosis. Other compounds including dual modes of action (GLP-1 agonist/Glucagon receptor agonist/GIP) are being evaluated.

FGF21 Analog

Efruxifermin is a fusion protein of human IgG linked to modified fibroblast growth factor 21. This agent is felt to have effects on protein, glucose, and lipid utilization. This agent has been shown to reduce hepatic steatosis, hepatic inflammation and fibrosis62 as well as improve insulin sensitivity and dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.63 In a phase 2 trial evaluating efruxifermin there was a 12-13% absolute reduction and 63-72% relative reduction in hepatic fat. Improvement in abnormalities in hepatic enzyme function was seen and regression of fibrosis by 1 stage was seen in 55% and 2 stages in 28% of treated individuals. Complete resolution of NASH was seen in 1/3 of patients.64

CONCLUSION

The obesity epidemic has resulted in an increase in the incidence of metabolic syndrome and NAFLD and NASH. While several agents have shown improvement in hepatic steatosis and inflammation, their ability to elicit regression in fibrosis remains to be elucidated, notably for more advanced stages of fibrosis. Long term data regarding the ability of these newer agents, or combination therapy, to reduce hepatic inflammation and fibrosis are warranted.

References

  1. Fryar CD CM, Afful J. Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity among adults aged 20 and over: United States, 1960–1962 through 2017–2018. NCHS Health E-Stats. 2020.
  2. Katsiki N, Athyros VG, Karagiannis A, Mikhailidis DP. Characteristics other than the diagnostic criteria associated with metabolic syndrome: an overview. Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2014;12(4):627-641.
  3. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, Diehl AM, Brunt EM, Cusi K. The Diagnosis and Management of Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Practice Guideline by the American Gastroenterological Association, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, and American College of Gastroenterology. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(7):1592-1609.
  4. Younossi ZM, Stepanova M, Younossi, Y et al. Epidemiology of chronic liver diseases in the USA in the past three decades. Gut 2020;69:564-566)
  5. Arab JP, Arrese M, Trauner M. Recent Insights into the Pathogenesis of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease. 2018;13:321-356. .
  6. Fabbrini E, Sullivan S, Klein S. Obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: biochemical, metabolic, and clinical implications. Hepatology. 2010;51(2):679-689.
  7. Harrison SA, Gawrieh S, Roberts, K. Prosepctive evaluation of the prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis in a large middle-aged cohort. J Hepatol. 2021;75(2):284-291
  8. Ong JP, Pitts A, Younossi ZM. Increased overall mortality and liver-related mortality in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2008;49(4):608-612.
  9. Haflidadottir S, Jonasson JG, Norland H, et al. Long-term follow-up and liverrelated death rate in patients with non-alcoholic and alcoholic related fatty liver disease. BMC Gastroenterol. 2014;14(1):166.
  10. Adams LA, Waters OR, Knuiman MW, Elliott RR, Olynyk JK. NAFLD as a Risk Factor for the Development of Diabetes and the Metabolic Syndrome: An Eleven-Year Follow-up Study. The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
    2009;104(4):861-867.
  11. Buzzelli G, Chiarantini E, Cotrozzi G, et al. Estimate of prevalence of glucose intolerance in chronic liver disease. Degree of agreement among some diagnostic criteria. Liver. 2008;8(6):354-359.
  12. Younossi, ZM, P Golabi, L de Avila. The global epidemiology of NAFLD and NASH in patients with type 2 diabetes; A systematic review and metaanalysis. J Hepatol 2019; 71(4):793-801
  13. Mantovani A, Targher G. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: spotlight on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5(13):270.
  14. Younossi, ZM, M Stepanova, j Ong et al., Non alcoholic Steatohepatitis is the most rapidly increasing indication for liver transplantation in the United States. 2021;Clin Gastoenterol Hepatol 2021;19(3):580-589
  15. Rui L. Energy metabolism in the liver. Compr Physiol. 2014;4(1):177-197
  16. Wettstein G, Luccarini JM, Poekes L, et al. The new-generation panperoxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonist IVA337 protects the liver from metabolic disorders and fibrosis. Hepatol Commun. 2017;1(6):524-537.
  17. Buzzetti E, Pinzani M, Tsochatzis EA. The multiple-hit pathogenesis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Metabolism. 2016;65(8):1038-1048.
  18. Korinkova L, Prazienkova V, Cerna L, et al. Pathophysiology of NAFLD and NASH in Experimental Models: The Role of Food Intake Regulating Peptides. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:597583.
  19. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):328-357.
  20. Vuppalanchi R, Loomba R. Noninvasive Tests to Phenotype Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Sequence and Consequences of Arranging the Tools in the Tool Box. Hepatology. 2021;73(6):2095-2098.
  21. Abraldes JG, Bureau C, Stefanescu H, et al. Noninvasive tools and risk of clinically significant portal hypertension and varices in compensated cirrhosis: The “Anticipate” study. Hepatology. 2016;64(6):2173-2184.
  22. Newsome PN, Sasso M, Deeks JJ, et al. FibroScan-AST (FAST) score for the non-invasive identification of patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis with significant activity and fibrosis: a prospective derivation and global validation study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(4):362-373.
  23. Musso G, Cassader M, Rosina F, Gambino R. Impact of current treatments on liver disease, glucose metabolism and cardiovascular risk in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Diabetologia. 2012;55(4):885-904.
  24. Vilar-Gomez E, Martinez-Perez Y, Calzadilla-Bertot L, et al. Weight Loss Through Lifestyle Modification Significantly Reduces Features of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):367-378 e365; quiz e314-365.
  25. Lassailly G, Caiazzo R, Ntandja-Wandji LC, et al. Bariatric Surgery Provides Long-term Resolution of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis and Regression of Fibrosis. Gastroenterology. 2020;159(4):1290-1301 e1295.
  26. Kistler KD, Brunt EM, Clark JM, et al. Physical activity recommendations, exercise intensity, and histological severity of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(3):460-468.
  27. Anania C, Perla FM, Olivero F, Pacifico L, Chiesa C. Mediterranean diet and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(19):20832094.
  28. Gelli C, Tarocchi M, Abenavoli L, Di Renzo L, Galli A, De Lorenzo A. Effect of a counseling-supported treatment with the Mediterranean diet and physical activity on the severity of the non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23(17):3150-3162.
