FROM THE LITERATURE

Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty in Treatment of NAFLD

Read Article

A total of 118 patients with obesity and NAFLD (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease), underwent endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) and were followed for 2 years. Weight loss was evaluated as percentage total body weight loss. Insulin resistance (IR) was evaluated using the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR).

Previously evaluated hepatic steatosis index and NAFLD fibrosis score were used to estimate hepatic steatosis and risk of fibrosis.

Lean body mass index was 40 kg/m². At baseline, 84% of patients completed 2 years of follow-up. At 2 years, the mean total body weight loss was 15.5%.  Patients’ HOMA-IR improved significantly from 6.7 average to 3 average after one week from ESG performance, with continued improvement up to 2 years. Patient’s hepatic steatosis index score improved significantly, decreasing by 4 points per year. Patient’s NAFLD fibrosis score improved significantly, decreasing by 0.3 per year. A total of 24 patients (20%), improved their risk of hepatic fibrosis from F3 to F4, or indeterminate to F0 to F2, whereas only 1% experienced an increase in the estimated risk of fibrosis. It was concluded there was a significant and sustained improvement in estimated hepatic steatosis and fibrosis after ESG in patients with NAFLD and it was demonstrated early and weight-independent improvement in insulin resistance, which lasted for 2 years after the procedure.

Hajifathalkian, K., Mehta, A., Ang, B., et al. “Improvement in Insulin Resistance and Estimated Hepatic Steatosis and Fibrosis After Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty.”  Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2021; Vol. 93, pp. 1110-1118.

Download Tables, Images & References

Need for Second-Look Endoscopy with an Acute Peptic Ulcer Bleed

Read Article

A meta-analysis to evaluate the usefulness of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of peptic ulcer disease (PUD), with evidence of hemostasis was carried out. Several databases from inception to September 15, 2020 were evaluated to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine secondlook endoscopy with no planned second-look endoscopy in patients with upper GI bleed from PUD.

The outcomes of interest included recurrent bleeding, mortality, need for surgery, and mean number of units of blood transfused. For categorical variables, pooled risk ratios were calculated (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous variables, standardized mean difference was calculated with 95% CIs. Data was analyzed using a random effects model: the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework to ascertain the quality of the evidence. 

Nine RCTs were included, comprising 1452 patients; 726 patients underwent planned routine second-look endoscopy and 726 did not. There was no significant difference in recurrent bleeding, need for surgery, mortality or mean number of units of blood transfused.  Quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate, based on the GRADE framework.

It was concluded that single endoscopy with complete endoscopic hemostasis is not inferior to routine second-look endoscopy in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding, mortality, or need for surgery in patients with acute upper GI bleed from PUD. 

Kamal, F., Han, N., Lee-Smith, W., et al. “Role of Routine Second-Look Endoscopy in Patients With Acute Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2021; Vol. 93, pp. 1228-1237.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE LITERATURE

Esophageal Dysmotility in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Read Article

To understand the inter-relationships between esophageal motility, lung mechanics and reflux (particularly proximal reflux – a prerequisite of aspiration), and pulmonary function in patients with IPF, 35 patients were prospectively recruited with IPF, aged 53 to 75 years and 27 of whom were men. These underwent highresolution impedance manometry and 24hour pH-impedance, together with pulmonary function assessment.

A total of 22 patients (63%), exhibited dysmotility and 16 (73%) exhibited ineffective esophageal motility (IEM); 6 (27%) exhibited esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction.

Patients with IEM have more severe pulmonary disease and more proximal reflux than patients with normal motility. In patients with IEM, intrathoracic pressure adversely correlated with the number of proximal events. Surprisingly, inspiratory lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) positively correlated with the percentage of reflux events reaching the proximal esophagus, whereas in patients with normal motility, it inversely correlated with a bolus exposure time and number of proximal events.

Percentage forced vital capacity in patients with IEM inversely correlated with inspiratory LESP and positively correlated with intrathoracic pressure. 

The study demonstrated that pulmonary function is worse in patients with IEM, which is associated with more proximal reflux events, the latter correlating with lower intrathoracic pressures and higher LESPs.

Cheah, R., Chirnaksorn, S., Abdelrahim, A., et al.  “The Perils and Pitfalls of Esophageal Dysmotility in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2021; Vol. 116, pp. 1189-1200.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE LITERATURE

Adverse Event Profile in Treatment of H. Pylori

Read Article

To assess the frequency, type, intensity and duration of adverse events (AEs) and their impact on compliance for the most frequently used treatments in the “European Registry on

Helicobacter Pylori Management,” a systematic, prospective, noninterventional registry of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists (27 countries, 300 investigators), on the management of H. pylori infection in routine clinical practice was evaluated.

All prescribed eradication treatments and their corresponding safety profiles were reported. AEs were classified, depending on the intensity of symptoms as mild/moderate/ severe and as serious AEs. All data was subject to quality control. 

The different treatments prescribed to 22,492 patients caused at least 1 AE in 23% of the cases; the classic bismuth-based quadruple therapy was the worst tolerated (37% of AEs). Taste disturbance 7%, diarrhea 7%, nausea 6%, and abdominal pain 3% were the most frequent AEs. The majority of AEs were mild (57%), 6% were severe and only 0.8% were serious with an average duration of 7 days. The treatment compliance rate was 97%. Only 1.3% of the patients discontinued treatment due to AEs. Longer treatment durations were significantly associated with a higher incidence of AEs in standard, triple, concomitant, bismuth quadruple, and levofloxacin triple or quadruple therapies.

It was concluded that HP eradication treatment frequently induces AEs, although they are usually mild and of limited duration. Their appearance does not interfere significantly with treatment compliance.

Nyssen, O., Perez-Aisa, A., Tepes, B., et al on behalf of the Hp-EuReg Investigators. “Adverse Event Profile During the Treatment of Helicobacter Pylori:  A Real-World Experience of 22,000 Patients from the European Registry on H. Pylori Management (Hp-EuReg).” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2021; Vol. 116, pp. 1220-1229.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE LITERATURE

PPI vs. H²RA Comparison as Potential Risk Factors for Gastric Carcinoma

Read Article

Long-term use of PPIs has been suspected to have a provocative effect on gastric cancer and this study was carried out to determine the association between PPI vs. histamine-2 receptor antagonist H²RA use and the risk of gastric cancer in a region where the risk of this malignancy is high.

A population-based cohort study using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database was carried out with participants with first prescription of PPIs and H²RA with normal endoscopy findings from 2004 through 2015 collected. Among them, 50% of participants were systematically stratified and randomly sampled. There were 122,118 users of PPIs or H²RAs who used medication more than cumulative daily defined dose of 180 days. The users were followed up from long-term use threshold until gastric cancer, death from non-gastric cancer cause, gastric surgery, or study end (December 2017). After calculating propensity score weights, 39,799 PPI and 38,967 H²RA users were included. Among the new PPI and H²RA users, 411 cases of incident gastric cancer were identified from 182,643 person/years of followup observation and 397 cases from 178,846 person/years of followup observation, respectively. Compared with H²RA users, PPI users did not experience significantly different gastric cancer incidents (HR 1.01). Sensitivity analyses confirmed that gastric cancer incidence did not differ between PPI and H²RA users.

Shin, G., Park, J., Hong, J., et al.  “Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors vs Histamine 2 Receptor Antagonist for the Risk of Gastric Cancer:  Population-Based Cohort Study.” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2021; Vol. 116, pp. 1211-1219.

Download Tables, Images & References

FELLOWS’ CORNER

Acute Liver Failure in a Patient with Cholestatic Liver Disease and Nephrotic Syndrome

Read Article

CASE PRESENTATION

52-year-old woman with hypertension presented to the hospital with months of poor appetite, 20-pound weight loss, and two weeks of bilateral leg swelling. She had no fever, shortness of breath, chest pain, abdominal pain, hematochezia, or melena. Prior outpatient workup included an echocardiogram, cardiac stress test, upper endoscopy, and colonoscopy, which were unremarkable. The patient had no history of alcohol, over-the-counter medication, recreational drug, or tobacco use. Family history was only significant for gastric cancer in her father. The vital signs were within normal limits on presentation, and the physical exam was unremarkable except for +3 lower extremity edema.

Labs were significant for markedly elevated alkaline phosphatase (ALP) 4018 U/L (from 160 U/L three months prior and 11 U/L ten months prior), with elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) of 717 mg/dl, AST 176 U/L, ALT 69 U/L, and total bilirubin 1.8 mg/dL (direct bilirubin 1.0 mg/dL; total bilirubin was normal two months prior). INR was normal at 1.08. The patient also had a creatinine 2.88 mg/dL (normal at baseline 3 months prior), blood urea nitrogen 51 mg/dL, and hypoalbuminemia 1.7 g/dL. The urinalysis was notable for proteinuria >500 mg/dL. Peripheral blood smear showed Howell-Jolly bodies, suggestive of splenic dysfunction. An abdominal ultrasound showed coarse hepatic echotexture and bilateral echogenic kidneys consistent with renal disease. A computed tomography pan-scan without contrast revealed hepatomegaly, mild mesenteric panniculitis (“misty mesentery”), and mild anasarca. Her labs progressively worsened during her hospital stay, particularly the total bilirubin (peak 26.6 mg/dL), which prompted further evaluation with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, which showed no choledocholithiasis and a normal biliary tree.

An extensive liver disease workup was performed. Labs were significant for positive ANA (1:600 titer) and low ceruloplasmin 4 mg/dL. Otherwise, the chronic liver disease workup was unremarkable, including viral hepatitis serologies, antimitochondrial antibody, anti-smooth muscle antibody, liver-kidney microsome type 1 antibody, soluble liver Ag IgG. Serum ferritin was 227 µg/ mL, but iron saturation was 22%, likely secondary to an acute inflammatory state. Immunoglobulin G level was normal. The liver elastography showed a METAVIR stage F3 appearance (7.6 kPa). Further diagnostic workup was pursued. Despite reaching a diagnosis and starting treatment, the patient continued to have worsening liver function and eventually developed liver failure with INR 1.61 and encephalopathy. Her kidney injury also progressed to end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis. Within a month of admission, the patient succumbed to her illness.

QUESTIONS

1. W hat are the differential diagnoses and what is the most likely diagnosis in this patient?

This patient had a cholestatic pattern of liver injury without evidence of apparent extrahepatic

A. Dyed with congo-red, under white light.

obstruction. In this case, we should consider other causes of cholestatic disease. Given the patient’s lack of alcohol or medication use, the suspicion for alcohol and medication-induced cholestasis is low. Therefore, intrahepatic pathology should be considered. There was suspicion for autoimmune causes such as primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). PSC has also been associated with mesenteric panniculitis, better known as sclerosing mesenteritis, as described in this patient’s imaging. AMA antibody was negative and IgG4 levels were normal, making the diagnosis of PBC and autoimmune cholangitis much less likely; however, small-duct PSC was still a possibility.1 While ceruloplasmin was significantly low, one would think of Wilson’s disease (WD), however given the highly elevated ALP and nephrotic syndrome in our patient, the hypoceruloplasminemia is much less likely due to WD and more likely due to protein loss from nephrotic syndrome.

It should be noted that at this point, our patient had two end-organ injuries, including acute kidney injury with nephrotic syndrome, prompting consideration of infiltrative diseases with systemic involvement, such as sarcoidosis or amyloidosis. Hepatic sarcoidosis manifests with noncaseating liver granulomas. The lack of characteristic sarcoid pulmonary and skin involvement made this diagnosis less likely in our patient. However, considering the clinical presentation and rapid progression of the patient’s nephrotic syndrome, kidney and liver failure, amyloidosis should be strongly suspected.

Amyloid Light Chain Amyloidosis (AL) and Amyloid A (AA) are the most common types encountered in clinical practice.2,3 AA amyloidosis is commonly associated with chronic inflammatory diseases, resulting in amyloid A protein accumulation in tissues.3 Contrarywise, in AL amyloidosis, the light chain immunoglobulins are deposited in target organs such as the liver, kidney, and heart.3

The heart, kidney, and liver are the three most common organs affected by amyloidosis. Hepatic amyloid commonly presents with nonspecific symptoms of fatigue and weight loss.4 In cases of hepatic amyloidosis, more than 80% of the patients present with proteinuria and elevated ALP.4,5 As seen in our case, peripheral blood smear findings suggesting hypersplenism are also common in patients with hepatic amyloidosis. Imaging can include diffuse or focal decrease in hepatic parenchymal attenuation and triangular-shaped hepatomegaly.5 Although hepatic involvement is encountered in about 90% of patients with AL amyloidosis, progression to acute liver failure is highly rare.6

2.  Which test needs to be done next to confirm the diagnosis (and exclude others)?

In patients with suspected liver amyloidosis, prompt diagnosis is crucial since hepatic amyloidosis carries a poor prognosis. Among patients with primary hepatic amyloidosis, the median survival is 8-9 months without treatment.8 Although amyloidosis can be diagnosed with less invasive methods, in cases where the diagnosis is unclear and the differential remains broad, a liver biopsy should be performed. Characteristic histopathologic finding for liver amyloidosis is congo red staining of tissue demonstrating apple-green birefringence under polarized light.7

(Figure 1)

Further evaluation with immunofixation, kappa lambda ratio, cardiac assessment with troponins, B-type natriuretic peptide, and cardiac imaging to rule out cardiac amyloid involvement should also be performed in every patient with a new diagnosis of amyloidosis.2

In our case, the patient received both a liver and kidney biopsy, which showed AL amyloidosis. In addition, bloodwork showed a significantly elevated kappa lambda ratio without evidence of cardiac disease.

