NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #220

Nutritional Care of the Patient with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

Read Article

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

Etiology and Disease Trajectory

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

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

Treatment

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

Malnutrition

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

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

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

Nutrition Needs

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

mc.uky.edu/alscalculator

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

Barriers to Adequate Nutrition Intake

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

Hypermetabolism

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

Dysphagia

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

Constipation

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

Sialorrhea

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

Mood disorders, fatigue and frontotemporal dementia (FTD)

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

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

Nutrition Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUMMARY

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

References

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

Download Tables, Images & References

LIVER DISORDERS, SERIES #13

Hepatic Encephalopathy Treatment: Beyond Lactulose and Rifaximin

Read Article

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

INTRODUCTION

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

I. Non-Absorbable Disaccharides
Lactulose

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

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

II. Antibiotics
Rifaximin

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

Neomycin

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

Metronidazole

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

Vancomycin

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

III. Alternative Therapies Branched Chain Amino Acids

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

L-ornithine L-aspartate

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

Albumin

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

AST-120

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

Acetyl-L-carnitine

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

Glycerol Phenylbutyrate

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

Flumazenil

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

PEG

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

FMT

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

Probiotics

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

Diet

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

References

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

Download Tables, Images & References

FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #80

Techniques and Outcomes of ERCP in Patients with Billroth II Anatomy

Read Article

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

Technical Challenges of ERCP in Billroth II Anatomy

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

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

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

Sphincterotomy

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Endoscopes

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

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

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

Risk Factors for ERCP and Complications

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

References

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

Download Tables, Images & References

LIVER DISORDERS, SERIES #12

Cutting the Fat in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Read Article

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

Background

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

Mechanisms of Hepatic
Damage in NAFLD/NASH

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

Diagnosis of NASH

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

Treatment of NASH

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

Vitamin E

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

Silymarin

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

Carnitine

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

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

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

Farnesoid X Receptor Agonist (FXR)

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

THR-beta Agonists

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

Fatty Acid Derivative – Icosabutate

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

GLP-1 Agonists

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

FGF21 Analog

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

CONCLUSION

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

References

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

Download Tables, Images & References

DISPATCHES FROM THE GUILD CONFERENCE, SERIES #43

Evaluation, Management, and Prevention of Diverticular Disease

Read Article

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

INTRODUCTION

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

Diverticular Bleeding

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

Presentation

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

Diagnosis

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

Management

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

Acute Diverticulitis

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

Subtypes

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

Presentation

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

Management

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

Role of Antibiotics

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

Role of Surgery

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

Role of Colonoscopy

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

Other Diverticular Disorders Segmental Colitis Associated with Diverticulosis (SCAD)

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

Symptomatic Uncomplicated Diverticular Disease (SUDD)

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

References

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

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE PEDIATRIC LITERATURE

Celiac Disease and Functional Abdominal Pain in Children

Read Article

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

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

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

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

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

Download Tables, Images & References

FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #79

Updates to Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendations and Future Implications

Read Article

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, although there have been significant improvements in CRC incidence and mortality over time. Despite robust efforts in CRC screening, roughly one-third of eligible adults are not up to date with CRC screening. Trends in CRC incidence and mortality show an alarming increase in individuals below the age of 50, prompting the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to update their 2016 recommendations on CRC screening. This update now recommends initiation of CRC screening at age 45 years instead of age 50 years for all average-risk adults. This review addresses the rationale for this update, highlights the recommended modalities for screening, discusses the role of programmatic screening, and posits the implications of this update to the gastroenterology community.

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most recommendations for screening and methods commonly diagnosed cancer and the second to increase adherence.2,3 The U.S. Preventive leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. It Services Task Force (USPSTF), along with several is estimated that almost 147,950 individuals were professional societies, publish recommendations for colorectal cancer screening, which were most recently updated in May 2021. The most remarkable update from the USPSTF 2016 recommendations is the endorsement of initiating colorectal cancer screening for average risk individuals beginning at age 45 years.4 This recommendation is in response to the body of evidence that rates of colorectal cancer are increasing among individuals younger than 50 years. While other societies had also previously recommended initiation of CRC screening at age 45, the USPSTF recommendations specifically inform insurance coverage and waiver of cost sharing for preventive services. This recommendation may improve CRC outcomes in younger adults, but may also impact access to care or further widen racial or ethnic disparities in screening and outcomes.

