Latest News

The first-ever global guidelines for pregnancy and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) recommend continuing biologics and low-risk medications through pregnancy and lactation in women with IBD, suggesting this approach will not harm the fetus.

The guidelines also recommend that all women with IBD receive preconception counseling and be followed as high-risk pregnancies.

“Management of chronic illness in pregnant women has always been defined by fear of harming the fetus,” said Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, director of the Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center at the University of California San Francisco and chair of the Global Consensus Consortium that developed the guidelines. 

As a result, pregnant women are excluded from clinical trials of experimental therapies for IBD. And when a new therapy achieves regulatory approval, there are no human pregnancy safety data, only animal data. To fill this gap, the PIANO study, of which Mahadevan is principal investigator, looked at the safety of IBD medications in pregnancy and short- and long-term outcomes of the children.

“With our ongoing work in pregnancy in the patient with IBD, we realized that inflammation in the mother is the leading cause of poor outcome for the infant,” she told GI & Hepatology News. 

“We also have a better understanding of placental transfer of biologic agents” and the lack of exposure to the fetus during the first trimester, “a key period of organogenesis,” she added. 

Final recommendations were published simultaneously in six international journals, namely, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, American Journal of Gastroenterology, GUT, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, and Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

 

Surprising, Novel Findings

Limited provider knowledge led to varied practices in caring for women with IBD who become pregnant, according to the consensus authors. Practices are affected by local dogma, available resources, individual interpretation of the literature, and fear of harming the fetus. 

“The variations in guidelines by different societies and countries reflect this and lead to confusion for physicians and patients alike,” the authors of the guidelines wrote. 

Therefore, the Global Consensus Consortium — a group of 39 IBD experts, including teratologists and maternal fetal medicine specialists and seven patient advocates from six continents — convened to review and assess current data and come to an agreement on best practices. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used when sufficient published data were available, and the Research and Development process when expert opinion was needed to guide consistent practice.

“Some of the findings were expected, but others were novel,” said Mahadevan. 

Recommendations that might surprise clinicians include GRADE statement 9, which suggests that pregnant women with IBD take low-dose aspirin by 12 to 16 weeks’ gestation to prevent preterm preeclampsia. “This is based on the ASPRE study, showing that women at risk of preeclampsia can lower their risk by taking low-dose aspirin,” with no risk for flare, Mahadevan said.

In addition, GRADE statements 17-20 recommend/suggest that women continue their biologic throughout pregnancy without stopping. “North America has always recommended continuing during the third trimester, while Europe only recently has come to this,” Mahadevan said. “However, there was always some looseness about stopping at week X, Y, or Z. Now, we do recommend continuing the dose on schedule with no holding.”

Continuing medications considered low risk for use during pregnancy, such as 5-amino salicylic acids, sulfasalazine, thiopurines, and all monoclonal antibodies during preconception, pregnancy, and lactation, was also recommended. 

However, small-molecule drugs such as S1P receptor molecules and JAK inhibitors should be avoided for at least 1 month, and in some cases for 3 months prior to attempting conception, unless there is no alternative for the health of the mother. They should also be avoided during lactation.

Grade statement 33, which suggests that live rotavirus vaccine may be provided in children with in utero exposure to biologics, is also new, Mahadevan noted. “All prior recommendations were that no live vaccine should be given in the first 6 months or longer if infants were exposed to biologics in utero, but based on a prospective Canadian study, there is no harm when given to these infants.”

Another novel recommendation is that women with IBD on any monoclonal antibodies, including newer interleukin-23s, may breastfeed even though there are not clinical trial data at this point. The recommendation to continue them through pregnancy and lactation is based on placental physiology, as well as on the physiology of monoclonal antibody transfer in breast milk, according to the consortium.

Furthermore, the authors noted, there was no increase in infant infections at 4 months or 12 months if they were exposed to a biologic or thiopurine (or both) during pregnancy.

Overall, the consortium recommended that all pregnancies for women with IBD be considered as “high risk” for complications. This is due to the fact that many parts of the world, including the US, are “resource-limited,” Mahadevan explained. Since maternal fetal medicine specialists are not widely available, the consortium suggested all these patients be followed with increased monitoring and surveillance based on available resources.

In addition to the guidelines, patient videos in seven languages, a professional slide deck in English and Spanish, and a video on the global consensus are all available at https://pianostudy.org/.

