FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #85

Endohepatology: A New Realm for Endoscopic Ultrasound

Read Article

INTRODUCTION

With advancements in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and its expanding role in management of liver disease, has come a new field that has been termed Endohepatology. Traditionally, liver disease and its comorbidities have been inspected by interventional radiology using percutaneous methods. With the emergence of the field of endohepatology, EUS-guided alternatives to the traditional percutaneous routes for procedures such as liver biopsy (LB), portal pressure measurement, and treatment of gastric varices have been developed and have entered practice. This manuscript will review the current state of endohepatology, discuss endoscopic diagnostic and therapeutic tools and techniques, and analyze the data comparing traditional methods to new endoscopic methods of diagnosis and treatment of patients with liver disease.

EUS Guided Liver Biopsy

EUS-LB is a unique approach to liver biopsy because of its ability to obtain samples from the liver without traversing the skin. EUS-LB is performed using a standard linear echoendoscope which provides high-quality, real-time views of the liver and surrounding solid and vascular structures. This allows for precise needle placement in both normal liver parenchyma and, on some occasions, liver lesions. Doppler ultrasound also prevents injury to interposed vascular structures.1

EUS-LB is typically performed using either a 19-gauge or a 22-gauge needle, although most practitioners utilize a 19-gauge needle as it provides a much larger and less fragmented sample.2 (Figure 1 and Figure 2) A variety of approaches and techniques are available, but many centers utilize the technique proposed by Diehl et al. using heparinized needles with wet suction.3 Typically, studies of EUS-LB specimens compare efficacy of needle sizes and models by assessing the tissue obtained via their use. Studies compare length of the longest piece (LLP), intact specimen length (ISL), total specimen length (TSL), the number of complete portal triads (CPTs), tissue adequacy, and adverse events. A recent study comparing a 19G fine-needle aspiration device (FNA) to 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) showed a tissue adequacy, measured by number of portal structures in the sample, of 88% in 19G FNA vs. 68% in 22G FNB.2 It was found that since the 22G FNB produced thinner samples than the 19G FNA, they were prone to fragmentation during tissue processing.

There are several different techniques for EUSLB. For retrieving the sample, there is a “slow pull” technique, as well as a “wet suction” technique, and they are often combined in practice. The “slow pull” technique uses minimal suction via the gradual removal of the stylet during the needle actuations and is useful in collecting samples with less blood and more tissue. The “wet suction” technique involves flushing the needle with saline or, more commonly, heparin with the addition of suction. It was found that priming the needle with an anticoagulant had no adverse effects on the sample and helped to resolve the issue of blood collection and reduced sample fragmentation.3,4

Other traditional methods of liver biopsy include the Percutaneous route (PC) and the Transjugular route (TJ). The PC route uses spring-loaded 18G, 19G, or 20G needles, while the TJ route uses either an 18G or 19G needle.5 One of the primary concerns with EUS-LB was that the limitations of needle size to 19G would produce smaller and lower quality samples than the other two routes. However, when EUS-LB was compared to PC and TJ routes, it was found that EUS-LB produced more tissue with a greater TSL. The number of CPTs were greater in the EUS-LB samples than PC, but equivalent to TJ.5 Once rarely performed, EUS-LB is now entering widespread usage in the United States. In one study, diagnostic accuracy was found to be similar between EUS-LB and PC-LB.6 This study found a diagnostic adequacy rate of 100% in PC-LB and 94.4% in EUS-LB (p = 0.74); the study also showed a diagnostic accuracy rate of 100% in PC-LB and 88.8% in EUS-LB (p = 0.82). Another study comparing PC-LB and EUS-LB showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 95%, 100%, and 96% in the PC group and 100%, 100%, and 100% in the EUS group, respectively, showing no significant difference.7 Adverse events associated with EUS, PC, and TJ liver biopsy include pain, intraperitoneal and subcapsular hemorrhage, bile peritonitis, inadvertent sampling of other organs, pneumothorax, and infection.5 There has been conflicting evidence with regards to adverse event rates between EUS-LB and PC-LB.8,9

One study has shown adverse event rates of 17% in patients undergoing PC-LB versus 2% among patients undergoing EUS-LB (p< 0.01).8 However, another study showed that adverse event rates in both PC-LB and EUS-LB were 0%, although this may be an outlier in both respects.9 Studies done separately from one another have also shown that liver biopsy via EUS, PC, and TJ routes all have similar adverse event rates. A meta-analysis performed to assess the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB found across 8 studies a pooled adverse event rate of 2.3%.10 A study on PC-LB showed adverse event rates between 0.09% and 3.1%, and another study on TJ-LB had adverse event rates between 0.56% and 6.5%.11,12 There are several variations in needle models, size, and tip design. The options for EUS-LB needle tip design include: Franseen-Type, a

needle with 3 cutting tips; Fork-Tip-Type, a needle with 2 parallel cutting tips; Menghini-Type, a needle with a beveled end cutting edge; and the ProCore, a needle with an end cutting beveled edge and a core trap near the tip.13 A study comparing these models found that all samples obtained with 19G and 20G needles, regardless of model, had statistically similar mean numbers of CPTs. It also found that yields of the 19G and 20G needles were statistically superior to the 22G SharkCore ForkTip-Type needle, further suggesting the inadequacy of 22G needles for EUS-LB. This study found statistically significant evidence that the Acquire Franseen-Type 19G needle produced longer tissue fragments than all the other needle types tested, except for the EZ Shot 3 Plus Menghini-Type 19G needle.13 Three studies have compared the Franseen-Type needle design to the Fork-Tip-Type. Across these studies, Franseen-Type needles had a statistically significant higher number of CPTs than the ForkTip-Type needle (14.4 vs. 9.5 with p = 0.043; 9.59 vs. 7.07 with a p < 0.001; 24.0 vs. 19.5 with a p < 0.01).14,15,16 When comparing specimen length and histological adequacy, there are conflicting findings. Of these 3 studies, 2 found that the Franseen-Type had statistically significant longer specimen length (15.81mm vs. 13.86mm with p = 0.004; 31mm vs. 27mm with p = 0.01).15,16 The remaining study found no significant difference in specimen length (44.9mm vs. 34.6mm with p = 0.097).14 Two of these studies also compared histological adequacy of the tissue samples collected. One study showed no statistically significant difference between the two needles with adequacy at 100% in the Franseen-Type and 95.5% in the Fork-Tip-Type (p = 0.312).14 The other study, however, showed a histologic adequacy of 97.2% in the FranseenType and 79.4% in the Fork-Tip-Type (p = 0.001).15

EUS Guided Portal Pressure Measurement

The portal pressure gradient (PPG) is a measurement that is useful in assessing the degree of portal hypertension (PH) and the severity of cirrhosis. Currently, the standard for PH assessment is the use of an indirect PC method that measures the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) via a transjugular approach.17

EUS-guided portal vein pressure (PVP) measurement is performed using a linear echoendoscope, a 25G needle, and a compact, one-time-use pressure manometer with noncompressible tubing.18 To calculate the PPG, pressure measurements need to be made in both the hepatic vein (HV) and portal vein (PV), and then the HV pressure is subtracted from the PV pressure. Access to the HV is possible by first identifying the inferior vena cava (IVC), with the echoendoscope located at the gastroesophageal junction. Any of the three hepatic vein branches can be used for measurement after identification.18 (Figure 3) The PV pressure measurement is made in the intrahepatic PV near the PV bifurcation. (Figure 4) Manometry of the PV is performed usually with a transgastric approach. However, an alternative transduodenal, transhepatic approach can be utilized as well.18

Studies performed that compared the EUS-PPG measurement to indirect TJ HVPG measurement have found no statistically significant difference in accuracy.19 In one study, each participant had their PVP measured first with the EUS-PPG method, followed by the indirect TJ method. When PVP values from each method were compared in a linear relationship, a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.923 and 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.6369 to 0.9821; and an R2 value of 0.852; was found. This shows remarkable consistency between the two methods. Similarly, when comparing the mean PVP findings between the two methods, they also found no significant difference (p = 0.231).19 Another comparison study had similar results. The study found that the Pearson’s correlation coefficient was 0.999 for all vessels, 0.985 for all veins, 0.988 for PV and wedged hepatic venous pressure, and 0.986 for free HV pressure.20 It should be noted that the PVP obtained by interventional radiologists is indirect, as it is a wedged pressure obtained in the HV, but during EUS-PPG the PVP is, in fact, measured directly.

It was also found that EUS-PPG and indirect TJ HVPG do not have a statistically significant difference in procedure time. In one study, the average procedure time for EUS-PPG was 38.33 minutes; for indirect TJ HVPG it was 37.22 minutes (p = 0.862).19 EUS-PPG has shown specific benefit in the measurement of PVP in patients with BuddChiari syndrome (hepatic vein occlusion subtype). In one study, 2 of the participants were diagnosed with Budd-Chiari syndrome. For these participants, it was not possible to obtain PVP using the indirect TJ method, however, EUS-PPG was still measured successfully.19 Adverse events with either method include bleeding, infection, thrombosis, or perforation. Across 5 studies, no adverse events were recorded with EUS-PPG, nor the indirect TJ method.19,20,21,22,23

EUS Guided Gastric Variceal Coiling and Gluing

There are three different classification systems commonly used for gastric varices (GV): Sarin’s classification, Hashizome’s classification, and Arakawa’s classification. Sarin’s classification is

the most commonly used method.24 In this system, GVs are categorized into 4 types based on location and relationship with esophageal varices (EV). Types include gastroesophageal varices (GOV) Type 1 and 2, and isolated gastric varices (IGV) Type 1 and 2. GOV type 1 is described as EVs that extend down the lesser curvature of the stomach, whereas GOV type 2 is described as EVs that extend down the greater curvature of the stomach. Type 1 IGV are GVs that exist exclusively in the fundus of the stomach, whereas IGV type 2 is defined as ectopic varices that occur in other parts of the stomach or duodenum.24,25

In one study, GVs were present in 20% of patients with PH at initial evaluation. The incidence of bleeding was greatest in IGV type 1 at 78%. When compared with isolated EVs, GVs bled in significantly fewer patients (64% vs. 25%). Although GVs had a lower bleeding risk than EVs, when they did bleed it was more severe. In this study, a bleeding GV was found to have a high mortality rate of 45%.25

Treatment options for GVs include endoscopic sclerotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), endoscopic variceal obturation with tissue adhesive such as cyanoacrylate glue (CYA), fibrin glue, or thrombin, EUS-guided coil deployment, balloon tamponade, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure, or balloonoccluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO).26,27,28 TIPS is the most commonly performed procedure for GVs secondary to portal hypertension. The preferred initial endoscopic treatment option is cyanoacrylate glue or fibrin injection and/or coil deployment.27,28 (Figure 5) Approaches in practice remain nonstandardized. Glue injection can be performed with either direct endoscopy or under the guidance of EUS. A recent comparative study showed that EUS-guided glue injection required less glue and had decreased rebleeding rates, with no significant difference in adverse events, when compared with direct endoscopic glue injection.29 

CYA glue has multiple monomers available for use, including N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NB2CYA) and 2-octyl-cyanoacrylate (2O-CYA). What makes each monomer unique is the size of their alkyl group; NB2-CYA has a 4-carbon alkyl group, whereas 2O-CYA has an 8-carbon alkyl group.26 The longer the alkyl group, the longer the polymerization time of the glue will be. The polymerization time for NB2-CYA is so short it can cause premature solidification of glue inside a delivery needle or within a varix, risking entrapment of the needle. To prevent premature solidification of the glue, NB2-CYA is diluted with Lipiodol. Since 2O-CYA has a longer polymerization time, dilution is not required.26 As an alternative to CYA glue injection, one could also use absorbable gelatin sponge (AGS) in the treatment of GVs. AGS is a purified collagen that forms a plug by absorbing 45 times its volume in blood.30

EUS-guided coil deployment utilizes stainless steel micro-coils that reduce the rate of blood flow and promote thrombosis of the varix.28 When coil and glue monotherapy have been compared, it has been shown that they share similar hemostasis rates and have no significant difference in the number of sessions required for obliteration (p = 0.29).29 Coils do however, have statistically significant fewer adverse events when compared to glue injection (p < 0.1).29

It has been found that when glue injection and coil deployment are combined it is more efficient than either alone, with decreased recurrence rates, volumes of glue, and numbers of coils required.31,32 One study also showed that combination therapy had statistically significant higher rates of technical and clinical success than either alone (p < 0.001).32 Potential adverse events from the use of CYA glue, thrombin injection, or coil deployment include pulmonary or systemic embolization, visceral fistulization, ulceration and bleeding at the injection site, peritonitis, needle impaction, traumatic withdrawal due to glue adherence to the needle, coil extrusion, and death.26,32,33 One study compared glue and coil monotherapy and found that adverse event rates were statistically significantly higher with CYA glue injection (58%) than coil (9%) deployment (p < 0.01).26 Another study that compared glue and coil combination therapy with each of these agents as monotherapy found that combination therapy had statistically significant fewer adverse events than glue monotherapy (10% vs. 21%; p < 0.001). This same study also found that combination therapy did not have a statistically significant difference in adverse event rates when compared with coil monotherapy (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.057).32

Conclusion

Endohepatology is an emerging field with novel, minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic options for patients with liver disease. EUS guided liver biopsy, portal pressure measurement, and gastric variceal treatment are commercially available and remain targets of active investigation as promising alternatives to the current standard of care. Future studies will likely further refine the role of these interventions.

References

  1. Saraireh HA, Bilal M, Singh S. Role of endoscopic ultrasound in liver disease: Where do we stand in 2017? World J Hepatol. 2017 Aug 28;9(24):1013-1021. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v9.i24.1013. PMID: 28932347; PMCID: PMC5583533.
  2. Mok SRS, Diehl DL, Johal AS, Khara HS, Confer BD, Mudireddy PR, Kovach AH, Diehl MM, Kirchner HL, Chen ZE. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy in chronic liver disease: a randomized comparison of 19-G FNA and 22-G FNB needles. Endosc Int Open. 2019 Jan;7(1):E62-E71. doi: 10.1055/a-0655-7462. Epub 2019 Jan 4. PMID: 30648141; PMCID: PMC6327728.
  3. Diehl DL, Mok SRS, Khara HS, Johal AS, Kirchner HL, Lin F. Heparin priming of EUS-FNA needles does not adversely affect tissue cytology or immunohistochemical staining. Endosc Int Open. 2018 Mar;6(3):E356-E362. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-121880. Epub 2018 Mar 7. PMID: 29527558; PMCID: PMC5842078.
  4. Mok SRS, Diehl DL, Johal AS, Khara HS, Confer BD, Mudireddy PR, Kirchner HL, Chen ZE. A prospective pilot comparison of wet and dry heparinized suction for EUSguided liver biopsy (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Dec;88(6):919-925. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.07.036. Epub 2018 Aug 16. PMID: 30120956.
  5. Pineda JJ, Diehl DL, Miao CL, Johal AS, Khara HS, Bhanushali A, Chen EZ. EUS-guided liver biopsy provides diagnostic samples comparable with those via the percutaneous or transjugular route. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Feb;83(2):360-5. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.08.025. Epub 2015 Aug 22. PMID: 26301407.
  6. Facciorusso A, Ramai D, Conti Bellocchi MC, Bernardoni L, Manfrin E, Muscatiello N, Crinò SF. Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy in Comparison to Percutaneous Liver Biopsy: A Two-Center Experience. Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jun 19;13(12):3062. doi: 10.3390/cancers13123062. PMID: 34205389; PMCID: PMC8235406.
  7. Takano Y, Noda J, Yamawaki M, Azami T, Kobayashi T, Niiya F, Maruoka N, Norose T, Ohike N, Wakabayashi T, Matsuo K, Tanaka K, Nagahama M. Comparative Study of an Ultrasound-guided Percutaneous Biopsy and Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration for Liver Tumors. Intern Med. 2021;60(11):1657-1664. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.6183-20. Epub 2021 Jun 1. PMID: 34078770; PMCID: PMC8222129.
  8. Takano Y, Noda J, Yamawaki M, Azami T, Kobayashi T, Niiya F, Maruoka N, Norose T, Ohike N, Wakabayashi T, Matsuo K, Tanaka K, Nagahama M. Comparative Study of an Ultrasound-guided Percutaneous Biopsy and Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration for Liver Tumors. Intern Med. 2021;60(11):1657-1664.doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.6183-20. Epub 2021 Jun 1. PMID: 34078770; PMCID: PMC8222129.
  9. Ali AH, Panchal S, Rao DS, Gan Y, Al-Juboori A, Samiullah S, Ibdah JA, Hammoud GM. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy versus percutaneous liver biopsy in patients with chronic liver disease: a retrospective single-center study. J Ultrasound. 2020 Jun;23(2):157-167. doi: 10.1007/s40477-02000436-z. Epub 2020 Mar 5. PMID: 32141043; PMCID: PMC7242589.
  10. Mohan BP, Shakhatreh M, Garg R, Ponnada S, Adler DG. Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Feb;89(2):238-246.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.018. Epub 2018 Oct 31. PMID: 30389469.
  11. Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD, Nelson RC, Smith AD; American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Liver biopsy. Hepatology. 2009 Mar;49(3):101744. doi: 10.1002/hep.22742. PMID: 19243014.
  12. Kalambokis G, Manousou P, Vibhakorn S, Marelli L, Cholongitas E, Senzolo M, Patch D, Burroughs AK. Transjugular liver biopsy–indications, adequacy, quality of specimens, and complications–a systematic review. J Hepatol. 2007 Aug;47(2):284-94. doi: 10.1016/j. jhep.2007.05.001. Epub 2007 May 24. PMID: 17561303.
  13. Eskandari A, Koo P, Bang H, Gui D, Urayama S. Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound Biopsy Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy. Clin Endosc. 2019 Jul;52(4):347-352. doi: 10.5946/ce.2019.005. Epub 2019 Jul 10. PMID: 31288504; PMCID: PMC6680021.
  14. Hashimoto R, Lee DP, Samarasena JB, Chandan VS, Guo W, Lee JG, Chang KJ. Comparison of Two Specialized Histology Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)Guided Liver Biopsy: A Pilot Study. Dig Dis Sci. 2021 May;66(5):1700-1706. doi: 10.1007/s10620-020-063913. Epub 2020 Jun 17. PMID: 32556821.
  15. Aggarwal SN, Magdaleno T, Klocksieben F, MacFarlan JE, Goonewardene S, Zator Z, Shah S, Shah HN. A prospective, head-to-head comparison of 2 EUS-guided liver biopsy needles in vivo. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 May;93(5):1133-1138. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.09.050. Epub 2020 Oct 9. PMID: 33045222.
  16. Nieto J, Dawod E, Deshmukh A, Penn E, Adler D, Saab S. EUS-guided fine-needle core liver biopsy with a modified one-pass, one-actuation wet suction technique comparing two types of EUS core needles. Endosc Int Open. 2020 Jul;8(7):E938-E943. doi: 10.1055/a-11651767. Epub 2020 Jun 16. PMID: 32617398; PMCID: PMC7297611.
  17. Samarasena JB, Yu AR, Chang KJ. EUS-guided portal pressure measurement (with videos). Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 Jul-Aug;7(4):257-262. doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_35_18. PMID: 30117489; PMCID: PMC6106144.
  18. Huang JY, Samarasena JB, Tsujino T, Lee J, Hu KQ, McLaren CE, Chen WP, Chang KJ. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement with a simple novel device: a human pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 May;85(5):996-1001. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.09.026. Epub 2016 Sep 29. PMID: 27693644; PMCID: PMC5611853.
  19. Zhang W, Peng C, Zhang S, Huang S, Shen S, Xu G, Zhang F, Xiao J, Zhang M, Zhuge Y, Wang L, Zou X, Lv Y. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement in patients with acute or subacute portal hypertension. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Mar;93(3):565-572. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.065. Epub 2020 Jun 29. PMID: 32615178.
  20. Huang JY, Samarasena JB, Tsujino T, Chang KJ. EUSguided portal pressure gradient measurement with a novel 25-gauge needle device versus standard transjugular approach: a comparison animal study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Aug;84(2):358-62. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.02.032.Epub 2016 Mar 3. PMID: 26945557.
  21. Samarasena JB, Chang KJ. Endoscopic UltrasoundGuided Portal Pressure Measurement and Interventions. Clin Endosc. 2018 May;51(3):222-228. doi: 10.5946/ ce.2018.079. Epub 2018 May 31. PMID: 29874904; PMCID: PMC5997067.
  22. Shah SL, Dawod Q, Kumar S, Fortune B, Sharaiha RZ. “One stop” liver-focused endoscopy: EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement technique. VideoGIE. 2020 Sep 25;5(12):658-659. doi: 10.1016/j.vgie.2020.08.006. PMID: 33319134; PMCID: PMC7732719.
  23. Samarasena JB, Huang JY, Tsujino T, Thieu D, Yu A, Hu KQ, Lee J, Chang KJ. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement with a simple novel device: a human pilot study. VideoGIE. 2018 Oct 25;3(11):361-363. doi: 10.1016/j.vgie.2018.07.013. PMID: 30402586; PMCID: PMC6205538.
  24. Wani ZA, Bhat RA, Bhadoria AS, Maiwall R, Choudhury A. Gastric varices: Classification, endoscopic and ultrasonographic management. J Res Med Sci. 2015 Dec;20(12):1200-7. doi: 10.4103/1735-1995.172990. PMID: 26958057; PMCID: PMC4766829.
  25. Sarin SK, Lahoti D, Saxena SP, Murthy NS, Makwana UK. Prevalence, classification and natural history of gastric varices: a long-term follow-up study in 568 portal hypertension patients. Hepatology. 1992 Dec;16(6):13439. doi: 10.1002/hep.1840160607. PMID: 1446890.
  26. Weilert F, Binmoeller KF. Endoscopic management of gastric variceal bleeding. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2014 Dec;43(4):807-18. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2014.08.010. Epub 2014 Sep 12. PMID: 25440927.
  27. Garcia-Tsao G, Sanyal AJ, Grace ND, Carey W; Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices and variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2007 Sep;46(3):92238. doi: 10.1002/hep.21907. Erratum in: Hepatology. 2007 Dec;46(6):2052. PMID: 17879356.
  28. Rodge GA, Goenka U, Goenka MK. Management of Refractory Variceal Bleed in Cirrhosis. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2022 Mar-Apr;12(2):595-602. doi: 10.1016/j. jceh.2021.08.030. Epub 2021 Sep 4. PMID: 35535060; PMCID: PMC9077219.
  29. Romero-Castro R, Ellrichmann M, Ortiz-Moyano C, Subtil-Inigo JC, Junquera-Florez F, Gornals JB, Repiso-Ortega A, Vila-Costas J, Marcos-Sanchez F, Muñoz-Navas M, Romero-Gomez M, Brullet-Benedi E, Romero-Vazquez J, Caunedo-Alvarez A, PellicerBautista F, Herrerias-Gutierrez JM, Fritscher-Ravens A. EUS-guided coil versus cyanoacrylate therapy for the treatment of gastric varices: a multicenter study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Nov;78(5):711-21. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.05.009. Epub 2013 Jul 25. PMID: 23891417.
  30. Bazarbashi AN, Wang TJ, Thompson CC, Ryou M. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of gastric varices with coil embolization and absorbable hemostatic gelatin sponge: a novel alternative to cyanoacrylate. Endosc Int Open. 2020 Feb;8(2):E221-E227. doi: 10.1055/a-10276708. Epub 2020 Jan 28. PMID: 32010757; PMCID: PMC6986946.
  31. Bhat YM, Weilert F, Fredrick RT, Kane SD, Shah JN, Hamerski CM, Binmoeller KF. EUS-guided treatment of gastric fundal varices with combined injection of coils and cyanoacrylate glue: a large U.S. experience over 6 years (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jun;83(6):116472. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.09.040. Epub 2015 Oct 9. PMID: 26452992.
  32. McCarty TR, Bazarbashi AN, Hathorn KE, Thompson CC, Ryou M. Combination therapy versus monotherapy for EUS-guided management of gastric varices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound. 2020 Jan-Feb;9(1):6-15. doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_37_19. PMID: 31417066; PMCID: PMC7038733.
  33. Oleas R, Robles-Medranda C. Endoscopic Treatment of Gastric and Ectopic Varices. Clin Liver Dis. 2022 Feb;26(1):39-50. doi: 10.1016/j.cld.2021.08.004. Epub 2021 Oct 27. PMID: 34802662.