Incidence and Risk Factors

CRC affects approximately 4.4% of men and 4.1% of women in their lifetime.1 Age is in most cases the most important risk factor for CRC. The incidence rate roughly doubles for each five-year age group up until the age of 50 years, at which point it increases by about 30% for each subsequent 5-year period.5 The median age for diagnosis of CRC has been steadily declining, currently at 66 years, down from 72 years in the early 2000s, and nearly one-third of rectal cancers are diagnosed in those younger than 55 years. This downward shift in age is likely multifactorial, with CRC incidence decreasing in older age groups due to increased uptake of screening, and increasing incidence in younger adults.5,6 Overall, rates of CRC incidence have been slowly increasing in females while rates are declining in males. However, death rates from CRC have been substantially declining, with a large decline from 2000 to the present, correlating with increased uptake of colonoscopy (Figure 1).

Importantly, there are significant racial disparities in CRC incidence and mortality,

with highest rates among Non-Hispanic Blacks, followed by American Indians and Alaska Natives. In these ethnic groups, CRC incidence rates and death rates are 20% and 40 % respectively higher than those in Non-Hispanic Whites.7 These disparities are multifactorial, but in large part reflect socioeconomic status in the form of prevalence of risk factors and access to health care.8-10 Figure 2.
Modifiable risk factors for CRC include lifestyle and behavioral factors such as heavy alcohol intake, smoking, obesity, and a diet rich in red and processed meat. Nonmodifiable factors that increase risk include hereditary factors, a personal or family history of adenomas or CRC, and a personal history of inflammatory bowel disease.

Rates of CRC Incidence and Mortality Over Time

CRC incidence rates have been declining gradually since the mid-1980s, with an acceleration in the decline starting in the early 2000s, due to a positive change in modifiable risk factors and the widespread adoption of colonoscopy for screening. However, since the mid-1990s, incidence of CRC in younger adults (those aged less than 50 years) has been increasing, accounting for 11% of colon cancers and 15% of rectal cancers in 2020 compared to 5% and 9%, respectively, in 2010.1,11 These alarming trends provide the foundation for the change in recommendations for CRC screening.

New Screening Recommendations

The USPSTF relies on a panel of experts to provide evidence-based recommendations on a variety of clinical preventive services including preventive care, counseling, and screening. In May 2021, the USPSTF updated their 2016 guidelines for CRC screening, in part due to the growing body of data demonstrating increasing rates of CRC in younger adults. The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years, with a grade A strength of recommendation, indicating substantial net benefit. The USPSTF recommends screening for CRC in adults aged 45 to 49 years, with a grade B recommendation, indicating moderate net benefit. Additionally, the USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer CRC screening in adults aged 76 to 85 years, after consideration of the patient’s overall health, screening history, and preferences, with a grade C recommendation, indicating a small net benefit.4

The key update to the 2021 recommendation was to begin average risk CRC screening at age 45 years rather than at age 50 years. This recommendation was not based on clinical trials that would be expensive and taken years to perform, but rather microsimulation modeling studies that estimated the benefits of CRC screening beginning at age 45. These simulation studies used known cancer incidence and mortality data to provide updated model-based estimates of the benefits, burden, and harms of CRC screening strategies and to identify those that may provide an efficient balance of lifeyears gained (LYG) versus colonoscopy burden.12 Six widely accepted methods for CRC screening were used in the model: fecal immunochemistry testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy with or without FIT, CT colonography, or colonoscopy.

Two important assumptions were made in these models:

  1. all persons with an abnormal result on a non-colonoscopy screening test would subsequently undergo colonoscopy and
  2. full adherence with all procedures.

The modeling analysis demonstrated 49 strategies that were considered efficient options, and 41 of those strategies indicated screening starting at age 45 years. Lowering the age to commence screening at age 45 versus 50 was estimated to result in 5 additional LYG (22 vs. 27 LYG), 623 additional colonoscopies (161 vs. 784), and a minimal increase in complications.12 Keeping in mind that these models assumed 100% adherence, in real life the authors estimated that the true LYG would be diminished by between 4% and 25%. The long-term outcomes from the models may also help inform patients and clinicians to determine the best strategy for that particular patient, balancing LYG for risks and hassle of undergoing colonoscopy compared to more modest LYG with stool-based tests and colonoscopy minimization.