This study was funded by The Leona B. and Harry H. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

Mahadevan reported being a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Enveda, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist, Roivant, and Takeda.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

The first-ever global guidelines for pregnancy and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) recommend continuing biologics and low-risk medications through pregnancy and lactation in women with IBD, suggesting this approach will not harm the fetus.

The guidelines also recommend that all women with IBD receive preconception counseling and be followed as high-risk pregnancies.

“Management of chronic illness in pregnant women has always been defined by fear of harming the fetus,” said Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, director of the Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center at the University of California San Francisco and chair of the Global Consensus Consortium that developed the guidelines. 

As a result, pregnant women are excluded from clinical trials of experimental therapies for IBD. And when a new therapy achieves regulatory approval, there are no human pregnancy safety data, only animal data. To fill this gap, the PIANO study, of which Mahadevan is principal investigator, looked at the safety of IBD medications in pregnancy and short- and long-term outcomes of the children.

“With our ongoing work in pregnancy in the patient with IBD, we realized that inflammation in the mother is the leading cause of poor outcome for the infant,” she told GI & Hepatology News. 

“We also have a better understanding of placental transfer of biologic agents” and the lack of exposure to the fetus during the first trimester, “a key period of organogenesis,” she added. 

Final recommendations were published simultaneously in six international journals, namely, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, American Journal of Gastroenterology, GUT, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, and Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

 

Surprising, Novel Findings

Limited provider knowledge led to varied practices in caring for women with IBD who become pregnant, according to the consensus authors. Practices are affected by local dogma, available resources, individual interpretation of the literature, and fear of harming the fetus. 

“The variations in guidelines by different societies and countries reflect this and lead to confusion for physicians and patients alike,” the authors of the guidelines wrote. 

Therefore, the Global Consensus Consortium — a group of 39 IBD experts, including teratologists and maternal fetal medicine specialists and seven patient advocates from six continents — convened to review and assess current data and come to an agreement on best practices. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used when sufficient published data were available, and the Research and Development process when expert opinion was needed to guide consistent practice.

“Some of the findings were expected, but others were novel,” said Mahadevan. 

Recommendations that might surprise clinicians include GRADE statement 9, which suggests that pregnant women with IBD take low-dose aspirin by 12 to 16 weeks’ gestation to prevent preterm preeclampsia. “This is based on the ASPRE study, showing that women at risk of preeclampsia can lower their risk by taking low-dose aspirin,” with no risk for flare, Mahadevan said.

In addition, GRADE statements 17-20 recommend/suggest that women continue their biologic throughout pregnancy without stopping. “North America has always recommended continuing during the third trimester, while Europe only recently has come to this,” Mahadevan said. “However, there was always some looseness about stopping at week X, Y, or Z. Now, we do recommend continuing the dose on schedule with no holding.”

Continuing medications considered low risk for use during pregnancy, such as 5-amino salicylic acids, sulfasalazine, thiopurines, and all monoclonal antibodies during preconception, pregnancy, and lactation, was also recommended. 

However, small-molecule drugs such as S1P receptor molecules and JAK inhibitors should be avoided for at least 1 month, and in some cases for 3 months prior to attempting conception, unless there is no alternative for the health of the mother. They should also be avoided during lactation.

Grade statement 33, which suggests that live rotavirus vaccine may be provided in children with in utero exposure to biologics, is also new, Mahadevan noted. “All prior recommendations were that no live vaccine should be given in the first 6 months or longer if infants were exposed to biologics in utero, but based on a prospective Canadian study, there is no harm when given to these infants.”

Another novel recommendation is that women with IBD on any monoclonal antibodies, including newer interleukin-23s, may breastfeed even though there are not clinical trial data at this point. The recommendation to continue them through pregnancy and lactation is based on placental physiology, as well as on the physiology of monoclonal antibody transfer in breast milk, according to the consortium.

Furthermore, the authors noted, there was no increase in infant infections at 4 months or 12 months if they were exposed to a biologic or thiopurine (or both) during pregnancy.

Overall, the consortium recommended that all pregnancies for women with IBD be considered as “high risk” for complications. This is due to the fact that many parts of the world, including the US, are “resource-limited,” Mahadevan explained. Since maternal fetal medicine specialists are not widely available, the consortium suggested all these patients be followed with increased monitoring and surveillance based on available resources.