  29. Akhlaghi M, Ghasemi-Nasab M, Riasatian M. Mediterranean diet for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational and clinical investigations. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2020;19(1):575-584.
  30. Traber MG, Atkinson J. Vitamin E, antioxidant and nothing more. Free Radic Biol Med. 2007;43(1):4-15.
  31. Schneider C. Chemistry and biology of vitamin E. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2005;49(1):7-30.
  32. Harnois D. Pioglitazone, Vitamin E, or Placebo for Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. Yearbook of Gastroenterology. 2010;2010:249-250.
  33. Sanyal AJ, Chalasani N, Kowdley KV, et al. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(18):1675-
    1685.
  34. Abdel-Maboud M, Menshawy A, Menshawy E, Emara A, Alshandidy M, Eid M. The efficacy of vitamin E in reducing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2020;13:1756284820974917.
  35. Gyorgy I, Antus S, Blazovics A, Foldiak G. Substituent effects in the free radical reactions of silybin: radiation-induced oxidation of the flavonoid at neutral pH. Int J Radiat Biol. 1992;61(5):603-609.
  36. Cacciapuoti F, Scognamiglio A, Palumbo R, Forte R, Cacciapuoti F. Silymarin in non alcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Hepatol. 2013;5(3):109-113.
  37. Zhong S, Fan Y, Yan Q, et al. The therapeutic effect of silymarin in the treatment of nonalcoholic 50fatty disease: A meta-analysis (PRISMA) of randomized control trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(49):e9061..
  38. Famouri F, Salehi MM, Rostampour N, Hashemi E, Shahsanaee A. The effect of silymarin on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease of children. Journal of Herbmed Pharmacology. 2017;6(1):16-20
  39. Vahabzadeh M, Amiri N, Karimi G. Effects of silymarin on metabolic syndrome: a review. J Sci Food Agric. 2018;98(13):4816-4823.
  40. Taleb A, Ahmad KA, Ihsan AU, et al. Antioxidant effects and mechanism of silymarin in oxidative stress induced cardiovascular diseases. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018;102:689-698.
  41. Voroneanu L, Nistor I, Dumea R, Apetrii M, Covic A. Silymarin in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Diabetes Res. 2016;2016:5147468.
  42. Federico, A., M Dallio, C Loguercio, (2017). Silymarin/Silybin and Chronic Liver Disease: A Marriage of Many Years. Molecules, 22(2), 191
  43. Saller R, Meier R, Brignoli R. The use of silymarin in the treatment of liver diseases. Drugs. 2001;61(14):2035-2063.
  44. Georgios Kalopitas CA, Ioannis Doundoulakis, Antonis Siargkas, Elias Kouroumalis,Georgios Germanidis, Myrto Samara, Michail Chourdakis. The impact of Silymarin in patients with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition. 2020.
  45. Xu Y, Jiang W, Chen G, et al. L-carnitine treatment of insulin resistance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2017;26(2):333-338.
  46. Pooyandjoo M, Nouhi M, Shab-Bidar S, Djafarian K, Olyaeemanesh A. The effect of L-carnitine on weight loss in adults: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2016;17(10):970-976.
  47. Malaguarnera M, Gargante MP, Russo C, et al. (L-) carnitine supplementation to diet: a new tool in treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis–a randomized and controlled clinical trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(6):1338-1345.
  48. Poulos JE, Kalogerinis PT, Milanov V, et al.,. The Effects of Vitamin E, Silymarin and Carnitine on the Metabolic Abnormalities Associated with Nonalcoholic Liver Disease. J Diet Suppl. 2021:1-16.
  49. Ratziu V, Giral P, Jacqueminet S, et al. Rosiglitazone for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: one-year results of the randomized placebo-controlled Fatty Liver Improvement with Rosiglitazone Therapy (FLIRT) Trial. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(1):100-110.
  50. Perakakis N, Stefanakis K, Feigh M, Veidal SS, Mantzoros CS. Elafibranor and liraglutide improve differentially liver health and metabolism in a mouse model of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Liver Int. 2021;41(8):1853-1866.
  51. Harrison S VR, P Bedossa et al. Resolve-IT phase 3 trial of elafibranor in NASH: Final results of the week 72 interim surrogate efficacy analysis. The Liver Meeting; November 13-16, 2020, 2020; Digital Experience.
  52. Gawrieh S, Noureddin M, Loo N, et al. Saroglitazar, a PPAR-alpha/gamma Agonist, for Treatment of NAFLD: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Phase 2 Trial. Hepatology. 2021;74(4):1809-1824.
  53. Francque Sven M et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Pan-PPAR Agonist Lanifibranor in NASH. N Engl J Med 2021; 385:1547-1558
  54. Makri E, Cholongitas E, Tziomalos K. Emerging role of obeticholic acid in the management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(41):9039-9043.
  55. Younossi ZM, Ratziu V, Loomba R, et al. Obeticholic acid for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: interim analysis from a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10215):2184-2196.
  56. Harrison SA, Bashir M, Moussa SE, et al. Effects of Resmetirom on Noninvasive Endpoints in a 36-Week Phase 2 Active Treatment Extension Study in Patients With NASH. Hepatol Commun. 2021;5(4):573-588.
  57. Harrison S, et al “Reduction in fibrosis and steatohepatitis imaging and biomarkers in a phase III 52-week resmetirom NASH trial” EASL 2021; Abstract GS-2563
  58. Naim Alkhouri ACM, Anita Kohli, Rashmee Patil, Madhavi Rudraraju, Stephen Rossi, David Fraser, Carine Beysen, Stephen A. Harrison and the ICONA Study Investigators. Icosabutate Latest Phase 2b Interim Data Show Significant Decreases in NASH and Fibrosis Biomarkers Independent of Fibrosis Stage and Disease Severity. AASLD Liver Meeting; November 12-15, 2021, 2021; Digital Meeting.
  59. Hinnen D. Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists for Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Spectr. 2017;30(3):202-210.
  60. Armstrong MJ, Gaunt P, Aithal GP, et al. Liraglutide safety and efficacy in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (LEAN): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Lancet. 2016;387(10019):679-690.
  61. Newsome PN, Buchholtz K, Cusi K, et al. A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Subcutaneous Semaglutide in Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(12):1113-1124.
  62. Tanaka N, Takahashi S, Zhang Y, et al. Role of fibroblast growth factor 21 in the early stage of NASH induced by methionine- and choline-deficient diet. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015;1852(7):1242-1252.
  63. Kaufman A, Abuqayyas L, Denney WS, Tillman EJ, Rolph T. AKR-001, an Fc-FGF21 Analog, Showed Sustained Pharmacodynamic Effects on Insulin Sensitivity and Lipid Metabolism in Type 2 Diabetes Patients. Cell Rep Med. 2020;1(4):100057.
  64. Harrison SA, Ruane PJ, Freilich BL, et al. Efruxifermin in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2a trial. Nat Med. 2021;27(7):1262-1271.