Recommended Colorectal
Cancer Screening Strategies

Although CRC screening by colonoscopy is by far the most common method for CRC screening in the U.S., randomized controlled trials have only shown a mortality benefit with the use of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) followed by colonoscopy if FOBT is abnormal and flexible sigmoidoscopy with subsequent colonoscopy if polyps are detected.13 The effectiveness of colonoscopy in reducing mortality from both right and left-sided colon cancers has been demonstrated in observational studies.14,15 The USPSTF recommends seven different methods for CRC screening: 1) High-sensitivity gFOBT every year; 2) FIT every year; 3) stool DNA test with FIT (sDNA-FIT) every 1 to 3 years; 4) colonoscopy every 10 years; 5) CT colonography every 5 years; 6) flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years; and 7) flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with FIT every year. The stool-based tests are considered two-step tests because any abnormal result requires a follow-up colonoscopy. Of the stool-based tests, annual FIT or annual sDNA-FIT provides a greater LYG than either annual high-sensitivity gFOBT or sDNA-FIT every 3 years. Further, modeling studies demonstrate that annual screening with sDNA-FIT would result in more colonoscopies than annual screening with FIT.4,16 Overall, colonoscopy every 10 years yielded the greatest LYG and CRC cases averted compared to the other methods, whether screening begins at age 50 years or at age 45 years, but this benefit was followed closely by sDNAFIT annually and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus annual FIT.12

Given the challenges with CRC screening adherence, the main benefit of endorsing a variety of screening methods is that it allows ordering clinicians and patients to engage in shared decision making about patient-centered approaches to CRC screening while also acknowledging local variation in availability of endoscopy services. While CRC screening among individuals aged 50 years and older increased from 38% in 2000 to 66.8% in 2018, screening rates are still well below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People goal of 74.4%, and far short of prior goals set by the American Cancer Society of 80% by 2020.10 Each of the included screening tests comes with advantages and disadvantages. Some of the main issues regarding colonoscopy include access to facilities and physicians that perform colonoscopy in an appropriate time frame, the need for fasting and bowel preparation, potentially time off work plus a responsible person to provide transportation, need for sedation or anesthesia, risks associated with an invasive procedure, and up until recently, added costs associated with polypectomy. The main advantage of colonoscopy is the ability to remove any polyps at the time of the procedure, and determination of an appropriate surveillance interval based on the number, size, and pathology of those polyps. Conversely, stoolbased or two-step tests may often be performed in the privacy of one’s home, require no bowel prep, are non-invasive, but typically require annual adherence. Further, those with an abnormal stoolbased test then require a colonoscopy to complete the screening occurrence. Currently, that followup colonoscopy may be associated with significant out-of-pocket expenses.

Population-Based
Approaches to CRC Screening

In order to achieve the CRC mortality benefit suggested by the USPSTF modelling studies, population-based approaches to CRC screening that are not dependent on an individual’s insurance status or access to primary care are needed. CRC screening in the U.S. is largely an opportunistic process, with patients typically offered CRC screening in the context of a primary care office visit. Given that 25% of U.S. adults did not have an identified source of primary care in 2015, our current approach to CRC screening is unlikely to get us to desired screening targets.17 Studies have shown that patients who are older, more educated, earn more money, see a health care provider regularly, and have health insurance are more likely to be up to date with CRC screening.10 Additionally, certain racial and ethnic groups are disproportionately affected by this approach.10  The inclusion of stool-based tests in the paradigm for CRC screening allows for the implementation of population-based screening programs that provide the ability to systematically offer screening to all eligible members of population with standardized counseling, access, support, and monitoring. Levin and colleagues implemented an organized CRC screening program for Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan beneficiaries using FIT and colonoscopy for eligible individuals aged 50 – 75 years and followed them for 15 years. Up-to-date status of screening more-than doubled from 38.9% in 2000 to 82.7% in 2015, and was associated with a 25.5% reduction in annual CRC incidence and a 52.4% reduction in cancer mortality.18 Other countries that have initiated programmatic screening have also shown reductions in CRC incidence and mortality.19,20

Anticipated Impact of 2021 USPSTF
Recommendations on Screening and
Access to Colonoscopy and Unintended Consequences