In addition to the guidelines, patient videos in seven languages, a professional slide deck in English and Spanish, and a video on the global consensus are all available at https://pianostudy.org/.

This study was funded by The Leona B. and Harry H. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

Mahadevan reported being a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Enveda, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist, Roivant, and Takeda.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

The first-ever global guidelines for pregnancy and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) recommend continuing biologics and low-risk medications through pregnancy and lactation in women with IBD, suggesting this approach will not harm the fetus.

The guidelines also recommend that all women with IBD receive preconception counseling and be followed as high-risk pregnancies.

“Management of chronic illness in pregnant women has always been defined by fear of harming the fetus,” said Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, director of the Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center at the University of California San Francisco and chair of the Global Consensus Consortium that developed the guidelines. 

As a result, pregnant women are excluded from clinical trials of experimental therapies for IBD. And when a new therapy achieves regulatory approval, there are no human pregnancy safety data, only animal data. To fill this gap, the PIANO study, of which Mahadevan is principal investigator, looked at the safety of IBD medications in pregnancy and short- and long-term outcomes of the children.

“With our ongoing work in pregnancy in the patient with IBD, we realized that inflammation in the mother is the leading cause of poor outcome for the infant,” she told GI & Hepatology News. 

“We also have a better understanding of placental transfer of biologic agents” and the lack of exposure to the fetus during the first trimester, “a key period of organogenesis,” she added. 

Final recommendations were published simultaneously in six international journals, namely, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, American Journal of Gastroenterology, GUT, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, and Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

 

Surprising, Novel Findings

Limited provider knowledge led to varied practices in caring for women with IBD who become pregnant, according to the consensus authors. Practices are affected by local dogma, available resources, individual interpretation of the literature, and fear of harming the fetus. 

“The variations in guidelines by different societies and countries reflect this and lead to confusion for physicians and patients alike,” the authors of the guidelines wrote. 

Therefore, the Global Consensus Consortium — a group of 39 IBD experts, including teratologists and maternal fetal medicine specialists and seven patient advocates from six continents — convened to review and assess current data and come to an agreement on best practices. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used when sufficient published data were available, and the Research and Development process when expert opinion was needed to guide consistent practice.

“Some of the findings were expected, but others were novel,” said Mahadevan. 

Recommendations that might surprise clinicians include GRADE statement 9, which suggests that pregnant women with IBD take low-dose aspirin by 12 to 16 weeks’ gestation to prevent preterm preeclampsia. “This is based on the ASPRE study, showing that women at risk of preeclampsia can lower their risk by taking low-dose aspirin,” with no risk for flare, Mahadevan said.

In addition, GRADE statements 17-20 recommend/suggest that women continue their biologic throughout pregnancy without stopping. “North America has always recommended continuing during the third trimester, while Europe only recently has come to this,” Mahadevan said. “However, there was always some looseness about stopping at week X, Y, or Z. Now, we do recommend continuing the dose on schedule with no holding.”

Continuing medications considered low risk for use during pregnancy, such as 5-amino salicylic acids, sulfasalazine, thiopurines, and all monoclonal antibodies during preconception, pregnancy, and lactation, was also recommended. 

However, small-molecule drugs such as S1P receptor molecules and JAK inhibitors should be avoided for at least 1 month, and in some cases for 3 months prior to attempting conception, unless there is no alternative for the health of the mother. They should also be avoided during lactation.

Grade statement 33, which suggests that live rotavirus vaccine may be provided in children with in utero exposure to biologics, is also new, Mahadevan noted. “All prior recommendations were that no live vaccine should be given in the first 6 months or longer if infants were exposed to biologics in utero, but based on a prospective Canadian study, there is no harm when given to these infants.”

Another novel recommendation is that women with IBD on any monoclonal antibodies, including newer interleukin-23s, may breastfeed even though there are not clinical trial data at this point. The recommendation to continue them through pregnancy and lactation is based on placental physiology, as well as on the physiology of monoclonal antibody transfer in breast milk, according to the consortium.

Furthermore, the authors noted, there was no increase in infant infections at 4 months or 12 months if they were exposed to a biologic or thiopurine (or both) during pregnancy.

Overall, the consortium recommended that all pregnancies for women with IBD be considered as “high risk” for complications. This is due to the fact that many parts of the world, including the US, are “resource-limited,” Mahadevan explained. Since maternal fetal medicine specialists are not widely available, the consortium suggested all these patients be followed with increased monitoring and surveillance based on available resources.