Download Tables, Images & References

DISPATCHES FROM THE GUILD CONFERENCE, SERIES #43

Evaluation, Management, and Prevention of Diverticular Disease

Read Article

Diverticular disorders are frequently encountered in the primary care setting. Diverticular bleeding is the most common cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Low risk patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can be managed in the outpatient setting, in some cases without the need for antibiotics. In patients with diverticulosis and persistent abdominal pain, chronic smoldering diverticulitis, segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis (SCAD), symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD), and visceral hypersensitivity should all be considered. To avoid these complications, patients should be encouraged to lead an active lifestyle, consume a healthy diet, and avoid tobacco, alcohol, and certain medications. Contrary to conventional teaching, seeds and nuts do not need to be avoided.

INTRODUCTION

Colonic diverticulosis is a common syndrome involving protrusion of mucosa and submucosa through weak points in the muscular layer of the wall of the colon, resulting in sac-like pockets called diverticula. Diverticulosis can develop anywhere in the colon, but is more commonly encountered in Western populations in the left colon (distal to the splenic flexure), where sigmoid involvement occurs in >90% of patients with diverticulosis.1 In comparison, while diverticulosis is overall less common in Asian populations, right-sided (proximal to the splenic flexure) diverticulosis predominates.2–4 The likelihood of diverticulosis increases with age and has been estimated to be over 50-60% in patients >60 years.5,6 Rates are increasing worldwide, and are significant contributors to healthcare costs.7–9 Most patients are incidentally found to have diverticulosis on imaging or colonoscopy and remain asymptomatic. However, a small proportion develop complications including bleeding, inflammation, and chronic pain. In this article, we will review the common clinical syndromes seen in patients with diverticulosis (Table 1), and provide a practical approach to the evaluation, management, and prevention of these diseases for the primary care clinician.

Diverticular Bleeding

Diverticular bleeding is the most common cause of overt lower gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the United States,10–12 and is seen in up to 15% of patients with diverticulosis with an incidence of ~0.5 per 1,000 person-years.13–15 Bleeding occurs when the vasa recta, blood vessels which penetrate the colonic wall at the site of diverticulum formation, hemorrhage into the gastrointestinal lumen. Diverticular bleeding most commonly arises from the right colon, where the colonic wall is thinner and diverticula tend to have larger openings.10,15–17

Presentation

Patients with diverticular bleeding most commonly present with painless hematochezia.18 Some patients report cramping or bloating (likely related to the cathartic effect of blood in the GI tract), however predominant pain should prompt investigation into alternative etiologies such as ischemic colitis or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). For most patients, bleeding is relatively minor and selflimited.16,19 However, in some cases, bleeding can be brisk, and patients may present with signs of hemodynamic compromise including hypotension and tachycardia. The abdominal exam is typically benign, and rectal examination usually reveals bright red or maroon stool.

Diagnosis

The diagnosis of diverticular bleeding is generally suspected based on typical clinical signs and symptoms. Additional testing to support the diagnosis should include laboratory evaluation with a complete blood count and basic metabolic panel, with endoscopy or radiographic studies utilized for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.

Management

Patients with suspected diverticular bleeding should be managed in the inpatient setting, with initial care focusing on adequate intravenous (IV) access, telemetric monitoring, and fluid and blood product resuscitation when indicated. Patients with hemodynamically significant diverticular bleeding despite initial resuscitation should be cared for in an intensive care setting. In these patients, upper endoscopy (EGD) is generally performed first to exclude a brisk upper GI bleed, which is the underlying etiology in 10-15% of patients with brisk hemotochezia.20 Once upper GI bleeding has been excluded, colonoscopy can be pursued after appropriate colonic preparation. While rare to identify a culprit bleeding diverticulum at the time of colonoscopy, a presumptive diagnosis of diverticular bleeding can be given in patients with diverticula who are found to have colonic blood with no alternative explanation.14,21 If active bleeding is found endoscopically, various tools can be utilized by the endoscopist to achieve hemostasis including epinephrine injection, cautery, and hemostatic clips.14,22 If colonoscopy fails to reveal a source, or if the patient cannot undergo colonoscopy, radiographic evaluation with computed tomography (CT) angiography or nuclear scintigraphy can be used to localize bleeding and guide angiographic intervention.