Although the USPSTF recommends several accepted approaches to CRC screening, colonoscopy is by far the most commonly employed method. Expanding CRC screening to begin at age 45 could lead to significantly increased demand for colonoscopies, with an additional 20 million Americans now eligible for CRC screening. Continued dependence on colonoscopy as the primary tool for screening will further strain our currently limited endoscopy resources, especially in rural and other areas where endoscopy services are scarce. Further work is needed to better understand whether screening with colonoscopy should be reserved for older patients who will have higher likelihood of polyps and CRC, and if other screening modalities, such as stool-based screening, should be encouraged in younger individuals. An unfortunate unintended consequence of the USPSTF update would be if colonoscopy resources are diverted to younger patients, resulting in decreased screening and CRC detection in older, higher risk individuals where CRC screening has been shown to have the greatest impact on LYG, CRC incidence, and CRC mortality. Endoscopists should plan how to be best positioned for these changes. This could mean increasing endoscopy capacity and access, and/or be prepared for more therapeutic procedures that will be required following positive stool- or imaging-based screening tests. As larger polyps are found on colonoscopies that follow stoolbased tests, the skills and therapeutic capabilities of endoscopists and their facilities will also need to expand. Our professional societies can play an important role in providing this education for endoscopists in practice, while our trainees in gastroenterology will benefit from this exposure during their standard fellowship.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) required most health plans to cover evidence-based preventive services that have been recommended by the USPSTF, including CRC screening. This important legislation has made CRC screening more affordable to many more people; however, health plans stop short by only covering the first screening test itself. If a positive stool-based test leads to a recommendation for a colonoscopy, that colonoscopy is considered diagnostic and subject to out-of-pocket costs that typically range from $99-$231.21 Patients who may have otherwise opted for a stool-based screening strategy may choose screening colonoscopy instead to avoid unpredictable cost sharing that may be associated with follow-up diagnostic testing. Even worse, we expect individuals in resource poor locations will forgo CRC screening altogether, further worsening health disparities. Unless followup colonoscopies are considered to be part of the screening process that is covered without cost sharing, cost will continue to be a barrier to patient acceptance of non-colonoscopy screening methods.

In addition, we support population-based approaches to CRC screening that do not rely on an individual’s insurance status, access to primary care, or geographic region. While programs instituted within individual primary care practices, health systems, and health plans will certainly help, population-based approaches that engage individuals both in and out of the traditional health care system are needed. Without populationbased approaches, recommendations to begin CRC screening at age 45 will threaten to worsen health care disparities as those well-positioned to access screening colonoscopies at age 45 will limit availability of screening in patients historically disadvantaged, including older patients. In summary, we agree that the evidence supports the USPSTF recommendations to commence CRC screening at age 45. However, due to already limited endoscopy resources, the updated recommendations may not result in the intended benefit of decreasing CRC mortality if not associated with other interventions. In geographic areas that cannot support the anticipated demand for colonoscopies, we support studying whether starting with non-colonoscopy-based screening strategies in younger individuals may be preferred. We also advocate for policy changes to recommend follow-up colonoscopies following positive screening tests be covered as part of CRC screening. Finally, institution of population-based CRC screening approaches are needed to ensure that we do not further widen access between individuals already engaged in healthcare and those that are not, which would lead to unintended consequences of worsening health disparities in CRC mortality.