Download Tables, Images & References

FUNDAMENTALS OF ERCP, SERIES #3

Endoscopic Sphincterotomy

Read Article

INTRODUCTION

After      the       first     description      of         diagnostic       ERCP  by McCune et al. in 1968,1 it was not long before biliary sphincterotomy was developed. Initial description of the technique of biliary sphincterotomy came simultaneously in 1974 from Kawai in Japan,2 and Classen in Germany.3 The general construction of the sphincterotome was a single lumen catheter with an electrocautery wire that could be “bowed” when put under tension via traction.

The development of multilumen catheters soon followed, which allowed for separate lumens for the cutting wire and either contrast injection or guidewire placement (Figure 1).  Further refinements     of the bowing sphincterotome included triple lumen catheters (which could allow contrast injection with a guidewire in the catheter at the same time),  variations in cutting wire length  and sphincterotome tip geometry, and pre-curved catheters. Specialty variations of sphincterotomes have included rotatable design, bipolar cautery, ultra-tapered tips, and the reverse-orientation “Billroth II sphincterotome”. The general structure of the endoscopic sphincterotome has been remarkably stable for the past 20 years, and it is truly impressive that this rather straightforward and inexpensive device remains the workhorse of the advanced endoscopist’s toolbox when performing ERCP.

In the past, the term “papillotomy” was often used, although is rarely used anymore in favor of the term “sphincterotomy.”

Use of Abbreviations in this Article

For the sake of brevity and clarity, the following abbreviations will be used to describe the different variations of sphincterotomy:

ES  endoscopic sphincterotomy

bES  biliary sphincterotomy

mbES  minimal biliary sphincterotomy

pES  pancreatic sphincterotomy

mpES  minor papilla sphincterotomy

NKS  needle knife sphincterotomy

NKF needle knife fistulotomy

Indications for Endoscopic Biliary Sphincterotomy (bES)

The decision to perform bES is dependent on several factors including indication for the procedure, concomitant use of anti-coagulant or anti-platelet medications,  the presence or absence of         significant coagulopathy, and anatomical considerations such bile duct, and anatomical considerations. A longer sphincterotomy may be needed for removal of large biliary stones as opposed to a shorter length for placing a stent to palliate a biliary stricture or to facilitate device access into the bile duct.7

The most common indication for bES is for the management of choledocholithiasis.8 When anatomically feasible, a longer sphincterotomy is performed for management of larger common bile duct stones.9 However, bES in conjunction with papillary balloon dilation can obviate the need for a long sphincterotomy for removal of large bile duct stones.10 Management of iatrogenic or traumatic bile leaks is a common indication for ERCP.11 Performing bES decreases the trans-papillary pressure gradient and facilitates preferential drainage of bile into the duodenum.11,12 Functional biliary sphincter disorder, formerly referred to as sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD), is another  indication for bES, although endoscopic management strategies for this set of as altered surgical anatomy or an intra-diverticular papilla.4,5,6 The length of the sphincterotomy is tailored for the procedural indication, size of the conditions remain controversial, and many centers have abandoned the entire concept of SOD.13,14 According to the Rome IV criteria, patients with a dilated common bile duct and elevated liver  function          tests     (formerly        SOD    type     1)         should            undergo ERCP with bES. Other indications for bES are papillary stenosis, a type 3 choledochal cyst          (choledochocele),       sump   syndrome,       biliary            parasitic infections, and to facilitate access for biliary interventions, most importantly biliary stent placement.15

Contraindications for Endoscopic Biliary Sphincterotomy

An uncooperative patient is a contraindication for ERCP and bES. bES is classified as a          procedure with an elevated risk of bleeding according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines.16 However, minimal EBS (mbES) with papillary dilation  has been shown  to be safe in the setting of anti-platelet or anticoagulant use, although the indications for mbES are relatively uncommon.17 Although hepatic cirrhosis has been associated with higher rates of sphincterotomy bleeding,26 this is not strictly considered an contraindication for bES. Altered patient anatomy such as a duodenal diverticulum or Billroth II gastrojejunostomy can increase the difficulty    of            bES,    however          the       procedure        can      be        safely performed in this setting.7,15

Technique of Biliary Sphincterotomy (bES) Device selection

For cannulation of native papillae, most endoscopists favor the use of a bowing sphincterotome over a straight biliary catheter because the ability to bow the tip of the device can help achieve the proper angle for cannulation, and bES can be performed without the need for device exchange. Earlier sphincterotome designs had cutting wire lengths from 15mm to 40mm, and “nose length,” also referred to as “tip length,” up to 3-4cm. Most current sphincterotomes have short tips. Current models of bowing sphincterotomes have cutting wire lengths of 20, 25, or 30mm, and selection between these lengths is mainly user preference. Shorter cutting wires can be bowed with less of the tip of the device extended beyond the working channel, while longer cutting wires generate a more severe deformation of the sphincterotome during the act of bowing. Sphincterotomes can be “long wire” or “short wire” platforms, with the latter allowing physician-controlled guidewire manipulation for cannulation which has been found to be advantageous.18

Needle       knife    sphincterotomy           (NKS) was      first     described        in            1986    by        Huibrigtse       et         al.19  Historically, this was a rarely used technique, but it has gained more importance and adoption over the last several years. A needle-knife sphincterotome is a double or triple lumen catheter with a thin electrocautery needle at the tip that can be extended and withdrawn. It is mainly used in cases of difficult biliary cannulation after standard attempts at achieving duct access have failed.

Billroth-II anatomy is less frequently encountered anymore as surgical management of peptic ulcer disease has declined since introduction of potent antisecretory medications. Still, patients with Billroth-II anatomy are still encountered and a knowledge and understanding of how to perform biliary sphincterotomy in these patients is important. A dedicated Billroth-II sphincterotome is still available from Cook Medical (Bloomington,IN) but most modern endoscopists favor the use of a rotatable sphincterotome (Autotome, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). Another effective technique in Billroth-II anatomy is to perform NKS over a previously placed biliary stent.

Landmarks for Biliary Sphincterotomy (bES) What direction?

The direction of cut of the biliary sphincterotomy is along the long axis of the intraduodenal mound. This long axis is generally called the “12 o’clock direction”, invoking the directions of a clock      face     (Figure 2A       and      2B).     It          is acceptable       for the sphincterotomy incision to be carried out anywhere from an 11 o’clock to a 1 o’clock direction, although most avoid cutting in the 1 o’clock position if possible. Sphincterotomy outside of that “wedge” may carry an increased risk of pancreatitis, perforation, and/or bleeding.

How long?

Above  the orifice of the ampulla of Vater,  the distal common bile duct (CBD) is intraduodenal. This intraduodenal portion creates a “mound” of varying size in different patients. Sometimes the mound is quite prominent, or even bulging (Figure 3A).        This     can      occur   when   a stone   is         impacted at the papillary orifice or when there is diffuse dilation of the entire   common bile duct     (CBD). In some cases, an ampullary tumor can show a large ampullary bulge   (Figure 3B).     A         chledochocele (type    III        choledochal    cyst)    is another cause   for       a          bulging            ampulla           (Figure 3D).     In many   cases,  the mound is small. As a general rule, the extent of the biliary sphincterotomy can be taken to the entire length of the mound. Caution should be taken with very small papillae, as the mound is small and the length of cut necessarily needs to be shorter. Caution also should be exercised with sphincterotomy of ampullae that are on the edge     of         or         in         a          diverticulum   (Figure 4A       and 4B)      since the risk of perforation and bleeding is felt to be higher.20 In cases such as these, consideration should be given for limited sphincterotomy or even mbES, followed by balloon sphincteroplasty, but most patients with a periampullary diverticulum can undergo a complete biliary sphincterotomy.17

Cautery settings

For most of the early years of bES, “blended” (cutting         and      coagulation) current was      used     through           the sphincterotome wire to create the cut. Care had to be taken to avoid cutting too fast (the dreaded “zipper           cut”),   which could   introduce         complications of bleeding or perforation. The introduction of a pulse cut mode in 1997 (EndoCut, ERBE, Tübingen, Germany)      was      almost revolutionary  for       the       field,   as “pulse cut” energy gradually took over as the preferred energy mode for biliary sphincterotomy. Modern endoscopic generators allow cutting and coagulating current to be used in an alternating manner during endoscopic sphincterotomy.

Troubleshooting

A common challenge is for the cutting wire to not be in the ideal 12 o’clock position prior to initiating the sphincterotomy. Generally, it is acceptable for the wire to be in the range of 11 o’clock to 1 o’clock, and to cut with the “side of the wire” to complete the sphincterotomy. However, if the orientation is still not adequate, sometimes the distal 3cm of the sphincterotome needs to be “groomed” to achieve the ideal direction. In the days before all sphincterotomes were “pre-curved” at the factory, endoscopists routinely groomed the tip of the sphincterotome.21 The other approach to improving sphincterotome wire orientation prior to cutting is to transition the endoscope from “short” to “long” position (Figure 5).    In         the            short    position,          the       endoscope       is         aligned along the lesser curvature of the stomach, in the long position the endoscope is aligned along the greater curvature of the stomach. Adjusting the endoscope position to the long position will typically correct an unacceptably rightward orientation and bring the cutting wire more into a more leftward, and hence safer, direction. If continued attempts at orienting the ampullary mound fail, one can also do a minimal biliary sphincterotomy followed by balloon sphincteroplasty.

Technique of Minimal Biliary

In some cases, one cannot make as long as a sphincterotomy as one would like. Anatomic causes of this situation include periampullary diverticulum, obscured ampullary landmarks, Billroth-II anatomy, or an extremely small papilla. Impaired coagulation causes include the patient actively taking anti-coagulants or anti-platelet agents which cannot be stopped, chronic renal failure, and hepatic cirrhosis with elevated INR not responsive to vitamin K replacement and/or thrombocytopenia. In these situations, mbES can be performed followed by balloon sphincteroplasty (Figure 6A, B, C,        D).       mbES  plus     balloon            sphincteroplasty         has an excellent safety record in regard to postprocedural bleeding, and still allows biliary therapy to be performed with a high degree of success. The mbES  is         quite            short    (about  2-3mm),          and      the       incision           very intentionally is not taken to its maximum. Dilation of         the       papillary         orifice is            accomplished  with a biliary balloon, the size of which is chosen to match the size of the distal CBD. An 8 or 10mm dilation balloon is most commonly used for biliary sphincteroplasty. The balloon is positioned across the           papillary            orifice and      2-3       mL      of         contrast           is         first     injected            into      the       balloon            to         facilitate         fluoroscopic            visualization.  Then    the       balloon            is         inflated           with            water to target diameter and held for 1-3 minutes, with longer dilation times favored for higher stone burden or larger diameter stones. The risk of a rare indication for pES. According to the Rome IV      criteria,           P-SOD can            be        defined            as         documented    episodes of recurrent acute pancreatitis, abnormal sphincter manometry study, and exclusion of other causes postbES bleeding is greatly lowered with the mbES technique.

Pancreatic Sphincterotomy Indications 

pES can be performed on both the major and minor papilla, depending on the indication for the procedure and ductal anatomy.22 Functional pancreatic    sphincter  of  Oddi disorder  (P-SOD)  is of pancreatitis such as alcohol, gallstones, medications, or metabolic derangements.14 There is a paucity of high-quality data regarding the efficacy  of pES for  P-SOD. A systematic review in 2006 revealed a

69% sustained symptomatic improvement from pES based on 5 non-randomized studies with 109 patients.23 Prospective studies have shown an almost 50% recurrence rate of acute pancreatitis, despite undergoing pES in the setting of P-SOD.24 Again, the entire concept of SOD is highly controversial and many centers have abandoned this notion.

A primary indication for pES is in the endoscopic management of chronic pancreatitis. Commonly, pES is utilized in conjunction with other endoscopic modalities such as pancreatic stricture dilation, balloon extraction of pancreatic stones, pancreatoscopy           and      pancreatic       duct     (PD)    stent placement to facilitate drainage and stricture remodeling.25 All of these are widely accepted indications for pES.

Pancreas divisum is a congenital condition resulting from an embryologic failure of fusion of the dorsal and ventral aspects of the pancreas. Acquired pancreas divisum can be seen in some cases of pancreatic duct obstruction in the head of the pancreas.27,28 In both situations, the majority of pancreatic drainage is via the pancreatic duct of Santorini and thence through the minor papilla.29 Pancreatic ductal obstruction in conjunction with minor papillary stenosis has been implicated in recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, and chronic pancreatic-type pain syndrome.30 Endoscopic mpES has been utilized for the management of pancreas divisum. An early study by           Lehman           et         al.        showed            a          significant benefit from    mpES in patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis in distinction to those with chronic pancreatitis or chronic pain.31 However, a 2012 literature review showed a widely variable range of symptomatic improvement after mpES, ranging from 58-92%.32 Contraindications to pancreatic sphincterotomy are similar to bES including uncontrolled coagulopathy or patient instability. Given the heightened risk of pancreatitis related to pES and mpES, these procedures should be performed by interventional endoscopists   with     a          significant       level    of training in pancreatic endoscopic therapy.

Major Papilla Pancreatic Sphincterotomy

The direction of pancreatic sphincterotomy at the major papilla is generally in the 12 to 1 o’clock direction. The length of the incision is different from biliary sphincterotomy because the PD dives deep into the retroperitoneal space as opposed to the case of the distal bile duct which has an intraduodenal segment prior to entering the retroperitoneal space.

Some         ERCP  specialists       find     it          easier  to         do        a pancreatic sphincterotomy after a previous biliary sphincterotomy, since the septum is exposed, and a more precise view of the pancreatic sphincter is available   (FIG    7A and      B).       The      septum is         incised a          few millimeters and the results examined.

One approach to pES is to cut a few millimeters, then push in the sphincterotome 1-2cm, halfbow the cutting wire, and then draw out the half-bowed sphincterotome. This is called the “sizing maneuver”. If a bowed sphincterotome can be pulled out with little resistance, then this can be considered as an adequate pancreatic sphincterotomy. If there is still resistance to pulling through a bowed sphincterotome, then the pES can be taken another 1-2mm, and the sizing maneuver repeated as needed. Excessive deep cutting of the PD sphincter may result in duodenal perforation.

Previous bES is not a requirement for doing pES, however. A pES can be performed with an intact biliary sphincter. The direction of the cut is 12 to 1 o’clock, and the sizing maneuver described above can be performed to estimate adequacy of the pES.

Another method of performing pES is needle knife incision over a previously placed pancreatic stent. In this technique, a needle knife incision is performed along the course of a PD stent. The procedure is somewhat easier after previous bES. The pancreatic sphincter can be visualized and cut with the needle knife. For pES over a PD stent, the sizing maneuver is not performed (since a bowingtype         sphincterotome  is not  employed).

Minor Papilla Pancreatic Sphincterotomy (mpES)

Minor papilla pancreatic sphincterotomy (mpES)  is performed in cases of pancreas divisum anatomy with recurrent acute pancreatitis, and on occasion for pancreatic endotherapy in non-divisum anatomy, but with a completed obstructed main PD of the duct of Wirsung (“acquired pancreas divisum”).28    Like     pES     at         the       major  papilla, mpES can be performed with either a bowing sphincterotome, or with a needle knife over a previously placed PD stent. Also similar to pES at the major papilla, stepwise incisions are performed with a bowing sphincterotome, or a needle knife over a previously placed PD stent. The sizing maneuver is also possible at the minor papilla if the bowing sphincterotome is used. In some cases of divisum, particularly in acquired    divisum,          the       orifice of         the       minor  papilla may be quite stenotic, and although a guidewire can be advanced into the dorsal PD, a sphincterotome cannot           be        advanced         through           the       tight            orifice, making            correct placement of the cutting wire impossible. In these rare cases, a needle-knife sphincterotomy can be performed using the guidewire as a guide. This can open the sphincter enough to eventually get either a bowing sphincterotome into position, or to place a 4 or 5 French pancreatic stent, over which a needle knife mpES can be performed.

Transpancreatic Biliary Sphincterotomy for Biliary Access

A technique has been described by Goff describing biliary access after performing a limited pancreatic sphincterotomy.33 This technique may be applied if there is difficulty obtaining selective access  to the bile duct. In this situation, the guidewire has been deeply inserted into the main pancreatic duct, and the bowing sphincterotome is used to make a somewhat pancreatic sphincterotomy while pulling the sphincterotome in a biliary direction i.e. towards 11 o’clock. This often will open the distal bile duct, which can then be cannulated with the      assistance        of a          floppy wire.    The endoscopist     may elect to place a temporary pancreatic stent (for example, 4 French x 11cm)  after    this      access maneuver, but this is not universally performed.

Needle Knife Biliary Sphincterotomy (NKS) and Needle Knife Fistulotomy (NKF)

Needle knife biliary sphincterotomy is an essential tool for all ERCP specialists. The ability to perform the NKS technique can greatly increase the rate of successful deep biliary cannulation in patients who have failed prior cannulation attempts with standard techniques. NKS is typically used in cases of failed biliary deep cannulation, although it may be used as a primary technique in ampullae that contain an impacted stone, or when the papillary orifice is pointing   in an unfavorable direction.  There is a related technique, called needle knife fistulotomy     (NKF), in  which  the  initial  site  of  cutting is  above, rather  than  at,  the  papillary orifice (Figure 8). Some   practitioners   favor   NKF    over     NKS because of a belief that this can lower the incidence of post-ERCP      pancreatitis (PEP). Emerging        data     suggests that NKS or NKF-associated PEP may be more related to previous unsuccessful cannulation attempts rather than the NKS itself. The authors prefer NKS in most situations, reserving NKF in cases of very bulging ampullae or in situations where  the papillary orifice is not easily  found   or standard tools cannot be properly oriented.

The technique of NKS and NKF is the same, differing only in the initial site of initiation of the incision. For both techniques, a long mucosal incision is carried out in the same direction as a standard wire guided sphincterotome performed with a bowing sphincterotome. The cut is taken in the 11-12 o’clock direction until most of the mucosa overlying the intraduodenal mound is incised. In some cases of a very bulging ampulla, the initial incision may gain access to the bile duct, and this event is heralded by a large discharge of bile. More commonly, however, the technique of NKS is a two-step process: initial mucosal incision followed      by        identification  and      cutting into      the exposed intraduodenal bile duct (the “Huibregtse technique”).

The initial mucosal incision should be long enough to expose the underlying biliary structures in the intraduodenal segment. After the initial mucosal incision is made, the edges of the cut can be seen to retract laterally, exposing the inner structures. We have found that success is more predictably achieved by taking a “visual approach” to identifying the bile duct after adequate initial mucosal incision. The needle knife device is used to make a vertical incision into a tubular structure that might be found. This tubular structure typically is white or tan in colon with a “matte” rather      than glossy  surface (Figure 9).        In         cases   of         non-dilated distal bile ducts (for example, with malignant        biliary obstruction),   the       intraduodenal  bile duct is quite narrow, and visualization may be challenging. Making stepwise vertical incisions followed by gentle probing with the guidewire in the presumed biliary direction will often allow biliary access. If not, repeating some more short vertical incisions followed by more gentle probing with the guidewire is the next step. In some cases, despite repeated incisions and probing, deep biliary cannulation cannot be achieved. In such cases, it may be reasonable to stop cannulation attempts, and bring the patient back on a different day for a repeat attempt at biliary access. At the time of repeat   ERCP, the biliary orifice is         often    obvious,          and cannulation is achieved promptly. If the biliary endoscopist is comfortable with NKS, it is important to not over-persist with regular cannulation attempts before changing to NKS. One reason for this is that persistence can increase the risk of PEP. Another reason is that persistent cannulation attempts prior to NKS can actually decrease the success rate of subsequent successful NKS. This appears to be due to tissue edema or even inadvertent submucosal injections which obscures the submucosal structures after initial incision.

NKS can be performed as a “freehand” procedure or can be performed following placement of a pancreatic duct stent. Both techniques are reasonable and in experienced hands, safe.

Adverse Events Related to Endoscopic Sphincterotomy

It is paramount for an endoscopist performing ERCP to be familiar with adverse events associated with NKS, to take necessary preventative steps, and to promptly recognize and manage any adverse events that do arise.34 Post-sphincterotomy hemorrhage (PSH) occurs at a rate of 1-48%.35 PSH     is            defined according to timing and severity.  Immediate PSH occurs during the index ERCP, while delayed PSH can occur hours to days later.5,35 Cotton et al. described mild PSH as clinical evidence of bleeding with less than  3  gm/dL drop in  hemoglobin without need for transfusion, moderate PSH as requiring less than 4 units of packed red blood cells without need for angiography or surgery, and severe PSH as requiring 5 units or more of packed red blood cells or the need for angiographic or surgical intervention.5,35 In practice, however, any PSH that requires blood transfusion is considered to be           significant. Freeman et al.’s landmark study8 found that definite risk factors for PSH     are       pre-procedural coagulopathy, use of anti-coagulants within 3 days of performing ES, ascending cholangitis as an indication for ERCP, immediate bleeding during initial ES, and low endoscopic case volumes on the part of the sphincterotomy. The tissue effect that one is looking      for       (aside  from            cessation         of         bleeding)         is         creation of a submucosal “bleb” with injection. Use of a metal sheath injection needle (CarrLocke   injection            needle, Steris,  Mentor OH)     is         advantageous as there is less likelihood that the needle sheath will deform or “kink” as compared with plastic sheathed needles.

Thermal therapy to treat bleeding with bipolar cautery, monopolar cautery, argon plasma coagulation, and hemostatic clips have been used for control of PSH.35,38 However, manipulation of clips or stiff hemostasis probes can be quite challenging through a duodenoscope. More recently, placement of fully covered self-expanding metal stents has been shown to treat PSH by creating a tamponade effect on the sphincterotomy site. Stent placement is highly  efficacious as both a primary modality for PSH or as a rescue therapy when other therapies fail.39,40 A feared complication of ES is perforation, the incidence of which is approximately 1% based on older data, but is probably much less in the current era.41        A classification  of ERCP-related  perforations was proposed by Stapfer et al.42 Type I injury is duodenal wall trauma from the duodenoscope and is typically located on the duodenal wall

opposite to the ampulla. Type II injury is a periampullary perforation related to ES and is the most common type ranging from 15-68% of cases.43 Type III injuries are ductal in location and related to instrumentation such as wire perforation. Type IV injury represents retroperitoneal air alone.

Patient-related factors for sphincterotomy perforation    are       biliary sphincter disorder           (SOD) and      a dilated common bile duct. Procedural related risk factors are performing a pre-cut sphincterotomy and longer sphincterotomy length.44 Retroperitoneal perforations can be graded based on the consensus definition        by Cotton et         al.:       mild    is         low      volume            leakage of contrast with medical treatment less than 3 days, moderate is with medical treatment 4-10 days, and severe is medical treatment lasting longer than 10 days with possible percutaneous or surgical intervention.5 In common practice, the Cotton classification  is no longer  used.               

Prompt recognition of a perforation is of utmost importance to minimize leakage of enteral contents into the retroperitoneal space. The use of carbon dioxide   insufflation is         essential          when   performing      ERCP  (Figure 10)       as         this      has been    shown  to         be        associated with less pain, abdominal distention, and adverse events.45,46 Medical management of a perforation includes supportive care, bowel rest, and intravenous antibiotics.47 There is limited evidence for the use of endoscopic clips for the closure of sphincterotomy related perforations.48,49 When a peri-ampullary perforation is recognized, immediate diversion of biliary contents should be initiated by placing a biliary stent, or on rare occasions a nasobiliary drain.50 Surgical management is required when patients do not respond to medical and endoscopic modalities or when the presentation is delayed and there is  significant retroperitoneal contamination.50 Fortunately, surgery is rarely required in these situations. Post-ERCP  pancreatitis (PEP)51,52 has been associated with biliary and pancreatic sphincterotomy. The likelihood of developing PEP is related to a combination of operator, patient, and procedural related factors and the contribution of sphincterotomy itself is unclear. For example, although NKS has been implicated in the development of PEP, this may be due to the delayed use of this technique resulting in multiple failed cannulation attempts rather than the NKS itself.53 In a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, early pre-cut NKS did not increase the risk for pancreatitis.54 The management of acute post-ERCP pancreatitis is comparable with other etiologies of acute pancreatitis.