Acute Diverticulitis

Approximately 4-5% of patients with diverticulosis will develop diverticulitis, with an annual incidence in the United States of approximately 188/100,000 persons per year.23,24 Historically, diverticulitis was felt to develop from diverticular obstruction by fecaliths, seeds, or other solid material, leading to inflammation or perforation of the diverticulum.25 However, this obstructive etiology is now felt to be uncommon. More likely, a combination of altered motility, gut microbiome changes, and underlying genetic and lifestyle factors over time cause breakdown of the colonic mucosal barrier and altered immunity, ultimately leading to a localized inflammatory response.26

Subtypes

Diverticulitis can be divided into uncomplicated and complicated disease. Most cases of diverticulitis are uncomplicated, with inflammation isolated to the diverticulum and surrounding colonic mucosa. However, 12-15% of cases are complicated by phlegmon or abscess (70% of complications), perforation, obstruction, stricture, or fistula.26–28 In most cases patients recover fully after an episode of acute diverticulitis, but in 5-10% symptoms and ongoing inflammation persist, resulting in chronic or “smoldering” diverticulitis.29,30

Presentation

Patients with acute diverticulitis typically present with cramping lower abdominal pain, most commonly in the left lower quadrant. Patients may also report low grade fevers, nausea, poor oral intake, or a change in bowel habits. Rectal bleeding is not commonly seen in acute diverticulitis. Abdominal guarding, rigidity, palpable mass, or the presence of hemodynamic instability should raise suspicion for complicated diverticulitis. Both inflammatory markers and white blood cell count are typically elevated. Given the nonspecific symptoms and laboratory findings in acute diverticulitis, a clinical diagnosis of diverticulitis is only accurate in 40-65% of patients.31,32 Therefore, in most cases CT of the abdomen with IV contrast should be obtained to confirm the diagnosis given its high sensitivity and specificity for the disease (94% and 99%, respectively).33

Management

The key initial decision in patients presenting with acute diverticulitis is to determine the need for inpatient care. Otherwise young, healthy patients with mild uncomplicated diverticulitis can generally be managed as an outpatient, whereas patients with complicated diverticulitis generally require hospitalization.34–36 Additional populations requiring inpatient care include the elderly, immunosuppressed, patients with extensive medical comorbidities, and those with signs of sepsis, high fever, significant leukocytosis, severe pain, inability to tolerate oral intake, or who have failed outpatient management.34,37,38

Role of Antibiotics

Antibiotics have historically been the cornerstone of medical therapy for acute diverticulitis, although recent data suggest that in certain populations antibiotic therapy may not be necessary.30,39–41 A meta-analysis including over 2,500 patients with mild uncomplicated diverticulitis showed no difference in relevant clinical outcomes between those treated with antibiotics and those who were not.42 Therefore, most major societies now endorse selective rather than routine use of antibiotics in immunocompetent patients with mild uncomplicated acute diverticulitis.27,36,38,43 In patients with complicated disease, hospitalized patients, and those with uncomplicated disease at high risk for complications, a 7-10 day course of antibiotics with enteric coverage is recommended.28 Surgical intervention is generally not necessary in most cases of acute diverticulitis.44 However, in patients with overt perforation, fistula, obstruction, non-resolving or recurrent abscess, or those with uncomplicated disease who fail to improve despite medical management, surgical consultation should be obtained.38

Role of Surgery

Surgery is no longer recommended routinely for patients with recurrent episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis. While quality of life overall seems to be improved after resection, recent literature suggest that partial colectomy reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk for recurrent diverticulitis, and that a significant portion of patients have ongoing abdominal pain despite surgical resection.45–48 Therefore, the decision to perform segmental colectomy in patients with recurrent diverticulitis should be an individualized one. Prior to pursuing surgical intervention, patients and clinicians should consider the severity and frequency of diverticulitis episodes, presence of complications, medical comorbidities, effect on quality of life, and the patient’s ability to tolerate surgical intervention.38

Role of Colonoscopy

Anecdotal evidence and conventional wisdom suggest colonoscopy should not be obtained during an acute episode of diverticulitis due to increased procedural difficulty, patient discomfort, and the theoretical potential for perforation.28 However, data reveal an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with diverticulitis, particularly in those with complicated diverticulitis (6-8%).49,50 Therefore, follow-up colonoscopy is recommended 6-8 weeks after presentation in patients with complicated diverticulitis and those with a first episode of uncomplicated diverticulitis to exclude concomitant CRC.28,51 This can be deferred in patients in whom a high-quality colonoscopy has been performed within the last 12 months. Patients with recurrent episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis do not require a colonoscopy following every episode; rather, they should follow conventional screening or surveillance intervals.28,51

Other Diverticular Disorders Segmental Colitis Associated with Diverticulosis (SCAD)

In approximately 1% of patients with diverticulosis, inflammation of the mucosa between diverticula can develop, termed segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis (SCAD, also known as diverticularassociated colitis).52,53 Unlike in diverticulitis, the inflammation in SCAD typically spares the diverticula themselves. The exact pathogenesis of SCAD is not fully understood, but likely results at least in part from localized ischemia, mucosal prolapse, and stasis of fecal matter leading to chronic inflammatory changes.54 Rather than distinct, acute episodes as in diverticulitis, patients with SCAD typically present with chronic symptoms of diarrhea, abdominal pain, and sometimes mild hematochezia. These symptoms may mimic other diseases such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or IBD; in fact, it is likely that SCAD lies on the spectrum of IBD, with debate surrounding whether SCAD is a distinct entity or merely represents the coexistence of IBD and diverticulosis.55 CT imaging and colonoscopic evaluation reveals mucosal inflammation in an area of diverticulosis, typically sparing the rectum.55–57 Data for management are limited, but first line therapy typically involves a course of antibiotics and high fiber diet, similar to diverticulitis. With refractory symptoms, therapies traditionally used in IBD including mesalamine, oral steroids, and anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) agents can be considered.57,58

Symptomatic Uncomplicated Diverticular Disease (SUDD)

SUDD should be suspected in patients with diverticulosis and persistent unexplained abdominal pain, in the absence of radiologic or endoscopic evidence of active inflammation that would suggest an alternative etiology such as diverticulitis or SCAD. SUDD has been reported in 15-25% of patients with diverticulosis,59 however, there is controversy surrounding this diagnosis, and there is likely a significant overlap with disorders of gutbrain interaction (DGBIs, previously referred to as functional gastrointestinal disorders) such as IBS.