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 05 2020;70(3):145-164. doi:10.3322/caac.21601
  2. Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Liles E, Beil TL, Fu R. Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. Nov 04 2008;149(9):638-58. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00245
  3. Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI, Blasi PR. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2021.
  4. Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 05 18 2021;325(19):1965-1977. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.6238 5. Society AC. Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 20202022. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2020.
  1. Siegel RL, Fedewa SA, Anderson WF, et al. Colorectal
    Cancer Incidence Patterns in the United States, 19742013. J Natl Cancer Inst. 08 01 2017;109(8)doi:10.1093/ jnci/djw322
  2. Sherman R, Firth R, De P, et al. Cancer in North America: 2012-2016. Volume One: Combined Cancer Incidence for the United States, Canada and North America. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, Inc.; 2019.
  3. Fedewa SA, Flanders WD, Ward KC, et al. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Interval Colorectal Cancer Incidence: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Ann Intern
    Med. Jun 20 2017;166(12):857-866. doi:10.7326/M16-
    1154
  4. Doubeni CA, Laiyemo AO, Major JM, et al.
    Socioeconomic status and the risk of colorectal cancer: an analysis of more than a half million adults in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. Cancer. Jul 15 2012;118(14):3636-44. doi:10.1002/cncr.26677
  5. Joseph DA, King JB, Dowling NF, Thomas CC,
    Richardson LC. Vital Signs: Colorectal Cancer Screening Test Use – United States, 2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Mar 13 2020;69(10):253-259. doi:10.15585/ mmwr.mm6910a1
  6. Bailey CE, Hu CY, You YN, et al. Increasing disparities in the age-related incidences of colon and rectal cancers in the United States, 1975-2010. JAMA Surg. Jan 2015;150(1):17-22. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.1756
  7. Knudsen AB, Rutter CM, Peterse EFP, et al. Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Updated Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 05 18 2021;325(19):1998-2011. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.5746
  8. Jodal HC, Helsingen LM, Anderson JC, Lytvyn L, Vandvik PO, Emilsson L. Colorectal cancer screening with faecal testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 10 02 2019;9(10):e032773. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032773
  9. Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Quinn VP, et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community based study. Gut. 02 2018;67(2):291-298. doi:10.1136/ gutjnl-2016-312712
  10. Wang K, Ma W, Wu K, et al. Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality After Colonoscopy Screening According to Individuals’ Risk Profiles. J Natl Cancer Inst. Sep 04 2021;113(9):1177-1185. doi:10.1093/jnci/djab041
  11. Knudsen AB, Rutter CM, Peterse EFP, et al. Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Updated Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2021.
  12. Levine DM, Linder JA, Landon BE. Characteristics of Americans With Primary Care and Changes Over Time,
    2002-2015. JAMA Intern Med. 03 01 2020;180(3):463-doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6282
  13. Levin TR, Corley DA, Jensen CD, et al. Effects of Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in a Large Community-Based
    Population. Gastroenterology. 11 2018;155(5):1383-
    1391.e5. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.017
  14. Zorzi M, Fedeli U, Schievano E, et al. Impact on colorectal cancer mortality of screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test. Gut. May
    2015;64(5):784-90. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307508
  15. Siegel RL, Torre LA, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence in young adults. Gut. 12 2019;68(12):2179-2185. doi:10.1136/ gutjnl-2019-319511
  16. Fendrick AM, Princic N, Miller-Wilson LA, Wilson K, Limburg P. Out-of-Pocket Costs for Colonoscopy After Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening Among US Adults With Commercial and Medicare Insurance. JAMA Netw Open. 12 01 2021;4(12):e2136798. doi:10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2021.36798

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE PEDIATRIC LITERATURE

Pediatric Patients Who Have Celiac Disease and Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Read Article

Celiac disease (CD) can occur concomitantly in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, there is limited data regarding both of these diseases occurring in children. The authors of this study performed a multi-center, retrospective, observational study to evaluate such patients using data from the IBD Registry of the Italian Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (SIGENP). All patients were 17 years of age or younger, and IBD was diagnosed using the Porto criteria while CD was diagnosed using standard antibody tests for CD in addition to findings of villous atrophy on duodenal biopsy per the guidelines of the European Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN). Patients with IBD and CD were compared to a control group of 98 patients with the sole diagnosis of IBD.

Patients with both IBD and CD comprised 49 patients from an eligible pool of 2,800 patients. Crohn disease was present in 26 patients (53.1%) while ulcerative colitis was present in 23 patients (46.9%). Females made up 53.1% of the study subjects. CD was diagnosed before IBD in 75.5% of patients (median interval 4.2 years). The median age at diagnosis for CD was 7.5 years while the median age at diagnosis for IBD was 11.5 years. When compared to patients with IBD alone, patients with CD and IBD were statistically more likely to have other associated autoimmune disease mainly consisting of thyroiditis (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 0.97–8.37; P = 0.04). No difference was present between patients with IBD and CD versus IBD alone regarding immune suppression treatment regimens, surgery, or hospitalizations. Ileocolonic disease was less common in patients with CD and Crohn disease compared to control patients solely with Crohn disease. The risk of colectomy was significantly higher in patients with CD and ulcerative colitis compared to patients with ulcerative colitis alone (P=0.03). Growth delay was present at time of diagnosis in 7 patients (14.3%) with CD and IBD compared to 16 patients just with IBD (16.3%) (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.26–1.98; P = 0.53). There was no statistical difference in reaching pubertal age between patients with CD and IBD compared to patients with IBD alone; however, patients with CD and IBD were significantly more likely to have pubertal delay (3.2%; OR, 5.24; 95% CI, 1.13–33.0; P = 0.02). Univariate analysis determined that growth delay and a younger age at IBD diagnosis were associated with pubertal delay. CD associated with IBD, intestinal surgery, and a higher number of hospitalizations also were associated with pubertal delay. Although pubertal delay was present, final heights of both male and female patients were similar between patients in the two groups

This study describes a unique phenotype in pediatric patients with CD and IBD and understanding the risk factors for development of other autoimmune disease as well as growth delay / pubertal delay is important, especially when explaining health outcomes to such patients and their families.