Other reported complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy are ascending cholangitis and delayed papillary stenosis.8,55 Papillary stenosis of   the       biliary orifice after    ES       can      result   in         biliary symptoms and choledocholithiasis.56 There do not    appear to         be        any      significant long-term        biliary problems, including the development of biliary malignancy, in patients that have undergone biliary sphincterotomy, even more than 25 years later. Patients who have undergone biliary sphincterotomy and have intact gallbladders are at risk for later acute cholecystitis, probably due to bacterial access to the gallbladder, but only if gallbladder stones are present. The            complication   rate      specifically     for       pES     is            approximately 10%.57 Recurrent acute pancreatitis may be a complication related to post-ES pancreatic papillary stenosis.25

Training and Competency in Endoscopic Sphincterotomy

Competency in bES requires formal training and an adequate number of supervised procedures. Most gastroenterology trainees will not attain this level of competency during their general gastroenterology fellowship and an additional year of advanced endoscopic training is optimal.58 The minimum number of procedures for independent practice will vary depending on the exposure and individual skill of the trainee, however, there have been standards proposed by various endoscopy organizations.

As per the ASGE, a minimum of 200 proctored ERCP procedures and 80 biliary sphincterotomies should be performed prior to independent practice.59 The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the UK Joint Advisory Group both suggest a minimum of 300 proctored ERCP examinations during training, however, neither group specifies the number of bES needed for independent practice.60,61 Finally, the Canadian Association for Gastroenterology recommends a minimum of 200 supervised ERCP procedures with 80 biliary sphincterotomies performed in the training setting.62

Despite the published standards for bES training, the true minimum number needed for competency remains unclear. A 2019 multi-center cohort study involving 32 advanced endoscopy programs in the United States reported that 120 bES are required for competency based on a standardized assessment tool.63 However, a prior study by the same authors in 2016 revealed a broad range of case numbers needed to attain competency in basic ERCP skills. Furthermore, none of the trainees in this study were determined to be proficient in bES, thus contributing to the lack of clarity on training metrics for this subject.64 Pre-cut needle-knife sphincterotomy (NKS), needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF), and trans-pancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) are important skills for the “full service” ERCP specialist.65 Despite numerous studies assuring the safety and efficacy of these techniques, the learning curve is less well studied.65-67 For NKS, the reported learning curve has been widely variable, ranging from 13 to 100 cases for competence.68,69 Similarly, for NKF there is a wide reported range of cases from 20 to 100 prior to gaining mastery.70,71 For performance of pancreatic endotherapy, mastery of pES is an important skill for an ERCP specialist. However, there are no standardized guidelines regarding gaining competency for pES. Therefore, it is preferable for pES to be performed by endoscopists with specialized training in pancreatic endoscopic therapy.

CONCLUSION

ES is a vital tool for all interventional endoscopists who plan to perform ERCP with biliary and pancreatic interventions. One must be wellinformed on the accepted indications and adverse events related to this procedure. An advanced endoscopist must be skilled at treating complications related to ES. Furthermore, additional endoscopic training to perform ES should be pursued prior to independent practice, ideally in the setting of a formal advanced endoscopy training program. Additionally, one must understand when an ES in not technically feasible due to medical and anatomic considerations. 

The minimal sphincterotomy plus papillary balloon dilation technique is very important in cases when biliary sphincterotomy is necessary, but the patient has an uncorrectable coagulopathy, is concurrently using of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or has anatomic constraints to full sphincterotomy. When traditional access to the bile or pancreatic ducts is not technically feasible, it is imperative that one is skilled in the use of pre-cut ES techniques such as NKS to help facilitate cannulation. Pancreatic sphincterotomy of the major or minor papilla is also an important technique but should be restricted to ERCP practitioners with special expertise in pancreatic endotherapy.

References

  1. McCune WS, Shorb PE, Moscovitz H. Endoscopic cannulation of the ampulla of Vater: a preliminary report. Ann Surg 1968;167:752–756.
  2. Kawai K, Akasaka Y, Murakami K, Tada M, Koli Y. Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the ampulla of Vater. Gastrointest Endosc 1974;20:148–151.
  3. Classen M, Demling L. Endoskopische Sphinkterotomie der Papilla Vateri und Steinextraktion aus dem Ductus choledochus. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1974;99:496–497.
  4. Adler DG, Baron TH, Davila RE, et al. ASGE guideline: the role of ERCP in diseases of the biliary tract and the pancreas.
    Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62(1):1-8. doi:10.1016/j. gie.2005.04.015
  5. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37(3):383393. doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(91)70740-2
  6. Dumonceau JM, Kapral C, Aabakken L, et al. ERCPrelated adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal
    Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2020;52(2):127-149. doi:10.1055/a-1075-4080
  7. Köksal AŞ, Eminler AT, Parlak E. Biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy: Techniques and complications. World J Clin Cases. 2018;6(16):1073-1086. doi:10.12998/wjcc.v6.i16.1073
  8. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(13):909-918. doi:10.1056/ NEJM199609263351301
  9. Ryozawa S, Itoi T, Katanuma A, et al. Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for endoscopic sphincterotomy. Dig Endosc. 2018;30(2):149-173. doi:10.1111/den.13001
  10. Minami A, Hirose S, Nomoto T, Hayakawa S. Small sphincterotomy combined with papillary dilation with large balloon permits retrieval of large stones without mechanical lithotripsy. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(15):2179-2182. doi:10.3748/wjg.v13.i15.2179
  11. Kaffes AJ, Hourigan L, Luca ND, Byth K, Williams SJ, Bourke MJ. Impact of endoscopic intervention in 100 patients with suspected postcholecystectomy bile leak. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61(2):269-275. doi:10.1016/S0016-5107(04)02468-X
  12. Davids PH, Rauws EA, Tytgat GN, Huibregtse K. Postoperative bile leakage: endoscopic management. Gut. 1992;33(8):1118-1122. doi:10.1136/gut.33.8.1118
  13. Cotton PB, Durkalski V, Romagnuolo J, et al. Effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy for suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction on pain-related disability following cholecystectomy: the EPISOD randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311(20):2101. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.5220
  14. Cotton PB, Elta GH, Carter CR, Pasricha PJ, Corazziari ES. Rome IV. Gallbladder and sphincter of Oddi disorders.
    Gastroenterology. 2016;150:1420-1429. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.033
  15. Dayyeh BKA, Baron TH. Endoscopic sphincterotomy: Indications, techniques, and adverse events. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;0(0). doi:10.1016/j.tgie.2012.04.001
  16. Acosta RD, Abraham NS, Chandrasekhara V, et al. The management of antithrombotic agents for patients undergoing GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(1):3-16. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.09.035
  17. Mok SRS, Arif M, Diehl DL, Khara HS, Ho HC, Elfant AB. Safety and efficacy of minimal biliary sphincterotomy with papillary balloon dilation (m-EBS+EPBD) in patients using clopidogrel or anticoagulation. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5(3):E157-E164. doi:10.1055/s-0042-120225
  18. Srinivasan I, Freeman ML. Guidewire trauma: a key component of post-ERCP pancreatitis that is best controlled by the endoscopist. Am J Gastro. 2016 1;111:1848-50.
  19. Huibregtse K, Katon RM, Tytgat GN. Precut papillotomy via fine-needle knife papillotome: a safe and effective technique. Gastrointest Endosc. 1986 Dec 1;32(6):403-5.
  20. Mu P, Yue P, Li F, Lin Y, Liu Y, Meng W, Zhou W, Li X. Does periampullary diverticulum affect ERCP cannulation and post-procedure complications? An up-to-date metaanalysis. The Turk J Gastro. 2020 Mar;31(3):193.
  21. Seibert DG, Matulis SR. Consistent improvement in sphincterotome orientation with manual grooming. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42(4):325-9.
  22. Sherman S, Lehman GA. Endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy: techniques and complications. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1998;8(1):115-124.
  23. Sgouros SN, Pereira SP. Systematic review: sphincter of Oddi dysfunction – non-invasive diagnostic methods and long-term outcome after endoscopic sphincterotomy – Aliment Pharm and Therap. 2006;24:237-246
  24. Coté GA, Imperiale TF, Schmidt SE, et al. Similar efficacies of biliary, with or without pancreatic, sphincterotomy in treatment of idiopathic recurrent acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology. 2012;143(6):1502-1509.e1. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2012.09.006
  25. Buscaglia JM. Pancreatic sphincterotomy: Technique, indications, and complications. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(30):4064. doi:10.3748/wjg.v13.i30.4064
  26. Mashiana HS, Dhaliwal AS, Sayles H, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in cirrhosis – a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on adverse events. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;10(11):354-366. doi:10.4253/wjge.v10.i11.354
  27. Cotton PB. Congenital anomaly of pancreas divisum as cause of obstructive pain and pancreatitis. Gut. 1980;21(2):105-doi:10.1136/gut.21.2.105
  28. Warshaw AL, Cambria RP. False pancreas divisum. Acquired pancreatic duct obstruction simulating the congenital anomaly. Ann Surg. 1984;200(5):595-599. doi:10.1097/00000658-198411000-00007
  29. Michailidis L, Aslam B, Grigorian A, Mardini H. The efficacy of endoscopic therapy for pancreas divisum: a meta-analysis. Ann Gastroenterol. 2017;30(5):550-558. doi:10.20524/aog.2017.0159
  30. M Delhaye CM, re. Pancreatic ductal system obstruction and acute recurrent pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14(7):1027-1033. doi:10.3748/wjg.14.1027
  31. Lehman GA, Sherman S, Nisi R, Hawes RH. Pancreas divisum: results of minor papilla sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;39(1):1-8. doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(93)70001-2
  32. Fujimori N, Igarashi H, Asou A, et al. Endoscopic approach through the minor papilla for the management of pancreatic diseases. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;5(3):81-88.
  33. Goff JS. Long-term experience with the transpancreatic sphincter pre-cut approach to biliary sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999 Nov 1;50(5):642-5.
  34. Chandrasekhara V, Khashab MA, Muthusamy VR, et al. Adverse events associated with ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(1):32-47. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.051
  35. Ferreira LEVVC, Baron TH. Post-sphincterotomy bleeding: who, what, when, and how. Am J Gastro. 2007;102(12):28502858.
  36. Wilcox CM, Canakis J, Mönkemüller KE, Bondora AW, Geels W. Patterns of bleeding after endoscopic sphincterotomy, the subsequent risk of bleeding, and the role of epinephrine injection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(2):244-248. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04058.x
  37. Leung JWC, Chan FKL, Sung JJY, Chung SCS. Endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced hemorrhage: A study of risk factors and the role of epinephrine injection. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42(6):550-554. doi:10.1016/S0016-5107(95)70009-9
  38. Baron TH, Norton ID, Herman L. Endoscopic hemoclip placement for post-sphincterotomy bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52(5):662.doi:10.1067/mge.2000.108621
  39. Cochrane J, Schlepp G. Comparing endoscopic intervention against fully covered self-expanding metal stent placement for post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleed (CEASE Study). Endosc Int Open. 2016;04(12):E1261-E1264. doi:10.1055/s-0042-118227
  40. Canena J, Liberato M, Horta D, Romão C, Coutinho A. Short-term stenting using fully covered self-expandable metal stents for treatment of refractory biliary leaks, postsphincterotomy bleeding, and perforations. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(1):313-324. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2368-3
  41. Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc.2004;60(5):721-731. doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02169-8
  42. Stapfer M, Selby RR, Stain SC, et al. Management of duodenal perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy. Ann Surg.
    2000;232(2):191-198. doi:10.1097/00000658-200008000-00007
  43. Trikudanathan G, Hoversten P, Arain M, Attam R, Freeman M, Amateau S. The use of fully-covered selfexpanding metallic stents for intraprocedural management of post-sphincterotomy perforations: a single-center study (with video). Endosc Int Open. 2018;06(01):E73-E77. doi:10.1055/s-0043-121884
  44. Enns R, Eloubeidi MA, Mergener K, et al. ERCP-related perforations: risk factors and management. Endoscopy. 2002;34(4):293-298. doi:10.1055/s-2002-23650
  45. Bretthauer M, Seip B, Aasen S, Kordal M, Hoff G, Aabakken L. Carbon dioxide insufflation for more comfortable endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. Endoscopy. 2007;39(01):58-64. doi:10.1055/s-2006-945036
  46. Lee JH, Kedia P, Stavropoulos SN, Carr-Locke D. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Management of Perforations in Gastrointestinal Tract: Expert Review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(11):2252-2261.e2. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2021.06.045
  47. Kumbhari V, Sinha A, Reddy A, et al. Algorithm for the management of ERCP-related perforations. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(5):934-943. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.09.039
  48. Katsinelos P, Paroutoglou G, Papaziogas B, Beltsis A, Dimiropoulos S, Atmatzidis K. Treatment of a duodenal perforation secondary to an endoscopic sphincterotomy with clips. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11(39):6232-6234. doi:10.3748/wjg.v11.i39.6232
  49. Baron TH, Gostout CJ, Herman L. Hemoclip repair of a sphincterotomy-induced duodenal perforation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52(4):566-568. doi:10.1016/S0016-5107(00)70032-0
  50. Howard TJ, Tan T, Lehman GA, et al. Classification and management of perforations complicating endoscopic sphincterotomy. Surgery. 1999;126(4):658-665. doi:10.1016/ S0039-6060(99)70119-4
  51. Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL, et al. Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(1):139-147. doi:10.1111/ j.1572-0241.2006.00380.x
  52. Chen JJ, Wang XM, Liu XQ, et al. Risk factors for postERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review of clinical trials with a large sample size in the past 10 years. Eur J Med Res. 2014;19(1):26. doi:10.1186/2047-783X-19-26
  53. Bailey AA, Bourke MJ, Kaffes AJ, Byth K, Lee EY, Williams SJ. Needle-knife sphincterotomy: factors predicting its use and the relationship with post-ERCP pancreatitis (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(2):266-271. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2009.09.024
  54. Sundaralingam P, Masson P, Bourke MJ. Early precut sphincterotomy does not increase risk during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with difficult biliary access: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(10):1722-1729. e2. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2015.06.035
  55. Rösch W, Riemann JF, Lux G, Lindner HG. Long-term follow-up after endoscopic sphincterotomy. Endoscopy. 1981;13(04):152-153. doi:10.1055/s-2007-1021671
  56. Prat F, Malak NA, Pelletier G, et al. Biliary symptoms and complications more than 8 years after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis. Gastroenterology.
    1996;110(3):894-899. doi:10.1053/gast.1996.v110. pm8608900
  57. Asbun HJ, Rossi RL, Heiss FW, Shea JA. Acute relapsing pancreatitis as a complication of papillary stenosis after endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gastroenterology.
    1 9 9 3 ; 1 0 4 ( 6 ) : 1 8 1 4 – 1 8 1 7 . d o i : 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / 0 0 1 6 -5085(93)90663-w
  58. Wani S, Keswani RN, Petersen B, et al. Training in EUS and ERCP: standardizing methods to assess competence.
    Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87(6):1371-1382. doi:10.1016/j. gie.2018.02.009
  59. Faulx AL, Lightdale JR, Acosta RD, et al. Guidelines for privileging, credentialing, and proctoring to perform GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(2):273-281. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2016.10.036
  60. Johnson G, Webster G, Boškoski I, et al. Curriculum for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) position statement. Endoscopy. 2021;53(10):1071-1087. doi:10.1055/a-1537-8999
  61. Siau K, Keane MG, Steed H, et al. UK Joint Advisory Group consensus statements for training and certification in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endosc Int Open. 2022;10(1):E37-E49. doi:10.1055/a-1629-7540
  62. Springer J, Enns R, Romagnuolo J, Ponich T, Barkun AN, Armstrong D. Canadian credentialing guidelines for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Can J Gastroenterol J Can Gastroenterol. 2008;22(6):547-551. doi:10.1155/2008/582787
  63. Wani S, Han S, Simon V, et al. Setting minimum standards for training in EUS and ERCP: results from a prospective multicenter study evaluating learning curves and competence among advanced endoscopy trainees. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89(6):1160-1168.e9. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.030
  64. Wani S, Hall M, Wang AY, et al. Variation in learning curves and competence for ERCP among advanced endoscopy trainees by using cumulative sum analysis.
    Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(4):711-719.e11. doi:10.1016/j. gie.2015.10.022
  65. Swan MP, Alexander S, Moss A, Williams SJ, Ruppin D, Hope R, Bourke MJ. Needle knife sphincterotomy does not increase the risk of pancreatitis in patients with difficult biliary cannulation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(4):430-436.e1. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2012.12.017
  66. Pécsi D, Farkas N, Hegyi P, et al. Transpancreatic sphincterotomy has a higher cannulation success rate than needle-knife precut papillotomy – a meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2017;49(9):874-887. doi:10.1055/s-0043-111717
  67. Lim JU, Joo KR, Cha JM, et al. Early use of needle-knife fistulotomy is safe in situations where difficult biliary cannulation is expected. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57(5):1384-1390. doi:10.1007/s10620-012-2030-x
  68. Li JW, Ang TL, Kam JW, Kwek ABE, Teo EK. The learning curve for needle knife precut sphincterotomy revisited. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2017;5(8):1116-1122. doi:10.1177/2050640617701808
  69. Akaraviputh T, Lohsiriwat V, Swangsri J, Methasate A, Leelakusolvong S, Lertakayamanee N. The learning curve for safety and success of precut sphincterotomy for therapeutic ERCP: a single endoscopist’s experience. Endoscopy. 2008;40(6):513-516. doi:10.1055/s-2007-995652
  70. Lopes L, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Rolanda C. Gaining competence in needle-knife fistulotomy – can I begin on my own? Endosc Int Open. 2016;04(04):E383-E388. doi:10.1055/s-0041-109399
  71. Fernandes J, Canena J, Alexandrino G, et al. Outcomes of single-endoscopist-performed needle-knife fistulotomy for selective biliary access in 842 consecutive patients: learning curve and changes over a 14-year period in a retrospective study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2021;56(11):1363-1370.doi:10.1080/00365521.2021.1958369

Download Tables, Images & References

NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #228

Nutrition Issues in Gastroenterology : A Tale of Two Decades

Read Article

Well, it’s time to hang up my nutrition series editor spurs this December 2022. To say it has been an honor and a privilege to be the nutrition series editor for Practical Gastroenterology the past 20 years would be quite an understatement.

First, I must thank Dr. David Peura for suggesting me for the position so many years ago, as well as encouraging me to take it on. Second, it was my very good fortune to have had Dorine Kitay as the editor above me for many years, who also became my very dear friend. After Dorine retired, Vivian Mahl and her sister Adrien took over, and along with James Green, these three have been a fun, supportive, and professional team to work with. The series has not only enriched my professional career, but also enhanced my own clinical practice immeasurably; I learned something from each author that I could take back to the bedside. It has been a pleasure to work with so many gifted clinicians and writers over the years from around the globe, generously sharing their clinical and intellectual expertise with the readers of this series.

Many doors were opened to me following publication of articles in the series. The articles led to invitations to present at the regional, state, national, and international levels. I have been an expert witness more than once because of an article written for this series (although I must admit, it is not something I enjoy, as someone invariably loses, and the “Pollyanna” in me is saddened by that). Desperate patients or their families and friends have contacted me (usually calling me at home on a Friday night or weekend afternoon), frantic for help for a loved one suffering from a particular condition that was covered in a published article – it has been very humbling to say the least. 

To the authors who have written for me, I thank you for making this series such a success; it would not have been possible without you! The same goes for the many various clinicians who have given of their time and sage advice in reviewing the articles over the years. And I would be remiss if I did not mention my wonderful husband, a gifted writer in his profession as an attorney, who has proofed more than one paragraph or two over these many years. Finally, I want to thank the readers of this series, and the clinicians who have contacted me, or approached me at conferences, just to express their gratitude for the nutrition series and to tell me that the articles have been helpful in the care of their patients—that is what kept me going for so long. A compilation of the entire series from January 2003 to December 2022 can be found on-line for the time being at: ginutrition.virginia.edu (see titles of entire series below in Table 1); the series from 2014 onward can also be found at the Practical Gastroenterology website at: practicalgastro.com.

Changing of the Guard

I am delighted to introduce the two incoming nutrition series co-editors who will begin the new nutrition series in the journal, “Nutrition Reviews in Gastroenterology.

Please welcome:

Elizabeth Wall, MS, RDN-AP, CNSC, LDN

Elizabeth Wall has been an Advanced Clinical Specialist on the Adult GI/Nutrition Support Service at The University of Chicago Medicine for the past 35 years. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Dietetics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a Master of Science degree in Human Nutrition and Nutritional Biology from the University of Chicago and completed a dietetic internship at the Massachusetts General Hospital. Elizabeth’s scope of clinical practice includes management of patients who require short and long term enteral and parenteral nutrition support, as well as the provision of medical nutrition therapies for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, malabsorptive disorders, and short bowel syndrome/intestinal failure. In addition to her clinical responsibilities, Elizabeth is an active participant in human research protocols and has served as a faculty member at DePaul University and the Dietitians in Nutrition Support’s Advance Practice Residency. She is a member of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, and is active in national and international professional workgroups related to short bowel syndrome/intestinal failure. Elizabeth is the author of many book chapters, peer reviewed articles, and has presented on many GI/ nutrition support related topics at local, national, and international symposia.

Neha D. Shah MPH, RD, CNSC, CHES

Neha has been specializing in nutrition for GI disorders for over 15 years. She started her career as an inpatient dietitian at Stanford Health Care, counseling patients at the bedside while they recovered from gastrointestinal surgery. She later joined the Stanford Digestive Health Center to inaugurate and build Nutrition Services for the GI and Liver Clinics. There, she co-led the development of the outpatient Nutrition Support and Intestinal Rehabilitation programs to streamline specialized care to those on home nutrition support and those with short bowel syndrome. She also served as the Intestinal Transplant dietitian to provide pre-and post-transplant care. She is now at the University of California, San Francisco, specializing in GI, IBD, and intestinal rehabilitation. Neha also owns a GI and liver nutrition private practice, Neha Shah Nutrition, to bring specialized nutrition care to the community. In addition to patient care, Neha has authored over 20 articles in reputable journals related to GI nutrition. To highlight some of her roles in professional organizations, she is Director of Operations and Treasurer of the International South Asian IBD Alliance and is a member of the Crohn’s and Colitis Medical Advisory Committee of Northern California. Her goal is to continue to be involved with GI initiatives, including writing and publishing articles to move nutrition care forward in this patient population. As you can see, the new nutrition series will be in good and capable hands.

Download Tables, Images & References

MEDICAL BULLETIN BOARD

Redhill’s AEMCOLO® Granted FDA

QIDP 5-YEAR EXCLUSIVITY EXTENSION

Aemcolo granted five years’ exclusivity under the FDA’s Qualified Infectious Disease Product (QIDP) designation in addition to the five years NCE data exclusivity, extending regulatory exclusivity through to 2028

Aemcolo (rifamycin) is a non-systemic antibiotic whose delivery is targeted to the site of noninvasive Escherichia coli (E. coli) infection in the distal small bowel and colon, approved by the FDA for the treatment of Travelers’ Diarrhea caused by non-invasive strains of E. coli in adults

Aemcolo is listed as an acute diarrhea antibiotic treatment recommendation in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Yellow Book1

TEL AVIV, Israel and RALEIGH, N.C., December 5, 2022 RedHill Biopharma Ltd. (Nasdaq: RDHL) (“RedHill” or the “Company”), a specialty biopharmaceutical company, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Exclusivity Board has granted Aemcolo®2 five years’exclusivity under the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN) Act Qualified Infectious Disease Product (QIDP) designation, in addition to the five years’ data exclusivity granted as a new chemical entity (NCE) for the treatment of travelers’ diarrhea (TD) caused by non-invasive strains of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in adults.