3.  What are the treatment options for the patient’s condition? Amyloidosis is a devastating disease, and no cure exists yet. Current treatment options focus on symptomatic improvement and prolonging survival. The most successful treatment approach to date involves induction therapy followed by high dose melphalan (HDM) and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) at institutions specializing in amyloidosis.7 Unfortunately, only 15% to 20% of patients are eligible to undergo this intensive therapeutic pathway owing to a high risk of treatment-related mortality.7 An alternative, highly effective regimen for newly diagnosed amyloidosis includes the combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (CyBorD).2,7 A summary of the available treatment options is outlined in Table 1.

Our patient declined transfer to a tertiary institution with amyloidosis specialization, so she was started immediately on CyBorD. Given her combined liver and renal failure, her prognosis was poor. The patient had worsening hypotension and encephalopathy, and a family discussion with Palliative Care decided to proceed to hospice care. The patient passed away within a month of her hospital admission and within four months since her first laboratory abnormalities and leg edema development.

CONCLUSION

Primary hepatic amyloidosis is a rare disease but an important one for a clinician to recognize. Hepatic amyloidosis should be suspected in cases of hepatomegaly, elevated ALP, and proteinuria, especially after ruling out other common liver diseases. Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing amyloidosis. The treatment option for non-ASCT transplant candidates is chemotherapy. Overall, while the prognosis is poor, <12 months, and worse with concomitant renal or cardiac involvement, a prompt diagnosis may help prolong survival.

References

  1. Assy N, Jacob G, Spira G, Edoute Y. Diagnostic approach to patients with cholestatic jaundice. World J Gastroenterol. 1999;5(3):252-262. doi:10.3748/wjg.v5.i3.252
  2. Palladini G, Milani P, Merlini G. Management of AL amyloidosis in 2020. Blood. 2020;136(23):2620-2627. doi:10.1182/blood.2020006913
    FELLOWS’ CORNER FELLOWS’ CORNER
  3. Muchtar E, Dispenzieri A, Magen H, et al. Systemic amyloidosis from A (AA) to T (ATTR): a review. J Intern Med. 2021;289(3):268-292. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ joim.13169
  4. Park MA, Mueller PS, Kyle RA, Larson DR, Plevak MF, Gertz MA. Primary (AL) Hepatic Amyloidosis: Clinical Features and Natural History in 98 Patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2003;82(5):291-298. doi:10.1097/01.
    md.0000091183.93122.c7
  5. Shin YM. Hepatic amyloidosis. Korean J Hepatol. 2011;17(1):80-83. doi:10.3350/kjhep.2011.17.1.80
  6. Norero B, Pérez-Ayuso RM, Duarte I, et al. Portal hypertension and acute liver failure as uncommon manifestations of primary amyloidosis. Ann Hepatol. 2014;13(1):142-149. doi:10.1016/S1665-2681(19)30916-0
  7. Fotiou D, Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E. Systemic AL Amyloidosis: Current Approaches to Diagnosis and Management. HemaSphere. 2020;4(4). doi:10.1097/ HS9.0000000000000454
  8. Wang Y-D, Zhao C-Y, Yin H-Z, Primary hepatic amyloidosis: a mini literature review and five cases report. Annals of Hepatology. 2012; 11(5): 721-727. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1665-2681(19)31450-4.

Download Tables, Images & References

LIVER DISORDERS, SERIES #11

Autoimmune Liver Disease Variants

Read Article

Autoimmune liver disease variants, which are disease entities that consist of a combination of features of autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis, are relatively uncommon disorders. They can be difficult to diagnose as there are no pathognomonic clinical manifestations, highly specific biochemical/serological markers or radiographic findings. Even after a tentative diagnosis is established, options for treatment remain limited at this time. A wide-ranging effect on mortality may be seen depending on which autoimmune liver disease has its features predominate.

INTRODUCTION

Autoimmune liver disease (AILD) is a category of conditions that include autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). As clinicians have learned, diseases oftentimes do not manifest according to their textbook definitions within clearly defined clinical, biochemical, serological and histological parameters and may be said to present atypically. AILD is no exception. Because some patients may present with a mix of features from AIH, PBC and PSC, they were labeled as having an “overlap syndrome”, “outlier syndrome” or a variant of AIH.1,2,3 There is no firm consensus among the international societies on the nomenclature for this subset of disorders, but they cautioned that it would be unwise to ascribe the label of “overlap syndrome” to them all when we still do not fully understand the pathophysiology of AILD well enough to confidently deny that AILD may present as a spectrum of disease instead of entities with distinct boundaries.4 As such, we will use the preferred terminology of “variants” instead of “overlap” in this review.5 Variants may be a better descriptive terminology since the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group (IAIHG) recommends labeling and treating these patients according to their predominant AILD.4 The AILD variants include AIH and PBC, AIH and PSC, and rarely PBC and PSC (Figure 1). The goal of this review is to describe the natural history of each AILD variant as well as to discuss the diagnostic work up and highlight treatment options. It is important to recognize the difference between classic AIH, PBC, PSC and these AILD variants because the management of these disorders differs as well as their overall prognosis.

“Classic” Autoimmune Liver Diseases

Typically, AIH is characterized by inflammation of the liver with predominant elevation of aminotransferases, immunoglobulin G (IgG), and presence of autoantibodies including anti-nuclear antibody (ANA), anti-smooth muscle antibody (ASMA), anti-liver kidney microsomal antibody

(anti-LKM), anti-liver cytosol 1 antibody (antiLC1) and peri-nuclear anti-nuclear cytoplasmic antibodies (PANCA). ANA and ASMA are commonly seen in type 1 AIH while anti-LKM and anti-LC1 are seen in type 2 AIH.4 In 10% of patients with AIH, none of these autoantibodies may be present.4 In 1993, the IAIHG devised a scoring system to diagnose AIH based upon the presence or absence of other potential causes, biochemical, serological and histological parameters, and factored in response to treatment.6 Of note, there is no single definitively diagnostic feature of this disease. The IAIHG scoring system was revised in 1999 to include information from post treatment response, then simplified in 2008.7,8 In the simplified IAIHG scoring system (Table 1), patients were designated a “definite” diagnosis of AIH if their pretreatment aggregate score was greater than or equal to 7, and “probable” AIH if the pretreatment score was greater than or equal to 6. Patients may be asymptomatic or they may present with nonspecific symptoms of fatigue, pruritus, abdominal pain, nausea, and/or arthralgias.4,9 On physical exam, they may have jaundice, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly or signs of cirrhosis.4 Medical treatment includes corticosteroids for induction and an immunomodulator for maintenance.9 Immunosuppression is absolutely indicated if the patient is symptomatic or for any of the following: aspartate aminotransferase (AST) > 10 times the upper limit of normal (ULN), AST >5 times ULN and gamma globulin >2 times ULN or if bridging necrosis or multiacinar necrosis is found on liver biopsy.9 The goal of treatment is to achieve clinical, biochemical and histological remission of disease.

Typically it may take between 18-24 months for that to occur.9 Greater than 75% of patients with AIH will respond to medical therapy though a majority of them will experience relapse upon withdrawal of immunosuppression.9 Decompensated end stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma are indications for liver transplant.9 Recurrence of disease after liver transplant can be as high as 30%.9

Typically it may take between 18-24 months for that to occur.9 Greater than 75% of patients with AIH will respond to medical therapy though a majority of them will experience relapse upon withdrawal of immunosuppression.9 Decompensated end stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma are indications for liver transplant.9 Recurrence of disease after liver transplant can be as high as 30%.9

PBC is an autoimmune cholestatic disorder where T cell mediated injury of small-medium intralobular bile duct epithelium occurs, causing degeneration of the bile ductules and focal obliteration.10,11,12 Patients with PBC most commonly present with fatigue and pruritus that is usually worse at night.10 The autoantibody that is usually present in these patients is the anti-mitochondrial antibody (AMA).10 More specifically, the autoantibody is directed against the 2-oxo-acid dehydrogenase complex, including the E2 subunit of pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDC-E2), the branched chain 2-oxo acid dehydrogenase (BCOADC-E2), and the 2-oxoglutaric acid dehydrogenase E2.1,4 About 5% of patients may present with an AMA-negative phenotype.1 These patients will usually have a high ANA titer.1 Historically, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) has been the mainstay of treatment. Between one-quarter to one-third of patients with PBC treated with UDCA will experience improvement of their symptoms or show improvement on biochemical testing and histology.10 In May 2016, obeticholic acid was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of PBC, either in conjunction with UDCA for those with partial response or as monotherapy for those who are not able to tolerate UDCA.13 Obeticholic acid works by binding to farnesoid X receptors of liver cells to increase efflux of bile from the liver and decrease bile acid production. It may also have an anti-fibrotic property. In clinical trials it led to a significant decrease in alkaline phosphatase relative to placebo.13 Liver transplant may be considered for patients with intractable pruritus and end stage liver disease.10

PSC is another autoimmune cholestatic disorder, where progressive inflammation and fibrosis affects the medium-large bile ducts of the liver leading to segmental stricture formation.14,15

Patients may present, additionally or alternatively, with a small duct phenotype whereby strictures are not visible on magnetic resonance imaging or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticogram (ERCP) despite gross elevation of alkaline phosphatase and total bilirubin.16 It should be noted that approximately 75% of the patients who have PSC will also be diagnosed with ulcerative colitis (UC), although the colitis may be diagnosed before, well after or concurrent with the PSC.4,17 Patients who do not already carry a diagnosis of UC should undergo colonoscopy upon diagnosis of PSC. Once UC is diagnosed, they should undergo surveillance colonoscopy annually thereafter to evaluate for colorectal cancer given high risk for its development.14,17 PSC patients are also at increased risk for developing cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer and will need to undergo an annual screening ultrasound evaluation of the gallbadder.14,17 Cholecystectomy is recommended if a gallbladder lesion is detected, even if it is less than 1 centimeter in size.14 Unfortunately, at this time there are no known effective treatments for PSC. It does not respond well to either UDCA or immunosuppression.14 Endoscopic biliary dilation and stenting may be performed for treatment of acute cholangitis due to a dominant stricture.14 Liver transplant is an option for patients with end stage liver disease or those with intractable pruritus, recurrent bacterial cholangitis or, in some cases, cholangiocarcinoma.14 While post-transplant survival is excellent, recurrence of disease is also high with 20-25% of patients showing signs of recurrence in 5-10 years.17

Epidemiology

As a whole AILDs are not very common disorders (Table 2), AILD variants are even rarer. AILD variants were first described in the literature in the late 1970s.18,19 The exact frequency of each AILD variant is difficult to ascertain as different clinical criteria have been used to diagnose patients over the years and some patients may have received an inaccurate diagnosis. There is no validated diagnostic criterion for each AILD variant. The IAIHG scoring system has been used inappropriately to look for features of AIH in patients with PBC and PSC in order to diagnose a variant phenotype.24 The scoring system was applied to cases where patients who were initially diagnosed with AIH were then evaluated for features of PBC and PSC, as well as to patients who were initially diagnosed with PBC or PSC and then evaluated for features of AIH.

AIH-PBC appears to be the most common of all the AILD variants with frequency of disease ranging from 4.8-19% of patients with PBC and 7-13% of patients with AIH. 2,4,25 Though up to 19% of all PBC patients in one study had features of AIH it is important to note that all of those patients had an IAIHG score that placed them in the “probable” AIH diagnosis category and not “definite” AIH.24 Interestingly, in a separate study of 1476 PBC patients, only 8, or 0.54%, were documented to have features of AIH.26 Similar to patients with classic PBC, AIH-PBC is also more commonly seen in females. One significant difference in patients with AIH-PBC variant is the younger age Table 2. Incidence and Prevalence of Classic AILD at time of diagnosis, with median age of 44 years old versus 59 years old in classic PBC.27

8-17% of PSC patients may have features of AIH when the IAIHG scoring system is applied, while 6-11% of AIH patients may have features of PSC.25 The frequency of this variant ranges more widely, from 2-33%, depending on whether a “definite” or “probable” definition of AIH is used.25 Notably, up to 16% of AIH patients have coexisting inflammatory bowel disease and 42% of those patients have radiographic evidence of PSC.28 As in classic PSC, the AIH-PSC variant is seen more commonly in males though the diagnosis is usually made at a younger age. In one study the average age of diagnosis was 21.4 +/- 5 years for those with AIH-PSC variant while the average age of diagnosis for PSC patients was 32.3 +/- 10 years.27 The combination of AIH with cholestasis is seen more commonly in children.1,5 That AILD variant has been labeled as AIH with autoimmune sclerosing and is thought to be an early presentation of AIH-PSC.29

PBC-PSC is exceedingly rare and has been presented as case reports in the literature.30,31 In one study the frequency of disease was 0.7%, or 2 out of 261 patients with PBC followed over a 20 year period.25,32 There was a case report published in 2012 reporting the discovery of the first case of a patient with PBC and small duct PSC.33

AILD variants can affect patients of all ethnicities as evidenced by case reports and studies of patients from all around the world including East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, Western Europe, and North America. One study noted an increased prevalence of AIH-PBC seen in Hispanics.34