In addition to the guidelines, patient videos in seven languages, a professional slide deck in English and Spanish, and a video on the global consensus are all available at https://pianostudy.org/.

This study was funded by The Leona B. and Harry H. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

Mahadevan reported being a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Enveda, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist, Roivant, and Takeda.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

The addition of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with a nearly one third lower incidence of serious liver events in individuals with cirrhosis who were receiving diuretic therapy, a large cohort study of more than 10,000 patients found.

Reporting in JAMA Network Open, Dian J. Chiang, MD, MPH, a section head of Hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland looked at the impact of these antihyperglycemic agents, also known as gliflozins, used in diabetes and kidney disease to block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidneys and causing more glucose to be excreted in the urine.

“Patients with cirrhosis were previously not included in SGLT2 inhibition clinical trials, and there is no large real-world evidence on the safety and effectiveness of this class of medication in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we decided to conduct the study to assess its safety and effectiveness,” Chiang told GI & Hepatology News.

The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of serious hepatic events, defined as ascites, varices, hyponatremia, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included variceal bleeding, paracentesis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, liver carcinoma, hypoglycemia, and all-cause hospitalizations.

The cohort consisted of 10,660 propensity-matched adult patients with cirrhosis from more than 120 healthcare organizations in the TriNetX database who were receiving furosemide and spironolactone from January 2013 to July 2021. Those also receiving SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 5330) were compared with a matched control group receiving diuretics only (n = 5330). The mean age of participants was 63.8 years, 57.8% were men, 66.3% were White individuals, and all were followed for 3 years.

The SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 32% lower incidence of serious liver events than the control group, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71; P < .001).

Secondary risk reductions in the intervention group were as follows:

• Hepatorenal syndrome: HR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56)
• Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65)
• Paracentesis: HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.50-0.60)
• Variceal bleeding: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84)
• Hypoglycemia: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62-0.91)
• All-cause hospitalizations: HR, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71)

The authors conjectured that SGLT2 inhibition might also benefit patients with other stages of liver disease. They pointed to a 2020 study in patients with diabetes, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and high baseline fibrosis that revealed a significant reduction in fibrosis after 12 months’ SGLT2 inhibition.

The study findings also align with those of another large propensity-matched cohort in which patients with type 2 diabetes and cirrhosis receiving metformin plus SGLT2 inhibition showed significantly lower 5-year mortality, decreased incidence of decompensated cirrhosis, and reduced hepatocellular carcinoma incidence compared with those taking metformin alone.

Prospective trials are needed to further evaluate safety and efficacy, however, the authors stressed. Future studies should specifically examine changes in sodium levels following SGLT2 inhibitor initiation, as well as the incidence of recurrent urinary tract infections and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, given that these are known adverse effects of this drug class. Additionally, research comparing different types and dosing regimens would provide valuable insights into optimizing treatment.

Commenting on the analysis but not participating in it, Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, a hepatologist at College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Phoenix, said the study was interesting but did not show the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality separately from other serious liver events, “so we do not know if SGLT2 inhibitor group was associated with lower mortality.”

It would be premature to conclude that using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis and ascites and on diuretics will decrease the need for liver transplant or significantly improve liver-related outcomes based on this study, Wijarnpreecha told GI & Hepatology News. “Moreover, we do not know the dose of diuretics or specific drugs and doses for SGLT2 inhibitors that were used in the study. Indications for using SGLT2 inhibitors are mainly from diabetes and heart failure, so this may not apply to those with cirrhosis without these two conditions as well.”

In addition, the etiology of cirrhosis in this database study is unknown. “Is it mainly from MASLD or alcohol or other conditions such as viral hepatitis or autoimmmunity? We need more thorough study to answer this question.” He also pointed out that the authors urged caution in using SGLT2 inhibitors in the context of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), which could be worsened with these agents. “This should be taken into consideration before starting medication in decompensated cirrhosis with HE,” Wijarnpreecha said.

In an accompanying commentary, Mohamed I. Elsaid, PhD, MPH, a biomedical informatics researcher and assistant professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, said that if confirmed, the findings could substantially improve cirrhosis care. “The signal is exciting but needs strong confirmation from large observational studies and prospective trials,” he wrote. “To turn promise into practice, the next wave of observational studies must embrace the target-trial emulation framework for bolstering firm causal conclusions and doubly robust learners that tease apart who benefits, who does not, and why.”