Patricia Anderson, RedHill’s Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs said: “Given the great concerns around maintaining effective therapeutic options for infectious diseases in the face of growing microbial resistance, Aemcolo represents an important innovation to meet significant unmet need. This FDA grant of five additional years’ exclusivity for Aemcolo under the FDA’s Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN) Act Qualified Infectious Disease Product (QIDP) designation, in 2 addition to the five years awarded to Aemcolo based on new chemical entity exclusivity, will protect that innovation through to 2028.” Aemcolo, containing 194 mg of rifamycin as delayed-release tablets, is an orally-administered, nonsystemic antibiotic employing MMX® technology, a proprietary drug delivery system that distributes rifamycin in a controlled manner to the lower intestine. Due to its non-systemic delivery,Aemcolo is associated with limited side effects and minimal potential for interactions with other medications. Aemcolo is listed as an acute diarrhea antibiotic treatment recommendation in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Yellow Book.1

About Traveler’s Diarrhea

Travelers’ Diarrhea (TD) is the most common travelrelated illness, affecting an estimated 10% to 40% of travelers annually.3 Each year, approximately 70 million Americans travel abroad.4 Attack rates of TD range up to 70% of travelers, depending on the destination and season of travel.5 TD may often result in short-term morbidity adversely impacting travel plans. Untreated diarrhea can also lead to an underappreciated risk of chronic complications, including functional bowel disorders.6

About Aemcolo (rifamycin)

Aemcolo (rifamycin) is an orally-administered, delayed-release, non-systemic antibiotic approved for the treatment of travelers’ diarrhea caused by non-invasive strains of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in adults. Aemcolo is the first antibiotic engineered with Cosmo Pharmaceuticals’ Multi Matrix Technology (MMX®). MMX technology is designed to deliver the active pharmaceutical ingredients in a delayed and controlled manner directly to the lower intestine. Due to its nonsystemic delivery, Aemcolo is associated with limited side effects and minimal potential for interactions with other medications. Aemcolo is listed as an acute diarrhea antibiotic treatment recommendation in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) Yellow Book. The recommended dosage of Aemcolo is 388 mg (two tablets) orally, twice daily for three days.

Important Safety Information

Aemcolo is contraindicated in patients with a known hypersensitivity to rifamycin, any of the other rifamycin class antimicrobial agents, or any of the components in Aemcolo. Aemcolo should be swallowed whole. Do not crush, break or chew the tablets. Do not take Aemcolo concomitantly with alcohol. The most common adverse reactions

(incidence >2%) are headache and constipation. Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea has been reported with use of nearly all antibacterial agents, and may range in severity from mild diarrhea to fatal colitis. Evaluate if diarrhea occurs after therapy or does not improve or worsens during therapy.

Risk of Persistent or Worsening Diarrhea Complicated by Fever and/or Bloody Stool:

Aemcolo was not shown to be effective in patients with diarrhea complicated by fever and/ or bloody stool or diarrhea due to pathogens other than noninvasive strains of E. coli and is not recommended for use in such patients. Discontinue use if diarrhea gets worse or persists more than 48 hours, and consider alternative antibacterial therapy.

You can report any side effects to RedHill Biopharma Inc. at 1-833-ADR-HILL or by contacting the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www. fda.gov/medwatch.

INDICATION

Aemcolo is indicated for the treatment of Travelers’ Diarrhea (TD) caused by noninvasive strains of Escherichia coli in adults. It is not recommended for use in patients with diarrhea complicated by fever and/or bloody stool or due to pathogens other than noninvasive strains of E. coli.

About RedHill Biopharma Ltd.

RedHill Biopharma Ltd. (Nasdaq: RDHL) is a specialty biopharmaceutical company primarily focused on gastrointestinal and infectious diseases. RedHill promotes the gastrointestinal drugs, Movantik® for opioid-induced constipation in adults,7 Talicia® for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection in adults,8 and Aemcolo® for the treatment of travelers’ diarrhea in adults.2 RedHill’s key clinical late-stage development programs include: (i) RHB-204, with an ongoing Phase 3 study for pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) disease; (ii) opaganib (ABC294640), a first-in-class oral broad-acting, host-directed, SK2 selective inhibitor targeting multiple indications, including for pandemic preparedness, with a Phase 2/3 program for hospitalized COVID-19 and a Phase 2 program in oncology and a radiation protection program ongoing; (iii) RHB-107 (upamostat), an oral broad-acting, host-directed serine protease inhibitor with potential for pandemic preparedness and is in Phase 3-stage development as treatment for non-hospitalized symptomatic COVID-19, and targeting multiple other cancer and inflammatory gastrointestinal diseases; (iv) RHB-104, with positive results from a first Phase 3 study for Crohn’s disease; and (v) RHB-102, with positive results from a Phase 3 study for acute gastroenteritis and gastritis and positive results from a Phase 2 study for IBS-D.

More information about the Company is available at:

redhillbio.com

twitter.com/RedHillBio

This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements may be preceded by the words “intends,” “may,” “will,” “plans,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “projects,” “predicts,” “estimates,” “aims,” “believes,” “hopes,” “potential” or similar words. Forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions and are subject to various known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control and cannot be predicted or quantified, and consequently, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, without limitation; the risk that the Company will not successfully commercialize its products; as well as risks and uncertainties associated with (i) the initiation, timing, progress and results of the Company’s research, manufacturing, pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, and other therapeutic candidate development efforts, and the timing of the commercial launch of its commercial products and ones it may acquire or develop in the future; (ii) the Company’s ability to advance its therapeutic candidates into clinical trials or to successfully complete its pre-clinical studies or clinical trials or the development of a commercial companion diagnostic for the detection of MAP; (iii) the extent and number and type of additional studies that the Company may be required to conduct and the Company’s receipt of regulatory approvals for its therapeutic candidates, and the timing of other regulatory filings, approvals and feedback; (iv) the manufacturing, clinical development, commercialization, and market acceptance of the Company’s therapeutic candidates and Talicia®; (v) the Company’s ability to successfully commercialize and promote Talicia®, and Aemcolo® and Movantik®; (vi) the Company’s ability to establish and maintain corporate collaborations; (vii) the Company’s ability to acquire products approved for marketing in the U.S. that achieve commercial success and build its own marketing and commercialization capabilities; (viii) the interpretation of the properties and characteristics of the Company’s therapeutic candidates and the results obtained with its therapeutic candidates in research, pre-clinical studies or clinical trials; (ix) the implementation of the Company’s business model, strategic plans for its business and therapeutic candidates; (x) the scope of protection the Company is able to establish and maintain for intellectual property rights covering its therapeutic candidates and its ability to operate its business without infringing the intellectual property rights of others; (xi) parties from whom the Company licenses its intellectual property defaulting in their obligations to the Company; (xii) estimates of the Company’s expenses, future revenues, capital requirements and needs for additional financing; (xiii) the effect of patients suffering adverse experiences using investigative drugs under the Company’s Expanded Access Program; (xiv) competition from other companies and technologies within the Company’s industry; and (xv) the hiring and employment commencement date of executive managers. More detailed information about the Company and the risk factors that may affect the realization of forward-looking statements is set forth in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the SEC on March 18, 2021. All forwardlooking statements included in this press release are made only as of the date of this press release. The Company assumes no obligation to update any written or oral forward-5 looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise unless required by law.

Company contact:

Adi Frish
Chief Corporate and Business Development
Officer

RedHill Biopharma
+972-54-6543-112
adi@redhillbio.com

References

  1. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2020/preparing-international-travelers/travelers-diarrhea.
  2. Aemcolo® (rifamycin) is indicated for the treatment of travelers’ diarrhea caused by noninvasive strains of Escherichia coli in adults. For full prescribing information see: www.aemcolo.com.
  3. FDA.https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fdaapproves-new-drug-treat-travelers-diarrhea.
  4. Cosmo Pharmaceuticals Investor Presentation July 2019.
  5. CDC Yellow Book.
  6. Steffen R, et al. JAMA. 2015;313(1):71-80.
  7. Movantik® (naloxegol) is indicated for opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Full prescribing information see: www.movantik.com.
  8. Talicia® (omeprazole magnesium, amoxicillin and rifabutin) is indicated for the treatment of H. pylori infection in adults. For full prescribing information see: www.Talicia.com.

Prometheus Biosciences Announces Positive Results for PRA023 in Both ARTEMIS-UC Phase 2 and APOLLOCD Phase 2a Studies Enabling Pathway to Both Firstin-Class and Best-in-Class Anti-TL1A mAb
– ARTEMIS-UC trial met primary endpoint with 26.5% of patients on PRA023 achieving clinical remission compared to 1.5% of patients on placebo at Week 12 (p<0.0001) – ARTEMIS-UC Cohort 1 met all ranked secondary endpoints – APOLLO-CD trial showed 26.0% endoscopic response and 49.1% clinical remission rates (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively, compared to prespecified historical placebo rates) – PRA023 demonstrated favorable safety and tolerability results across both studies with no safety signal identified – ARTEMIS-UC Cohort 1 interim analysis suggests a trend towards increased PRA023 response in CDx+ patients over all comers – PRA023 showed a significant impact on multiple markers of inflammation and fibrosis in APOLLO-CD – Prometheus intends to advance PRA023 into
Phase 3 studies for UC and CD in 2023

SAN DIEGO, Dec. 07, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) – Prometheus Biosciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: RXDX), a clinical-stage biotechnology company pioneering a precision medicine approach for the discovery, development, and commercialization of novel therapeutic and companion diagnostic products for the treatment of immune-mediated diseases, today reported results from its ARTEMIS-UC Phase 2 and APOLLO-CD Phase 2a studies of PRA023 demonstrating strong efficacy and favorable safety results in both studies. Based on the totality of the data in these two studies, Prometheus intends to advance PRA023 into Phase 3 studies for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) in 2023.

Topline Results from the ARTEMIS-UC Phase 2 Study

Prometheus’ Phase 2 ARTEMIS-UC clinical trial was a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PRA023 in patients with moderate-toseverely active UC who have failed conventional or advanced therapy. PRA023 met the primary and all ranked secondary endpoints including clinical, endoscopic, histologic, and patient-reported outcome measures in the initial cohort (Cohort 1) of the trial. 68/68 (100%) of PRA023-treated patients completed the Cohort 1 study, compared to 60/67 (89.6%) in the placebo group. The topline results for the key endpoints were as follows:

  • 26.5% of patients on PRA023 reached the primary endpoint of clinical remission (per modified Mayo Score), compared to 1.5% on placebo, for a placebo-adjusted clinical remission rate of 25.0% on the primary endpoint (p<0.0001)
  • 36.8% of patients on PRA023 reached the secondary endpoint of endoscopic improvement (Mayo endoscopy subscore of ≤ 1), compared to 6.0% on placebo, for a placebo-adjusted endoscopic improvement rate of 30.8% on the secondary endpoint (p<0.0001)
  • All secondary endpoints met with statistical significance

PRA023 was well tolerated in Cohort 1, with no treatment-emergent serious adverse events (SAEs), adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation, severe AEs, opportunistic infections or infusion reactions reported in the PRA023 treatment group. The only AE that occurred in more than two patients and at a higher frequency in the PRA023 group compared to placebo was COVID-19 (5/68 [7.4%] and 3/67 [4.5%], respectively).

Based upon confidence in its precision approach and speed to market, the company conducted an interim companion diagnostic (CDx) analysis of Cohort 1 to evaluate the effectiveness of the CDx candidate in ARTEMIS-UC. Although from limited patient numbers, data from the subset of patients who tested positive on the CDx in Cohort 1 (N=32) demonstrated a placebo-adjusted clinical remission rate of 37.5%, compared with the placebo-adjusted remission rate of 25.0% for all-comers. The expansion cohort (Cohort 2), which is statistically powered to further assess the treatment effect of PRA023 in CDx+ patients will continue to enroll, and the company expects results in the second quarter of 2023.

Results from the APOLLO-CD Phase 2a Study

Prometheus’ Phase 2a APOLLO-CD clinical trial was a 12-week open-label study that enrolled 55 patients with moderate-to-severely active CD with endoscopically active disease who had failed conventional or biologic therapy. The study enrolled a highly refractory patient population with 70.9% of patients previously treated with at least one biologic therapy and 52.7% treated with two or more biologic therapies. The results on the key endpoints were as follows:

  • 26.0% of patients on PRA023 achieved endoscopic response (p=0.002 compared to 12% prespecified historical placebo rate)
  • 49.1% of patients on PRA023 achieved clinical remission (p<0.001 compared to 16% prespecified historical placebo rate)

PRA023 was well tolerated in the APOLLOCD study. There were no treatment-emergent serious adverse events (SAE), adverse events (AE) leading to discontinuation, or severe AEs assessed as related to PRA023 by the investigator. There were no opportunistic infections or infusion reactions reported. AEs that occurred in more than two patients included COVID-19, urinary tract infection, CD, anemia, nasopharyngitis and fatigue.

The predictive power of the company’s prespecified genetic markers was validated using an alternative Crohn’s-specific CDx algorithm which showed 45.0% (9/20) endoscopic response relative to all-comers of 26% (13/50). While the original algorithm provided limited benefit on some of the endpoints, the alternative algorithm demonstrated enhanced performance across both clinical and endoscopic outcomes. The company plans to advance this alternative algorithm in registrational studies for CD. In addition, a compelling reduction in markers of inflammation and fibrosis was observed between pre-treatment and post-treatment with PRA023, as measured by circulating cytokine levels, immunohistochemistry and gene expression in disease tissue.

“We are beyond enthusiastic with these study results and what they could mean for patients suffering from IBD. The performance of PRA023 in both UC and Crohn’s patients has surpassed our expectations,” said Mark McKenna, Chairman and CEO of Prometheus Biosciences. “We believe PRA023 and our precision medicine approach has the potential to change the paradigm of IBD treatment and we look forward to discussions with regulatory agencies as we prepare to advance into Phase 3 studies in Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease.”

“PRA023 has clearly demonstrated clinical proof-of-concept in CD and remarkable efficacy for the treatment of UC,” added Allison Luo, MD, Chief Medical Officer. “We are grateful to all of our investigators and patients for their participation and look forward to further evaluating PRA023 in Phase 3 studies with the goal of bringing this promising candidate to the market.”

Next Steps

As a result of these positive data, Prometheus plans to advance PRA023 into pivotal development in 2023, following discussions with regulators. The full data sets from these studies will be presented at a future medical meeting.

About PRA023: Pipeline in a Product Candidate

PRA023 is an IgG1 humanized monoclonal antibody that has been shown to block tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-like ligand 1A (TL1A). PRA023 binds both soluble and membraneassociated human TL1A with high affinity and specificity and has the potential to substantially improve outcomes for moderate-to-severe IBD patients predisposed to increased TL1A expression. Prometheus is developing PRA023 for the treatment of immune-mediated diseases including UC, CD, and systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).

About Prometheus Biosciences

Prometheus Biosciences, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company pioneering a precision medicine approach for the discovery, development, and commercialization of novel therapeutic and companion diagnostic products for the treatment

of immune-mediated diseases. The Company’s precision medicine platform, Prometheus360™, combines proprietary machine learning-based analytical approaches with one of the world’s largest gastrointestinal bioinformatics databases to identify novel therapeutic targets and develop therapeutic candidates to engage those targets.

Forward Looking Statements

Prometheus cautions readers that statements contained in this press release regarding matters that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are based on the Company’s current beliefs and expectations. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to statements regarding: the potential of PRA023 to improve IBD treatment and to be both a first-in-class and best-in-class anti-TL1A mAb; the timing of results from Cohort 2 of the ARTEMIS-UC trial; plans to advance PRA023 into Phase 3 studies in UC and CD, including the timing thereof, as well as plans to use an alternative CDx algorithm for CD. The inclusion of forwardlooking statements should not be regarded as a representation by Prometheus that any of its plans will be achieved. Actual results may differ from those set forth in this press release due to the risks and uncertainties inherent in our business, including, without limitation: topline results Prometheus reports are based on preliminary analysis of key efficacy and safety data, and such data may change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the clinical trial and such topline data may not accurately reflect the complete results of a clinical trial; Prometheus’ approach to the discovery and development of precision medicines based on Prometheus360 is unproven; interim results of a clinical trial such as with Cohort 1 CDx analysis do not predict final results and the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment in Cohort 2 continues, following more comprehensive reviews of the data, as follow-up on the outcome of any particular patient continues and as more patient data become available, including from from Cohort 2; potential delays in the commencement, enrollment and completion of clinical trials and

of immune-mediated diseases. The Company’s precision medicine platform, Prometheus360™, combines proprietary machine learning-based analytical approaches with one of the world’s largest gastrointestinal bioinformatics databases to identify novel therapeutic targets and develop therapeutic candidates to engage those targets.

Forward Looking Statements

Prometheus cautions readers that statements contained in this press release regarding matters that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are based on the Company’s current beliefs and expectations. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to statements regarding: the potential of PRA023 to improve IBD treatment and to be both a first-in-class and best-in-class anti-TL1A mAb; the timing of results from Cohort 2 of the ARTEMIS-UC trial; plans to advance PRA023 into Phase 3 studies in UC and CD, including the timing thereof, as well as plans to use an alternative CDx algorithm for CD. The inclusion of forward looking statements should not be regarded as a representation by Prometheus that any of its plans will be achieved. Actual results may differ from those set forth in this press release due to the risks and uncertainties inherent in our business, including, without limitation: topline results Prometheus reports are based on preliminary analysis of key efficacy and safety data, and such data may change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the clinical trial and such topline data may not accurately reflect the complete results of a clinical trial; Prometheus’ approach to the discovery and development of precision medicines based on Prometheus360 is unproven; interim results of a clinical trial such as with Cohort 1 CDx analysis do not predict final results and the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment in Cohort 2 continues, following more comprehensive reviews of the data, as follow-up on the outcome of any particular patient continues and as more patient data become available, including from from Cohort 2; potential delays in the commencement, enrollment and completion of clinical trials and preclinical studies; the results of clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results; Prometheus’ dependence on third parties in connection with product manufacturing, research and preclinical and clinical testing; Prometheus’ ability to develop companion diagnostics for its therapeutic product candidates; unexpected adverse side effects or inadequate efficacy of its product candidates that may limit their development, regulatory approval and/or commercialization, or may result in recalls or product liability claims; planned future trials of PRA023 may not support regulatory registration; regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries; Prometheus’ ability to maintain undisrupted business operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including delaying or otherwise disrupting its preclinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and supply chain; and other risks described in the Company’s prior press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including under the heading “Risk Factors” in Prometheus’ most recent quarterly report on Form 10-Q and any subsequent filings with the SEC. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forwardlooking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof, and Prometheus undertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date hereof. All forward-looking statements are qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement, which is made under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

SEBELA PHARMACEUTICALS® ACQUIRES EXCLUSIVE LICENSING RIGHTS TO DEVELOP AND COMMERCIALIZE TEGOPRAZAN IN THE U.S. AND CANADA

Phase 3 Trials Initiated with Tegoprazan for the Treatment of Erosive Esophagitis and Non-erosive Reflux Disease

Braintree, Mass. — Sebela Pharmaceuticals® has entered an exclusive partnership with HK inno.N Corporation to license tegoprazan in the United States and Canada. Under the agreement, Braintree Laboratories, a leader in gastroenterology and an affiliate of Sebela Pharmaceuticals, will be responsible for clinical development, registration, marketing, and sales in the United States and Canada. Tegoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid-blocker (P-CAB), is currently approved and marketed in several territories, including South Korea and China.

“We are delighted to add tegoprazan to our product pipeline,” said Alan Cooke, President and CEO of Sebela Pharmaceuticals. “For over 35 years we have been committed to the gastroenterology space and to those affected by GI diseases. Tegoprazan expands our gastroenterology portfolio into an exciting new therapeutic class. Tegoprazan already has an established track record of safety and efficacy in multiple clinical studies and represents a potential new treatment option for people living with GERD.”

“We are delighted to partner with Sebela Pharmaceuticals,” Dal-Won Kwak, CEO, HK inno.N said in a statement. “Sebela has vast development, regulatory and commercial experience and expertise in the US, having obtained FDA approval and successfully launched multiple gastroenterology products over more than three decades. We believe Sebela Pharmaceuticals is the ideal partner to develop and commercialize tegoprazan in the United States and Canada.” Following successful discussions with the US Food and Drug Administration, Sebela Pharmaceuticals has initiated Phase 3 studies of tegoprazan in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Phase 3 GERD program, known as the TRIUMpH program, includes a large, multi-center, double-blind study evaluating the safety and efficacy of tegoprazan versus a PPI control for the indications of healing of all grades of erosive esophagitis (EE) and the maintenance of EE healing and relief of heartburn. The TRIUMpH program also includes a large, multicenter, doubleblind, placebo-controlled study designed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of tegoprazan in patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD).

About Tegoprazan

Tegoprazan is a novel agent in development for the treatment of acid-related gastrointestinal diseases. It is a member of a class of oral medications known as P-CABs, or potassium-competitive acid blockers, which have been shown to have rapid onset of action and the ability to control gastric pH for longer periods of time than proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Tegoprazan has already received marketing authorization in multiple territories, including South Korea and China.

About GERD

GERD is a chronic and highly prevalent disorder caused by repeated backflow (or reflux) of gastric contents into the esophagus. GERD is characterized by a wide variety of symptoms, including heartburn and acid regurgitation. The main phenotypic presentations of GERD include non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) and erosive esophagitis (EE). EE is usually clinically differentiated from NERD by the presence of mucosal inflammation and lesions in the distal esophagus. Poorly treated EE can lead to Barrett’s esophagus which increases the risk of esophageal cancer. It is estimated that GERD affects approximately 65 million people in the US with 60% to 70% suffering from NERD. While proton pump inhibitors are the mainstay of therapy for both EE and NERD, 35% to 54% of patients fail to achieve complete relief of symptoms. This represents a large unmet and underappreciated patient need.

About Sebela Pharmaceuticals®

Sebela Pharmaceuticals is a US pharmaceutical company with a market leading position in gastroenterology and a focus on innovation in women’s health. Braintree, a part of Sebela Pharmaceuticals, is the market leader in colonoscopy screening for over 35 years, having invented, developed and commercialized a broad portfolio of innovative prescription colonoscopy preparations and multiple gastroenterology products. Braintree also has multiple gastroenterology programs in late-stage clinical development. In addition, Sebela Women’s Health has two next generation intra-uterine devices (IUDs) for contraception in the final stages of clinical development. Sebela Pharmaceuticals has offices/operations in Roswell, GA; Braintree, MA; and Dublin, Ireland; has annual net sales of approximately $200 million; and has grown to over 320 employees through strategic acquisitions and organic growth.

Please visit sebelapharma.com for more information or call 800-874-6756.

About HK inno.N Corporation

HK inno.N (KOSDAQ: 195940) is a public South Korean pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, and commercializes pharmaceuticals for both the domestic and international markets. HK inno.N’s key businesses are in the areas of prescription drugs, health supplements and beauty products. Since its establishment in 1984, through exports and global alliances, the company is growing into an international pharmaceutical firm. Drawing on the company’s experience and knowhow in developing novel drugs, HK inno.N succeeded in launching new GERD treatment ‘K-CAB®” (Tegoprazan), the 30th novel drug to be developed and registered in Korea, to great acclaim.

Download Tables, Images & References

FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #84

Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors : Diagnosis and Management with an Emphasis on Endoscopy

Read Article

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNENs) and carcinoid tumors develop from the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas and enterochromaffin cells in the gastrointestinal tract, respectively.1 Functional gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) exhibit diverse clinical features depending on their site of origin and the type of hormones they secrete; examples include insulinoma, gastrinoma, VIPoma, glucagonoma, somatostatinoma, and carcinoid tumor.2 Non-functional GEP-NENs do not secrete hormones and have no associated systemic symptoms.3 The incidence of GEP-NENs has expanded over the past few decades, likely due to increased emphasis on screening and widespread use of cross-sectional imaging with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).4 Also, recent technological advancements in endoscopy have facilitated the early diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasms. In this review, we will summarize the clinical presentations and diagnostic criteria of each functional GEP-NEN. We will also discuss the advanced applications of endoscopy and cross-sectional imaging in the clinical management of pNENs.

Insulinoma

Insulinomas are functional pNENs that affect 1-3 patients per million per year. The clinical hallmark of insulinomas is Whipple’s triad: 1) symptoms are caused by hypoglycemia, 2) low plasma glucose levels of < 3mmol/L at the onset of the symptoms, and 3) symptomatic relief upon serum glucose normalization.5

Cryer et al. adequately categorized hypoglycemic symptoms into neuroglycopenic and autonomic symptoms. Neuroglycopenic symptoms are caused by decreased glucose supplies to the brain which can manifest as confusion, fatigue, loss of consciousness, and behavioral changes.