Pathophysiology

The pathogenesis of AILD and its variants is unclear. Similar to many autoimmune disorders, the causes are likely multifactorial. Patients with AILD and its variants likely have a genetic predisposition towards developing these disorders, and were exposed to the right environmental trigger leading to an immune activation cascade with subsequent targeted injury of the hepatocytes and/or bile ducts.35 AILDs have been associated with some human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes on chromosome 6, though their effect on disease manifestation is unclear.4 AIH is weakly associated with HLA A3, B8, DR3, DR4 while AMA-positive PBC is associated with DR8 and PSC is associated with B8, DR3 and Drw52.1,2 Some HLA associations with increased risk for AIH-PBC are B8, DR3, DQ2.2 HLA-DR7 was found in high frequency in patients with AIH-PBC and it may potentially be used to distinguish AIH from its variants.2 Of note, it has been suggested that DR4 may have a protective effect against PSC though it predisposes the patient to AIH.2

There have been several theories that have been put forth in the literature over the years to explain the process of how these AILD variants may have come about. The theories in IAIHG’s 2011 position statement on overlap syndrome include:

  1. Sequential occurrence of 2 disorders. An example of this is when AIH features like hepatitis are seen in a patient initially diagnosed with PBC many years ago.
  2. Coincident or concomitant presence of 2 disorders. An example of this is the simultaneous presentation of AIH and PSC in children.
  3. Continuum of changes between 2 disorders may be revealing a spectrum of disease.
  4. Overlap of 2 distinct disorders 5. Atypical presentation of a known primary disorder

AILD variants may be explained by one or more of the theories above. AIH-PSC has been noted to present sequentially usually with AIH features initially followed by PSC and rarely the reverse.35 With AIH-PBC, PBC is usually the dominant disorder and may present initially prior to onset of AIH or concomitantly with AIH.29,35

Clinical Manifestations

Patients with AILD variants may be asymptomatic or they may present with nonspecific symptoms of fatigue, malaise, anorexia, pruritus and/or abdominal pain. Patients with cholestatic variants may also be jaundiced.4 In one study of AIHPBC patients, 20% presented with pruritus and 20% presented with jaundice.27 It is rare for these patients to present with acute hepatitis or with acute liver failure.27

Differential Diagnosis

Given the nonspecific nature of many features of these diseases, it is important to rule out viral hepatitis, drug induced liver injury (DILI), take into account alcohol and recreational drug use, and evaluate for other possible causes for abnormal liver enzymes.24,36 DILI can mimic the presentation of AIH and may trigger an autoimmune response that can lead to AIH or unmask subclinical type 1 AIH.27 Another potential cause for a mixed pattern of hepatocellular and cholestatic injury that should be excluded is IgG4 cholangiopathy.37 It can be mistaken for AIH-PSC since it may cause sclerosing cholangitis and hepatitis.37 One major difference seen on histology is IgG4 positive lymphoplasmacytic infiltration with fibrosis of multiple organs, including lymph nodes in the head and neck, chest and abdomen.37 These patients will usually respond to steroids and a small case series showed improvement with Rituximab.37

Diagnostic Work Up

Unfortunately, due to the small number of patients with AILD variants there are few robust studies and thus there are no validated diagnostic criteria for AIH-PBC or AIH-PSC. The gold standard for making a diagnosis of an AILD variant is still based on clinical judgement.38 The clinician must take into account the patient’s biochemical, serological, histological (if available), and radiographic data before making a diagnosis (Table 3). Experts have warned against making a diagnosis of AILD variant based on the presence of one atypical finding detected on initial evaluation or at a single time point instead of observing how the patient may change clinically over time.1,39 They also caution against over-diagnosing AILD variants.28 IAIHG recommends diagnosing and treating the AILD variant according to the dominant disorder.4

Biochemical Parameters

The expected pattern of abnormal liver enzymes seen in AIH patients is elevated aminotransferases up to 10 times the upper limit of normal, with slightly elevated alkaline phosphatase (AP), total bilirubin and/or gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT).37 In cholestatic disorders like PBC and PSC the reverse pattern is usually observed though ALT is usually not greater than 500 IU/mL.37 In PBC, AP will be moderately to markedly raised with only a slight elevation of the aminotransferases.4 In PSC, AP will be at least 3 times the upper limit of normal, total bilirubin may be normal at time of diagnosis and aminotransferases will be moderately elevated.4 The total bilirubin may fluctuate over time reflecting development of a dominant stricture and/or acute cholangitis.37

For patients with AIH-PBC, aminotransferases may increase to 5-10 times the upper limit of normal.4 These patients will have more highly elevated aminotransferases than those with just PBC as well as higher elevation of AP and GGT than patients with just AIH.27 The elevation of AST in patients with AIH-PSC will be between that of patients with solely AIH or PSC.27

Serologies

Certain human leukocyte antigens (HLA) have been associated with AIH, PBC and PSC. However, they have a weak association with determining clinical manifestations of the disorder, if present in a patient, and should not be used for diagnosis.1,25 Most patients with AIH-PBC will have a positive AMA in addition to positive ASMA and elevated IgG.4 About 1/3 of these patients may also have a positive ANA.4 Patients with AIH-PBC with negative AMA will usually have positive antibodies to ANA and ASMA.4 Other more specific autoantibodies seen in patients with AIH-PBC include anti-gp210, antiSp100 and anti-double strand DNA (anti-dsDNA), but several of these are not widely available.4 AntiSp100 is highly specific, with specificity greater than 95%.4 Anti-dsDNA is seen more commonly in AIH-PBC patients

than in AIH or PBC patients alone.4,40 Antibody to p53 has been identified as a potential marker for favorable treatment response in patients with AIH-PBC receiving immunosuppression.25 Patients with AIH-PSC may have positive ANA, ASMA, and/or pANCA though with lower titers than what is usually seen in patients with just AIH.4 About one half of AIH-PSC patients will have elevated IgG and IgM which correlates with plasma cell infiltration on pathology.4,25 IgG elevation in patients with AIH-PSC is usually higher than that which is seen in PSC patients.27 IgM elevation is lower than in patients with AIH alone.27 If all immunoglobulins are elevated then it will be important to evaluate for cirrhosis as that is a common reason to have nonspecific rise in immunoglobulins.28

Imaging

Imaging studies can be specific for the fibrosing duct features of AIH-PSC but they are not very sensitive. A normal cholangiogram does not exclude a diagnosis of AIH-PSC. Early AIH-PSC and AIH-small duct PSC may be missed by ERCP.1

Nonspecific findings may be seen on ultrasound including coarsened hepatic echotexture, nodularity, volume redistribution especially in patients with fibrosis or cirrhosis, but these findings do not differentiate those conditions.41 Ultrasound is still an important tool for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening in patients with AILD variants who have progressed to cirrhosis. If available, contrast enhancement may be utilized in ultrasound to characterize hepatic nodules that are greater than 1 centimeter (cm).41 Elastography may be used to identify and stage severity of fibrosis.41 Triphasic computerized tomography (CT) is not recommended for routine screening for HCC due to exposure to radiation and high cost compared to ultrasound.41

Some common findings on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with AIH-PSC or PSCPBC are central macroregeneration, peripheral atrophy, biliary duct beading and/or biliary dilatation.42 In a retrospective study, 2 radiologists reviewed the MRI of 15 patients with AILD variants whose diagnoses were blinded to them. Specificity for AIH-PSC was 100% if macroregenerative

nodules, peripheral atrophy or ductal beading were present on MRI.42 There was good interobserver agreement noted with a kappa of 0.76.42 However, in a prospective study, another group found that minimal abnormalities seen on MRI in 25% of patients were not from AIH-PSC but were likely due to hepatic architecture distortion.43 They recommended MRI be used in AIH only if patients developed cholestasis or did not respond to steroids.43

 For AIH-PBC there are no specific imaging findings for the variant.41 It was noted that in some PBC patients there may be a periportal halo sign which is an hypointensity around the portal venous branches found on T1-weighted and T2-weighted images caused by satellite periportal hepatocellular extinction surrounded by regenerating nodules.42

Histology

A liver biopsy is generally required for the diagnosis of AIH.9 Common findings on histology for AIH include lymphoplasmacytic infiltration of the portal tract and liver lobules and interface hepatitis, which is usually also lymphoplasmacytic; these

are nonspecific findings.1,36 It is rare to see bile duct lesions or granulomatous lesions in AIH and further work up with cholangiogram is warranted if these are found.1,4 Because the disease may be patchy, the biopsy may appear normal due to sampling error as well.1

While a biopsy is not required for the diagnosis of PBC, on histology there may be characteristic features supporting the diagnosis, including

degenerating bile duct epithelium with focal bile duct obliteration, rare granulomatous bile duct lesions with CD8+T cell interface hepatitis and CD4+T cells in the portal tracts.1,4,36,37 Interface hepatitis is seen in 30% of PBC patients.4

Histological findings in PSC include portal tract inflammation with bile duct lymphocytic infiltration, ductular proliferation, periductal fibrosis and interface hepatitis.4,36 Classic “onion skinning” is seen only rarely, and again disease activity may be patchy and lead to sampling error. The destruction typically seen in PSC affects the medium to large sized ducts.37

In AIH-PBC there will be histological findings of both disorders including lymphoplasmacytic interface hepatitis with florid duct lesions and parenchymal necroinflammation characterized by hepatocyte swelling and acidophilic bodies.36 Interface hepatitis is more common in AIH-PBC than in PBC alone. In a prospective study of AIH, AIH-PBC and PBC patients, 86% of AIH-PBC had interface hepatitis on biopsy and 93% had lymphocytic cholangitis.27 The destruction of bile ducts may be patchy so a sampling error may cause a missed diagnosis especially if less than 10 portal tracts are seen on biopsy.37 In AIH-PSC fibrous knots or fibrous obliteration of the bile ducts is usually seen (Fig. 2, 3).36 Bile duct injury may be patchy and rarely there will be concentric periductal fibrosis (also known as onionskin fibrosis).36 There may be findings similar to Autoimmune Liver Disease Variants

AIH as well, including portal tract inflammation, piecemeal necrosis and loss of interlobular bile ducts.36

In PSC-PBC, you may see granulomas on histology.4

Scores

Two scoring systems that have been used for diagnosis of AILD variants are the IAIHG scoring system and Paris Criteria. It is important to note that neither scoring system has been validated for use in diagnosis of AILD variants.4,27 In fact, the IAIHG recommends against using the IAIHG score for this purpose.4

When the revised IAIHG score was used to assess patients with PSC for AIH features, it showed an increased specificity of 64.9% to 89.5% when compared to original IAIHG score criteria.36 However, when the revised and simplified IAIHG score was used to diagnose AIH in PBC patients it had a sensitivity of 40% and specificity of 17% compared to the Paris Criteria.25

The Paris Criteria, also known as Chazouilléres Criteria or PBC criteria, is endorsed by the European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) for diagnosis of AIH-PBC though it has not been validated.4,44 The score was created using biochemical, serological and histological data while looking at AIH features in PBC patients, and not the other way around, so some patients may

be missed.45 When compared to a gold standard of clinical diagnosis, the Paris criteria had 92% sensitivity and 97% specificity.25 The Paris Criteria requires interface hepatitis to be present and two out of three of the following findings to be present for each AIH and PBC to make the diagnosis.44

Associated Autoimmune Diseases

Patients with AILD and AILD variants may have other concomitant autoimmune disorders. For example, CREST, an acronym for a syndrome that includes calcinosis, Raynaud phenomenon, esophageal dysmotility, sclerodactyly, and telangiectasia, can be seen in 15-20% of PBC

patients.37

Among patients with AIH-PBC, 46.3% have another autoimmune disorder.27 AIH-PBC is most commonly associated with Sjogren’s syndrome but it has been linked to a host of other autoimmune disorders including systemic sclerosis, sicca syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, antiphospholipid syndrome, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, membranous glomerulus nephritis, Raynaud’s syndrome, polymyalgia rheumatic, systemic lupus erythematosus, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Celiac disease, sarcoidosis, fibrosing alveolitis, vitiligo, lichen ruber planus, and bullous pemphigoid.2,4,40

The prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in AIH-PSC is similar to that in PSC alone.35

Treatment Medical Therapy

At this time, there are two schools of thought on treatment of AILD. Some experts recommend a stepwise approach, treating the dominant AILD and assessing response to treatment before considering a diagnosis of AILD variant and changing the therapeutic regimen, while others advocate for a top down method of using combination therapy Autoimmune Liver Disease Variants from the get-go.28,39 The goals of treatment for AILD variants are the same as in classic AILD; to manage symptoms and prevent progression of disease. At this time there are no evidenced based recommendations for treatment of AIH-PBC or AIH-PSC.4 It is important to note that patients with AILD variants may respond differently to conventional medical therapies so the experts recommend tailoring treatment to the individual patients.28,39 The mainstay of treatment for AILD variants includes UDCA and immunosuppressants like corticosteroids and azathioprine.4 Note, however, that high dose UDCA has been associated with increased risk for death and need for liver transplant in patients with PSC.25