He added that head-to-head comparisons with the type 2 diabetes drugs known as incretin mimetics will clarify the best antihyperglycemic agents for different patient phenotypes. “With these advanced causal-inference approaches, repurposed type 2 diabetes therapies could shift cirrhosis management from reactive to proactive, improving quality of life and bending the mortality curve,” Elsaid wrote.

For Wijarnpreecha, important pending questions include the benefits of SGLT2 inhibition in cirrhosis without diabetes or heart failure “Can it be used to prevent cirrhosis in MASLD if we start at the early fibrosis stage in F0-F3?”

Chiang conceded that the study had limitations as it relied on 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases codes to define outcomes, which may not have captured the complexity of cirrhotic complications. “And the retrospective design may have introduced confounding, selection, and information bias, which could have impacted the results,” he said. “Future prospective studies may help confirm our findings.”

No specific funding was reported for this study. The study authors and Wijarnpreecha had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. Elsaid reported receiving research funding from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The addition of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with a nearly one third lower incidence of serious liver events in individuals with cirrhosis who were receiving diuretic therapy, a large cohort study of more than 10,000 patients found.

Reporting in JAMA Network Open, Dian J. Chiang, MD, MPH, a section head of Hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland looked at the impact of these antihyperglycemic agents, also known as gliflozins, used in diabetes and kidney disease to block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidneys and causing more glucose to be excreted in the urine.

“Patients with cirrhosis were previously not included in SGLT2 inhibition clinical trials, and there is no large real-world evidence on the safety and effectiveness of this class of medication in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we decided to conduct the study to assess its safety and effectiveness,” Chiang told GI & Hepatology News.

The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of serious hepatic events, defined as ascites, varices, hyponatremia, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included variceal bleeding, paracentesis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, liver carcinoma, hypoglycemia, and all-cause hospitalizations.

The cohort consisted of 10,660 propensity-matched adult patients with cirrhosis from more than 120 healthcare organizations in the TriNetX database who were receiving furosemide and spironolactone from January 2013 to July 2021. Those also receiving SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 5330) were compared with a matched control group receiving diuretics only (n = 5330). The mean age of participants was 63.8 years, 57.8% were men, 66.3% were White individuals, and all were followed for 3 years.

The SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 32% lower incidence of serious liver events than the control group, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71; P < .001).

Secondary risk reductions in the intervention group were as follows:

• Hepatorenal syndrome: HR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56)
• Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65)
• Paracentesis: HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.50-0.60)
• Variceal bleeding: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84)
• Hypoglycemia: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62-0.91)
• All-cause hospitalizations: HR, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71)

The authors conjectured that SGLT2 inhibition might also benefit patients with other stages of liver disease. They pointed to a 2020 study in patients with diabetes, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and high baseline fibrosis that revealed a significant reduction in fibrosis after 12 months’ SGLT2 inhibition.

The study findings also align with those of another large propensity-matched cohort in which patients with type 2 diabetes and cirrhosis receiving metformin plus SGLT2 inhibition showed significantly lower 5-year mortality, decreased incidence of decompensated cirrhosis, and reduced hepatocellular carcinoma incidence compared with those taking metformin alone.

Prospective trials are needed to further evaluate safety and efficacy, however, the authors stressed. Future studies should specifically examine changes in sodium levels following SGLT2 inhibitor initiation, as well as the incidence of recurrent urinary tract infections and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, given that these are known adverse effects of this drug class. Additionally, research comparing different types and dosing regimens would provide valuable insights into optimizing treatment.

Commenting on the analysis but not participating in it, Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, a hepatologist at College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Phoenix, said the study was interesting but did not show the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality separately from other serious liver events, “so we do not know if SGLT2 inhibitor group was associated with lower mortality.”

It would be premature to conclude that using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis and ascites and on diuretics will decrease the need for liver transplant or significantly improve liver-related outcomes based on this study, Wijarnpreecha told GI & Hepatology News. “Moreover, we do not know the dose of diuretics or specific drugs and doses for SGLT2 inhibitors that were used in the study. Indications for using SGLT2 inhibitors are mainly from diabetes and heart failure, so this may not apply to those with cirrhosis without these two conditions as well.”