Autonomic symptoms are caused by increased sympathetic nervous system activity due to hypoglycemia including palpitations, tremors, anxiety, paresthesias, and increased appetite.6

The most dependable test to diagnose insulinomas is the measurement of serum glucose, proinsulin, and C-peptide levels after an overnight fast and every 4 hours for up to 72 hours. The test can be terminated if the patient develops hypoglycemic symptoms with a serum glucose level < 2.5 mmol/L. A serum proinsulin level greater than 5 pmol/L and a C-peptide level greater than 0.2 nmol/L with a serum glucose level less than 2.5 mmol/L revealed 100% sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing insulinomas.7

Gastrinoma

Gastrinomas are functional neuroendocrine neoplasms that produce a large amount of gastrin and result in markedly increased gastric acid secretion, with attendant consequences.8 The significant rise in gastric acid can cause ZollingerEllison syndrome (ZES), which manifests as severe peptic ulcer disease (often with multifocal ulcers in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum), profound diarrhea, and other symptoms. Rossi et al. summarized the clinical symptoms of ZES including abdominal pain (75%), diarrhea (73%), heartburn (44%), and weight loss (17%).9 Gastrinomas can be diagnosed by measuring the gastric pH and fasting serum gastrin (FSG) levels. If gastric pH is < 2.0 and FSG is >10fold of the upper limit of normal (>1000 pg/mL), a gastrinoma can be diagnosed.10,11 If FSG is < 10-fold of the upper limit of normal (< 1000 pg/ ml), a provocative secretin stimulation test can help distinguish gastrinomas from other diseases that increase the FSG, such as atrophic gastritis or G-cell hyperplasia. The secretin stimulation that increases the previously measured FSG by >120 pg/mL has the highest sensitivity (94%) and specificity (100%) for diagnosing gastrinomas.12 It is important to withdraw any pharmacological intervention that may prevent gastric acid secretion, such as a proton pump inhibitor or histamine H2 receptor antagonist, prior to the FSG testing to avoid a false positive diagnosis from artificially elevated serum gastrin levels.13

VIPoma

VIPomas are functional neuroendocrine neoplasms that secrete a large amount of vasoactive intestinal peptides (VIPs). VIPs upregulate the secretory function of gastrointestinal cells, which manifests as diarrhea, achlorhydria, and depletion of electrolytes (including potassiums, phosphates, bicarbonates, and magnesiums).14 In severe cases of water depletion or electrolyte imbalances, patients can develop life-threatening conditions such as hypovolemic shock or cardiac arrhythmias.15 To diagnose a VIPoma, patients must present with secretory diarrhea and plasma VIPs > 500 pg/mL.14,16  A 2019 systemic review revealed that patients with VIPomas had median plasma VIPs of 636 pg/mL.14

Glucagonoma

Glucagonomas are functional neuroendocrine neoplasms that secrete excess amounts of glucagon and present with so-called “glucagon syndrome.” The glucagonoma triad includes necrolytic migratory erythema (82%), diabetic mellitus (68%), and weight loss (60%).17 Other less common, yet still prevailing clinical symptoms of glucagonomas include diarrhea, depression, stomatitis, anemia, and deep vein thrombosis.16,17 Clinical documentation of necrolytic migratory erythema with a fasting plasma glucagon value > 500 pg/mL can confirm the diagnosis.18 It is important to note that there are other conditions that can cause hyperglucagonemia including cirrhosis, chronic renal failure, chronic hepatic failure, and pancreatitis.19

Somatostatinoma

Somatostatinomas are somatostatin-secreting neuroendocrine neoplasms that most frequently arise in the pancreas (70%) and duodenum (19%).21 The clinical symptoms of somatostatinomas include diabetes mellitus, cholelithiasis, steatorrhea, and anemia.20 Many of these clinical symptoms arise from the suppressive effects of somatostatins on other neuroendocrine hormones; for example, patients can develop diabetes mellitus from decreased insulin secretion or achlorhydria from decreased gastric acid secretion.16,21

Somatostatinomas are usually diagnosed after immunohistochemical staining for somatostatin.22 The diagnosis can also be verified by measuring a fasting serum somatostatin level > 3 times of the normal somatostatin values.23

Carcinoid syndrome

Neuroendocrine neoplasms can present with carcinoid syndrome, which is a paraneoplastic syndrome caused by increased secretion of polypeptides, vasoactive amines, and prostaglandins.24 It is most associated with neuroendocrine neoplasms that develop in the midgut and disseminate to the liver because the bioactive substances can circumvent metabolism before entering the systemic circulation.25 Interestingly, a recent Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database revealed that 19%37% of small bowel neuroendocrine neoplasms presented with carcinoid syndrome without hepatic metastasis, showing that the disease may be more protean in nature than previously thought.26,27

Flushing is observed in over 90% of patients with carcinoid syndrome and is caused by increased plasma vasoactive substances such as serotonin, kallikreins, catecholamines, and prostaglandins.24,28 Secretory diarrhea is observed in 80% of carcinoid syndrome and is caused by increased plasma serotonins that upregulate gastrointestinal motility.29 Other less common but still prevailing symptoms of carcinoid syndrome include abdominal pain (35%), right-sided valvular heart disease (19-60%), wheezing (15%), and pellagra (5%).24 In patients with suspected carcinoid syndrome, measuring urinary 5-Hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5HIAA) for 24 hours (the normal value for urinary 5-HIAA ranges 3-15 mg/day) is the recommended initial test, with a sensitivity and specificity of 73% and 100%, respectively.30 Measuring urinary serotonin and 5-HIAA simultaneously provides higher sensitivity and equal specificity for diagnosing carcinoid syndrome with 84% and 100%, respectively.31

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN-1) syndrome

MEN-1 syndrome is a disorder caused by inactivating mutation of the MEN1 gene, which completely disables the function of menin, a tumor suppressor protein. Malfunctioning menin increases the risk of developing tumors in the neuroendocrine system, most classically in the pancreas, pituitary glands, and parathyroid glands. Literature reviews revealed that more than 30-80% of MEN-1 syndrome patients developed pNENs.32 Among patients with MEN-1 syndrome, gastrinomas were the most prevalent pNENs (ranging from 20-61%), followed by insulinomas (ranging from 7-31%), and glucagonomas (ranging from 1-5%).33 All patients with MEN-1 syndrome should undergo active surveillance throughout their lives to reduce the risk of malignant transformation of pNENs. It is a common practice to annually measure biochemical markers such as chromogranin A, glucagon, and pancreatic polypeptides for early screening of pNENs in patients with MEN1 syndrome.34 However, a recent retrospective analysis revealed that the diagnostic value of the serum biochemical markers for early diagnosis of MEN-1-associated pNENs, compared to sporadic pNENs, was unreliable; therefore, imaging studies are recommended screening tools for MEN1-associated pNENs.35 Among many imaging modalities used to screen for early diagnosis of pNENs in MEN-1 syndrome patients, Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) outperformed CT, MRI, and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS). One cross-sectional study on 41 patients with MEN-1 syndrome demonstrated that EUS detected 101 pancreatic lesions in 34/41 patients, while CT, MRI, and SRS jointly detected 32 pancreatic lesions in 18/41 patients.36

Role of endoscopy in managing pNENs

The anatomic location of the pancreas, being adjacent to the stomach and the duodenum, permits the use of EUS. EUS allows a detailed examination of the pNENs, providing information on the location and size of the lesion that will direct treatment and management plans for the patients.37 EUS also allows for direct tissue sampling of any pancreatic lesions identified (Figures 1 and 2). Two systemic reviews and meta-analyses in 2013 and 2018 revealed that EUS could detect pNENs with an overall sensitivity of 81-87% and specificity of 90-98%.38,39 Because of its high diagnostic accuracy, EUS is recommended after negative non-invasive imaging studies for those with high clinical suspicion of pNENs.40 One retrospective study on 32 patients revealed that a combined CT scan and EUS revealed a sensitivity of 100% in diagnosing insulinoma, demonstrating that CT and EUS should be considered as joint modalities.41

EUS is an especially powerful diagnostic tool when the size of pNENs is < 20 mm. CT, which is generally the first imaging modality obtained in patients with suspected pNENs, failed to detect pancreatic lesions in > 68% of cases when the size of the tumor was less than 10 mm, and > 15% of cases when the size of the tumor was less than 20 mm.42 In contrast, EUS maintained a high sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 92% in detecting small-size (2-5 mm) pNENs that were previously undetected by the CT.43

Other features of EUS are fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB), which permit non-invasive extraction of pancreatic tissues and facilitate grading of pNENs through the evaluation of the Ki-67 index.44 FNA obtains samples for cytologic evaluation, and FNB obtains true tissue cores for histologic evaluation. A recent systemic review and meta-analysis on 864 patients revealed that the Ki-67 index of EUS-FNA extracted tissue and surgically biopsied tissues matched 80.3%, proving that grading from EUS-FNA extracted pancreatic tissues is dependable.45 Interestingly, one retrospective study showed that EUS-FNB biopsies, when compared with EUS-FNA samples, had a higher Ki-67 index correlation with surgically biopsied core pancreatic tissues. In the same study, a significantly higher Ki-67 index feasibility was witnessed with EUS-FNB over EUS-FNA when the size of the pNENs was less than 20mm (96.1% vs. 88.2%).46 This study suggests that EUS-FNB should be the standard of care for sampling and grading pNENs. Contrast-enhanced EUS is a novel technique useful in localizing focal pNENs by observing vascular flow in real-time. pNENs exhibit high vascularity when compared with normal pancreatic tissues on contrast-enhanced EUS.47 One study revealed that the overall sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced EUS in detecting pNENs were 78.9% and 98.7%, respectively, which has similar diagnostic accuracy to CT scans.48 Moreover, contrast-enhanced EUS can generate time-intensity curves (TIC), which help differentiate pNENs from other pancreatic lesions at the endoscopic level and in real-time. In one clinical trial, an investigator successfully differentiated pNENs from other pancreatic lesions, such as chronic pancreatitis or adenocarcinoma, for 20/22 cases (91%) using the TIC analysis.49

Cross-sectional imaging studies in diagnosing pNENs

CT scans are used to establish the primary location and metastatic extension in most patients with pNENs. However, the detection rate of CT scans in diagnosing pNENs is suboptimal, with a sensitivity and specificity of 73% and 96%, respectively.50 In recent years, somatostatin receptor positron emission tomography/computed tomography with gallium-68 radiolabeled peptides (68Ga-SSR-PET/ CT) has emerged as a new method in diagnosing GEP-NENs. Neuroendocrine tumors distinctively express somatostatin receptors, and gallium-68 radiolabeled peptides target these receptors to enhance the detection rate of PET/CT.51 One study revealed that the sensitivity and specificity of 68GaSSR-PET/CT in localizing neuroendocrine tumors were 93% and 96%, respectively, outperforming CT scans.52,53 A recent meta-analysis by Bauckneht et al. revealed a reduced sensitivity (79.6%) of 68GASSR-PET/CT in diagnosing neuroendocrine tumors when the study focused on the pNENs, likely due to fewer somatostatin receptors in pNENs compared to carcinoid tumors in the gastrointestinal tract.54 Assessing the extent of metastasis is essential for a comprehensive diagnosis as it can drastically influence the management of the pNENs.51 In one systemic review and meta-analysis, 68Ga-SSRPET/CT and whole-body MRI revealed high overall diagnostic accuracy in detecting metastatic disease, with 92% and 91% respectively. The sensitivity between the two imaging modalities varied depending on which organ harbored metastatic disease. 68Ga-SSR-PET/CT was more sensitive for metastatic lesions in lymph nodes (100% vs. 73%), but whole-body MRI was more sensitive for metastatic lesions in the liver (99% vs. 92%) and bone (96% vs. 82%).55 This study suggests that 68Ga-SSR-PET/CT and whole-body MRI should be considered as joint modalities to minimize falsenegative tests in diagnosing neuroendocrine tumors and metastatic diseases.

Treatment of pNENs

The management of pNENs is multidisciplinary, which involves octreotide (somatostatin analogs), sunitinib (tyrosine kinase inhibitor), everolimus (an mTor inhibitor), peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, and chemotherapy depending on grading and extent of metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis.56 Surgical resection remains the only curative treatment for pNENs, although the relapse rate is high.57 Patients with pNENs who underwent surgical resection experienced a superior survival rate compared to those who did not (114 months vs. 35 months).58 Therefore, functional pNENs with tumor size > 20 mm are generally recommended for surgical resection. Non-functional pNENs with tumor size < 20 mm are generally recommended for surveillance due to their slow-growing natures but can be removed if the patient does not want to undergo primary surveillance. A systemic review and meta-analysis of 344 patients with small, nonfunctional pNENs reported that 22% of patients experienced an increase in tumor size during surveillance, but only 12% of patients ultimately needed surgical resection.59 pNENs can develop hepatic metastasis for up to 64.3-77% of cases.60,61 Among patients with pNENs and hepatic metastases, surgical resection of liver lesions can significantly increase survival rates and alleviate hormonal symptoms, although this practice is not performed at all centers. Studies demonstrated that the odds ratio for 5-year survival for pNENs patients who underwent resection of liver metastases, compared to those who did not, was 6.134.62 Also, up to 95% of patients experienced symptomatic relief after the surgery.63

In recent years, EUS-guided radiofrequency and ethanol ablation have emerged as novel techniques for the treatment of patients with pNENs.64 In one systematic review, the clinical success rates for EUS-radiofrequency and EUS-ethanol ablation were 85.2% and 82.2%, respectively. This study defined clinical success as symptomatic relief in patients with functional pNENs and tumor size reduction in patients with non-functional pNENs.65 The adverse event rates of EUS-radiofrequency and EUS-ethanol ablation were 32.2% and 21.2%, respectively; the common adverse events included abdominal pain (7.6%), acute pancreatitis (5.7%), and pancreatic fluid collections (3.2%).66 The morbidity of EUS-guided ablative treatment, compared to the morbidity of surgery, was considered mild.

Furthermore, there was no associated mortality rate with EUSguided ablative therapy.67,68 For patients who are contraindicated for surgery (due to co-morbidities or other reasons), EUS-guided ablation may be an appropriate and safe alternative management for pNENs.

CONCLUSION

Functional neuroendocrine neoplasms commonly arise in the pancreas or GI tract and manifest with unique clinical features depending on which hormones are oversecreted. The symptoms can present as mild to life-threatening depending on the severity; therefore, physicians need to be aware of the clinical characteristics of each type of functional neuroendocrine neoplasm and understand the diagnostic criteria. Once the diagnosis of functional neuroendocrine neoplasms is confirmed, the goal is to alleviate hormonal symptoms and delay neoplasm growth through multidisciplinary management, including somatostatin analogs, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, and chemotherapy. Surgical resection is potentially a curable treatment option that prolongs overall survival. Patients who are suboptimal candidates for surgical resection may be recommended for EUS-guided ablative therapies as an alternative option.