In patients with AIH-PBC, initial therapy may include UDCA 15 mg/kg and/or corticosteroids.4,28 It will be important to counsel premenopausal women that they may be at increased risk for osteoporosis if they require prolonged corticosteroid therapy.24 Treatment with corticosteroids in patients with AIHPBC has been shown to decrease AP and lower the rate of progression to cirrhosis when compared to patients with AIH alone.4,28,46  Treatment with UDCA also slowed progression of fibrosis, depending on the severity of disease when therapy began; better responses were associated with start of treatment at earlier stage disease.4 Those patients who have histological findings of both PBC and AIH tend to progress faster.4 A treatment regimen using a combination of UDCA and steroids, compared with either alone, has been associated with greater improvement in lab abnormalities (in 67% vs 27% ), greater ability to prevent fibrosis (100% vs 50%), and excellent 5 & 10 year transplant free survival (100 and 92%, respectively).4,25,40 However, a meta-analysis of 8 small randomized control trials with a total of 214 AIH-PBC patients showed that there was no statistically significant difference in response between UDCA and combination therapy for pruritus and jaundice; those who received Autoimmune Liver Disease Variants combination therapy had greater improvement in their ALT, AP and slower progression of disease on histology but also had higher likelihood of mortality and increased need for liver transplant.47 There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events. Great response to UDCA and corticosteroids with normalization of lab parameters and decreased frequency of liver failure has been noted in patients with AMA-negative PBC with AIH as well.25,48 A Japanese study that looked at predictors for nonresponse to steroid treatment found that patients with a high baseline AP, negative ASMA and positive gp210 antibody were less likely to have improvement in liver enzymes or liver histology.49 EASL recommends using UDCA or combination of both UDCA and corticosteroids as initial therapy.25 For patients on UDCA only who

have a partial response or no response after 3 months, they recommend adding corticosteroids.4,39 There have been some studies that found no difference on survival or improvement of biochemical parameters for patients who received UDCA or combination therapy.4

In patients with AIH who do not respond to immunosuppressive treatment, it is important to evaluate for a concurrent diagnosis of PSC.28 For patients with AIH-PSC, combination therapy with UDCA and corticosteroid is recommended by EASL while AASLD only recommends

immunosuppressive medications.4,27,35 Their recommendations are not evidence-based since there are no prospective randomized controlled studies on treatment options in this rare disease. Children with AIH-PSC usually respond better to immunosuppressive therapy than adults.4 Clinicians may consider treating their AIH-PSC patients initially with steroids but these patients tend to have inconsistent response when compared to patients with AIH alone.1 The data on the effectiveness of combination therapy with UDCA and corticosteroid for patients with AIH-PSC has been conflicting, with response rates ranging from 20% to 100%.27 AIH-PSC patients treated with both UDCA and immunosuppressive therapy (corticosteroid and/or azathioprine) may have greater improvement of ALT and AP compared with no treatment.50 Combination therapy in AIH-PSC patients has also been associated with a decreased need for liver transplant, risk for malignancy and death compared with patients with PSC only.51 However, other studies have shown that AIH-PSC patients who experience a biochemical response after receiving combination therapy with UDCA and an immunosuppressant may not necessarily

alter the course of their disease.28,29,35

While the corticosteroid medication that is typically used is prednisone, budesonide has also been studied for treatment of patients with AILD variants. In a French study, 41% of AIH-PBC patients who had inadequate response to UDCA and were treated with a combination of Budesonide and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) experienced normalization of their biochemistries while 47% had ALT decreased to less than 70 IU/L.37,52 Histological improvement was also noted over time.37,52 However, budesonide was found to be

less effective if liver tissue was fibrotic already.25,53 In fact, budesonide is contraindicated in cirrhotic patients due to portal systemic shunting and loss of first pass metabolism.27 For patients who do not respond to conventional therapy, salvage treatment may be attempted using cyclosporine at 3 mg/kg or MMF 1-3 g/d empirically.25 A small group of patients with AIH, one potentially with AIH-PSC, who failed corticosteroids and/or Azathioprine were treated with cyclosporine and saw normalization of ALT in 10 weeks  along with histological improvement.54 MMF has been shown to be effective in some AILD variant patients and may be considered as a second line treatment option.27,35 In one study of patients treated with MMF due to intolerance or nonresponse to azathioprine, 57% of non-responders went into remission while 63% of patients intolerant to azathioprine went into remission.55

Endoscopic Therapy

ERCP may be warranted to treat complications associated with dominant strictures in AIH-PSC patients like in classic PSC.5 Dilation and stenting of the bile duct may be performed during ERCP for treatment of acute cholangitis.35

Patients who progress to cirrhosis will require endoscopic screening and surveillance for varices. Liver Transplant

AILD is the indication for one quarter of all liver transplants performed in the United States according to a review in 2011.35,56 The reasons why patients with AILD variants may need to have a liver transplant is the same as for patients with classic AILD, including end stage liver disease (ESLD), intractable pruritus, recurrent bacterial cholangitis and cholangiocarcinoma.35 It appears that liver transplant is rarely needed in AILD variants. In Japan, living donor liver transplants in AILD were evaluated and 4 out of 375 were performed in AILD variant patients.57 In one Canadian study only 1% of all liver transplants performed over 20 years were for patients with an AILD variant.58 These patients tended to be younger, of female gender and had shorter time to liver transplant than those with classic AILD. They were also found to have high likelihood of disease recurrence several years post-transplant, faster time to recurrence and lower graft survival. Patient survival was not significantly different on multivariate analysis.

Investigational Therapies

The potential effectiveness of medical therapies for treatment of AILD variants may eventually be able to be extrapolated from investigations performed in patients with AIH, PBC or PSC. There has not been any randomized controlled trial performed specifically in patients with AILD variants as of yet. Medical therapies that have been investigated in patients with AIH who failed conventional therapy and salvage therapies include tacrolimus, sirolimus, everolimus, rituximab, and infliximab.5,27 Tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor, has been shown to be effective in patients with only partial response to or intolerance to conventional treatment, or who were steroid refractory. In several small studies it significantly decreased ALT and induced histological remission even in the setting of cirrhosis, with mild side effects and rare serious adverse reactions.59,60,61,62 Similar effects on ALT and lower steroid requirement were seen in a small number of patients treated with inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin, sirolimus and everolimus, respectively.27 Rituximab, a monoclonal antibody to CD20 on B cells, was incidentally found to be effective in 2 AIH patients who were being treated for a coincident autoimmune disorder.63,64 A subsequent single center study with rituximab Autoimmune Liver Disease Variants

in AIH patients refractory to conventional therapy showed significant decreases in AST, IgG and inflammation on biopsy.65 AIH patients who were refractory to conventional treatment were treated at a single center with Infliximab and showed decreased ALT and IgG levels.66 Basic science research targeting cell signaling pathways for lymphocyte activation, immune cell apoptosis, enzymatic processes that promote fibrosis, and manipulation of T cells in animal models, among other innovations, are ongoing.38

Obeticholic acid, a farnesoid X receptor agonist, was approved by the FDA in May 2016 for treatment of PBC based on its significant reduction of AP when compared to placebo.67 It is indicated for use in combination with UDCA, in those who had a partial response to UDCA or as monotherapy for those patients who are unable to tolerate UDCA. The COBALT Phase 4 study looking at the medication’s effect on clinical outcomes such as improvement of disease related symptoms or overall survival is ongoing.68 At the time this review was drafted, there have not been any published data on effectiveness in patients with AIH-PBC but it could potentially be a new therapy for AIH-PBC. Obeticholic acid is also under current investigation for treatment of PSC.14

Vedolizumab, a monoclonal antibody against α4β7 integrin, was investigated in patients with PSC. α4β7integrin is a cell surface glycoprotein expressed on B and T cells and it is involved in leukocyte trafficking in the intestine as well as the liver.69 This medication has been approved for treatment of moderate to severe Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis that has not responded to conventional therapies.69,70,71 From the limited data put forth in 2 abstracts in 2016 it was shown that this medication can lead to improved AP and baseline fatigue but not to AST, total bilirubin or pruritus.72,73 Unfortunately one abstract was subsequently retracted in January 2017 due to concerns of inconsistencies with their source data and the phase 3 clinical trial was withdrawn prior to enrollment.74,75 Some other novel treatments for PSC currently under investigation in clinical trials will target pro-fibrotic enzyme, apical sodiumdependent bile acid transporter in the gut, vascular adhesion protein important for T cell signaling in the gut, and altering the gut microbiota.14 Autoimmune Liver Disease Variants

Prognosis

For the patients with AILD variants who are fortunate enough to experience clinical improvement of their disease through medical treatment, the topic of treatment end points or medication withdrawal will

likely come up especially given the serious long term side effects of corticosteroids and immunomodulators. Sustained remission is defined as normal biochemical parameters and histology for more than 12-24 months.27 Histological improvement may lag behind biochemical normalization by as much as 8 months.27 However, very few patients are able to achieve sustained remission of disease upon permanent withdrawal of medications. Withdrawal of medical therapy may be attempted but there is a high risk of recurrence of disease that may potentially be more severe. The risk factors for relapse include need for combination therapy, coexisting autoimmune condition, younger age at withdrawal, and cirrhosis.27

The prognosis of AIH-PBC patients who respond to treatment is excellent. In the Japanese study, 15 out of 20 patients responded to treatment with steroids while 5 did not.49 All non-responders experienced progression of their disease, while those who responded had 100% transplant free survival at both 5 years and 10 years, compared to 81% and 54% in non-responders. Compared to patients with PBC, those with AIH-PBC tend to have higher rates of portal hypertension, esophageal varices, gastrointestinal bleeding, ascites, death or need for liver transplant.24 In essence, those with AIH-PBC have slightly worse outcomes compared to patients with PBC but have similar prognosis to patients with AIH.76

Ten year survival for treated AIH is excellent compared to those with AIH-PSC.1 AIH-PSC patients will likely develop cirrhosis after 10 years.35 On the other hand, those with AIH-PSC tend to fare better than patients with PSC alone.29,35 This was shown in a prospective Italian study; AIH-PSC patients were less likely to develop neoplasm or die compared to those with PSC.76 Part of the reason for their worse prognosis may be that patients with AIH-PSC are less likely to go into remission despite treatment when compared to patients with AIH alone.77 Those who do not respond to treatment have higher mortality and liver transplant rates.4 Additionally, patients with AIHPSC who experience biochemical improvement on treatment may not experience better clinical outcomes. A German case series that followed 16 patients for 12 years noted improvement of ALT within 6 months of immunosuppression but the majority of them also had progression to cirrhosis on biopsy.51 Though there have not been any reported cases of cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder carcinoma or colorectal cancer in patients with AIH-PSC, recommendations for surveillance are the same as for patients with PSC.35,51

SUMMARY

It has been difficult to learn about the underlying cause, pin down defining features and establish evidence based treatments for AILD variants due to their low prevalence. Much of what has been published about these disorders has been derived from small case series or retrospective reviews using information extrapolated from classic AILDs, like AIH, PBC and PSC. Some of the data may be applicable while other parts may not. What is important to note is that treatment for AILD variants is different from their classic counterparts and administering the appropriate therapy may impact a patient’s clinical outcome. Further research into this set of disorders is certainly indicated.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Mark Bunker for helping to provide the photographs of the histology slides.