In addition, the etiology of cirrhosis in this database study is unknown. “Is it mainly from MASLD or alcohol or other conditions such as viral hepatitis or autoimmmunity? We need more thorough study to answer this question.” He also pointed out that the authors urged caution in using SGLT2 inhibitors in the context of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), which could be worsened with these agents. “This should be taken into consideration before starting medication in decompensated cirrhosis with HE,” Wijarnpreecha said.

In an accompanying commentary, Mohamed I. Elsaid, PhD, MPH, a biomedical informatics researcher and assistant professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, said that if confirmed, the findings could substantially improve cirrhosis care. “The signal is exciting but needs strong confirmation from large observational studies and prospective trials,” he wrote. “To turn promise into practice, the next wave of observational studies must embrace the target-trial emulation framework for bolstering firm causal conclusions and doubly robust learners that tease apart who benefits, who does not, and why.”

He added that head-to-head comparisons with the type 2 diabetes drugs known as incretin mimetics will clarify the best antihyperglycemic agents for different patient phenotypes. “With these advanced causal-inference approaches, repurposed type 2 diabetes therapies could shift cirrhosis management from reactive to proactive, improving quality of life and bending the mortality curve,” Elsaid wrote.

For Wijarnpreecha, important pending questions include the benefits of SGLT2 inhibition in cirrhosis without diabetes or heart failure “Can it be used to prevent cirrhosis in MASLD if we start at the early fibrosis stage in F0-F3?”

Chiang conceded that the study had limitations as it relied on 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases codes to define outcomes, which may not have captured the complexity of cirrhotic complications. “And the retrospective design may have introduced confounding, selection, and information bias, which could have impacted the results,” he said. “Future prospective studies may help confirm our findings.”

No specific funding was reported for this study. The study authors and Wijarnpreecha had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. Elsaid reported receiving research funding from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The addition of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with a nearly one third lower incidence of serious liver events in individuals with cirrhosis who were receiving diuretic therapy, a large cohort study of more than 10,000 patients found.

Reporting in JAMA Network Open, Dian J. Chiang, MD, MPH, a section head of Hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland looked at the impact of these antihyperglycemic agents, also known as gliflozins, used in diabetes and kidney disease to block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidneys and causing more glucose to be excreted in the urine.

“Patients with cirrhosis were previously not included in SGLT2 inhibition clinical trials, and there is no large real-world evidence on the safety and effectiveness of this class of medication in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we decided to conduct the study to assess its safety and effectiveness,” Chiang told GI & Hepatology News.

The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of serious hepatic events, defined as ascites, varices, hyponatremia, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included variceal bleeding, paracentesis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, liver carcinoma, hypoglycemia, and all-cause hospitalizations.

The cohort consisted of 10,660 propensity-matched adult patients with cirrhosis from more than 120 healthcare organizations in the TriNetX database who were receiving furosemide and spironolactone from January 2013 to July 2021. Those also receiving SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 5330) were compared with a matched control group receiving diuretics only (n = 5330). The mean age of participants was 63.8 years, 57.8% were men, 66.3% were White individuals, and all were followed for 3 years.

The SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 32% lower incidence of serious liver events than the control group, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71; P < .001).

Secondary risk reductions in the intervention group were as follows:

• Hepatorenal syndrome: HR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56)
• Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65)
• Paracentesis: HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.50-0.60)
• Variceal bleeding: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84)
• Hypoglycemia: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62-0.91)
• All-cause hospitalizations: HR, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71)

The authors conjectured that SGLT2 inhibition might also benefit patients with other stages of liver disease. They pointed to a 2020 study in patients with diabetes, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and high baseline fibrosis that revealed a significant reduction in fibrosis after 12 months’ SGLT2 inhibition.

The study findings also align with those of another large propensity-matched cohort in which patients with type 2 diabetes and cirrhosis receiving metformin plus SGLT2 inhibition showed significantly lower 5-year mortality, decreased incidence of decompensated cirrhosis, and reduced hepatocellular carcinoma incidence compared with those taking metformin alone.

Prospective trials are needed to further evaluate safety and efficacy, however, the authors stressed. Future studies should specifically examine changes in sodium levels following SGLT2 inhibitor initiation, as well as the incidence of recurrent urinary tract infections and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, given that these are known adverse effects of this drug class. Additionally, research comparing different types and dosing regimens would provide valuable insights into optimizing treatment.