References

  1. Vortmeyer AO, Huang S, Lubensky I, Zhuang Z. Non-islet origin of pancreatic islet cell tumors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Apr;89(4):1934-8. doi: 10.1210/jc.2003031575. PMID: 15070966.
  2. Cives M, Strosberg JR. Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):471-487. doi: 10.3322/caac.21493. Epub 2018 Oct 8. PMID: 30295930.
  3. Exarchou K, Howes N, Pritchard DM. Systematic review: management of localised low-grade upper gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Jun;51(12):1247-1267. doi: 10.1111/apt.15765. Epub 2020 May 11. PMID: 32390152.
  4. Hallet J, Law CH, Cukier M, Saskin R, Liu N, Singh S. Exploring the rising incidence of neuroendocrine tumors: a population-based analysis of epidemiology, metastatic presentation, and outcomes. Cancer. 2015 Feb 15;121(4):58997. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29099. Epub 2014 Oct 13. PMID: 25312765.
  5. Dobrindt EM, Mogl M, Goretzki PE, Pratschke J, Dukaczewska AK. Insulinoma in pregnancy (a case presentation and systematic review of the literature). Rare Tumors. 2021 Feb 7;13:2036361320986647. doi: 10.1177/2036361320986647. PMID: 33613925; PMCID: PMC7874339.
  6. Cryer PE, Axelrod L, Grossman AB, Heller SR, Montori VM, Seaquist ER, Service FJ; Endocrine Society. Evaluation and management of adult hypoglycemic disorders: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Mar;94(3):709-28. doi: 10.1210/jc.2008-1410. Epub 2008 Dec 16. PMID: 19088155.
  7. Vezzosi D, Bennet A, Fauvel J, Caron P. Insulin, C-peptide and proinsulin for the biochemical diagnosis of hypoglycaemia related to endogenous hyperinsulinism. Eur J Endocrinol. 2007 Jul;157(1):75-83. doi: 10.1530/EJE-070109. Erratum in: Eur J Endocrinol. 2007 Nov;157(5):693. PMID: 17609405.
  8. Wilcox CM, Seay T, Arcury JT, Mohnen J, Hirschowitz BI. Zollinger-Ellison syndrome: presentation, response to therapy, and outcome. Dig Liver Dis. 2011 Jun;43(6):43943. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2010.11.007. Epub 2010 Dec 30. PMID: 21193359.
  9. Rossi RE, Elvevi A, Citterio D, Coppa J, Invernizzi P, Mazzaferro V, Massironi S. Gastrinoma and Zollinger Ellison syndrome: A roadmap for the management between new and old therapies. World J Gastroenterol. 2021 Sep 21;27(35):5890-5907. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i35.5890. PMID: 34629807; PMCID: PMC8475006.
  10. Berna MJ, Hoffmann KM, Serrano J, Gibril F, Jensen RT. Serum gastrin in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome: I. Prospective study of fasting serum gastrin in 309 patients from the National Institutes of Health and comparison with 2229 cases from the literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 2006 Nov;85(6):295330. doi: 10.1097/01.md.0000236956.74128.76. PMID: 17108778.
  11. Roy PK, Venzon DJ, Feigenbaum KM, Koviack PD, Bashir S, Ojeaburu JV, Gibril F, Jensen RT. Gastric secretion in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. Correlation with clinical expression, tumor extent and role in diagnosis–a prospective NIH study of 235 patients and a review of 984 cases in the literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 2001 May;80(3):189222. doi: 10.1097/00005792-200105000-00005. PMID: 11388095.
  12. Berna MJ, Hoffmann KM, Long SH, Serrano J, Gibril F, Jensen RT. Serum gastrin in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome: II. Prospective study of gastrin provocative testing in 293 patients from the National Institutes of Health and comparison with 537 cases from the literature. evaluation of diagnostic criteria, proposal of new criteria, and correlations with clinical and tumoral features. Medicine (Baltimore). 2006 Nov;85(6):331-364. doi: 10.1097/MD.0b013e31802b518c. PMID: 17108779.
  13. Metz DC, Starr JA. A retrospective study of the usefulness of acid secretory testing. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000 Jan;14(1):103-11. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.00676.x. PMID: 10632653.
  14. Schizas D, Mastoraki A, Bagias G, Patras R, Moris D, Lazaridis II, Arkadopoulos N, Felekouras E. Clinicopathological data and treatment modalities for pancreatic vipomas: a systematic review. J BUON. 2019 Mar-Apr;24(2):415-423. PMID: 31127985.
  15. Una Cidon E. Vasoactive intestinal peptide secreting tumour: An overview. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2022 Apr 15;14(4):808-819. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i4.808. PMID: 35582098; PMCID: PMC9048535.
  16. Guilmette JM, Nosé V. Neoplasms of the Neuroendocrine Pancreas: An Update in the Classification, Definition, and Molecular Genetic Advances. Adv Anat Pathol. 2019
  17. Sandru F, Carsote M, Albu SE, Valea A, Petca A, Dumitrascu MC. Glucagonoma: From skin lesions to the neuroendocrine component (Review). Exp Ther Med. 2020 Oct;20(4):33893393. doi: 10.3892/etm.2020.8966. Epub 2020 Jul 3. PMID: 32905095; PMCID: PMC7465236.
  18. John AM, Schwartz RA. Glucagonoma syndrome: a review and update on treatment. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016 Dec;30(12):2016-2022. doi: 10.1111/jdv.13752. Epub 2016 Jul 16. PMID: 27422767.
  19. Ito T, Igarashi H, Jensen RT. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: clinical features, diagnosis and medical treatment: advances. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2012 Dec;26(6):737-53. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2012.12.003. PMID: 23582916; PMCID: PMC3627221.
  20. Parbhu SK, Adler DG. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: contemporary diagnosis and management. Hosp Pract (1995). 2016 Aug;44(3):109-19. doi: 10.1080/21548331.2016.1210474. Epub 2016 Jul 18. PMID: 27404266.
  21. Sandru F, Carsote M, Valea A, Albu SE, Petca RC, Dumitrascu MC. Somatostatinoma: Beyond neurofibromatosis type 1 (Review). Exp Ther Med. 2020 Oct;20(4):33833388. doi: 10.3892/etm.2020.8965. Epub 2020 Jul 3. PMID: 32905002; PMCID: PMC7465002.
  22. Ito T, Igarashi H, Jensen RT. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: clinical features, diagnosis and medical treatment: advances. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2012 Dec;26(6):737-53. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2012.12.003. PMID: 23582916; PMCID: PMC3627221.
  23. Nesi G, Marcucci T, Rubio CA, Brandi ML, Tonelli F. Somatostatinoma: clinico-pathological features of three cases and literature reviewed. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Apr;23(4):521-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.05053.x. Epub 2007 Jul 20. PMID: 17645474.
  24. Rubin de Celis Ferrari AC, Glasberg J, Riechelmann RP. Carcinoid syndrome: update on the pathophysiology and treatment. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2018 Aug 20;73(suppl 1):e490s. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2018/e490s. PMID: 30133565; PMCID: PMC6096975.
  25. Tran CG, Sherman SK, Chandrasekharan C, Howe JR. Surgical Management of Neuroendocrine Tumor Liver Metastases. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2021 Jan;30(1):39-55. doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2020.08.001. Epub 2020 Oct 20. PMID: 33220808; PMCID: PMC7739028.
  26. Ahmed M. Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors in 2020. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2020 Aug 15;12(8):791-807. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v12.i8.791. PMID: 32879660; PMCID: PMC7443843.
  27. Halperin DM, Shen C, Dasari A, Xu Y, Chu Y, Zhou S, Shih YT, Yao JC. Frequency of carcinoid syndrome at neuroendocrine tumour diagnosis: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Apr;18(4):525-534. doi: 10.1016/S14702045(17)30110-9. Epub 2017 Feb 24. PMID: 28238592; PMCID: PMC6066284.
  28. Gade AK, Olariu E, Douthit NT. Carcinoid Syndrome: A Review. Cureus. 2020 Mar 5;12(3):e7186. doi: 10.7759/ cureus.7186. PMID: 32257725; PMCID: PMC7124884.
  29. Clement D, Ramage J, Srirajaskanthan R. Update on Pathophysiology, Treatment, and Complications of Carcinoid Syndrome. J Oncol. 2020 Jan 21;2020:8341426. doi: 10.1155/2020/8341426. PMID: 32322270; PMCID: PMC7160731.
  30. Maroun J, Kocha W, Kvols L, Bjarnason G, Chen E, Germond C, Hanna S, Poitras P, Rayson D, Reid R, Rivera J, Roy A, Shah A, Sideris L, Siu L, Wong R. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of carcinoid tumours. Part 1: the gastrointestinal tract. A statement from a Canadian National Carcinoid Expert Group. Curr Oncol. 2006 Apr;13(2):67-76. PMID: 17576444; PMCID: PMC1891174.
  31. Feldman JM, O’Dorisio TM. Role of neuropeptides and serotonin in the diagnosis of carcinoid tumors. Am J Med. 1986 Dec 22;81(6B):41-8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(86)90583-8. PMID: 2432780.
  32. Marini F, Giusti F, Tonelli F, Brandi ML. Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms in Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Apr 14;22(8):4041. doi: 10.3390/ ijms22084041. PMID: 33919851; PMCID: PMC8070788.
  33. Jensen RT, Norton JA. Treatment of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors in Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1: Some
    Clarity But Continued Controversy. Pancreas. 2017 May/ Jun;46(5):589-594. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000825. PMID: 28426491; PMCID: PMC5407310.
  34. Akerström G, Hessman O, Hellman P, Skogseid B. Pancreatic tumours as part of the MEN-1 syndrome. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2005 Oct;19(5):819-30. doi: 10.1016/j. bpg.2005.05.006. PMID: 16253903.
  35. Qiu W, Christakis I, Silva A, Bassett RL Jr, Cao L, Meng QH, Gardner Grubbs E, Zhao H, Yao JC, Lee JE, Perrier ND. Utility of chromogranin A, pancreatic polypeptide, glucagon and gastrin in the diagnosis and follow-up of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 patients. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2016 Sep;85(3):400-7. doi: 10.1111/cen.13119. Epub 2016 Jun 30. PMID: 27256431; PMCID: PMC4988913.
  36. van Asselt SJ, Brouwers AH, van Dullemen HM, van der Jagt EJ, Bongaerts AH, Kema IP, Koopmans KP, Valk GD, Timmers HJ, de Herder WW, Feelders RA, Fockens P, Sluiter WJ, de Vries EG, Links TP. EUS is superior for detection of pancreatic lesions compared with standard imaging in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):159-167.e2. doi:
    10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.037. PMID: 25527055.
  37. Rustagi T, Farrell JJ. Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov-Dec;48(10):837-44. doi: 10.1097/ MCG.0000000000000152. PMID: 24828360.
  38. Wang H, Ba Y, Xing Q, Du JL. Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound for insulinoma localization: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Oct 23;13(10):e0206099. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206099. PMID: 30352083; PMCID: PMC6198953.
  39. Puli SR, Kalva N, Bechtold ML, Pamulaparthy SR, Cashman MD, Estes NC, Pearl RH, Volmar FH, Dillon S, Shekleton MF, Forcione D. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review and meta analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jun 21;19(23):3678-84. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i23.3678. PMID: 23801872; PMCID: PMC3691045.
  40. Chiti G, Grazzini G, Cozzi D, Danti G, Matteuzzi B, Granata V, Pradella S, Recchia L, Brunese L, Miele V. Imaging of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Aug 24;18(17):8895. doi: 10.3390/ ijerph18178895. PMID: 34501485; PMCID: PMC8430610.
  41. Gouya H, Vignaux O, Augui J, Dousset B, Palazzo L,
    Louvel A, Chaussade S, Legmann P. CT, endoscopic sonography, and a combined protocol for preoperative evaluation of pancreatic insulinomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Oct;181(4):987-92. doi: 10.2214/ajr.181.4.1810987. PMID: 14500214.
  42. Manta R, Nardi E, Pagano N, Ricci C, Sica M, Castellani D, Bertani H, Piccoli M, Mullineris B, Tringali A, Marini F, Germani U, Villanacci V, Casadei R, Mutignani M, Conigliaro R, Bassotti G, Zullo A. Pre-operative Diagnosis of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors with Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Computed Tomography in a Large Series. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2016 Sep;25(3):317-21.
    doi: 10.15403/jgld.2014.1121.253.ned. PMID: 27689195.
  43. Rösch T, Lightdale CJ, Botet JF, Boyce GA, Sivak MV Jr, Yasuda K, Heyder N, Palazzo L, Dancygier H, Schusdziarra V, et al. Localization of pancreatic endocrine tumors by endoscopic ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jun 25;326(26):1721-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199206253262601. PMID: 1317506.
  44. Li J, Lin JP, Shi LH, Wang WJ, Li AQ, Si JM, Chen SJ. How reliable is the Ki-67 cytological index in grading pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors? A meta-analysis. J Dig Dis. 2016 Feb;17(2):95-103. doi: 10.1111/1751-2980.12310. PMID: 26713749.
  45. Tacelli M, Bina N, Crinò SF, Facciorusso A, Celsa C, Sbrozzi Vanni A, Fantin A, Antonini F, Falconi M, Monica F, Capurso G, Arcidiacono PG, Barresi L; Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO).
    RELIABILITY OF PREOPERATIVE PANCREATIC NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS GRADING ON ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND SPECIMENS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WITH META-ANALYSIS OF AGGREGATE AND INDIVIDUAL DATA. Gastrointest
    Endosc. 2022 Jul 18:S0016-5107(22)01831-4. doi: 10.1016/j.
    gie.2022.07.014. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35863518.
  46. Crinò SF, Ammendola S, Meneghetti A, Bernardoni L, Conti Bellocchi MC, Gabbrielli A, Landoni L, Paiella S, Pin F, Parisi A, Mastrosimini MG, Amodio A, Frulloni L, Facciorusso A, Larghi A, Manfrin E. Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and EUSguided fine-needle biopsy histology for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Pancreatology. 2021 Mar;21(2):443-450. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.12.015. Epub 2020 Dec 24. PMID: 33390343.
  47. Ishikawa T, Itoh A, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Matsubara H, Itoh Y, Nakamura Y, Nakamura M, Miyahara R, Hayashi K, Ishigami M, Katano Y, Ohmiya N, Goto H, Hirooka Y. Usefulness of EUS combined with contrast-enhancement in the differential diagnosis of malignant versus benign and preoperative localization of pancreatic endocrine tumors.
    Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 May;71(6):951-9. doi: 10.1016/j. gie.2009.12.023. PMID: 20438884.
  48. Kitano M, Kudo M, Yamao K, Takagi T, Sakamoto H, Komaki T, Kamata K, Imai H, Chiba Y, Okada M, Murakami T, Takeyama Y. Characterization of small solid tumors in the pancreas: the value of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Feb;107(2):303-10. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.354. Epub 2011 Oct 18. PMID: 22008892.
  49. Buxbaum J, Ko C, Varghese N, Lee A, Sahakian A, King K, Serna J, Lee H, Tchelepi H, Van Dam J, Duddalwar V. Qualitative and Quantitative Contrast-enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasound Improves Evaluation of Focal Pancreatic Lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Apr;18(4):917925.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.054. Epub 2019 Sep 6. PMID: 31499247.
  50. Sundin A, Vullierme MP, Kaltsas G, Plöckinger U; Mallorca Consensus Conference participants; European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the Standards of Care in Neuroendocrine Tumors: radiological examinations. Neuroendocrinology. 2009;90(2):167-83. doi: 10.1159/000184855. Epub 2009 Aug 28. PMID: 19077417.
  51. Ghobrial SN, Menda Y, Zamba GK, Mott SL, GaimariVarner K, Dick D, Dillon J, Howe JR, Graham M, Sunderland J, Bellizzi A, O’Dorisio TM, O’Dorisio MS. Prospective Analysis of the Impact of 68Ga-DOTATOC Positron Emission Tomography-Computerized Axial Tomography on Management of Pancreatic and Small Bowel Neuroendocrine
    Tumors. Pancreas. 2020 Sep;49(8):1033-1036. doi: 10.1097/ MPA.0000000000001625. PMID: 32769854; PMCID: PMC7447173.
  52. Geijer H, Breimer LH. Somatostatin receptor PET/CT in neuroendocrine tumours: update on systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Oct;40(11):1770-80. doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2482-z. Epub 2013 Jul 20. PMID: 23873003.
  53. Deppen SA, Blume J, Bobbey AJ, Shah C, Graham MM, Lee P, Delbeke D, Walker RC. 68Ga-DOTATATE Compared with 111In-DTPA-Octreotide and Conventional Imaging for Pulmonary and Gastroenteropancreatic
    Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis. J Nucl Med. 2016 Jun;57(6):872-8. doi: 10.2967/ jnumed.115.165803. Epub 2016 Jan 14. PMID: 26769864; PMCID: PMC5362941.
  54. Bauckneht M, Albano D, Annunziata S, Santo G, Guglielmo P, Frantellizzi V, Branca A, Ferrari C, Vento A, Mirabile A, Nappi AG, Evangelista L, Alongi P, Laudicella R. Somatostatin Receptor PET/CT Imaging for the Detection and Staging of Pancreatic NET: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Aug 16;10(8):598. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10080598. PMID: 32824388; PMCID: PMC7459584.
  55. Schraml C, Schwenzer NF, Sperling O, Aschoff P, Lichy MP, Müller M, Brendle C, Werner MK, Claussen CD, Pfannenberg C. Staging of neuroendocrine tumours: comparison of [68Ga]DOTATOC multiphase PET/CT and wholebody MRI. Cancer Imaging. 2013 Mar 5;13(1):63-72. doi: 10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0007. PMID: 23466785; PMCID: PMC3589947.
  56. Scott AT, Howe JR. Evaluation and Management of Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Pancreas. Surg Clin North Am. 2019 Aug;99(4):793-814. doi: 10.1016/j. suc.2019.04.014. Epub 2019 May 27. PMID: 31255207; PMCID: PMC6601637.
  57. Nigri G, Petrucciani N, Debs T, Mangogna LM, Crovetto A, Moschetta G, Persechino R, Aurello P, Ramacciato G. Treatment options for PNET liver metastases: a systematic review. World J Surg Oncol. 2018 Jul 14;16(1):142. doi: 10.1186/s12957-018-1446-y. PMID: 30007406; PMCID: PMC6046097.
  58. Hill JS, McPhee JT, McDade TP, Zhou Z, Sullivan ME, Whalen GF, Tseng JF. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: the impact of surgical resection on survival. Cancer. 2009 Feb 15;115(4):741-51. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24065. PMID: 19130464.
  59. Sallinen V, Le Large TY, Galeev S, Kovalenko Z, Tieftrunk E, Araujo R, Ceyhan GO, Gaujoux S. Surveillance strategy for small asymptomatic non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors – a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    HPB (Oxford). 2017 Apr;19(4):310-320. doi: 10.1016/j.
    hpb.2016.12.010. Epub 2017 Feb 21. PMID: 28254159.
  60. Pavel M, Baudin E, Couvelard A, Krenning E, Öberg K, Steinmüller T, Anlauf M, Wiedenmann B, Salazar R; Barcelona Consensus Conference participants. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with liver and other distant metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasms of foregut, midgut, hindgut, and unknown primary. Neuroendocrinology. 2012;95(2):157-76. doi: 10.1159/000335597. Epub 2012 Feb 15. PMID: 22262022.
  61. Panzuto F, Nasoni S, Falconi M, Corleto VD, Capurso G, Cassetta S, Di Fonzo M, Tornatore V, Milione M, Angeletti S, Cattaruzza MS, Ziparo V, Bordi C, Pederzoli P, Delle Fave G. Prognostic factors and survival in endocrine tumor patients: comparison between gastrointestinal and pancreatic localization. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2005 Dec;12(4):1083-92. doi: 10.1677/erc.1.01017. PMID: 16322345.
  62. Yuan CH, Wang J, Xiu DR, Tao M, Ma ZL, Jiang B, Li ZF, Li L, Wang L, Wang H, Zhang TL. Meta-analysis of Liver Resection Versus Nonsurgical Treatments for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors with Liver Metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Jan;23(1):244-9. doi: 10.1245/s10434-0154654-5. Epub 2015 Jun 26. PMID: 26111625.
  63. Saxena A, Chua TC, Perera M, Chu F, Morris DL. Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasms: a systematic review. Surg Oncol. 2012 Sep;21(3):e131-41. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2012.05.001. Epub 2012 May 30. PMID: 22658833.
  64. Dhaliwal A, Kolli S, Dhindsa BS, Choa J, Mashiana HS, Ramai D, Chandan S, Bhogal N, Sayles H, Bhat I, Singh S, Adler DG. Efficacy of EUS-RFA in pancreatic tumors: Is it ready for prime time? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open. 2020 Oct;8(10):E1243-E1251. doi: 10.1055/a-1221-5012. Epub 2020 Sep 22. PMID: 33015325; PMCID: PMC7508651.
  65. Garg R, Mohammed A, Singh A, Harnegie MP, Rustagi T, Stevens T, Chahal P. EUS-guided radiofrequency and ethanol ablation for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound. 2022 May-Jun;11(3):170-185. doi: 10.4103/EUS-D-21-00044. PMID: 35313416; PMCID: PMC9258014.
  66. Zhang L, Tan S, Huang S, Zhong C, Lü M, Peng Y, Tang X. The safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided ablation therapy for solid pancreatic tumors: a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep;55(9):1121-1131. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2020.1797870. Epub 2020 Jul 30. PMID: 32730715.
  67. Jilesen AP, van Eijck CH, in’t Hof KH, van Dieren S, Gouma DJ, van Dijkum EJ. Postoperative Complications, In-Hospital Mortality and 5-Year Survival After Surgical Resection for Patients with a Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor: A Systematic Review. World J Surg. 2016 Mar;40(3):72948. doi: 10.1007/s00268-015-3328-6. PMID: 26661846; PMCID: PMC4746219.
  68. Spadaccini M, Di Leo M, Iannone A, von den Hoff D, Fugazza A, Galtieri PA, Pellegatta G, Maselli R, Anderloni A, Colombo M, Siersema PD, Carrara S, Repici A. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided ablation of solid pancreatic lesions: A systematic review of early outcomes with pooled analysis. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2022 Feb 15;14(2):533-542. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i2.533. PMID: 35317325; PMCID: PMC8918998.

Download Tables, Images & References

NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #227

50 Ways to Treat Pancreatic Insufficiency(ok, maybe not 50…)

Read Article

Patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) are at risk for malnutrition and other life-altering complications resulting from malabsorption. Unfortunately, due to a similar presentation as other digestive disorders and a lack of simple, effective testing, EPI is often underdiagnosed. When diagnosed, EPI may be inadequately treated. This review explores the nuances of diagnosing and treating EPI and discusses treatment options including, and beyond, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy.

INTRODUCTION

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) is the inability of the pancreas to produce or secrete pancreatic enzymes and bicarbonate for action in the intestine to achieve normal digestion and absorption. EPI can be caused by changes in the digestive process in which the exocrine pancreas is involved including alterations in pancreatic stimulation, pancreatic enzyme synthesis, transport of pancreatic secretions, and synchronization of gastrointestinal secretions.1 Risk factors for EPI can be divided into pancreatic and extra-pancreatic disorders that include chronic pancreatitis, cystic fibrosis, and pancreatic cancer, as well as altered surgical anatomy including pancreatoduodenectomy and gastrectomy (see Table 1). If unmanaged, the maldigestion resulting from EPI can lead to malnutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, sarcopenia, osteopenia/osteoporosis, and decreased quality of life.2 EPI is often underrecognized and may be misdiagnosed as other gastrointestinal diseases, hence, delay in treatment is common. The diagnosis of EPI is complicated by the lack of accurate, easy-to-perform diagnostic tests and requires the evaluation of symptoms and nutritional markers combined with a non-invasive pancreatic function test. The current prevalence of EPI is unknown due to the wide range in etiologies and, as a result, often goes untreated.1

Timely identification and treatment of EPI are necessary due to the disease’s impact on nutrition status, risk of comorbidities, and quality of life.1 Additionally, it may be beneficial to educate patients with a high risk of EPI (such as patients with pancreatic cancer), about classic signs and symptoms associated with EPI to facilitate a timely diagnosis and initiation of treatment. It is critical for clinicians to consider EPI in the differential diagnosis, particularly for patients at high risk for the condition (see Table 1).

Determining the Presence of Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency

The diagnosis of EPI is a challenging process that requires a clinician to:

  1. identify the patient at risk for EPI
  2. evaluate with a thorough review of signs and symptoms of malabsorption and maldigestion
  3. assess indicators of malnutrition
  4. obtain noninvasive pancreatic function test/s.

The combination of at least two of the three criteria (signs and symptoms, indicators of malnutrition and noninvasive pancreatic function tests) can be considered sufficient to diagnose EPI and initiate appropriate treatment.1 Noninvasive pancreatic function tests are more helpful to determine the presence of EPI in those conditions not as commonly associated with it such as celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and diabetes.1

Signs and Symptoms

The maldigestion and malabsorption produced by EPI can result in a variety of signs and symptoms (see Table 2). Overt symptoms of EPI may not be present in early-stage EPI and may be influenced by other conditions and treatments including slow gut motility and use of opioid medications.3 Additionally, patients may self-regulate their diet to manage and lessen symptoms of EPI, therefore a connection between dietary intake and symptoms is a necessary part of the work-up.4

It can be difficult to separate signs and symptoms of EPI from those related to other diseases and treatments. To effectively evaluate symptoms, a clinician needs to ask focused and detailed questions regarding EPI symptoms and allow adequate time for assessment during patient visits. EPI symptom checklists can be helpful to guide these discussions and support at-home symptom monitoring. See Table 3 for tools to track EPI symptoms and guide conversations to identify EPI.

Testing

Several direct and indirect methods for the evaluation of exocrine pancreatic function are available (see Table 4). Direct methods offer high sensitivity and specificity, but routine usage in clinical practice is limited by the lack of availability, invasive nature, and expense. Direct methods include the quantification of duodenal secretions collected via probe or endoscopy after stimulation.2,5 Indirect methods measure the metabolites derived from the action of pancreatic enzymes and offer a less sensitive, lower cost and easier-to-implement option.5 These methods are more commonly used in the clinical setting. A noninvasive pancreatic function test is recommended to aid in EPI diagnosis, especially in the absence of clinical symptoms or with more uncommon causes of EPI. Testing may not be needed in patients with conditions known for a high prevalence of EPI including severe chronic pancreatitis, cystic fibrosis, pancreatic head destruction from either tumor or episode of acute pancreatitis, or after total pancreatectomy.

Imaging

Imaging, including ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, or computed tomography, may reveal atrophy of the pancreas or the presence of calcifications. Pancreatic atrophy or calcifications are associated with EPI and should lead to further evaluation in patients with these findings on imaging.6

Options for Treating Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) is the primary management strategy for EPI. PERT is the use of prescription pancreatic enzymes (pancrealipase) taken with all meals, snacks, and fat-containing oral nutrition supplements to mimic pancreatic exocrine function by providing amylase, lipase, and protease. PERT aims to correct maldigestion and malabsorption by providing adequate enzymatic activity into the small intestine in conjunction with gastric emptying.6 PERT efficacy is dependent on enzymes mixing with the food, emptying from the stomach with the food, appropriate duodenal pH, mixing with duodenal chyme and bile acids, and finally rapid release of PERT in the duodenum (which is pH dependent). With adequate PERT use to manage maldigestion, dietary fat restriction is not necessary. Currently, porcine-derived enzymes are the only prescription PERT product available in the United States. As a clinician, it is important to be transparent with patients regarding the source of prescription PERT products due to potential issues in patients with a pork allergy or cultural or religious beliefs limiting the use of porcinederived products. Prescription pancreatic enzymes are available in non-enteric coated tablets and delayed-release capsules filled with enteric coated beads, microtablets, or spheres (see Table 5). Formulation selection may be influenced by cost and insurance coverage. Patients benefit from delayed-release capsules as the enteric coating of the beads, microtablets, or spheres protect the enzymes from being denatured by gastric acid and allow for appropriate activation of the enzymes in the alkaline environment of the small intestine.7 Non-enteric coated tablets paired with a proton pump inhibitor or opening the delayed-release capsules and sprinkling on non-dairy soft food such as applesauce, is recommended for those with accelerated gastric emptying and in those with gastric reducing surgeries (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, distal gastrectomy, etc.).3 If delayed-release capsules are opened for administration, the enteric coated beads should be sprinkled on a spoonful of non-dairy, acidic food that does not require chewing. Non-dairy foods are necessary as the alkaline nature of dairy foods can prematurely activate the microspheres. Soft foods that do not require chewing are recommended to avoid mouth irritation.

The benefits of PERT have been established in multiple populations. Improvements in the coefficients of fat and nitrogen absorption, as well as EPI symptoms were demonstrated in patients with EPI due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatic surgery.8 A meta-analysis showed that PERT improved the coefficient of fat absorption, clinical symptoms, and quality of life of patients with chronic pancreatitis and EPI.9 PERT usage in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer was associated with both a survival benefit and improved quality of life.10 A randomized controlled trial reported improved nutritional status and quality of life in patients using PERT after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.11

A common pitfall of PERT is inadequate dosing. With EPI presenting in infancy through adulthood, PERT is available in various dosages. Some low dosage options are intended for use in pediatric populations but are mistakenly prescribed to adults, resulting in a dosage that is too low to be effective in the treatment of EPI in adults.12 The common monikers “less is more” and “start low and work up” can result in inadequate PERT dosing leading to inadequate or no improvement in EPI symptoms and increasing frustration for the patient and the clinician. Dosing methods include meal-based, weight-based, and per-gram-of-fat consumed dosing. Common dosing recommendations for an average-sized adult is to begin with 40,000-50,000 units of lipase per meal and 20,000-25,000 units of lipase per snack.13 Higher dosing of 75,000 units of lipase per meal may be required for patients with EPI due to pancreatic cancer or after gastrointestinal or pancreatic surgery due to anatomic alterations resulting in altered gastrointestinal transit.2 The dose should be progressively increased until symptoms are sufficiently controlled. PERT dosing needs to be increased with higher energy or higher fat meal intake, reinforcing the importance of understanding a patient’s dietary pattern. In addition to adequate PERT dosing per meal, provision of an adequate supply of PERT to take with snacks and oral nutrition supplements is also necessary to promote optimal digestion of all intake. If more than one capsule is required per meal or snack, dosing can be divided throughout the meal by taking part of the dose at the beginning of the meal and distributing the remainder throughout the meal to promote an adequate supply of enzymes for all food consumed.14 Treatment of EPI with PERT is not without its challenges. Inadequate dosing and patient noncompliance with PERT can lead to suboptimal results. To promote compliance, time should be given to patient education regarding the causes and symptoms of EPI as well as the role of PERT. Routine follow-up should be scheduled after PERT initiation to allow for dose titration and additional education. If EPI continues despite dose and usage optimization, the addition of a proton pump inhibitor is recommended to promote the necessary alkaline environment for enzymatic function.1 If EPI continues despite the above interventions, it is necessary to rule out other contributors including small intestinal bacterial overgrowth.

Low-fat Diet

Although a liberal diet with adequate PERT use to promote digestion and absorption is commonly recommended, a low-fat diet may be utilized as a treatment for EPI. This may be due to patient preference or an individual patient’s intolerance to PERT. With a low-fat diet to promote improved EPI symptoms, fat intake should be limited to 25 grams per day for patients with severe steatorrhea.15 Daily fat intake goals should be individualized based on the degree of

steatorrhea and change in symptoms with reduced fat intake. The appropriateness of a low-fat diet as treatment for EPI should be determined on a patient-by-patient basis including assessing the patient’s ability to consume adequate intake while following a low-fat diet.

Successful implementation of a low-fat diet to manage EPI requires the involvement of a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist to perform a thorough nutrition assessment and develop appropriate, individualized interventions. A thorough understanding of a patient’s typical eating pattern is necessary to inform advice regarding foods to choose or increase, as well as promote adequate nutrient intake. To avoid essential fatty acid deficiency, fat sources consumed should be high in essential fatty acids, including corn, sesame, safflower and soybean oils and spreads like sunflower seed butter and mayonnaise and margarine made with soybean oil.16 Additionally, it is necessary to monitor and ensure adequate intake of fat-soluble vitamins and recommend supplementation as needed. For patients struggling to consume adequate calories while following a low-fat diet, mediumchain triglycerides (MCT) can be utilized to supplement intake. MCT oil can be substituted for other fats as MCTs do not require enzymatic action or bile salts for digestion or absorption and absorption occurs via passive diffusion along the gastrointestinal tract into the portal system bound to albumin.17 A tablespoon of MCT oil contains 14 grams of fat and 115 calories. Fat from MCT oil should not be counted into the allowed grams of fat per day on a low-fat diet unless too much is used, overwhelming the receptors along the intestinal mucosa. A slow introduction and gradual titration of MCT oil is necessary due to potential gastrointestinal distress including diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, stomach discomfort and intestinal gas.17 Additionally, compliance can be a challenge due to MCT oil’s limited palatability. It is important to note that while coconut oil is a natural source of MCTs, it also contains long chain triglycerides (LCTs) and therefore should not be used in place of conventional MCT oil.