References

  1. Heathcote J. Variant syndromes of autoimmune hepatitis. Clin Liver Dis. 2002; 6: 669-684.
  2. Dhiman P, Malhotra S. Overlap syndromes: an emerging diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2014; 20:342-349.
  3. Czaja A. The variant forms of autoimmune hepatitis. Ann Intern Med. 1996. 125:588-598.
  4. Boberg KM, Chapman RW, Hirshfield GM, Lohse AW, Manns MP, Schrumpf E. Overlap syndromes: the international autoimmune hepatitis group (IAIHG) position statement on a controversial issue. J Hepatol. 2011; 54:374-385.
  5. Weiler-Normann C, Lohse AW. Variant syndromes of autoimmune liver diseases: classification, diagnosis and management. Dig Dis. 2016; 34:334-339.
  6. Johnson PJ, McFarlane IG. Meeting report: international autoimmune hepatitis group. Hepatology. 1993; 18: 998-1005.
  7. Alvarez F, Berg PA, Bianchi FB, Bianchi L, Burroughs AK, Cancado EL, et al. International autoimmune hepatitis. J Hepatol. 1999; 31:929-938.
  8. Hennes EM, Zeniya M, Czaja AJ, Parés A, Dalekos GN,
    Krawitt EL, et al. Simplified criteria for the diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatology. 2008; 48:169-176.
  9. Manns MP, Czaja AJ, Gorham JD, Krawitt EL, Mieli-Vergani G, Vergani D, et al. Diagnosis and management of autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatology. 2010; 51: 2193-2213.
  10. Kaplan MM, Gershwin ME. Primary biliary cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353:1261-1273.
  11. Ludwig J. New concepts in biliary cirrhosis. Semin Liver Dis. 1987; 7:293-301.
  12. Moebius U, Manns M, Hess G, Kober G, Meyer zum Büschenfelde KH, Meuer SC. T cell receptor gene rearrangements of T lymphocytes infiltrating the liver in chronic active hepatitis B and primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC): oligoclonality of PBC-derived T cell clones. Eur J Immunol. 1990; 20:889896.
  13. FDA approves Ocaliva for rare, chronic liver disease.; 2016.
    Available at: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/ PressAnnouncements/ucm503964.htm. Accessed March 27, 2017.
  14. Lazaridis KN, LaRusso NF. Primary sclerosing cholangitis. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1161-1170.
  15. Angulo P, Lindor KD. Primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology. 1999; 30:325-332.
  16. Wee A, Ludwig J. Pericholangitis in chronic ulcerative colitis: primary sclerosing cholangitis of the small bile ducts? Ann Intern Med. 1985; 102: 581-587.
  17. Chapman R, Fevery J, Kalloo A, Nagorney DM, Boberg KM, Shneider B, Gores G. Diagnosis and management of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology. 2010; 51:660-678.
  18. Geubel AP, Baggenstoss AH, Summerskill WH. Responses to treatment can differentiate chronic active liver disease with cholangitic features from the primary biliary cirrhosis syndrome. Gastroenterology. 1976; 71:444-449.
  19. Kloppel G, Seifert G, Lindner H, Dammermann R, Sack HJ, Berg PA. Histopathological features in mixed types of chronic aggressive hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis. Correlations of liver histology with mitochondrial antibodies of different specificity. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histol. 1977; 373:143160.
  20. Kim WR, Lindor KD, Locke GR 3rd, Therneau TM, Homburger HA, Batts KP, et al. Epidemiology and natural history of primary biliary cirrhosis in a US community. Gastroenterology. 2000; 119:1631-1636.
  21. Molodecky NA, Kareemi H, Parab R, Barkema HW, Quan H, Myers RP, et al. Incidence of primary sclerosing cholangitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology. 2011; 53: 1590-1599.
  22. Lindkvist B, Benito de Valle, M, Gullberg B, Björnsson E. Incidence and prevalence of primary sclerosing cholangitis in a defined adult population in Sweden. Hepatology. 2010; 52:571-577.
  23. Bambha K, Kim WR, Talwalkar J, Torgerson H, Benson JT, Therneau TM, et al. Incidence, clinical spectrum, and outcomes of primary sclerosing cholangitis in a United States community. Gastroenterology. 2003; 125: 1364-1369.
  24. Silveira MG, Talwakar JA, Angulo P, Lindor KD. Overlap of autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis: long-term outcomes. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007; 102:1244-1250.
  25. Czaja AJ. The overlap syndromes of autoimmune hepatitis. Dig Dis Sci. 2013; 58:326-343.
  26. Gossard AA, Lindor KD. Development of autoimmune hepatitis in primary biliary cirrhosis. Liver Int. 2007; 27:1086-1090.
  27. Vierling JM. Autoimmune hepatitis and overlap syndromes: diagnosis and management. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13:2088-2108.
  28. Trivedi PJ, Hirshfield GM. Review article: overlap syndromes and autoimmune liver disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012; 36:517-533.
  29. Chazouillères O. Overlap syndromes. Dig Dis. 2015; 33 (suppl 2): 181-187.
  30. Burak KW, Urbanski SJ, Swain MG. A case of coexisting primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis: a new overlap of autoimmune liver diseases. Dig Dis Sci. 2001; 46:2043-2047.
  31. Rubel LR, Seef LB, Patel V. Primary biliary cirrhosis-primary sclerosing cholangitis overlap syndrome. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1984; 108:360-361.
  32. Kingham JG, Abbasi A. Co-existence of primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis: a rare overlap overlap syndrome put into perspective. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005; 17:1077-1080.
  33. Oliveira EM, Oliveira PM, Becker V, Dellavance A, Andrade LE, Lanzoni V, et al. Overlapping of primary biliary cirrhosis and small duct primary sclerosing cholangitis: first case report. J Clin Med Res. 2012; 4:429-433.
  34. Levy C, Naik J, Giordano C, Mandalia A, O’Brien C, Bhamidimarri KR, et al. Hispanics with primary biliary cirrhosis are more likely to have features of autoimmune hepatitis and reduced response to ursodeoxycholic acid than non-hispanics. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 12:1398-1405.
  35. Bunchorntavakul C, Reddy KR. Diagnosis and management of overlap syndrome. Clin Liver Dis. 2015:81-97.
  36. Guindi M. Histology of autoimmune hepatitis and its variants. Clin Liver Dis. 2010; 14:577-590.
  37. Mayo MJ. Cholestatic liver disease overlap syndrome. Clin Liver Dis. 2013; 17:243-253.
  38. Czaja, AJ. Diagnosis and management of autoimmune hepatitis: current status and future directions. Gut and Liver. 2016; 10:177-203.
  39. Haldar D, Hirshfield G. Overlap syndrome: a real syndrome? Clin Liver Dis. 2014. 3:43-47.
  40. Floreani A, Franceschet I, Cazzagon N. Primary biliary cirrhosis: overlaps with other autoimmune disorders. Semin Liver Dis. 2014; 34:352-360.
  41. Malik N, Venkatesh SK. Imaging of autoimmune hepatitis and overlap syndromes. Abdom Radiol. 2017; 42:19-27.
  42. Hyslop WB, Kierans AS, Leonardou P, Fritchie K, Darling J, Elazazzi M, et al. Overlap syndrome of autoimmune chronic liver diseases: mri findings. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 31:383-389.
  43. Lewin M, Vilgrain V, Ozenne V, Lemoine M, Wendum D, Paradis V, et al. Prevalence of sclerosing cholangitis in adults with autoimmune hepatitis: a prospective magnetic resonance imaging and histological study. Hepatology. 2009; 50:528-537.
  44. Chazouillères O, Wendum D, Serfaty L, Montembault S, Rosmorduc O, Poupon R. Primary biliary cirrhosis-autoimmune hepatitis overlap syndrome: clinical features and response to therapy. Hepatology. 1998; 28:296-301.
    50 PRACTICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY • SEPTEMBER 2021
  45. Czaja AJ. Cholestatic phenotypes of autoimmune hepatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 12:1430-1438.
  46. Czaja AJ. Frequency and nature of the variant syndromes of autoimmune liver disease. Hepatology. 1998;28:360-365.
  47. Zhang H, Li S, Yang J, Zheng Y, Wang J, Lu W, et al. A metaanalysis of ursodeoxycholic acid therapy versus combination therapy with corticosteroids for PBC-AIH-overlap syndrome: evidence from 97 monotherapy and 117 combinations. Prz Gastroenterol. 2015; 10:148-155.
  48. Ozalan E, Efe C, Akbulut S, Purnak T, Savas B, Erden E, et al. Therapy response and outcome of overlap syndromes: autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis compared to autoimmune hepatitis and autoimmune cholangitis. Hepatogastroenterology. 2010; 57:441-446.
  49. Yoshioka Y, Taniai M, Hashimoto E, Haruta I, Shiratori K. Clinical profile of primary biliary cirrhosis with features of autoimmune hepatitis: importance of corticosteroid therapy. Hepatology Research. 2014; 44:947-955.
  50. Czaja AJ. Cholestatic phenotypes of autoimmune hepatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 12:1430-1438.
  51. Lüth S, Kanzler S, Frenzel C, Kasper HU, Dienes HP, Schramm C, et al. Characteristics and long-term prognosis of autoimmune hepatitis/primary sclerosing cholangitis overlap syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009; 43:75-80.
  52. Rabahi N, Chretien Y, Gaouar F, Wendum D, Serfaty L, Chazouillères O, et al. Triple therapy with ursodeoxycholic acid, budesonide and mycophenolate mofetil in patients with features of severe primary biliary cirrhosis not responding to ursodeoxycholic acid alone. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2010; 34:283-287.
  53. Efe C, Ozaslan E, Kav T, Purnak T, Shorbagi A, Ozkayar O, et al. Liver fibrosis may reduce the efficacy of budesonide in the treatment of autoimmune hepatitis and overlap syndrome. Autoimmun Rev. 2012; 11(5): 330-334.
  54. Sherman KE, Narkewicz M, Pinto PC. Cyclosporine in the management of corticosteroid-resistant type I autoimmune chronic active hepatitis. J Hepatol. 1994; 21:1040-1047.
  55. Baven-Pronk AM, Coenraad MJ, van Buuren HR, de Man RA, van Erpecum KJ, Lamers MMH, et al. The role of mycophenolate mofetil in the management of autoimmune hepatitis and overlap syndromes. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 34:335343.
  56. Ilyas JA, O’Mahoney CA, Vierling JM. Liver transplantation in autoimmune liver diseases. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2011; 25: 765-782.
  57. Yamashiki N, Sugawara Y, Tamura S, Kaneko J, Takazawa Y, Aoki T, et al. Living-donor liver transplantation for autoimmune hepatitis and autoimmune hepatitis-primary biliary cirrhosis overlap syndrome. Hepatology Research. 2012; 42:1016-1023.
  58. Bhanji RA, Mason AL, Girgis S, Montano-Loza AJ. Liver transplantation for overlap syndromes of autoimmune liver diseases. Liver Int. 2013; 33:210-219.
  59. Van Thiel DH, Wright H, Carroll P, Abu-Elmagd K, RodriguezRilo H, McMichael J, et al. Tacrolimus: a potential new treatment for autoimmune chronic active hepatitis: results of an open label preliminary trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995; 90:771-776.
  60. Aqel BA, Machicao V, Rosser B, Satyanarayana R, Harnois D, Dickson R. Efficacy of tacrolimus in the treatment of steroid refractory autoimmune hepatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2004; 38:805-809.
  61. Tannous MM, Cheng J, Muniyappa K, Farooq I, BhararaA, Kappus M, et al. Use of tacrolimus in the treatment of autoimmune hepatitis: a single centre experience. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 34:405-407.
  62. Larsen FS, Vainer B, Eefsen M, Bjerring PN, Adel Hansen B. Low-dose tacrolimus ameliorates liver inflammation and fibrosis in steroid refractory autoimmune hepatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2007; 13:3232-3236.
  63. Santos ES, Arosemena LR, Raez LE, O’Brien C, Regev A. Successful treatment of autoimmune hepatitis and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura with the monoclonal antibody, rituximab: case report and review of the literature. Liver Int. 2006; 26:625-629
  64. Barth E, Clawson J. A case of autoimmune hepatitis treated with rituximab. Case Rep Gastroenterol. 2010; 4:502-509.
  65. Burak KW, Swain MG, Santodomingo-Garzon T, Lee SS, Urbanski SJ, Aspinall AI, et al. Rituximab for the treatment of patients with autoimmune hepatitis who are refractory or intolerant to standard therapy. Can J Gastroenterol. 2013; 27:273-280.
  66. Weiler-Normann C, Schramm C, Quaas A, Wiegard C, Glaubke C, Pannicke N, et al. Infliximab as a rescue treatment in difficult to treat autoimmune hepatitis. J Hepatol. 2013; 58:529-534.
  67. Nevens F, Andreone P, Mazzella G, Strasser SI, Bowlus C, Invernizzi P, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of Obeticholic acid in primary biliary cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375:631-643.
  68. Intercept Pharmaceuticals. Phase 3 study of Obeticholic acid evaluating clinical outcomes in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis (COBALT). In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). 2000[cited 2017 Mar 27]. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ show/NCT02308111 NLM Identifier: NCT02308111.
  69. Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Sands BE, Hanauer S, Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, et al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369:699-710.
  70. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Hanauer S, Colombel JF, Sands BE, et al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369:711-721.
  71. Sands BE, Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Sy R, et al. Effects of vedolizumab induction therapy for patients with crohn’s disease in whom tumor necrosis factor antagonist treatment failed. Gastroenterology. 2014; 147:618627.
  72. Damas OM, Estes D, Pena Polanco NA, Czul F, Palacio AM, Abreu M, etal. Treatment of inflammatory bowel disease with Vedolizumab for patients with coexisting primary sclerosing cholangitis: report of a nested case-control study. [abstract taken from Gastroenterology. 2016; 150 (4, suppl 1): S1074.
  73. Eksteen B, Heatherington J, Oshiomogo J, Panaccione R, Kaplan G, Ghosh S. Efficacy and safety of induction dosing of Vedolizumab for reducing biliary inflammation in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. J Hepatol. 2016; 64 (2S): S199.
  74. Eksteen B, Heatherington J, Oshiomogo J, Panaccione R, Kaplan G, Ghosh S. Retraction notice to: PS124- Efficacy and safety of induction dosing of Vedolizumab for reducing biliary inflammation in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. [J Hepatol. 2016; 64 (2S): S199.]. J Hepatol. 2017; 66:254.
  75. Takeda. Efficacy and safety of Vedolizumab intravenous (IV) in the treatment of primary sclerosing cholangitis in subjects with underlying inflammatory bowel disease. In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US).
    2000-[cited 2017 Mar 27]. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.
    gov/show/NCT03035058 NLM Identifier: NCT03035058.
  76. Floreani A, Rizzotto ER, Ferrera F, Carderi I, Caroli D, Blasone L, et al. Clinical course and outcome of autoimmune hepatitis/primary sclerosing cholangitis overlap syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005; 100:1516-1522.
  77. Durazzo M, Premoli A, Paschetta E, Belci P, Spandre M, Bo S. Overlap syndromes of autoimmune hepatitis: an open question. Dig Dis Sci. 2013; 58:344-348.