Bramuzzo M, Lionetti P, Miele E, Romano C, Arrigo S, Cardile S, Di Nardo G, Illiceto M, Pastore M, Felici E, Fuoti M, Banzato C, Citrano M, Congia M, Norsa L, Pozzi E, Zuin G, Agrusti A, Bianconi M, Grieco C, Guidici F, Aloi M, Alvisi P, on the behalf of the SIGENP IBD Group. Phenotype and Natural History of Children with Coexistent Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Celiac Disease. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2021; 27: 1881-1888.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE LITERATURE

A Marker for Assessment of Prospective Risk in Barrett’s Esophagus

Read Article

To identify the small group with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) who will progress to advanced disease from the many who will not, assessment of p53 status has promise as a predictive biomarker, but analytic limitations and lack of validation has precluded its use. To develop a robust criteria for grading abnormal immunochemical (IHC) expression of p53 and to test its utility as a biomarker for progression in BE, the following was carried out.

Criteria for abnormal IHC of p53 were developed in BE biopsies and validated with sequencing to assess TP53 mutations. The utility of p53 IHC as a biomarker for progression of BE was tested retrospectively in 561 patients with BE, with or without known progression. The findings were prospectively validated in a clinical practice setting in 1487 patients with BE.

Abnormal p53 IHC highly correlated with TP53 mutation status (90.6% agreement), and was strongly associated with neoplastic progression in retrospective cohort, regardless of histologic diagnosis.

In a retrospective cohort, abnormal p53 was associated with a hazard ratio of 5.03 and hazard ratio of 5.27 for patients with exclusively nondysplastic disease before progression.

In a prospective validation cohort, p53 IHC predicted progression among nondysplastic BE, indefinite for dysplasia and low-grade dysplasia.

It was concluded that p53 IHC identifies patients with BE at higher risk of progression, including in patients without evidence of dysplasia. P53 IHC is inexpensive, easily integrated into routine practice, and should be considered in biopsy of all BE patients without high-grade dysplasia or cancer.

Redston, M., Noffsinger, A., Kim, A., et al. “Abnormal TP53 Predicts Risk of Progression in Patients with Barrett’s Esophagus Regardless of a Diagnosis of Dysplasia.” Gastroenterology 2022; Vol. 162, pp. 468-481, February 2022.

Murray H. Cohen, DO, “From the Literature” Editor, is on the Editorial Board of Practical Gastroenterology.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE LITERATURE

Surgery vs. Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Read Article

A trial was carried out to investigate the noninferiority of CRT (chemoradiotherapy) relative to surgery for T1bN0M0 (ESCC) esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The primary endpoint was overall survival, which was determined using inverse probability weighting with propensity scoring. Surgery consisted of an esophagectomy with 2- or 3-field lymph node dissection. CRT consisted of 2 courses of 5-FU on days 1-4 and cisplatin on day 1, every 4 weeks, with concurrent radiation.

From December 20, 2006 to February 5, 2013, a total of 368 patients were enrolled in a nonrandomized portion of the study. The patient characteristics in surgery arm and CRT arm, respectively, were as follows: Median age 62 and 65 years; proportion of males 82.8% and 88.1%; proportion of performance status 0, 99.5% and 98.1%. Comparisons were made using nonrandomized groups.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 86.5% in the surgery arm and 85.5% in the CRT arm. The complete response rate in the CRT arm was 87.3%. The 5-year progression-free survival was 81.7% in the surgery arm and 71.6% in the CRT arm. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 2 patients in the surgery arm and none in the CRT arm.

It was concluded that CRT is noninferior to surgery and should be considered for the treatment of T1bN0M0 (ESCC).

Kato, K., Ito, Y., Nozaki, I., et al for the Japan Esophageal Oncology Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. “ParallelGroup Control Trial of Surgery Versus Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Stage 1 Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.” Gastroenterology 2021; Vol. 161, pp 1878-1886.

Download Tables, Images & References

jojobethacklinkmarsbahiscasibomJojobet GirişcasibomJojobet GirişJojobetJojobetvaycasinoholiganbetcasibommarsbahis girişJojobettaraftarium24madridbet güncel girişHoliganbet Girişmadridbet girişmadridbetGrandpashabetHoliganbet