EPI Management in Enteral Nutrition

EPI management for a patient receiving enteral nutrition poses a unique challenge. A simple first step is to utilize a low-fat, semi-elemental enteral formula to provide fewer LCTs and more MCTs to decrease dependence on pancreatic lipase for absorption. In some patients, this may be adequate to avoid symptoms of EPI. If EPI symptoms persist despite the use of a semi-elemental formula, an elemental formula may be beneficial (see malabsorption guideline free on-line at: https:// www.guidelinecentral.com/guideline/502778/ pocket-guide/502784/). Variable tolerance and difficulty meeting nutrition needs with lower calorie per mL formula/s are limitations of using an elemental formula for EPI management. Administration of PERT to aid in the digestion of enteral nutrition can be cumbersome and difficult to administer properly to fully address EPI (especially those who infuse during the night while they sleep). An in-line digestive enzyme cartridge (Relizorb®, Alcresta, U.S. – https:// www.relizorb.com/) provides a less burdensome option. The cartridge contains covalently bound and immobilized lipase that hydrolyzes fats to triglyceride form as the formula flows through it before ingestion. However, use is limited to pump feedings and some enteral formulas have more efficacy than others (https://www.relizorb. com/pdf/Compatible-Formulas-and-Pumps.pdf). The in-line digestive cartridge has been shown to provide >90% fat hydrolysis of polymeric and semi-elemental formulas and enhance lipid absorption from selected enteral products.18

In patients with EPI and gastric outlet obstructions, external biliary drains or drains due to enterocutaneous fistula of the upper GI tract or upper GI anastomotic leak, it may be beneficial to reinfuse bile and pancreatic enzymes alongside jejunal enteral nutrition.19,20  Appropriate patient selection is critical as well as a consideration of nursing time involved in the era of staffing shortages.20

Evaluating Adequacy of EPI Treatment

There are several factors to monitor to determine the adequacy of EPI treatment. Gastrointestinal symptoms (as outlined in table 2) that were present before EPI treatment should show improvement with adequate intervention if symptoms are being driven by EPI. In patients with complex medical conditions or treatments, it can be difficult to determine symptoms and the multiple contributors should be considered when evaluating the adequacy and impact of EPI treatment.

Adequate EPI treatment should result in improved energy level, weight, and strength. Weight and strength gains are often gradual, more subtle improvements as compared to gastrointestinal symptoms and energy level. Adequate EPI treatment should result in the normalization and maintenance of fat-soluble vitamin levels (A, D, E and K), after appropriate repletion. Additionally, with improved absorption and fat-soluble vitamin levels, dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan results should stabilize or improve. Routine monitoring of fat-soluble vitamin levels and bone density should be performed in patients with suspected EPI, starting at presentation. Thorough assessment and documentation of gastrointestinal symptoms and nutritional status are necessary at baseline and throughout care to assist in evaluating the efficacy and adequacy of EPI treatment. Although beyond the scope of this article, PERT treatment can uncover what might have been subclinical diabetes (Type 3c) in those suffering from undiagnosed EPI and malabsorption, once they finally begin to absorb their food.29

CONCLUSION

EPI prevalence is associated with numerous causes and, if left untreated, has negative impacts on nutrition status, may precipitate comorbidities, and significantly alter quality of life. Early identification and adequate intervention are necessary. Understanding the available interventions and appreciating the nuances of EPI treatment will promote improved care to patients suffering from EPI. See Table 6 for reasons why EPI may not achieve success.

References

  1. Diéguez-Castillo C, Jiménez-Luna C, Prados J, et al. State of the art in exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020;56(10):523.
  2. Dominguez-Muñoz JE. Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2018;34(5):349-354.
  3. Petzel M. Medical Nutrition Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer. In: Voss A, Williams V, eds. Oncology for Clinical Practice. 2nd Edition. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; 2021:434471.
  4. Dominguez-Muñoz JE. Management of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2019;35(5):455-459.
  5. Afghani E, Sinha A, Singh VK. An overview of the diagnosis and management of nutrition in chronic pancreatitis. Nutr Clin Pract. 2014;29:295-311.
  6. Singh VK, Haupt ME, Geller DE, et al. Less common etiologies of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23(39):7059-7076.
  7. Löhr JM, Hummel FM, Pirilis KT, et al. Properties of different pancreatin preparations used in pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;21(9):1024-31.
  8. Whitcomb DC, Lehman GA, Vasileva G, et al. Pancrealipase delayed-release capsules (CREON) for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatic surgery: A double-blind randomized trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(10):2276-86.
  9. Iglesia-García D, Huang W, Szatmary P, et al. Efficacy of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in chronic pancreatitis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut. 2017;66(8):1354-1355.
  10. Iglesia D, Avci B, Kiriukova M, et al. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency and pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. United European Gastroenterol J. 2020;8(9):1115-1125.
  11. Catarci M, Berlanda M, Grassi GB, et al. Pancreatic enzyme supplementation after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21(3):542551.
  12. Struyvenberg MR, Martin CR, Freedman SD. Practical guide to exocrine pancreatic insufficiency – Breaking the myths. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):29.
  13. Pezzilli R, Andriulli A, Bassi C, et al. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency in adults: a shared position statement of the Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(44):7930-7946.
  14. DiMagno EP, Malagelada JR, Go VL, et al. Fate of orally ingested enzymes in pancreatic insufficiency. Comparison of two dosage schedules. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(23):131822.
  15. Sarner M. Treatment of pancreatic exocrine deficiency. World J Surg. 2003;27(11):1192-5.
  16. Mogensen, K. Essential fatty acid deficiency. Practical Gastro. 2017;June(6):37-44.
  17. Shah ND, Limketkai BN. The use of medium-chain triglycerides in gastrointestinal disorders. Practical Gastro. 2017;Feb(2):20-28.
  18. Freedman SD. Options for addressing exocrine pancreatic insufficiency in patients receiving enteral nutrition supplementation. Am J Manag Care. 2017;23(12 Suppl):S220-S228.
  19. Berry A. Reinfusion of gastrointestinal secretions: the bedside experience. Practical Gastro. 2017;July(7):22-31.
  20. Parrish CR, Quatrara B. Reinfusion of intestinal secretions: a viable option for select patients. Practical Gastro. 2010;April(4):26-40.
  21. Creon. Prescribing information. AbbVie Inc.; 2022. https:// www.rxabbvie.com/pdf/creon_PI.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2022.
  22. Pancreaze. Prescribing information. Vivus; 2021. https:// pancreaze.com/assets/pdf/PANCREAZE-PrescribingInformation.pdf?_gl=11fckoey_gaMTQ4NTE1NDc4M y4xNjU1MDM3Mzky_ga_RHWF25G4MK*MTY1NTAz NzM5MS4xLjEuMTY1NTAzODg2My4w. Accessed June
    12, 2022.
  23. Zenpep Prescribing information. Nestle Health Science; 2020. https://www.zenpep.com/home-hcp/sites/g/files/ lpfasj706/files/2021-03/Zenpep-March-2021-FullPrescribing-Information-and-Medication-Guide.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2022.
  24. Pertzye Prescribing information. Digestive Care Inc.; 2020. https://resources.chiesiusa.com/Pertzye/PERTZYE_PI.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2022.
  25. Viokace Prescribing information. Nestle Health Science; 2020. https://www.nestlehealthscience.us/sites/g/files/ lpfasj536/files/2021-04/73314NT10_3_2020_USA%20 Viokace%20PI%20MED%20GUIDE_8.5x11_Web%20
    Version.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2022.
  26. Kida A, McDonald G. Gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, pancreatic and iron-related diseases in long-term survivors of allogeneic cell transplantation. Semin Hematol. 2012; 49(1):43-58.
  27. Liu Y, Zhang H, Zhou L et al. Immunotherapy-Associated Pancreatic Adverse Events: Current Understanding of Their Mechanism, Diagnosis, and Management. Front Oncol. 2021 Feb 25;11:627612.
  28. Marziliano A, Teckie S, Diefenbach MA. Alcohol-related head and neck cancer: Summary of the literature. Head Neck. 2020;42(4):732-738.
  29. Duggan, SN, Conlon KC. Pancreatogenic Type 3c Diabetes: Underestimated, Underappreciated and Poorly Managed. Practical Gastroenterology. 2017;May(5):14-23.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE PEDIATRIC LITERATURE

From the Pediatric Literature

Read Article

Pouchitis in Children with Ulcerative Colitis

Pouchitis is a known complication after ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed for ulcerative colitis (UC); however, the incidence of pouchitis and the associated risk factors for progressing to pouchitis in children are unclear. The authors attempted to answer this question using the IQVIA Legacy PharMetrics® Adjudicated Claims Database which is a de-identified longitudinal claims database that tracks patient data from U.S. commercial insurance. Pediatric patients (defined as less than 18 years old) were included in the study if they had commercial health insurance for at least 6 months and if they had undergone IPAA for UC between 2007 and 2015. Pouchitis was defined by standard clinical definitions. The study’s primary outcome was to determine the incidence of pouchitis in the two years following IPAA while secondary outcomes consisted of determining the incidence of just one episode of acute pouchitis occurring, the incidence of chronic pouchitis occurring (defined as recurrent episodes of pouchitis), and the frequency of patients having their diagnosis changed to Crohn’s disease (CD) after IPAA. Risk factors for pouchitis (including primary sclerosing cholangitis and Clostridioides difficile infection) were evaluated as were medications used up to 6 months prior to colectomy. 

The database had 79,665,591 patients in total, and 68 pediatric patients with IPAA were identified with a mean age of 13.1 ± 3.8 years (43% female). A total of 37 patients (54%) developed pouchitis during the study period with 22 patients (32%) having a diagnosis of acute pouchitis and 15 patients (22%) having chronic pouchitis. There was no statistical difference in age, sex, medication use, incidence of primary sclerosing cholangitis, incidence of C. difficile, or geographic location of patients when patients with pouchitis were compared to patients without pouchitis. Patients with pouchitis were statistically more likely to have an increased number of outpatient clinic visits after IPAA (21.8 vs. 10.2; P = 0.006) as well as an increased number of hospitalizations after IPAA (46% vs. 23%; P = .045) compared to patients with no pouchitis. There was an increase in the number of emergency room visits as well for patient with pouchitis compared to the patients with no pouchitis, but the difference was not significant.

Six patients (9%) ended up with a final diagnosis of CD after IPAA, but there was no statistical difference in this diagnosis between patient with and without pouchitis. Pediatric patients with pouchitis had significantly higher mean healthcare costs at year 1 ($27,489 versus $8032; P = 0.001) and year 2 ($27,699 versus $6058; P = 0.003) after IPAA compared to patients without pouchitis. 

This study suggests that the rate of pediatric pouchitis after IPAA is comparable to that of the adult pouchitis rate after IPAA. No significant risk factors were associated with the development of pediatric pouchitis although patients with pouchitis did have significantly higher health care costs. Further work is needed to determine what additional risk factors can predict pouchitis in children, and the relatively high rate of patients being diagnosed with CD after IPAA suggests a clearer diagnosis of UC is still needed in pediatric patients with UC after IPAA.

Cowherd E, Egberg M, Kappelman M, Zhang X, Long M, Lightner A, Sandler R, Herfarth H, Barnes E.  The cumulative incidence of pouchitis in pediatric patients with ulcerative colitis. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2022; 28: 1332-1337.

Pediatric Battery Ingestions and Emergency Room Visits

Pediatric battery ingestions are common reasons for emergency department (ED) visits which is an important clinical problem to consider as button battery ingestions are associated with severe morbidity as well as mortality. A prior study in 2012 demonstrated a significant increase in the rate and number of pediatric battery-related ED visits between 1990 to 2009 in which 75% these visits were due to injuries associated with battery ingestions and 84% of these injuries specifically involved button batteries. Thus, the authors of this study wanted to evaluate pediatric ED visits for button battery complications from 2010 to 2019 and to compare these findings to the prior study. The data for this study came from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) which tracks consumer product in the United States. The authors used NEISS code 884

for batteries, and potential patients were divided in the age groups of patients  ≤ 5 years and 6 – 17 years of age. Battery types were described as cylindrical, button batteries, or unknown. Four exposure locations were evaluated during the study including ingestion, exposure to mouth, insertion in nose, and insertion in ear. Vaginal and rectal insertions were excluded as such types of insertions are rare, and cases were excluded if the battery was not swallowed intact or if mouth exposure did not result in a burn. 

In total, 70,322 battery-related ED visits for patients less than 18 years of age occurred from 2010 to 2019. Most ingestions occurred in patients ≤ 5 years compared to patients 6 – 17 years of age (24.5 and 2.2 per 100.000 with a mean age of 3.2 years, 95% CI: 2.93–3.42), and 57.4% of these ingestions occurred in males. Patients with an age of 1 year had the highest incidence of battery ingestion (19,226 patients or 27.3% of patients). From 2010 to 2017, the rate of ED visits for battery related incidents per 100,000 children significantly increased in patients ≤ 5 years of age (16.8 to 38.4, P = 0.03) as well as for patients 6 – 17 years of age (7 to 14.3, P = 0.03). However, there was a non-significant decline in such visits for both age groups from 2017 to 2019. A total of 8410 patients (12%) were hospitalized because of a battery-related incident, and patients 6 – 17 years of age were more likely to become hospitalized compared to patients ≤ 5 years of age (1.65 times, 95% CI: 1.58 – 1.73) with 84.7% of battery complications related to button batteries. The most common route of exposure was ingestion (90%) with these patients having a mean age of 3 years (95% CI: 2.8-3.2). Patients with exposure to batteries (including ingestion and non-ingestion of batteries) were mostly ≤ 5 years of age and male, and no significant difference existed in the hospitalization rate when comparing ingestion versus non-ingestion of pediatric batteries. Button batteries were the most common cause of hospitalization including ingestion (84.5%) and non-ingestion (86.4%), and button batteries were 2.1 times more likely to lead to hospitalization compared to cylindrical batteries (95% CI: 1.922.30). Finally, this study demonstrated that battery associated ED visits per 100,000 pediatric patients had increased 2.1 times compared to the 1990 – 2009 study. The non-statistical decline in battery associated hospitalizations from 2017-2019 may suggest that a preventative trend is occurring, but more longitudinal data is needed. Continuing surveillance as well as prevention of battery associated pediatric ED visits are still warranted.

Chandler M, Ilyas K, Jatana K, Smith G, McKenzie L, MacKay J.  Pediatric Battery-Related Emergency Department Visits in the United States: 2010–2019. Pediatrics 2022; 150: e2022056709.

Download Tables, Images & References

MEDICAL BULLETIN BOARD

The Bruce and Cynthia Sherman Charitable Foundation Announces Recipients of the 2022 Sherman Prizes, Rewarding Outstanding Achievements in Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis

Prize Recipients’ Relentless Drive and Transformational Research Lead to Extraordinary Advances in the Health and Care of People with IBD

BOCA RATON, Fla., September 21, 2022 – The Bruce and Cynthia Sherman Charitable Foundation today announced the recipients of the seventh annual Sherman Prizes, recognizing excellence in the field of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, also known as inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD).

Sherman Prize Honorees

  • Marla C. Dubinsky, MD, Professor of

Pediatrics and Medicine, Chief of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Co-Director of the Susan and Leonard Feinstein IBD Clinical Center and Director of the Marie and Barry Lipman IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, NY

  • Uma Mahadevan, MD, Professor of Medicine, Director of the Colitis and Crohn’s Disease

Center, and Director of the Advanced IBD Fellowship at the University of California

San Francisco in San Francisco, CA

Sherman Emerging Leader Prize Honoree

• Parambir S. Dulai, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Director of GI Clinical Trials and Precision Medicine, and Director of the Digestive Health Foundation BioRepository at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL “IBD has impacted our family for generations,” said Bruce Sherman, who co-founded the Sherman Prize along with his wife, Cynthia. “We’re incredibly grateful that these brilliant physicianscientists, Drs. Dubinsky, Mahadevan, and Dulai, have chosen this field and devote their careers to driving the science forward every day, and try their best to improve the quality of IBD patients’ lives. By pushing the envelope and providing hope to IBD patients and their families, these trailblazers inspire others to do the same.”

“When we look at their body of work, we start to see a brighter future, all made possible by their talent and their passion,” said Cynthia Sherman of this year’s recipients. “Future generations of IBD patients and practitioners will be better off because of them. Their work is what this Prize is all about, excellence that truly inspires.”

Short tribute films highlighting the Prize recipients’ achievements will be premiered during special sessions to honor them at the Advances in IBD (AIBD) conference in Orlando, Florida on Dec. 6, 2022. The films may be viewed at www.

ShermanPrize.org following the conference.

“Drs. Dubinsky, Mahadevan, and Dulai exemplify what it means to put patients’ needs first,” said Dr. Maria T. Abreu, Sherman Prize Selection Committee Chair, and Professor of Medicine and Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. “Their curiosity to probe what’s behind unmet needs and their tenacity in overcoming challenges to put their research into motion is what changes outcomes, not only for their own patients but for all those living with IBD. I’m proud to stand with them as a colleague and cannot wait to join my fellow Committee members to honor them at AIBD in December.”

About the 2022 Prize Recipients

Dr. Marla Dubinsky is one of IBD’s preeminent game changers, awarded a $100,000 Sherman Prize for her infectious energy and ‘never say never’ approach to fostering interdisciplinary collaborations that improve patients’ health. She brings to her medical career a fearlessness that she honed as a young athlete, along with the attitude that success is a team sport. An inspiring clinician, researcher, educator and mentor, Dr. Dubinsky says that personalizing care for women and children is her North Star. As an internationally recognized leader in pediatric IBD, Dr. Dubinsky has been giving hope to children and their parents for decades. Her research accomplishments and care innovations are many — from defining therapeutic dosing levels of medicines to optimize treatment in children, to identifying some of the most predictive biomarkers for disease progression, to bringing intestinal ultrasound to the bedside. Today, Dr. Dubinsky works on being a guiding figure for those coming up the ranks, teaching her mentees to tailor care to a patient’s needs and reinforcing the importance of empowering patients to better manage their IBD so they can live the life they want. Toward this end, she helped develop a decision support tool originally called PROSPECT, now CDPATH, that shows patients their risk of disease progression so they can make informed treatment decisions. After fostering resilience training for patients at Mount Sinai and seeing how much it improved their overall health, she co-founded, along with her friend and colleague Laurie Keefer, Ph.D, a publicly-traded digital health company, Trellus Health, to make this empowerment training available online to patients anywhere, anytime, helping them overcome adversity and not be defined by their disease. Looking to the future, Dr. Dubinsky is exploring how to prevent IBD and is hopeful that a collaborative effort will one day lead to an intervention to stop IBD from developing in people at risk for the disease.

Dr. Uma Mahadevan is an innovator for life, awarded a $100,000 Sherman Prize for her fierce advocacy on behalf of women suffering from IBD who needed a tireless problem-solver to challenge outdated ideas and make families possible. Dr. Mahadevan’s pioneering research has been a linchpin in standardizing the care of pregnant women with IBD around the world. Her journey to help women began early in her career, when she was struck by the lack of knowledge around pregnancy outcomes in IBD. She made it her life’s work to close this gap so women with IBD could conceive and safely carry a baby while minimizing risk to their own health. Her landmark achievement has been designing and leading the prospective PIANO (Pregnancy Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Neonatal Outcomes) study, which created the country’s largest registry to evaluate pregnancy outcomes and the use of IBD medications in women and their offspring. With more than 2,000 women in the study, the registry has enabled significant change in treatment. PIANO revealed that women with IBD can safely continue taking biologic therapies and thiopurines through pregnancy and lactation, and that continuing treatment, instead of stopping as had been previously advised, leads to better outcomes for mothers and their babies. Moreover, the registry is providing important guidance for women with psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis, who often take the same medications as those used in IBD. Dr. Mahadevan anticipates PIANO’s impact will only grow more profound over time as the registry follows participants’ children up to their 18th birthday and continues to evaluate new medicines. Today, Dr. Mahadevan continues to advance patient care while finding time to see more than 1,500 patients every year and mentor the next generation of IBD physicians to continue a legacy of improving patient outcomes.

Dr. Parambir Dulai’s unrelenting spirit creates hope. He is awarded the $25,000 Sherman Emerging Leader Prize for championing hyperbaric oxygen therapy to alleviate suffering in people with ulcerative colitis. For 10 years, he has relentlessly pursued this research to see if this approach can heal acute symptoms in people hospitalized with ulcerative colitis. He’s particularly interested in hyperbaric oxygen because it is widely available in community hospitals, which means that if it works, every patient hospitalized for ulcerative colitis has the potential to get treated and discharged safely, without a need for surgery. Despite early critics of his research, Dr. Dulai persevered – dedicating nights and weekends to early-stage trials that ultimately showed positive results. Now Dr. Dulai is making plans to lead a Phase 3 investigator-initiated trial (IIT) – the first ever conducted in hospitalized ulcerative colitis patients in the U.S. He is hopeful that it will result in the first FDA-approved treatment developed outside of the pharmaceutical industry – providing a transformational therapy for patients. To make this study possible, Dr. Dulai built a large collaborative consortium, integrating professional networks to conduct large IITs. And he didn’t stop there. He’s also credited with developing the IBD Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST), a free online treatment decision-making tool that has been used by more than 3,000 providers. And he’s identified a novel biomarker in ulcerative colitis that he licensed to industry for drug development. Now, Dr. Dulai has been recruited to a prestigious leadership position at Northwestern Medicine, where he oversees clinical trials and precision medicine delivery for more than 15,000 IBD patients. He hopes this research will help bring the personalized treatment revolution to the field of IBD and radically transform the way these diseases are treated.

About the Sherman Prize

The Sherman Prize was founded in 2016 by the Bruce and Cynthia Sherman Charitable Foundation to honor innovators from a variety of professional disciplines who have dedicated their careers to the fight to overcome IBD and represent “Excellence in Crohn’s and Colitis” in their chosen endeavors. Every year, two $100,000 Sherman Prizes are awarded to IBD visionaries to recognize their exceptional and pioneering contributions that have transformed the care of people with IBD. A $25,000 Sherman Emerging Leader Prize is awarded to an IBD professional who, while early in her or his career, has contributed to an advancement and shows great promise for significant future contributions. Visit ShermanPrize.org to view the Honor Roll of Sherman Prize recipients, watch their inspiring short tribute films and sign up to receive notification of the 2023 nomination cycle.

Download Tables, Images & References

NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #226

Reducing Weight Bias in GI Practice to Improve the Clinician/Patient Relationship

Read Article

Weight bias is negative beliefs and stereotypes based on a person’s weight, size, or shape that impacts the way practitioners provide care. Research shows that weight bias is physically and psychologically harmful to patients and can lead to missed diagnoses and inadequate care. This article addresses the limitations of using fatness as a measure of health, and the danger of perpetuating the assumption that higher weight is synonymous with poorer health. Risks of this assumption encompass weight cycling and its impact on health, as well as the direct impact of weight bias on overall wellness. Included are suggestions for shifting from a weight-centric care approach to a weight-inclusive paradigm in order to create an environment where all patients receive equitable care when visiting their healthcare provider, regardless of their size.

Weight Bias in GI Practice: How it Jeopardizes the Clinician/Patient Relationship

Weight bias, also called weight stigma, obesity stigma, and anti-fat bias is defined as, “negative weight-related attitudes and beliefs that manifest as stereotypes, rejection, prejudice, and discrimination towards individuals of higher weights”.1 Our culture is rife with explicit weight bias – on television, in magazines, and on social media – from body shaming celebrities to public health campaigns proclaiming a “war on obesity.” Weight bias has penetrated and perpetuated in our healthcare system. In many cases this is unintentional harm, but harm is caused nonetheless. There is considerable evidence that reveals that weight bias influences the attitudes of the practitioner including interpersonal communication, perceptions of compliance, diagnosis and treatment, judgment, and decisionmaking.2,3,4 These attitudes impact the quality of care a patient receives, despite best intentions to do no harm.

Implicit Bias and Compromised Care

Implicit bias – unlike explicit bias which is a conscious prejudice – is an unconscious evaluation of others based on characteristics such as race, gender, or size. The lack of awareness surrounding implicit bias is a concern in healthcare because it impacts the care of those

targeted.5 In a scoping review, care of those who experienced weight bias from healthcare providers had a lower rate of use of healthcare services and delayed medical intervention to avoid patronizing and discourteous treatment.5 Patients have experienced their health concerns attributed solely to their weight, which can lead to weight stigma and results in the avoidance of future care as well.5 Nearly 55% of women living in bigger bodies reported delaying or canceling an appointment if they anticipated being weighed during their visit.5 These experiences are not rare. In a study of almost 5,000 first-year medical students from 49 medical schools across the country, implicit weight bias was comparable to explicit bias against racial minorities, while their explicit bias for larger-bodied people was more negative when measured against attitudes for race, sexuality, and socioeconomic status.6 Implicit bias compromises care for those impacted, both through the avoidance and/or delay of health care, and the quality of care provided by the biased health care professional. It can result in reduced quality and quantity of care, and less patient-centered care, which can impact the patient’s trust in the provider and their recommendations.4 Research shows that providers recommend weight loss and exercise more often for patients with larger bodies as compared to those with average-sized bodies, focusing on body size rather than medical interventions to treat or manage diagnoses.7 Implicit bias can cause lasting harm; physicians may overattribute symptoms and problems to body size, or misdiagnose a patient, or fail to follow up with testing and symptom management options beyond weight loss recommendations.4

Body Terminology

For the purposes of this article, the terms “obesity” and “overweight” to describe people with bigger bodies will be used with quotations to denote how they can be stigmatizing. These terms are based on the Body Mass Index (BMI) which is considered to be flawed and not intended to measure the risk of health problems of populations, nor the health of individuals.8 Language is critical; these words can perpetuate weight bias by their definitions alone: “Obesity” stems from the Latin phrase “eaten itself fat.” This assumes that everyone in a larger body is so because of a lack of willpower, overeating, laziness, and a disregard for health.5,9 The term “overweight” assumes that there is a correct weight that all bodies should be at for a particular height and being above that weight is correlated with the same stereotypes as “obesity.” Many in the fat liberation movement have reclaimed the word “fat” and use it as a body descriptor, not unlike “tall” or “muscular.”10 Other preferred terms include, “in a larger/bigger body,” or, “at a higher weight.” It is not recommended to use “fat” as a body descriptor unless your client has asked you to use it, otherwise, it could be seen as adding Ancel Keys studied 7,500 white men in order to find the most useful of the then-available ways to measure body fat during regular office visits.11 He changed the name to Body Mass Index and noted in his research that it detected “obesity” correctly to, or causing, weight stigma or bias.