Download Tables, Images & References

FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #74

Endoscopic Management of Pancreatic Necrosis Using the EndoRotor Resection System

Read Article

Introduction

In the USA, the annual incidence of acute pancreatitis ranges from 4.9 to 35 per 100,000 population.1 Worldwide, the incidence of acute pancreatitis is rising, largely due to rising rates of obesity and gallstones.2

Approximately 20% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop pancreatic necrosis and one in three of these patients will develop infected pancreatic necrosis, which is associated with high mortality.3,4,5 Infected pancreatic necrosis requires interventional treatment. Over recent decades, the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis has changed dramatically. Early surgery is associated with a very high mortality rate and is largely avoided.6

A shift towards minimally invasive techniques has become the standard of care. Minimally invasive techniques such as video-assisted retroperitoneal drainage (VARD) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)- guided transluminal drainage, and if necessary, direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN), have been shown to improve patient outcomes in regard to mortality, multi-organ failure, external fistula, and endo- and exocrine insufficiency.5,7,8 Several studies have reported on the potential and efficacy of direct endoscopic necrosectomy.9,10

Following EUS-guided transgastric or transduodenal drainage, the pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) cavity can be entered with a standard forward viewing endoscope to perform DEN. This can be achieved by balloon dilation of the transgastric fistula (up to 20 mm) when plastic double pigtail stents were placed initially, or directly through the stent opening when a large bore fully covered metal lumen apposing stent was placed. Usually, several sessions are required for complete removal of the necrosis; the mean number of DEN sessions varied from 1 to 15 in a meta-analysis by Puli et al. with a weighted mean of 4.09 procedures.11

One of the main limitations of endoscopic necrosectomy is the lack of dedicated instruments to remove necrotic tissue from within PFCs. For this purpose, various instruments, originally designed for other indications, are widely used. These devices, including lithotripsy baskets, grasping forceps, retrieval nets, and polypectomy snares, are able to grasp and remove necrotic material. Still, endoscopic necrosectomy can be tedious work and these procedures are often time consuming.

The EndoRotor

The EndoRotor (Interscope Medical, Inc., Worcester, MA, United States) is a novel automated mechanical endoscopic system designed for use in the gastrointestinal tract for tissue dissection and resection with a single device. It comprises of a console that houses the motor drive, peristaltic pump, and vacuum regulation, a foot pedal, a catheter device, and a specimen collection trap. The EndoRotor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the removal of dead pancreatic tissue in December, 2020.12

The EndoRotor system can be advanced through the working channel of a therapeutic endoscope with a working channel of at least 3.2mm in diameter. The EndoRotor can be used to aspirate, cut, and remove small pieces of tissue through a catheter, consisting of a fixed outer cannula with a hollow inner cannula. A motorized, rotating, cutting tool driven by an electronically controlled foot console and attached to suction performs tissue resection and rotates at either 1000 or 1700 revolutions per minute.13

The catheter shaft is flexible and can tolerate endoscope bending or manipulation up to greater than 160 degrees. If greater manipulation is required, a longer catheter can be used to facilitate less torsional stress on the device. The necrotic tissue is sucked into the catheter using negative pressure and cut by the rotating blade from the inner cannula. Tissue is transported to a standard vacuum container. Both the cutting tool and suction are controlled by the endoscopist using two separate foot pedals.

Procedure

Prior to using the EndoRotor, endoscopists need to first perform EUS-guided transgastric drainage by creating a fistula from the stomach or small bowel to the adjacent PFC. The choice of placement of one or more plastic stents or a lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS) is at the discretion of the endoscopist. Endoscopic necrosectomy can then be performed. For this, a therapeutic gastroscope is advanced into the PFC. The EndoRotor is then inserted through the working channel of a therapeutic endoscope and advanced into the PFC collection cavity. Rotation speed of the EndoRotor catheter is recorded as well as changes in settings. Suction is typically set between 500 and 620 mmHg, the maximum achievable negative pressure level. (Figure 1)

More recently, EndoRotor was trialed using a percutaneous route. Zuener et al. reported a single case report of percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy performed using the EndoRotor resection device.14 The procedure involved percutaneous dilation from 14 to 18 mm to allow insertion of the flexible endoscope into the retroperitoneal cavity. Necrosectomy was performed with the EndoRotor device by using high suction (750 mmHg) and low cutting speed (1000 rpm).

Outcomes

Stassen et al. evaluated the use of the EndoRotor to remove solid debris under direct endoscopic visualization.15 The prospective trial involved 10 international sites which enrolled 30 patients (mean age 55 years, 60% male) with walled off pancreatic necrosis which ranged in size from 6mm to 22 mm with >30% solid component based on computed tomography (CT). The authors reported that 15/30 (50%) achieved complete debridement in one session, and 21/30 (73%) achieved complete debridement after 2 sessions.

The mean time between LAMS or SEMS placement and debridement was 14 days. A median of 2.1 interventions (range 1-7) was required. Mean EndoRotor procedure time was 71 minutes (SD 37 minutes). Mean overall endoscopic procedure time was 117 (SD 50 minutes). Baseline necrotic debris was 69% (SD 20%) and the mean reduction of solid necrosis of 68% (SD 29%), 54% (SD 34%), 58% (SD 36%) and 34% (SD 29%) was achieved after the first, second, third and fourth procedure, respectively. At the 21-day follow-up, the mean reduction in necrosis volume from baseline was 90% (SD 19%). Average duration from the start of necrosectomy until discharge was 16 days (SD 27 days).

In a case series involving 12 patients (median age 60.6 years), van der Wiel reported outcomes following the use of the EndoRotor.16 From the study cohort, a total of 27 procedures were performed. Three patients had already undergone unsuccessful endoscopic necrosectomy procedures using conventional tools. The mean size of the walled-off cavities was 117.5 ± 51.9 mm. An average of two procedures (range 1 – 7) per patient was required to achieve complete removal of necrotic tissue with the EndoRotor. No procedurerelated adverse events occurred.

A questionnaire was sent to endoscopists to rate their experience with the EndoRotor. Endoscopists rated the EndoRotor easy in its use (mean 10-point Likert scale score, 8.3; range, 8 to 9) and an effective tool to remove necrotic tissue (mean 10-point Likert scale score, 8.3; range, 8 to 9). They were satisfied by the ability to manage the removal of necrotic tissue in a controlled manner (mean 10-point Likert scale score, 8.6; range, 8 to 9). The risk of causing complications was estimated to be low (mean 10-point Likert scale score, 1.9; range, 1 to 2). Overall, the device was judged to be of substantial additional value in the management of pancreatic necrosis (mean 10-point Likert scale score, 8.6; range, 8 to 9), and respondents were very willing to use the device in subsequent patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (mean 10-point Likert scale score, 9.3; range, 9 to 10).

Soota et al. performed a small retrospective study involving four patients (mean age 49 years, all male) with greater than 30% cyst wall involvement of necrosis.17 The study reported complete cyst resolution was observed in ¾ patients (one was currently still being treated) with mean time to resolution of 84 days. Mean length of hospital stay and time to discharge after treatment was 33 and 19 days, respectively. There were no patient-related complications and only one technical complication of the EndoRotor getting caught on the LAMS. This was remedied by removal of the stent and the EndoRotor without any further sequelae. Additionally, the authors noted that no patients required additional surgical or interventional radiology procedures. One patient was managed as an outpatient, and 2 others were able to achieve early discharge.

Adverse Events

Most studies reporting outcomes of the EndoRotor have noted low rates of adverse events. Stassen et al. noted in their study that no EndoRotor-associated adverse events were reported.15 One patient died during the follow up period due to shock and multiorgan failure, unrelated to the treatment with the EndoRotor. van der Wiel reported no adverse events occurred during the necrosectomy procedures or within 24 hours.16 Three patients (27.2 %) experienced adverse events within the course of their infected pancreatic necrosis. One patient died eight days after the last endoscopic necrosectomy as a result of ongoing multi-organ failure caused by collections of infected pancreatic necrosis which, despite multiple sessions, could not be completely removed. One patient eventually died three months after discharge due to an underlying pancreatic carcinoma after having undergone two successful endoscopic necrosectomy procedures for infected pancreatic necrosis using the EndoRotor. In one patient, a gastrointestinal bleed occurred two days after the procedure necessitating coiling of the splenic artery. It should be noted that while EndoRotor is designed to help clear necrotic contents from pancreatic fluid collections, data on adverse events associated with the use of this device remain limited.

Other Applications

While there is limited study on the use of EndoRotor for the management of walled-off necrosis (WON), its application is being studied in other realms. Kaul et al. applied EndoRotor for endoscopic resection of flat and polypoid lesions in the colon and foregut.18 EndoRotor was also used in treating esophageal and gastric lesions, including Barret’s esophagus.19,20 Furthermore, Gubatan et al. reported a single case where the EndoRotor device was safely used to clear large blood clots in a patient with upper GI bleeding as an aide to traditional methods.21 While these reports highlight possible expanded applications of EndoRotor, outcome data remains very sparse and limited to academic centers.

Conclusion

Using direct endoscopic visualization, the EndoRotor device is designed to facilitate removal of dead tissue in patients with walled off pancreatic necrosis. Overall, with the limited data available, the EndoRotor resection system appears to be safe and effective. However, most studies are limited by very small sample size as well as study design (case series, retrospective, etc). Large prospective comparative evaluation of the EndoRotor system is required to confirm these favorable observations and to further evaluate its safety profile and clinical efficacy.

References

  1. Vege SS, Yadav D, Chari ST. Pancreatitis. In: GI Epidemiology, 1st ed, Talley NJ, Locke GR, Saito YA (Eds), Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA 2007.
  2. Toouli J, Brooke-Smith M, Bassi C, et al. Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002;17 Suppl:S15-39.
  3. Working Group IAP/APA Acute Pancreatitis Guidelines. IAP/APA evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2013; 13: e1-15
  4. van Santvoort HC, Bakker OJ, Bollen TL. et al. A conservative and minimally invasive approach to necrotizing pancreatitis improves outcome. Gastroenterology 2011; 141: 1254-1263
  5. van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ. et al. A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. NEJM 2010; 362: 1491-1502
  6. Connor S, Alexakis N, Raraty MG. et al. Early and late complications after pancreatic necrosectomy. Surgery 2005; 137: 499-505
  7. Bakker OJ, van Santvoort HC, van Brunschot S. et al. Endoscopic transgastric vs surgical necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized trial. JAMA 2012; 307: 1053-1061
  8. van Brunschot S, van Grinsven J, Voermans RP. et al. Transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis (TENSION trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN09186711]. BMC Gastroenterol 2013; 13: 161
  9. Bugiantella W, Rondelli F, Boni M. et al. Necrotizing pancreatitis: A review of the interventions. Int J Surg 2016; 28 (Suppl. 01) S163-171
  10. Gurusamy KS, Belgaumkar AP, Haswell A. et al. Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 4: CD011383
  11. Puli SR, Graumlich JF, Pamulaparthy SR. et al. Endoscopic transmural necrosectomy for walled-off pancreatic necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 28: 50-53
  12. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes- marketing-new-device-designed-remove-dead-pancreatic-tissue
  13. https://www.interscopemed.com/endorotor-procedure
  14. Zeuner S, Finkelmeier F, Waidmann O, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy using an automated rotor resection device in severe necrotizing pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2021. doi: 10.1055/a-1540-6191. Online ahead of print.
  15. Stassen PM, de Jonge PJ, Koch AD, et al. 961 Prospective trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the interscope endorotor® resection system for direct endoscopic necrosectomy of walled-of pancreatic necrosis (endorotor den trial). Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2020;91:AB80-1.
  16. van der Wiel SE, May A, Poley JW, et al. Preliminary report on the safety and utility of a novel automated mechanical endoscopic tissue resection tool for endoscopic necrosectomy: a case series. Endosc Int Open. 2020;8:E274-80.
  17. Soota K, Abdelfatah MM, Peter S, Wilcox CM, Baig KK, Ahmed A. Experience with endorotorrxt for endoscopic necrosectomy in patients with acute necrotic pancreatitis at a tertiary care center. Endoscopy. 2020;52:ePP223.
  18. Kaul V, Diehl D, Enslin S, et al. Safety and efficacy of a novel powered endoscopic debridement tissue resection device for management of difficult colon and foregut lesions: first multicenter US experience. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93:640-6 .
  19. Hollerbach S, Wellmann A, Meier P, et al. The EndoRotor(®): endoscopic mucosal resection system for non-thermal and rapid removal of esophageal, gastric, and colonic lesions: initial experience in live animals. Endosc Int Open. 2016;4:E475-9.
  20. Hussein M, Sami S, Lovat L, et al. P234 Comparing the EndoRotor® resection device with continued ablation in treatment of refractory barrett’s oesophagus.Gut 2021;70:A163.
  21. Gubatan J, Kwo P, Hwang JH. 2122 Novel Use of EndoRotor® Device to Clear Large Obscuring Clot in Patient With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleed. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114:S1182.

Download Tables, Images & References

Guidelines for Authors

Read Article

Practical Gastroenterology publishes articles for the primary care physician, and your article should therefore have a nuts-and-bolts slant. We urge you to keep the nonspecialist in mind as you write your article. We cannot stress strongly enough the importance of focusing your article on information that will be useful and instructive to the primary care physician. In this regard, it would be helpful for you to emphasize prevention and cost (of tests, drugs, surgery, hospital stay, procedures, techniques, etc.) whenever and wherever possible.