Proposed underlying mechanisms are similar to those for IBS, including visceral hypersensitivity, microbial dysbiosis, altered GI motility, and lowlevel inflammation.60–64 Given the similarities to DGBIs, neuromodulators such as tricyclic antidepressants may be beneficial to patients with SUDD.65 Numerous other treatments including fiber, probiotics, antibiotics, and aminosalicylates have been investigated with inconclusive results, and cannot be recommended at this time.66–72 Prevention of Diverticular Disease

Given diverticular disease’s prevalence and effect on quality of life, many patients inquire as to what can be done to prevent future or recurrent episodes. Importantly, the development of diverticular disease can be attributed both to genetic influences as well as lifestyle factors. Various genetic loci have been implicated, with estimates of up to 50% of the risk for diverticulitis attributable to genetic effect.73–77 While of primarily academic interest at this time, these genetic associations may allow for targeted therapies in the future.

There are numerous lifestyle interventions patients can follow to decrease risk of diverticulitis and other diverticular disorders. For years, patients with diverticulosis were counseled to avoid ingestion of seeds, nuts, popcorn, and related foods, due to the concern for obstructing diverticula and precipitating diverticulitis. As mentioned previously, this is now felt to be a rare inciting factor for diverticulitis. In fact, a largescale observational study of nearly 50,000 patients showed an inverse correlation between ingestion of these foods and development of diverticular disease.78 Rather, studies have associated diets that are low in fiber and high in red meat and refined sugars as leading to increased risk for the development of diverticular disease.79 Additional risk factors include obesity, sedentary lifestyle, as well as tobacco, opioid, alcohol, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use.80– 86 Therefore, patients with diverticulosis should be encouraged to follow a high fiber diet which is low in red meat and refined sugars, and counseled to maintain an active lifestyle with the goal of achieving a normal body mass index. Additionally, depending on each patient’s individual habits, they should be advised to quit smoking, and minimize use of opioids, alcohol, and NSAIDs whenever possible.

CONCLUSION

Diverticular disorders are commonly encountered conditions whose evaluation, management, and prevention can prove challenging for patients and clinicians alike. Patients with suspected diverticular bleeding should be carefully monitored in the inpatient setting, and usually require colonoscopy for diagnosis and potentially therapeutic intervention. When diverticulitis is suspected clinically, CT should generally be obtained to confirm the diagnosis. Healthy patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can be treated in the outpatient setting, some without antibiotic therapy. Surgical resection is generally only pursued in certain patients with complicated diverticulitis, but can be considered in those with recurrent uncomplicated diverticulitis after weighing risks and benefits. Colonoscopy should follow first episodes of complicated diverticulitis in those without recent high-quality colonoscopy. In patients with diverticulosis and chronic abdominal symptoms, SCAD and SUDD should be considered. While genetics are a significant factor in the development of diverticular disorders, patients should be counseled that lifestyle modifications including physical activity, healthy diet, and smoking cessation play important roles in decreasing risk for diverticular disease.