Limitations of Body Size Classification

Body size classification is measured using the BMI which was created 200 years ago by a Belgian physicist looking to measure the “ideal man”.11 It was called Quetelet’s Index and it was designed to measure statistics within a population and not fatness in individuals. In the 1970s, researcher only 50% of the time.11

BMI has obvious limitations:

  • It does not take into consideration fat versus fat-free mass.
  • Age is not adjusted for, where muscle and bone deteriorate over time.
  • There are also differences in body composition based on gender, fitness level, and race, yet none of these are accounted for in the BMI which uses only height and weight in the calculation. 

There is an abundance of epidemiological research showing that “obesity” is associated with longer survival with diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases than thinner people with the same diagnoses.12,13,14 It has also been observed that seniors who fall into the “overweight” category often live longer than their thinner counterparts and the mortality rate of those with a BMI >30kg/m2 has declined over time.15 In a meta-analysis of 2.88 million people conducted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the lowest all-cause mortality rate was within the “overweight” category, and the highest hazard ratio was in the “underweight” category.12 Data from multiple studies show that using BMI to determine health miscategorizes the majority of healthy people; in 2008, the number was 51%,16 and in 2020, that number increased to 74%.16,17

Nearly 60 years later, this flawed calculation is being used to measure fatness in almost every medical office.

Assumptions and Risks Weight-Centric Healthcare

Our current healthcare model can be considered using a weight-centric, or weight-normative, approach – the terms are used interchangeably – which emphasizes weight as a determinant of health, and weight loss as a prescription for treatment of poor health. This model puts the responsibility for health and the maintenance of health on the patient.18 There are two obvious risks to this approach: Focusing on weight can lead to missing the true condition because weight is blamed for the chief complaint and weight loss is prescribed as treatment. When “lose weight and exercise” is prescribed and weight loss is not achieved or sustained by the patient, they may cease participation in health-promoting behaviors that can improve health markers, like including fiber and being active.18

The Assumption: higher weights are synonymous with poorer health

The main assumption made in weight-centric healthcare that contributes to and perpetuates weight bias is that higher weight is synonymous with poorer health. While much research exists that correlates fatness with disease states, causation cannot be assumed.18,19 Often, these studies neglect to control for factors such as fitness level, activity, nutrient intake, weight cycling, socioeconomic status, and experienced or internalized weight bias.

In a meta-analysis of over one million people, those in the “overweight” category and “obese class 1” category had lower all-cause mortality rates than those in the “normal” and “overweight” categories.12 In all BMI categories, sedentary behavior was linked with mortality – this is the absence of a health behavior, independent of weight.12 In another study that focuses just on weight, liposuction was used to remove fat to determine if insulin sensitivity was positively impacted. The researchers concluded that decreasing abdominal fat on its own does not improve metabolic markers for health. This is just one example of how weight loss on its own does not improve health.20

The Risks: weight cycling

Weight cycling,  or “yo-yo” dieting, is the common term for losing and gaining weight over many attempts without sustained weight loss. Attempts to lose weight are more common amongst, and more commonly prescribed to, patients with big bodies. Weight cycling increases inflammation, and inflammation increases the risk of many diseases.18,21 It also increases emotional distress, maladaptive and disordered eating behaviors, Binge Eating Disorder, and is a predictor of future weight gain.18  The National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a report stating that ⅓ – ⅔ of weight is regained within one year and almost all is regained within five years after ending a diet.25 Another study determined that ⅓ – ⅔ of dieters regain more weight than they lost on their diets.22 One of the largest reviews of the impact of weight cycling was the Framingham Heart Study. More than 5000 people were examined over a 32-year period. The results indicated that weight cycling was strongly linked to overall mortality, and mortality and morbidity related to coronary heart disease.23 A similar result was found in a study where individuals with “obesity” did not attempt weight loss and did not have a higher risk of death as compared to the subjects in the “normal” BMI category.24 Despite these findings, weight loss continues to be prescribed as a first-line treatment for a multitude of symptoms and diagnoses, even though weight loss is technically not a health behavior or within a person’s total control. Many of the studies that link weight loss to improved health do not control for the health behaviors that participants may have engaged in that led to a reduction in weight, for instance, adding or increasing the frequency of exercise, the consumption of fruits and vegetables, and establishing regular sleep habits, which are actual health behaviors that can result in improved biochemical markers for health, independent of weight.

The Risks: weight bias

Possibly the most important risk to understand from the assumption that a higher weight indicates poor health is the increased experience of weight bias. Examples of weight bias in healthcare include providers making assumptions about a patient’s health and lack of appropriate equipment such as blood pressure cuffs for larger bodies among others (see Table 1).17,18

There are many health risks linked to weight stigma. The most notable is that weight stigma can lead to weight gain.22,25,26,27 Other risks of weight stigma include increased chronic stress, which is linked to increased cardiovascular disease and diabetes, increased inflammation, increased anxiety, mood disorders, Binge Eating Disorder, and cardiac dysregulation.17,21 Weight bias also promotes negative body image and low self-esteem.21 Partaking in health behaviors is undermined by weight bias; people in larger bodies who have experienced stigma may avoid the gym or exercising where others can see them.

Practical Approaches to Reducing Weight Bias

If healthcare practitioners move away from using weight as a determinant of health, there is an opportunity to include all bodies in the quest for good health. The main tenet of the weight inclusive paradigm is that every body is capable of striving for health and well-being, independent of weight, given equitable access to non-stigmatizing health care.28 This model focuses on health behaviors to achieve health rather than weight loss, and is, in its nature, avoidant of weight bias.21

Health At Every Size®

The Health At Every Size® (HAES®) approach is one example of a weight-inclusive model. The Association for Size Diversity and Health describes this model as, “A continuously evolving alternative to the weight-centered approach to treating clients and patients of all sizes. It is also a movement working to promote size-acceptance, to end weight discrimination, and to lessen the cultural obsession with weight loss and thinness.28” HAES® is made up of five principles:

  1. Weight Inclusivity: Accept and respect the inherent diversity of body shapes and sizes and reject the idealizing or pathologizing of specific weights.
  2. Health Enhancement: Support health policies that improve and equalize access to information and services, and personal practices that improve human well-being, including attention to individual physical, economic, social, spiritual, and emotional needs.
  3. Respectful Care: Acknowledge our biases, and work to end weight discrimination, weight stigma, and weight bias.
  4. Eating for Well-Being: Promote flexible, individualized eating based on hunger, satiety, nutritional needs, and pleasure, rather than any externally regulated eating plan focused on weight control. 
  5. Life-Enhancing Movement: Support physical activities that allow people of all sizes, abilities, and interests to engage in joyful movement, to the degree that they choose.

This approach has been studied in several randomized controlled trials with a similar conclusion: The HAES® approach is associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in blood pressure, blood lipids, selfesteem, body image, energy expenditure, eating behaviors, and eating disorder pathology.29,30,31 Promoting body acceptance and self-worth, a focus on internal versus external cues, the effects of food choices on well-being, and choosing movement activities that allowed them to enjoy their bodies were included in the counseling.

Intuitive eating

The Intuitive Eating approach evolved out of the HAES® model in 1995. The creators of the Intuitive Eating principles, both highly experienced registered dietitians and eating disorder experts (Evelyn Tribole and Elyse Resch), describe it as, “a self-care eating framework, which integrates instinct, emotion, and rational thought.  Intuitive Eating is a weight-inclusive, evidence-based model with a validated assessment scale and over 100 studies to date”.32 Intuitive Eating is based on Interoceptive Awareness, which is a person’s ability to perceive physical sensations that arise within the body. This is the body’s direct experience with getting needs met. Dieting and intentional weight loss activities promote the opposite of this. Therefore,

dieting is considered cognitive dissonance; when thoughts, actions, and speech do not align with the body’s needs. Ten Intuitive Eating principles guide people to stop dieting, and instead begin to trust their body’s cues, nourish themselves, move in ways that bring joy, respect their bodies, and care for them using health

Table 3. Recommended Reading

behaviors, regardless of size. To date, there are thousands of Certified Intuitive Eating Counselors across the globe and many other practitioners who have adopted Intuitive Eating into their practices with patients (see Table 2).

Patient-centered care

Changes in our healthcare system have impacted the patient-provider relationship.33 Reductions in reimbursement and the increase in administrative tasks have reduced face-to-face time with patients leading to reduced satisfaction, and increased frustration and stigmatization by both the provider and patient.33 Patient-Centered Care consists of three tenets: Communication, partnership, and health promotion.34 Benefits of this model include improved patient satisfaction, reduced cost, and greater health outcomes.34 A weightinclusive approach can be incorporated under the “communication” tenet. Exploration of the patient’s symptoms and experiences within the patient-provider relationship can provide space for implementing a healthcare plan that considers these experiences and reduces the risk of failed health outcomes.34 The goal to implement effective patient-centered care can be met by implementing training skills training to provide care, both at the medical school and medical practice levels to reduce bias and increase satisfaction and health.33

Practicing Weight-Inclusive Care

In addition to the Health At Every Size®, Intuitive Eating principles and techniques, and Patient Centered Care, there are practical tools to encourage patients to participate in health behaviors that are not only backed by research, but also reduce the harm caused by weight bias.

Examine biases

All humans carry both implicit and explicit bias. Harvard University’s Project Implicit administers free, online testing of implicit weight bias (see Table 2). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) offers both online testing and training for reducing implicit bias (see Table 2). Consider providing testing and training for providers, administrators, and those in direct patient care to reduce harm.

Understand the complex pathophysiology of body size

The old adage of “calories in vs. calories out,” or the “energy balance model” leaves out the endocrine, metabolic, and nervous system signals that impact eating and energy needs.35 Research shows that genetics and heritability are responsible for approximately 75% of what makes up BMI.35 In a study of over 4000 identical twins, intentional weight loss activities led to a higher weight and BMI compared to the twin who did not participate in weight loss activities.27 Weight gain was accelerated over time with the increase in attempts to lose weight.27 Consider moving away from using BMI as a determinant of health and incorporating HAES® and Intuitive Eating principles for health behaviors instead.

Rethink the necessity of the scale

Being weighed at the doctor’s office is one of the chief reasons people with bigger bodies, especially women, avoid seeking care.36 Use the tenets of patient-centered care and explain the necessity for a weigh-in. Honor the right of patients to refuse being weighed and/or the discussion of weight, should they so choose. If a change in weight is related to a diagnosis, asking the patient about unintended weight gain or loss may be a substitute for the scale. When patients express a desire not to know their weight, honor this request by covering up the number during the visit, and in other places where a patient may be able to view it (patient portals, and in discharge papers). When trust is breached, there is a risk of harm to the patient.

Change the language

Using person-first language is becoming more standard in our field and can minimize bias. Instead of using the words “obese” and “overweight” to describe people, remember that people are not the disease (a person is not “cancerous,” they are a person-first, who has cancer). 

Create a weight-inclusive office space

Changes to the office setting can have a big impact. Equipment and furniture that is appropriate for larger body sizes means having blood pressure cuffs for all arm sizes, armless seating in the waiting room, and office seating designed to hold weight over 250 pounds.

Prescribe health behaviors

Instead of prescribing weight loss, consider discussing health behaviors that are within your patient’s control. “Lose weight and exercise” is a prescription for harmful care. Referrals to weightinclusive registered dietitians (Table 2) can help them focus on improving health without a focus on weight. Consider taking a curious approach to asking about what patients do for movement before telling someone to simply “exercise more.”

Screen for disordered eating behaviors

People with a history of weight cycling may also possess maladaptive eating behaviors. Patients with suspected eating disorders should be referred to a specialist so they can get the help they need to recover from the eating disorder before treating their GI issues.37 Screening tools include Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26), Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q), and the Coeliac Disease Food Attitudes and Behaviors Scale (CD-FAB) (see Table 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Using fatness as a measure of health perpetuates weight stigma and implicit bias. Using stigmatizing language, BMI as a measure of health, and prescribing weight loss as treatment to the patient can impact the patient-provider relationship negatively. Shifting to a weight-inclusive paradigm that includes principles of Health At Every Size®, Intuitive Eating, and Patient-Centered Care can reduce these risks and fosters health promotion, equitable care, and harm reduction in GI practices. Making this change includes examining biases, changing the language used during patient and peer consults, reducing the emphasis on weight, screening for eating disorders, and creating a weight-inclusive space throughout the office. There is still much work to be done by healthcare providers and researchers, but the tips and resources provided here are a good start to reducing weight bias. For more resources see Table 3.

References

  1. Tylka TL, Kroon Van Diest AM: The Intuitive Eating Scale-2: item refinement and psychometric evaluation with college women and men. J Couns Psychol 2013;60:137–153.
  2. Tomiyama AJ, Carr D, Granberg EM, et al: How and why weight stigma drives the obesity ‘epidemic’ and harms health. BMC Med 2018;16:123.
  3. Udo T, Purcell K, Grilo CM: Perceived weight discrimination and chronic medical conditions in adults with overweight and obesity. Int J Clin Pract 2016;70:1003-1011.
  4. Phelan SM, Burgess DJ, Yeazel MW, et al: Impact of weight bias and stigma on quality of care and outcomes for patients with obesity. Obes Rev 2015;16:319-326.
  5. Lawrence BJ, Kerr D, Pollard CM, et al: Weight bias among health care professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity 2021;29:1802-1812.
  6. Phelan SM, Dovidio JF, Puhl RM, et al: Implicit and explicit weight bias in a national sample of 4,732 medical students: the medical student CHANGES study. Obesity 2014;22:1201-1208.
  7. Seymour J, Barnes JL, Schumacher J, et al: A Qualitative Exploration of Weight Bias and Quality of Health Care Among Health Care Professionals Using Hypothetical Patient Scenarios. Inquiry 2018;55:46958018774171.
  8. Bosy-Westphal A, Müller MJ: Diagnosis of obesity based on body composition-associated health risks-Time for a change in paradigm. Obes Rev 2021;22 Suppl 2:e13190.
  9. Hilbert A, Rief W, Braehler E: Stigmatizing attitudes toward obesity in a representative population-based sample. Obesity 2008;16:15291534.
  10. Kwan S. Framing the Fat Body: Contested Meanings between Government, Activists, and Industry. Sociol Inq 2009;79:25-50.
  11. Garabed E: Adolphe Quetelet (1796–1874)—the average man and indices of obesity. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23:47–51.
  12. Flegal KM, Kit BK, Orpana H, et al: Association of all-cause mortality with overweight and obesity using standard body mass index categories: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2013;309(1):71-82.
  13. Lennon H, Sperrin M, Badrick E, et al: The Obesity Paradox in Cancer: a Review. Curr Oncol Rep 2016;18(9):56.
  14. Elagizi A, Kachur S, Lavie CJ, et al: An Overview and Update on Obesity and the Obesity Paradox in Cardiovascular Diseases. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2018;61:142-150.
  15. Zheng H, Echave P, Mehta N, et al: Life-long body mass index trajectories and mortality in two generations. Ann Epidemiol 2021;56:18-25.
  16. Wildman RP, Muntner P, Reynolds K, et al: The obese without cardiometabolic risk factor clustering and the normal weight with cardiometabolic risk factor clustering: prevalence and correlates of 2 phenotypes among the US population (NHANES 1999-2004). Arch Intern Med 2009;168:1617–1624.
  17. Hunger JM, Smith JP, Tomiyama AJ: An Evidence-Based Rationale for Adopting Weight-Inclusive Health Policy. Soc Issues Policy Rev 2020;14:73-107.
  18. Tylka TL, Annunziato RA, Burgard D, et al: The weightinclusive versus weight-normative approach to health: evaluating the evidence for prioritizing well-being over weight loss. J Obes. 2014;2014:983495.
  19. Hoerger TJ. Controversies in obesity mortality: a tale of two studies. Health Promot Econ 2006;1:1–4
  20. Klein S, Fontana L, Young VL, et al: Absence of an effect of liposuction on insulin action and risk factors for coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2549-2557.
  21. Bacon L, Aphramor L: Weight science: evaluating the evidence for a paradigm shift. Nutr J 2011;10:69.
  22. Mann T, Tomiyama AJ, Westling E, et al: Medicare’s search for effective obesity treatments: diets are not the answer. Am Psychol 2007;62:220-233.
  23. Lissner L, Odell P, D’Agostino R, et al: Variability of Body Weight and Health Outcomes in the Framingham Population. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1839-1844.
  24. Hotchkiss J, Leyland A: The relationship between body size and mortality in the linked Scottish Health Surveys: cross-sectional surveys with follow-up. Int J Obes 2011;35:838–851.
  25. NIH Technology Assessment Conference Panel: Methods for voluntary weight loss and control. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:942-949.
  26. Department of Health and Aging. National and Medical Research Council. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of overweight and obesity in adults, adolescents and children in Australia, Melbourne 2013:161.
  27. Pietiläinen, KH, Saarni, SE, Kaprio, J, et al: Does dieting make you fat? A twin study. Int Jour Obes 2005;36:456–464.
  28. ASDAH | Committed to Size Diversity in Health and HAES®.
    (n.d.). Retrieved June 25, 2022, from ASDAH website: http://www. asdah.org
  29. Tanco S, Linden W, Earle T: Well-being and morbid obesity in women: a controlled therapy evaluation. Int J Eat Disord 1998;23:325-339.
  30. Bacon L, Stern JS, Van Loan MD, et al: Size acceptance and intuitive eating improve health for obese, female chronic dieters. J Am Diet Assoc 2005;105:929-936.
  31. Provencher V, Bégin C, Tremblay A, et al: Health-At-Every-Size and eating behaviors: 1-year follow-up results of a size acceptance intervention. J Am Diet Assoc 2009;109:1854-1861.
  32. Tribole E, Resch E: Intuitive Eating: A Recovery Book for the Chronic Dieter: Rediscover the Pleasures of Eating and Rebuild Your Body Image. St. Martin’s Paperbacks; 1996.
  33. Drossman DA, Ruddy J: Improving Patient-Provider Relationships to Improve Health Care. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18:14171426.
  34. Constand MK, MacDermid JC, Dal Bello-Haas V, et al: Scoping review of patient-centered care approaches in healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:271.
  35. Hall KD, Farooqi IS, Friedman JM, et al: The energy balance model of obesity: beyond calories in, calories out. Am J Clin Nutr 2022;115:1243-1254.
  36. Drury CA, Louis M: Exploring the association between body weight, stigma of obesity, and health care avoidance. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 2002;14:554-561.
  37. Santonicola A, Gagliardi M, Guarino M, et al: Eating Disorders and Gastrointestinal Diseases. Nutrients 2019;11:3038.

Download Tables, Images & References

A CASE REPORT

Hydrogel-Associated Ulcer Masquerading as Malignancy: A Rare Complication in a Prostate Cancer Patient

Read Article

INTRODUCTION

Polyethylene-glycol hydrogel injection (SpaceOAR, Boston Medical, Boston MA) is a promising preventative strategy used in prostate cancer patients prior to radiotherapy, creating space between the prostate and anterior rectal wall, limiting rectal exposure to high-dose ionizing radiation.1 Although spacer administration is typically well-tolerated with a 99% technical success rate, adverse events from needle penetration of adjacent organs have been reported.1,2–9 We present a case of rectal ulcer associated with hydrogel insertion in a prostate cancer patient.

Case Presentation

A 74-year-old man presented to the emergency room with several episodes of painless hematochezia. He was hemodynamically stable with a hematocrit of 41. He was on warfarin for atrial fibrillation and had multiple colonic polyps on colonoscopy seven years prior. His warfarin was held, and he was referred for outpatient evaluation. He was scheduled to begin radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Physical examination revealed an anterior wall lobulated rectal mass and subsequent colonoscopy revealed a 5 cm ulcerated mass worrisome for malignancy (Figure 2a). Biopsies demonstrated granulation tissue consistent with an ulcer, multinucleated giant cells, and extracellular material—but no malignancy (Figure 1). The patient revealed that he had undergone hydrogel injection in preparation for radiotherapy. Subsequent sigmoidoscopies showed healing and re-epithelialization of the ulcer (Figure 2b and c).

Discussion

Although complications of spacer administration have been described (rectourethral fistula, prostatic abscess, and rectal wall erosion), these cases have been primarily reported in the urology literature.2–9 Given the potential of hydrogel complications to mimic other (malignant) findings, endoscopists should be aware of patients being treating for prostate cancer receiving spacer gel prior to radiotherapy by eliciting a thorough medical history.

CONCLUSION

Though rare, hydrogel-associated complications in patients initiating radiotherapy for prostate cancer may mimic malignancy and should remain on the differential diagnosis for a rectal mass.

References

  1. Hall WA, Tree AC, Dearnaley D, et al. Considering benefit and risk before routinely recommending SpaceOAR. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(1):11-13. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30639-2
  2. Kuperus JM, Kim DG, Shah T, Ghareeb G, Lane BR. Rectourethral fistula following SpaceOAR gel placement for prostate cancer radiotherapy: A rare complication. Urol Case Reports. 2021;35:101516. doi:10.1016/J.EUCR.2020.101516
  3. Aminsharifi A, Kotamarti S, Silver D, Schulman A. Major Complications and Adverse Events Related to the Injection of the SpaceOAR Hydrogel System Before Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Review of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device
    Experience Database. J Endourol. 2019;33(10):868-871. doi:10.1089/ END.2019.0431
  4. Hoe V, Yao HHI, Huang JG, Guerrieri M. Abscess formation following hydrogel spacer for prostate cancer radiotherapy: a rare complication. BMJ Case Reports CP. 2019;12(10):e229143. doi:10.1136/ BCR-2018-229143
  5. Dinh T-KT, Schade GR, Liao JJ. A Case of Rectal Ulcer during Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Using Hydrogel Spacer. Urol Pract. 2020;7(2):158-161. doi:10.1097/ UPJ.0000000000000071
  6. Teh AYM, Ko HT, Barr G, Woo HH. Case Report: Rectal ulcer associated with SpaceOAR hydrogel insertion during prostate brachytherapy. BMJ Case Rep. 2014;2014. doi:10.1136/BCR-2014-206931
  7. Iinuma K, Mizutani K, Kato T, et al. Spontaneous healing of rectal penetration by SpaceOAR® hydrogel insertion during permanent iodine-125 implant brachytherapy: A case report. Mol Clin Oncol. 2019;11(6):580-582. doi:10.3892/MCO.2019.1937/DOWNLOAD
  8. Imai K, Sakamoto H, Akahane M, Nakashima M, Fujimoto T, Aoyama T. Spontaneous remission of rectal ulcer associated with SpaceOAR ® hydrogel insertion in radiotherapy for prostate cancer. IJU case reports. 2020;3(6):257-260. doi:10.1002/IJU5.12209
  9. Kashihara T, Inaba K, Komiyama M, et al. The use of hyperbaric oxygen to treat actinic rectal fistula after SpaceOAR use and radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a case report. BMC Urol. 2020;20(1):1-5.
    doi:10.1186/S12894-020-00767-3/FIGURES/2

Download Tables, Images & References

jojobethacklinkmarsbahiscasibomJojobet GirişcasibomJojobet GirişJojobetJojobetvaycasinoholiganbetcasibommarsbahis girişJojobettaraftarium24madridbet güncel girişHoliganbet Girişmadridbet girişmadridbetGrandpashabetHoliganbet