We offer the following list to help you conform to our mechanical requirements:

  1. Please submit one copy of your manuscript as a Microsoft Word file, typed on 8½″ × 11″ pages with 1″ margins, double-spaced throughout, including references, tables and figure legends. Ideally, the length of the manuscript should be 2000–2500 words (10–13 pages). Manuscripts should be submitted via e-mail to: PracticalGastro@aol.com
  2. Manuscripts must be submitted as Microsoft Word files without automatic footnoting and as final format documents (without indications of markup).
  3. Tables should be submitted with titles. If the table has been previously published, identify the source and provide all information that would be included in a standard reference list (see below), along with indication that permission to republish has been obtained. It is your responsibility to obtain permission.
  4. Figures and illustrations (photographs, drawings, charts) help explain the text, add to the visual appeal of the published article, and are very welcome. Each table should have a title, and each figure should have an accompanying legend. If figures and illustrations have been previously published, you should identify the source and provide all information that would be included in a standard reference list (see below), along with indication that permission to republish has been obtained. It is your responsibility to obtain permission. All figures and illustrations must be supplied in JPEG format and must be identified as Figure 1, Figure 2, etc. When e-mailing figures and illustrations, do not embed them into a text document. Each JPEG should be sent as a separate document attached to the e-mail. Tables, figures and Illustrations should not be submitted as Excel spreadsheets or in Power Point.
  5. The title page should include the names, addresses, phone numbers, complete titles and affiliations of all authors.
  6. A color head-shot photograph of each author should accompany the manuscript. These will be published with your article. These must be submitted as JPEG files.
  7. An abstract of 125–150 words should also accompany your paper. This will be published at the beginning of your article. Please do not exceed the 150-word limit.
  8. References should be used sparingly and cited in the body of the paper using consecutive superscript (raised) numbers. The references section should be numbered consecutively in the order in which the references are cited in the text. References should follow AMA style, and journal names should be abbreviated according to Index Medicus practice. Inclusive page ranges should be indicated. The following references illustrate AMA style:
  1. Jacobson IM, McHutchison JG, Dusheiko GM, et al. Telaprevir for previously untreated chronic
    hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2405–2416.
  2. Bernatsky S, Clarke AE, Suissa S. Hematologic malignant neoplasms after drug exposure in
    rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:378-81.
  1. Articles will be copyrighted upon publication by Practical Gastroenterology Publishing, Inc. The manuscript must not have been published previously. Each article we publish is subject to review by members of our Editorial Board. Articles are also subject to final editing.

Download Tables, Images & References

DISPATCHES FROM THE GUILD CONFERENCE

Cancer Prevention in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Read Article

Introduction

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with increased rates of malignancies; some are disease-related (like colorectal cancer) and some are primarily associated with therapy exposures. Although there may be an overlap between disease- and therapy-related cancers, the general strategy for prevention of cancer in patients with IBD lies in understanding the risk factors for these malignancies, educating patients about the recommended screening and surveillance practices, and incorporating general screening recommendations into routine IBD care. An important limitation to our understanding of the effectiveness of our intervention and prevention strategies is the lack of studies assessing mortality benefit, but in part also a reflection of the low mortality in our IBD population. In practice, it is imperative to weigh the risks of cancer or other treatment-related complications in the context of disease progression as a result of lack of or ineffective treatment for IBD when tailoring a management plan for each patient. This review article summarizes the major cancers of concern in patients with IBD and presents a summary of the known risks and prevention strategies. (Table 1)

Colorectal Cancer and Dysplasia in IBD

It is well described that dysplasia and adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum (CRC) are associated with longstanding colitis, and this is a feared complication of the disease. The longest standing database and registry for understanding this risk is at the St. Mark’s Hospital in the United Kingdom.1 In their updated publication of their long-standing surveillance registry of over 40 years, they have demonstrated that the incident rate of CRC appears to have decreased over the years, and that when it is being diagnosed, it is being detected in earlier stages. The reasons for this have been postulated and may represent effective therapy controlling inflammation, effective surgery removing patients who are at highest risk from the analyses, or possibly the effect of secondary prevention strategies of performing screening and surveillance colonoscopies and therefore identifying dysplasia or early stage cancers. Therefore, whether it is that secondary prevention is effective by endoscopic interventions, or primary prevention by therapies controlling inflammation, or maybe there is even chemo-protective properties of some of the treatments we use to control IBD, the role of careful and effective surveillance remains paramount.

Effective surveillance for colon cancer and dysplasia in patients with IBD should be guided based on the individual patient’s risk factors. These risk factors can be broken down into those that are (potentially) modifiable and those that are deemed immutable. Potentially modifiable risk factors include increased cumulative inflammatory activity, backwash ileitis (as a potential marker of more extensive colitis) and the presence of post inflammatory pseudopolyps (although this has been recently challenged by some newer data to suggest it may not be a risk).2 Prior dysplasia is a risk for future and subsequent complications and having a mass or a stricture is certainly associated with a higher risk of neoplasia.3 These are all markers of prior high-degrees of inflammation and more extensive disease. The risks that are unchangeable include male sex, longer disease duration, greater extent of colonic involvement, a family history of CRC (independent of a family history of IBD), primary sclerosing cholangitis and a younger age of diagnosis (independent of duration of disease).3–7 Therefore, providers should develop an individualized screening and surveillance strategy for CRC in each patient.

Inflammation has been identified as an independent risk factor for neoplasia in ulcerative colitis. The St. Mark’s group (London) demonstrated that cumulative inflammation is associated with colonic neoplasia in UC and developed an arithmetic model that accounts for the amount of inflammation over time based on the number of colonoscopies the patient had to demonstrate that cumulative inflammation correlates with the risk of colorectal neoplasia.8 This has been subsequently validated in a smaller cohort of patients at the University of Chicago.9 The implication of these findings are that by effectively treating inflammation over time this will reduce the overall risk for cancer and dysplasia in colitis. These findings further support ongoing “treating to a target” of colitis with the hope that better control of the inflammation reduces the longterm neoplasia risk.

We have come to appreciate that in the noncolitis population CRC is being diagnosed at younger ages. This has also been seen in the IBD population and led to changes in the ulcerative colitis guidelines for cancer prevention to begin 8 years from diagnosis.10 The strategy of earlier surveillance aims to both identify more neoplasia and at an earlier stage. In fact, a model by Lutgens and colleagues suggests that by starting surveillance at 8 years from the diagnosis of colitis, one would identify additional 6% of cases.11 An important exception should be made in patients who have IBD with concomitant PSC, in whom the risk of CRC is very high; their exams should start at the time of diagnosis of the PSC and performed annually thereafter.

Technology has advanced our visualization as well as our endoscopic techniques for prevention and management of neoplasia and its progression. A meta-analysis by Feuerstein and colleagues evaluated dye-based chromoendoscopy compared with white light endoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasia. In their analysis of randomized clinical trials in which patients were randomized to chromoendoscopy or white light endoscopy, the data demonstrated improved detection by chromoendoscopy compared with standard-definition white light (RR 2.12 [1.15- 3.91]). However, when chromoendoscopy was compared with high-definition white light, there was no statistically significant difference between the two (RR 1.36 [0.84-2.18]). In their non-randomized trials analysis, which were primarily retrospective studies, a definite benefit of dye spray chromoendoscopy when compared with both standard-definition and high-definition was shown.12 This shows the added benefit of chromoendoscopy in screening and surveilling high-risk patients to standard-definition white light endoscopy. However, in patients whose exam is performed using a high-definition endoscope, dye-based chromoendoscopy is not likely to be of significant added benefit. Given the added benefit of dye-based chromoendoscopy as well as the limitation to its use, it has been of great interest to understand virtual compared with dye-based chromoendoscopy. An additional meta-analysis by El-Dallal and colleagues suggests that, in fact, narrow band imaging may be as good as dye spray if you perform the colonoscopic exam with a high definition colonoscope in a well prepped colon and in a patient who is in remission.13

Another strategy to improve neoplasia detection has been performance of non-targeted biopsies in different segments of the colon. Prior guidelines had suggested we should be performing sequential sampling of the mucosa with random 4-quadrant biopsies every 10 cm. However, although there may be some benefit to this non-targeted biopsy approach, a study by the French GETAID group demonstrated this to be a low yield practice.14 Of 1000 colonoscopies, 140 neoplastic sites were identified, 80% by targeted biopsies and only 20% by random biopsies. While the yield of random biopsies was low at 0.2% per biopsy, the yield in patients with history of neoplasia was significantly higher at 12.8%. Additional patient characteristics associated with detection of neoplasia by nontargeted biopsies included having tubular appearing colon (which is a surrogate of prior severe inflammation) and history of PSC. Another study by our group assessed the question whether we miss neoplasia using high-definition white light exams, and demonstrated that advanced neoplastic lesions are not missed.15 In summary, non-targeted biopsies may be of highest yield in the higher risk patient population or in endoscopic exams limited to only standard-definition white light.

Endoscopic management of dysplasia remains a challenge, but the approach is guided by whether the dysplasia is visible and discrete (See Figure 1). If the lesion is visible and endoscopically discrete such that it can be removed in its entirety, active surveillance and follow-up may be considered. On the other hand, if the dysplasia is either flat and is not easily discrete for endoscopic resection, or if it is multifocal or if it harbors high grade dysplasia or cancer, this would necessitate a surgical consultation and a discussion of whether a proctocolectomy or, a segmental resection with ongoing active surveillance would be more appropriate.16

Skin Cancer and IBD

Patients with IBD have an increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer with a risk of 912 per 100,000 compared to those who do not have IBD whose risk is 623 per 100,000. It has also been shown that IBD patients may have an increased risk of melanoma, with the risk being 57.1 per 100,000 compared to the non-IBD population of 44 per 100,000. Melanoma also appears to be more prevalent among IBD patients. A meta-analysis by Singh and colleagues demonstrated an odds ratio of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.10-1.70) for the development of melanoma in the IBD population compared with non-IBD patients.17 Additionally, patients with Crohn’s disease appear to have a higher risk for developing melanoma than those with ulcerative colitis.18

It is well described that thiopurines are associated with an increased risk of non-melanoma skin cancers (basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma).18–20 This risk increases with longer exposure to the therapies and there is little to no risk that has been reported in patients on the therapy for less than a year.18 It is important to note that the increased risk of non-melanoma skin cancer with prolonged use of thiopurines does not appear to go away when you stop the therapy. Therefore these patients require close observation.21 A retrospective cohort study and nested case control study using a large claims database by Long and colleagues assessed the overall risk of skin cancer as it related to therapies in IBD patients as a whole, as well as the individual risks associated with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. The overall risk of melanoma was increased in IBD patients who are receiving biologics, which at the time was only anti-TNFs, and the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer was increased in patients who were receiving thiopurines. When Crohn’s disease was isolated, the melanoma risk remained with biologic therapy and the non-melanoma skin cancer risk remained with thiopurines, but in ulcerative colitis the melanoma risk was not statistically significant while the non-melanoma skin cancer risk continued with thiopurines.18 In summary, anti-TNF therapy appears to carry an increased risk of melanoma that is distinct from the independent increased risk of melanoma seen in Crohn’s disease. Newer therapies such as the non-selective Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib and the anti-cytokine monoclonal antibody ustekinumab have had small numbers of non-melanoma skin cancer reported from their pivotal trials and long-term extension followup, but there has not appeared to be a significant signal when compared with patients who received placebo. Further study and ongoing vigilance for any immune therapies used in patients with IBD is advised.

When considering these risks and choosing therapies in clinical practice, it is also important to keep in mind other known risk factors for skin cancer such as fair skin, prior or current high amounts of ultraviolet radiation exposure, as well as personal or family history of skin cancer. Primary prevention and protection by sun avoidance and sun protection with sunscreens are recommended, although there are not studies demonstrating deceased rates of skin cancer or mortality in the IBD population. Furthermore, it is recommended that patients with IBD should see a dermatologist for annual skin cancer screening, should be educated about the need and importance of screening, and that this should be on providers’ list for health maintenance discussions.

Lymphoma Risk in IBD

Crohn’s disease alone appears to confer a small but significantly increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Population-based studies in Denmark and in Canada have demonstrated an increased risk of lymphoma among Crohn’s patients, with men having a higher risk than women, independent of medical therapy exposure.22,23 Separately, thiopurine therapy appears to confer a 4-6-fold increased risk of lymphoma, compared with the risk in those who are not receiving thiopurines. In the CESAME inception cohort of IBD patients from France and Belgium of over 19,000 patients, the rates of lymphoma in patients with previous thiopurine use (0.20 per 1000 [95% CI, 0.02-0.72]) compared to no history of thiopurine use (0.26 per 1000 [95% CI, 0.10-0.57]) were similar, but in patients with current thiopurine use the rate was higher (0.90 per 1000 [95% CI, 0.5-1.49]). Importantly, as demonstrated in CESAME as well as other studies including a nationwide cohort study of 36,891 VA patients, the risk of lymphoma increases with increased duration of therapy, but importantly, the risk also returns to baseline non-exposed rates after discontinuation of the thiopurine.24–27

Whether anti-TNF therapy increases the risk of lymphoma has been a subject of great concern and debate. In a large study by Lemaitre and colleagues using a French nationwide insurance database of 189,289 patients, in which 23,069 were anti- TNF and thiopurine naïve, 50,405 were receiving thiopurine monotherapy, 30,294 receiving anti-TNF monotherapy, and 14,229 receiving combination thiopurine and anti-TNF therapy, the incidence of

lymphoma was 0.54 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 0.41-0.67) in patients receiving thiopurine monotherapy and 0.41 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 0.27-0.55) in patients receiving anti-TNF monotherapy. Combination therapy was associated with an even higher incidence of 0.95 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 0.45-1.45). A multivariable Cox model comparing treatment-exposed patients with non-exposed patients identified an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 2.6 (95% CI, 1.96-3.44) for those receiving thiopurines alone, aHR of 2.4 (95% CI, 1.60-3.64) for those receiving anti-TNF alone and aHR of 6.11 (95% CI, 3.46-10.8) for those who were receiving combination therapy.28 Interestingly, in a multivariable analysis controlling for disease type, Crohn’s disease treated with anti- TNF monotherapy was associated with a persistent elevated risk (aHR 2.75 [95% CI, 1.74-4.33]), but ulcerative colitis did not have a statistically significant elevated risk (aHR 1.73 [95% CI 0.74-4.01]), which raises the possibility that the increased aHR for lymphoma for those receiving anti-TNF monotherapy was driven by the Crohn’s disease itself. This is further supported by numerous additional studies which did not identify increased risk of lymphoma with anti-TNF monotherapy, including a study by Deepak and colleagues, who looked specifically at TNF inhibitors with and without thiopurines, and in which thiopurines drove the predominant risk of lymphomas and hepatosplenic T-cell lymphomas; TNF inhibitors as monotherapy did not have an increased risk.29 The newer classes of biological therapies such as the anti-integrin therapy vedolizumab and the anticytokine therapy ustekinumab do not appear to have a risk of lymphoma associated with their use.

Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) is a rare lymphoma that is nearly uniformly fatal. It is associated with thiopurine therapy in the IBD population with a risk of <1:20,000 person-years. HSTCL occurs almost exclusively in men < 35 years of age who are receiving thiopurines or combination therapy of anti-TNF and thiopurine, but no cases have been reported of HSTCL with anti-TNF monotherapy or anti-TNF therapy in combination with methotrexate.30 The concern over HSTCL has led to a change in practice in the US by pediatricians, and avoidance of thiopurine therapy in young male patients.

It is important to note that one of the other risk factors for the development of lymphoma appears to be Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection. EBV was first discovered due to its association with the pathogenesis of Burkitt lymphoma, but later found to be linked to a range of lymphoproliferative disorders. Patients who were infected with EBV at the time of thiopurine therapy appear to have the greatest risk of developing a difficult lymphoproliferative disease. Therefore, although this is not currently recommended for all patients, in male patients younger than 21 years old, and in whom thiopurine therapy is being considered, we advise serologic assessment for prior EBV exposure and avoidance of thiopurines in those with negative serology.

In summary, the risk of lymphoma is increased in Crohn’s disease, higher in male patients, and primarily driven by thiopurine therapy. The risk with anti-TNF therapy remains inconclusively demonstrated but should be discussed in the context of the disease activity when considering treatment options for IBD. The evolving practical understanding of the timing of thiopurines and lymphoma in patients with IBD suggests that the therapy may be used for short-term to optimize anti-TNF therapy and subsequently withdrawn if the patient is stable, achieves deep remission, and has sufficient serum concentrations of drug, with no subsequent accrued risk of lymphoma.

Cervical Dysplasia

HPV, primarily 16 and 18, is responsible for all cases of cervical cancer and it is therefore recommended that people from 9-45 years of age receive vaccination against HPV. It is important also to understand that cervical dysplasia precedes cervical cancer, with a long lead time of 10-30 years, therefore, when primary prevention is not possible, adequate screening is likely to successfully prevent cervical cancer or death from cervical cancer.31 IBD, among other immunemediated disorders that are treated with or result in immune suppression, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), HIV, and organ transplantation, have been shown to have a higher rate of progression to cervical dysplasia because of the decreased ability to clear HPV. This is particularly true in patients with IBD who are smokers and those receivingimmunosuppressants.32 There have been no specific studies that have confirmed the increased risk of cervical cancer in patients with IBD, but multiple studies have identified an increased risk of cervical dysplasia in the IBD population compared with those without IBD.32-38 Therefore, in addition to vaccination against HPV, it is recommended to perform annual Pap smears in women with IBD who are sexually active and receiving immune modifying therapies.

Anal Cancer

There is higher prevalence of anal cancer among patients with IBD, and this has been linked to HPV infections, severe perianal inflammation from Crohn’s disease, receptive anal intercourse, and the immunosuppression associated with HIV or organ transplantation.39,40 It has been proposed that patients with perianal Crohn’s should be screened for anal cancer, which may be performed by anal Pap smear and under anesthesia. The diagnosis of anal cancer in patients with IBD is often delayed due to a misdiagnosis of benign anal stricture.39 Therefore, a careful digital rectal exam in a patient with perianal Crohn’s disease and the finding of exuberant perianal tissue or nonhealing ulcers in this region should raise a concern for possible anal cancer and prompt biopsy of the area.40

Conclusions

In summary, cancer prevention in patients with IBD requires an understanding of the risks of cancer in this patient population, education of our colleagues and patients about those risks, an understanding of screening, surveillance, and prevention strategies that are currently recommended, and implementation into routine practice in a systematic way. The use of checklists (Figure 2) by both providers and patients and routine “healthy visit” appointments may improve adherence to these strategies. This is especially important when patients are in remission and when they may not know of the need for routine follow-up and these strategies for prevention and good health.

References

  1. Choi C-HR, Rutter MD, Askari A, et al. Forty-Year Analysis of Colonoscopic Surveillance Program for Neoplasia in Ulcerative Colitis: An Updated Overview. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(7):1022-1034. doi:10.1038/ ajg.2015.65
  2. Mahmoud R, Shah S, Ten Hove J, et al. No Association Between Pseudopolyps and Colorectal Neoplasia in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(5):1333-1344. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.11.067
  3. Rutter M, Saunders B, Wilkinson K, et al. Severity of inflammation is a risk factor for colorectal neoplasia in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2004;126(2):451-459.
  4. Askling J, Dickman PW, Karlén P, et al. Family history as a risk factor for colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2001;120(6):1356-1362. doi:10.1053/gast.2001.24052
  5. Lindberg BU, Broomé U, Persson B. Proximal colorectal dysplasia or cancer in ulcerative colitis. The impact of primary sclerosing cholangitis and sulfasalazine: results from a 20-year surveillance study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44(1):77-85. doi:10.1007/BF02234825
  6. Lutgens MWMD, van Oijen MGH, van der Heijden GJMG, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD, Oldenburg B. Declining risk of colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19(4):789-799. doi:10.1097/ MIB.0b013e31828029c0
  7. Rubin DT, Huo D, Kinnucan JA, et al. Inflammation is an independent risk factor for colonic neoplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis: a case-control study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(12):1601-1608.e1-4. doi:10.1016/j. cgh.2013.06.023
  8. Choi C-HR, Al Bakir I, Ding N-SJ, et al. Cumulative burden of inflammation predicts colorectal neoplasia risk in ulcerative colitis: a large single-centre study. Gut. 2019;68(3):414- 422. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314190
  9. Yvellez OV, Rai V, Sossenheimer PH, et al. Cumulative Histologic Inflammation Predicts Colorectal Neoplasia in Ulcerative Colitis: A Validation Study. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021;27(2):203-206. doi:10.1093/ibd/izaa047
  10. Rubin DT, Ananthakrishnan AN, Siegel CA, Sauer BG, Long MD. ACG Clinical Guideline: Ulcerative Colitis in Adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114(3):384-413.
  11. Lutgens MWMD, Vleggaar FP, Schipper MEI, et al. High frequency of early colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. 2008;57(9):1246-1251. doi:10.1136/ gut.2007.143453
  12. Feuerstein JD, Rakowsky S, Sattler L, et al. Meta-analysis of dye-based chromoendoscopy compared with standardand high-definition white-light endoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease at increased risk of colon cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;90(2):186-195.e1. doi:10.1016/j. gie.2019.04.219
  13. El-Dallal M, Chen Y, Lin Q, et al. Meta-analysis of Virtualbased Chromoendoscopy Compared With Dye-spraying Chromoendoscopy Standard and High-definition White Light Endoscopy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Increased Risk of Colon Cancer. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2020;26(9):1319-1329. doi:10.1093/ibd/izaa011
  14. Moussata D, Allez M, Cazals-Hatem D, et al. Are ran-dom biopsies still useful for the detection of neoplasia in patients with IBD undergoing surveillance colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy? Gut. 2018;67(4):616-624. doi:10.1136/ gutjnl-2016-311892
  15. Cleveland NK, Colman RJ, Rodriquez D, et al. Surveillance of IBD Using High Definition Colonscopes Does Not Miss Adenocarcinoma in Patients with Low Grade Dysplasia. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016;22(3):631-637. doi:10.1097/ MIB.0000000000000634
  16. Cleveland NK, Ollech JE, Colman RJ, et al. Efficacy and Follow-up of Segmental or Subtotal Colectomy in Patients With Colitis-Associated Neoplasia. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2019;17(1):205-206. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.061
  17. Singh S, Nagpal SJS, Murad MH, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease is associated with an increased risk of melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(2):210-218. doi:10.1016/j. cgh.2013.04.033
  18. Long MD, Martin CF, Pipkin CA, Herfarth HH, Sandler RS, Kappelman MD. Risk of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer among patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2012;143(2):390-399.e1. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2012.05.004
  19. Long MD, Herfarth HH, Pipkin CA, Porter CQ, Sandler RS, Kappelman MD. Increased risk for non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8(3):268-274. doi:10.1016/j. cgh.2009.11.024
  20. Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, Bernstein CN. Increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancers among individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2011;141(5):1612-1620. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2011.07.039
  21. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Khosrotehrani K, Carrat F, et al. Increased risk for nonmelanoma skin cancers in patients who receive thiopurines for inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2011;141(5):1621-1628.e1-5. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2011.06.050
  22. Jess T, Horváth-Puhó E, Fallingborg J, Rasmussen HH, Jacobsen BA. Cancer risk in inflammatory bowel disease according to patient phenotype and treatment: a Danish population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(12):1869-1876. doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.249
  23. Bernstein CN, Blanchard JF, Kliewer E, Wajda A. Cancer risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a populationbased study. Cancer. 2001;91(4):854-862. doi:10.1002/1097- 0142(20010215)91:4<854::aid-cncr1073>3.0.co;2-z
  24. Khan N, Abbas AM, Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV, Bazzano LA. Risk of lymphoma in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with thiopurines: a nationwide retrospective cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2013;145(5):1007-1015.e3. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.07.035
  25. Herrinton LJ, Liu L, Weng X, Lewis JD, Hutfless S, Allison JE. Role of thiopurine and anti-TNF therapy in lymphoma in inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(12):2146-2153. doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.283
  26. Beaugerie L, Brousse N, Bouvier AM, et al. Lymphoproliferative disorders in patients receiving thiopurines for inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective observational cohort study. Lancet. 2009;374(9701):1617-1625. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61302-7
  27. Siegel CA, Marden SM, Persing SM, Larson RJ, Sands BE.Risk of lymphoma associated with combination anti-tumor necrosis factor and immunomodulator therapy for the treatment of Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(8):874-881. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2009.01.004
  28. Lemaitre M, Kirchgesner J, Rudnichi A, et al. Association Between Use of Thiopurines or Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists Alone or in Combination and Risk of Lymphoma in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease. JAMA. 2017;318(17):1679-1686. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.16071
  29. Deepak P, Sifuentes H, Sherid M, Stobaugh D, Sadozai Y, Ehrenpreis ED. T-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas reported to the FDA AERS with tumor necrosis factoralpha (TNF-α) inhibitors: results of the REFURBISH study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(1):99-105. doi:10.1038/ ajg.2012.334
  30. Kotlyar DS, Lewis JD, Beaugerie L, et al. Risk of lymphoma in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(5):847-858.e4; quiz e48-50. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2014.05.015
  31. Mahadevan U. Cervical neoplasia risk in IBD: Truth or hysteria? Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. 2009;15(11):1619- 1620. doi:10.1002/ibd.20957
  32. Kane S, Khatibi B, Reddy D. Higher incidence of abnormal Pap smears in women with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(3):631-636. doi:10.1111/j.1572- 0241.2007.01582.x
  33. Connell WR, Kamm MA, Dickson M, Balkwill AM, Ritchie JK, Lennard-Jones JE. Long-term neoplasia risk after azathioprine treatment in inflammatory bowel disease. Lancet. 1994;343(8908):1249-1252. doi:10.1016/s0140- 6736(94)92150-4
  34. Bhatia J, Bratcher J, Korelitz B, et al. Abnormalities of uterine cervix in women with inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(38):6167-6171. doi:10.3748/wjg.v12.i38.6167
  35. Hutfless S, Fireman B, Kane S, Herrinton LJ. Screening differences and risk of cervical cancer in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;28(5):598- 605. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03766.x
  36. Singh H, Demers AA, Nugent Z, Mahmud SM, Kliewer EV, Bernstein CN. Risk of cervical abnormalities in women with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based nested case-control study. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(2):451-458. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.10.021
  37. Lees CW, Critchley J, Chee N, et al. Lack of association between cervical dysplasia and IBD: A large case–control study. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. 2009;15(11):1621- 1629. doi:10.1002/ibd.20959
  38. Rungoe C, Simonsen J, Riis L, Frisch M, Langholz E, Jess T. Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Cervical Neoplasia: A Population-Based Nationwide Cohort Study. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2015;13(4):693-700.e1. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2014.07.036
  39. Connell WR, Sheffield JP, Kamm MA, Ritchie JK, Hawley PR, Lennard-Jones JE. Lower gastrointestinal malignancy in Crohn’s disease. Gut. 1994;35(3):347-352. doi:10.1136/ gut.35.3.347
  40. Egan L, D’Inca R, Jess T, et al. Non-colorectal intestinal tract carcinomas in inflammatory bowel disease: results of the 3rd ECCO Pathogenesis Scientific Workshop (II). J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8(1):19-30. doi:10.1016/j.crohns.2013.04.009


Download Tables, Images & References

jojobethacklinkmarsbahiscasibomJojobet GirişcasibomJojobet GirişJojobetJojobetvaycasinoholiganbetcasibommarsbahis girişJojobettaraftarium24madridbet güncel girişmadridbet girişmadridbetGrandpashabet