References

  1. Parks TG. Natural history of diverticular disease of the colon. Clin Gastroenterol. 1975;4(1):53-69.
  2. Delvaux M. Diverticular disease of the colon in Europe: epidemiology, impact on citizen health and prevention. Aliment
    Pharmacol Ther. 2003;18 Suppl 3:71-74. doi:10.1046/j.09530673.2003.01720.x
  3. Chan CC, Lo KK, Chung EC, Lo SS, Hon TY. Colonic diverticulosis in Hong Kong: distribution pattern and clinical significance. Clin Radiol. 1998;53(11):842-844. doi:10.1016/ s0009-9260(98)80197-9
  4. Markham NI, Li AK. Diverticulitis of the right colon-experience from Hong Kong. Gut. 1992;33(4):547-549. doi:10.1136/gut.33.4.547
  5. Peery AF, Barrett PR, Park D, et al. A high-fiber diet does not protect against asymptomatic diverticulosis.
    Gastroenterology. 2012;142(2):266-272.e1. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2011.10.035
  6. Painter NS, Burkitt DP. Diverticular disease of the colon, a 20th century problem. Clin Gastroenterol. 1975;4(1):3-21.
  7. Everhart JE, Ruhl CE. Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part II: lower gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(3):741-754. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2009.01.015
  8. Yamamichi N, Shimamoto T, Takahashi Y, et al. Trend and risk factors of diverticulosis in Japan: age, gender, and lifestyle/metabolic-related factors may cooperatively affect on the colorectal diverticula formation. PloS One.
    2015;10(4):e0123688. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123688
  9. Shaheen NJ, Hansen RA, Morgan DR, et al. The burden of gastrointestinal and liver diseases, 2006. Am J
    Gastroenterol. 2006;101(9):2128-2138. doi:10.1111/j.15720241.2006.00723.x
  10. Gostout CJ, Wang KK, Ahlquist DA, et al. Acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Experience of a specialized management team. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1992;14(3):260-267. doi:10.1097/00004836-199204000-00014
  11. Browder W, Cerise EJ, Litwin MS. Impact of emergency angiography in massive lower gastrointestinal bleeding.
    Ann Surg. 1986;204(5):530-536. doi:10.1097/00000658198611000-00004
  12. Gayer C, Chino A, Lucas C, et al. Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding in 1,112 patients admitted to an urban emergency medical center. Surgery. 2009;146(4):600-606; discussion 606-607. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2009.06.055
  13. Niikura R, Nagata N, Shimbo T, et al. Natural history of bleeding risk in colonic diverticulosis patients: a long-term colonoscopy-based cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;41(9):888-894. doi:10.1111/apt.13148
  14. Jensen DM, Machicado GA, Jutabha R, Kovacs TO. Urgent colonoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of severe diverticular hemorrhage. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(2):78-82. doi:10.1056/NEJM200001133420202
  15. McGuire HH, Haynes BW. Massive hemorrhage for diverticulosis of the colon: guidelines for therapy based on bleeding patterns observed in fifty cases. Ann Surg. 1972;175(6):847-855. doi:10.1097/00000658-197206010-00004
  16. Casarella WJ, Kanter IE, Seaman WB. Right-sided colonic diverticula as a cause of acute rectal hemorrhage. N Engl J Med. 1972;286(9):450-453. doi:10.1056/ NEJM197203022860902
  17. Wong SK, Ho YH, Leong AP, Seow-Choen F. Clinical behavior of complicated right-sided and left-sided diverticulosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40(3):344-348. doi:10.1007/ BF02050427
  18. Wilkins T, Baird C, Pearson AN, Schade RR. Diverticular bleeding. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80(9):977-983.
  19. McGuire HH. Bleeding colonic diverticula. A reappraisal of natural history and management. Ann Surg. 1994;220(5):653656. doi:10.1097/00000658-199411000-00008
  20. Farrell JJ, Friedman LS. Review article: the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21(11):1281-1298. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02485.x
  1. Farrell JJ, Friedman LS. Review article: the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21(11):1281-1298. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02485.x
  2. Smoot RL, Gostout CJ, Rajan E, et al. Is early colonoscopy after admission for acute diverticular bleeding needed? Am
    J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(9):1996-1999. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07635.x
  3. Foutch PG, Zimmerman K. Diverticular bleeding and the pigmented protuberance (sentinel clot): clinical implications, histopathological correlation, and results of endoscopic intervention. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;91(12):2589-2593.
  4. Shahedi K, Fuller G, Bolus R, et al. Long-term risk of acute diverticulitis among patients with incidental diverticulosis found during colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2013;11(12):1609-1613. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2013.06.020
  5. Bharucha AE, Parthasarathy G, Ditah I, et al. Temporal Trends in the Incidence and Natural History of Diverticulitis:
    A Population-Based Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(11):1589-1596. doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.302
  6. Rege RV, Nahrwold DL. Diverticular disease. Curr Probl Surg. 1989;26(3):133-189. doi:10.1016/0011-3840(89)90031-2
  7. Strate LL, Morris AM. Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Treatment of Diverticulitis. Gastroenterology.
    2019;156(5):1282-1298.e1. doi:10.1053/j.gas-
    tro.2018.12.033
  8. Stollman N, Smalley W, Hirano I, AGA Institute Clinical Guidelines Committee. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on the Management of Acute Diverticulitis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(7):1944-1949. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.10.003
  9. Peery AF, Shaukat A, Strate LL. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Medical Management of Colonic Diverticulitis: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(3):906-911.e1. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.09.059
  10. Boostrom SY, Wolff BG, Cima RR, Merchea A, Dozois EJ, Larson DW. Uncomplicated diverticulitis, more complicated than we thought. J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract. 2012;16(9):1744-1749. doi:10.1007/s11605-012-1924-4
  11. Daniels L, Ünlü Ç, de Korte N, et al. Randomized clinical trial of observational versus antibiotic treatment for a first episode of CT-proven uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. Br J Surg. 2017;104(1):52-61. doi:10.1002/bjs.10309
  12. Laméris W, van Randen A, van Gulik TM, et al. A clinical decision rule to establish the diagnosis of acute diverticulitis at the emergency department. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(6):896-904. doi:10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181d98d86
  13. Andeweg CS, Knobben L, Hendriks JCM, Bleichrodt RP, van Goor H. How to diagnose acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis: proposal for a clinical scoring system. Ann Surg. 2011;253(5):940-946. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182113614
  14. Laméris W, van Randen A, Bipat S, Bossuyt PMM, Boermeester MA, Stoker J. Graded compression ultrasonography and computed tomography in acute colonic diverticulitis: meta-analysis of test accuracy. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(11):2498-2511. doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1018-6
  15. Etzioni DA, Chiu VY, Cannom RR, Burchette RJ, Haigh PI, Abbas MA. Outpatient treatment of acute diverticulitis: rates and predictors of failure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(6):861-865. doi:10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181cdb243
  16. Sirany AME, Gaertner WB, Madoff RD, Kwaan MR. Diverticulitis Diagnosed in the Emergency Room: Is It Safe to Discharge Home? J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(1):21-25. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.02.016
  17. Qaseem A, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Lin JS, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. Published online January 18, 2022. doi:10.7326/M21-2710
  18. Alonso S, Pera M, Parés D, et al. Outpatient treatment of patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel. 2010;12(10 Online):e278-282. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.02122.x
  19. Hall J, Hardiman K, Lee S, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis.
    Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63(6):728-747. doi:10.1097/
    DCR.0000000000001679
  20. Brochmann ND, Schultz JK, Jakobsen GS, Øresland T. Management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis without antibiotics: a single-centre cohort study. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel. 2016;18(11):1101-1107. doi:10.1111/codi.13355
  21. Chabok A, Påhlman L, Hjern F, Haapaniemi S, Smedh K, AVOD Study Group. Randomized clinical trial of antibiotics in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. Br J Surg. 2012;99(4):532-539. doi:10.1002/bjs.8688
  22. Isacson D, Thorisson A, Andreasson K, Nikberg M, Smedh K, Chabok A. Outpatient, non-antibiotic management in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis: a prospective study. Int J
    Colorectal Dis. 2015;30(9):1229-1234. doi:10.1007/s00384-
    015-2258-y
  23. Au S, Aly EH. Treatment of Uncomplicated Acute Diverticulitis Without Antibiotics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62(12):1533-1547. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000001330
  24. Francis NK, Sylla P, Abou-Khalil M, et al. EAES and SAGES 2018 consensus conference on acute diverticulitis management: evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(9):2726-2741. doi:10.1007/ s00464-019-06882-z
  25. Morris AM, Regenbogen SE, Hardiman KM, Hendren S. Sigmoid diverticulitis: a systematic review. JAMA. 2014;311(3):287-297. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.282025
  26. Thornblade LW, Simianu VV, Davidson GH, Flum DR. Elective Surgery for Diverticulitis and the Risk of Recurrence and Ostomy. Ann Surg. 2021;273(6):1157-1164.
    doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000003639
  27. van de Wall BJM, Stam MAW, Draaisma WA, et al. Surgery versus conservative management for recurrent and ongoing left-sided diverticulitis (DIRECT trial): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet
    Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2(1):13-22. doi:10.1016/S24681253(16)30109-1
  28. Bolkenstein HE, Consten ECJ, van der Palen J, et al. Longterm Outcome of Surgery Versus Conservative Management for Recurrent and Ongoing Complaints After an Episode of Diverticulitis: 5-year Follow-up Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (DIRECT-Trial). Ann Surg.
    2019;269(4):612-620. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000003033
  29. Egger B, Peter MK, Candinas D. Persistent symptoms after elective sigmoid resection for diverticulitis. Dis Colon
    Rectum. 2008;51(7):1044-1048. doi:10.1007/s10350-008-
    9234-3
  30. Meyer J, Orci LA, Combescure C, et al. Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Patients with Acute Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2019;17(8):1448-1456.e17. doi:10.1016/j. cgh.2018.07.031
  31. Koo CH, Chang JHE, Syn NL, Wee IJY, Mathew R. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Colorectal Cancer Findings on Colonic Evaluation After CT-Confirmed Acute Diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63(5):701-709.
    doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000001664
  32. Qaseem A, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Lin JS, et al. Colonoscopy for Diagnostic Evaluation and Interventions to Prevent Recurrence After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. Published online January 18, 2022. doi:10.7326/M21-2711
  33. Mann NS, Hoda KK. Segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis: systematic evaluation of 486 cases with metaanalysis. Hepatogastroenterology. 2012;59(119):2119-2121. doi:10.5754/hge11043
  34. Tursi A, Elisei W, Brandimarte G, et al. The endoscopic spectrum of segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel.
    2010;12(5):464-470. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01969.x
  35. Ludeman L, Shepherd NA. What is diverticular colitis? Pathology (Phila). 2002;34(6):568-572.
    doi:10.1080/0031302021000035974
  36. Tursi A. Segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis: complication of diverticular disease or autonomous entity?
    Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56(1):27-34. doi:10.1007/s10620-010-
    1230-5
  37. Cassieri C, Brandimarte G, Elisei W, et al. How to Differentiate Segmental Colitis Associated With Diverticulosis and Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;50 Suppl 1:S36-38. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000000630
  38. Schembri J, Bonello J, Christodoulou DK, Katsanos KH, Ellul P. Segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis: is it the coexistence of colonic diverticulosis and inflammatory bowel disease? Ann Gastroenterol. 2017;30(3):257-261. doi:10.20524/aog.2017.0126
  39. Rampton DS. Diverticular colitis: diagnosis and management. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel. 2001;3(3):149-153. doi:10.1046/j.1463-1318.2001.00242.x
  40. Tursi A, Elisei W, Franceschi M, Picchio M, Di Mario F, Brandimarte G. The prevalence of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease could be lower than expected: a single-center colonoscopy-based cohort study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. Published online April 16, 2021. doi:10.1097/MEG.0000000000002142
  41. Bassotti G, Sietchiping-Nzepa F, De Roberto G, Chistolini F, Morelli A. Colonic regular contractile frequency patterns in irritable bowel syndrome: the “spastic colon” revisited. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;16(6):613-617. doi:10.1097/00042737-200406000-00016
  42. Bassotti G, Battaglia E, Bellone G, et al. Interstitial cells of Cajal, enteric nerves, and glial cells in colonic diverticular disease. J Clin Pathol. 2005;58(9):973-977. doi:10.1136/ jcp.2005.026112
  43. Simpson J, Sundler F, Humes DJ, Jenkins D, Scholefield JH, Spiller RC. Post inflammatory damage to the enteric nervous system in diverticular disease and its relationship to symptoms. Neurogastroenterol Motil Off J Eur Gastrointest Motil Soc. 2009;21(8):847-e58. doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2982.2009.01308.x
  44. Barbaro MR, Cremon C, Fuschi D, et al. Nerve fiber overgrowth in patients with symptomatic diverticular disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil Off J Eur Gastrointest Motil Soc. 2019;31(9):e13575. doi:10.1111/nmo.13575
  45. Kvasnovsky CL, Leong LEX, Choo JM, et al. Clinical and symptom scores are significantly correlated with fecal microbiota features in patients with symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease: a pilot study. Eur J
    Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;30(1):107-112. doi:10.1097/
    MEG.0000000000000995
  46. Drossman DA, Tack J, Ford AC, Szigethy E, Törnblom H, Van Oudenhove L. Neuromodulators for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders (Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction): A Rome Foundation Working Team Report. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(4):1140-1171.e1. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.11.279
  47. Carabotti M, Annibale B, Severi C, Lahner E. Role of Fiber in Symptomatic Uncomplicated Diverticular Disease: A Systematic Review. Nutrients. 2017;9(2):E161. doi:10.3390/ nu9020161
  48. Bianchi M, Festa V, Moretti A, et al. Meta-analysis: longterm therapy with rifaximin in the management of uncomplicated diverticular disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;33(8):902-910. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04606.x
  49. Di Mario F, Miraglia C, Cambiè G, et al. Long-term efficacy of rifaximin to manage the symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon. J Investig Med Off Publ
    Am Fed Clin Res. 2019;67(4):767-770. doi:10.1136/jim-
    2018-000901
  50. Tursi A, Brandimarte G, Giorgetti GM, Elisei W. Mesalazine and/or Lactobacillus casei in preventing recurrence of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon: a prospective, randomized, open-label study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;40(4):312-316. doi:10.1097/01. mcg.0000210092.77296.6d
  51. Tursi A, Brandimarte G, Elisei W, et al. Randomised clinical trial: mesalazine and/or probiotics in maintaining remission of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease–a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38(7):741-751. doi:10.1111/apt.12463
  52. Kruis W, Meier E, Schumacher M, et al. Randomised clinical trial: mesalazine (Salofalk granules) for uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon–a placebo-controlled study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;37(7):680-690. doi:10.1111/ apt.12248
  53. Picchio M, Elisei W, Tursi A. Mesalazine to treat symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease and to prevent acute diverticulitis occurrence. A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. J Gastrointest Liver Dis JGLD. 2018;27(3):291-297. doi:10.15403/jgld.2014.1121.273.pic
  54. Camilleri M, Sandler RS, Peery AF. Etiopathogenetic Mechanisms in Diverticular Disease of the Colon. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;9(1):15-32. doi:10.1016/j. jcmgh.2019.07.007
  55. Granlund J, Svensson T, Olén O, et al. The genetic influence on diverticular disease–a twin study. Aliment
    Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35(9):1103-1107. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
    2036.2012.05069.x
  56. Strate LL, Erichsen R, Baron JA, et al. Heritability and familial aggregation of diverticular disease: a population-based study of twins and siblings. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(4):736-
    742.e1; quiz e14. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.12.030
  57. Sigurdsson S, Alexandersson KF, Sulem P, et al. Sequence variants in ARHGAP15, COLQ and FAM155A associate with diverticular disease and diverticulitis. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15789. doi:10.1038/ncomms15789
  58. Maguire LH, Handelman SK, Du X, Chen Y, Pers TH, Speliotes EK. Genome-wide association analyses identify 39 new susceptibility loci for diverticular disease. Nat Genet. 2018;50(10):1359-1365. doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0203-z
  59. Strate LL, Liu YL, Syngal S, Aldoori WH, Giovannucci EL. Nut, corn, and popcorn consumption and the incidence of diverticular disease. JAMA. 2008;300(8):907-914. doi:10.1001/jama.300.8.907
  60. Liu PH, Cao Y, Keeley BR, et al. Adherence to a Healthy Lifestyle is Associated With a Lower Risk of Diverticulitis among Men. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(12):1868-1876.
    doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.398
  61. Strate LL, Liu YL, Aldoori WH, Giovannucci EL. Physical activity decreases diverticular complications. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(5):1221-1230. doi:10.1038/ ajg.2009.121
  62. Hjern F, Wolk A, Håkansson N. Smoking and the risk of diverticular disease in women. Br J Surg. 2011;98(7):997-
  63. doi:10.1002/bjs.7477
  64. Ma W, Jovani M, Liu PH, et al. Association Between Obesity and Weight Change and Risk of Diverticulitis in Women. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(1):58-66.e4. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.03.057
  65. Thomas GAO, Rhodes J, Ingram JR. Mechanisms of disease: nicotine–a review of its actions in the context of gastrointestinal disease. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;2(11):536-544. doi:10.1038/ncpgasthep0316 84. Strate LL, Liu YL, Huang ES, Giovannucci EL, Chan AT. Use of aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increases risk for diverticulitis and diverticular bleeding.
    Gastroenterology. 2011;140(5):1427-1433. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2011.02.004
  66. Aldoori WH, Giovannucci EL, Rimm EB, Wing AL, Willett WC. Use of acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a prospective study and the risk of symptomatic diverticular disease in men. Arch Fam Med. 1998;7(3):255-doi:10.1001/archfami.7.3.255
  67. Humes DJ, Fleming KM, Spiller RC, West J. Concurrent drug use and the risk of perforated colonic diverticular disease: a population-based case-control study. Gut. 2011;60(2):219-224. doi:10.1136/gut.2010.217281

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE PEDIATRIC LITERATURE

Celiac Disease and Functional Abdominal Pain in Children

Read Article

Both celiac disease and functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) can present with abdominal pain in children, and the similarity between these two disorders can be confusing since many patients with FGIDs, in actuality, have celiac disease. The authors of this study evaluated for the presence of functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPDs) and functional constipation (FC) in a group of children with celiac disease controlled on a gluten free diet.

Children were prospectively enrolled in this study between 2016 and 2018 at a tertiary children’s hospital in Italy, and study subjects were enrolled if they were between 4 and 16 years of age and had follow-up visits at the celiac disease outpatient clinic. Celiac disease diagnosis was made based on standard serologic testing followed by duodenal biopsy (based on European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition or ESPGHAN guidelines). During follow-up clinic visits, patients were checked for dietary compliance by tissue transglutaminase IgA antibody (TTG IgA) titers as well as by dietary recall. The presence of associated FAPDs and FC was evaluated using the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire for Pediatric FGIDs. Additionally, a sibling of a child with celiac disease (or a cousin if no sibling was available) with negative TTG IgA titers were used as controls.

A total of 417 children with celiac disease and 373 control patients were used in the final study analysis. Time duration for TTG IgA titers normalization did not differ between children with celiac disease with or without an FAPD, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Children with celiac disease had a significantly higher risk of developing an FAPD compared to controls (11.5% vs 6.7%; P< .05; relative risk [RR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1–3). Children with celiac disease also had a significantly higher risk of having IBS (7.2% vs 3.2%; P < .05; RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1– 4.6). No such association was seen in the setting of functional dyspepsia, functional abdominal pain, and abdominal migraines, and there was no significant difference present in the time duration of FAPDs between patients with celiac disease and control patients. Logistic regression demonstrated that younger age at celiac disease diagnosis and higher TTG IgA titers at time of diagnosis predicted the risk of FAPD as well as IBS. Finally, FC was common in both children with celiac disease and controls, but FC was significantly more common in patients with celiac disease (19.9% vs 10.5%, respectively; P <0.001; relative risk, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4–3.2).

Thus, celiac disease appears to be associated with the occurrence of both FAPDs and FC in children. The cause is unknown although nerve fiber dysfunction or microbiome changes may account for these findings. Pediatric patients with celiac disease and their families should be informed that such children may have abdominal pain and / or constipation after a celiac disease diagnosis is made, even if a child is compliant with a glutenfree diet.

Cristofori F, Tripaldi M, Lorusso G, Indrio F, Rutgliano V, Piscitelli D, Castellaneta S, Bentivoglio V, Francavilla R. Functional abdominal pain disorders and constipation in children on a glutenfree diet. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2021; 19: 2551-2558.

Download Tables, Images & References

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