Commenting on the analysis but not participating in it, Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, a hepatologist at College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Phoenix, said the study was interesting but did not show the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality separately from other serious liver events, “so we do not know if SGLT2 inhibitor group was associated with lower mortality.”

It would be premature to conclude that using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis and ascites and on diuretics will decrease the need for liver transplant or significantly improve liver-related outcomes based on this study, Wijarnpreecha told GI & Hepatology News. “Moreover, we do not know the dose of diuretics or specific drugs and doses for SGLT2 inhibitors that were used in the study. Indications for using SGLT2 inhibitors are mainly from diabetes and heart failure, so this may not apply to those with cirrhosis without these two conditions as well.”

In addition, the etiology of cirrhosis in this database study is unknown. “Is it mainly from MASLD or alcohol or other conditions such as viral hepatitis or autoimmmunity? We need more thorough study to answer this question.” He also pointed out that the authors urged caution in using SGLT2 inhibitors in the context of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), which could be worsened with these agents. “This should be taken into consideration before starting medication in decompensated cirrhosis with HE,” Wijarnpreecha said.

In an accompanying commentary, Mohamed I. Elsaid, PhD, MPH, a biomedical informatics researcher and assistant professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, said that if confirmed, the findings could substantially improve cirrhosis care. “The signal is exciting but needs strong confirmation from large observational studies and prospective trials,” he wrote. “To turn promise into practice, the next wave of observational studies must embrace the target-trial emulation framework for bolstering firm causal conclusions and doubly robust learners that tease apart who benefits, who does not, and why.”

He added that head-to-head comparisons with the type 2 diabetes drugs known as incretin mimetics will clarify the best antihyperglycemic agents for different patient phenotypes. “With these advanced causal-inference approaches, repurposed type 2 diabetes therapies could shift cirrhosis management from reactive to proactive, improving quality of life and bending the mortality curve,” Elsaid wrote.

For Wijarnpreecha, important pending questions include the benefits of SGLT2 inhibition in cirrhosis without diabetes or heart failure “Can it be used to prevent cirrhosis in MASLD if we start at the early fibrosis stage in F0-F3?”

Chiang conceded that the study had limitations as it relied on 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases codes to define outcomes, which may not have captured the complexity of cirrhotic complications. “And the retrospective design may have introduced confounding, selection, and information bias, which could have impacted the results,” he said. “Future prospective studies may help confirm our findings.”

No specific funding was reported for this study. The study authors and Wijarnpreecha had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. Elsaid reported receiving research funding from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first randomized controlled trial of forceps-assisted cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has shown that this technique can significantly improve the success rate of the procedure.

The results emerged from the small, single-center SOCCER trial of 152 patients recruited from March 2022 to October 2024 and are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Both groups had a slightly higher number of female participants, and the mean ages of the participants were 61.9 years in the forceps group and 68.3 years in the no forceps group.

First author Steven M. Hadley Jr, an MD candidate at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and colleagues reported that forceps assistance in difficult cannulations yielded significantly higher success rates than no forceps assistance (100% vs 83.9%; P < .001).

The investigators noted that difficult cannulations during ERCP have a frequency of 42%. Cannulation failure is associated with increased morbidity — including longer hospitalization, increased ICU admissions, readmissions, and increased financial cost — as well as mortality rates of up to 10%.

SOCCER defined difficult cannulation as a papilla in or on the rim of a diverticulum, five or more attempts, attempts lasting 5 or more minutes, or two or more unintended pancreatic duct wire passages. Other features were redundant tissue overlaying the papilla or a type 2, 3, or 4 papilla.

The study found forceps assistance also had a nonstatistically significant lower rate of difficult cannulations than no forceps (57.1% vs 69.1%; P = .132). The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was similarly low in both groups: 5.7% with forceps vs 3.7% without forceps (P = .705). The no forceps group had significantly more cannulation attempts after randomization than the forceps group (14 vs 8.3; P = .026).

Patients who crossed over to forceps assistance all had successful cannulations.

The technique has long been used to overcome cannulation difficulties, said Timothy B. Gardner, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, and a coauthor of the study. “It was particularly effective for cannulations with redundant tissue limiting access to the papilla,” Gardner told GI & Hepatology News. “We decided to design a randomized trial to determine the extent to which this technique worked. We believed our study would answer an important question that would hopefully lead to an improvement in endoscopy practice.”

While a few case reports and video demos had described the technique, no trials had assessed its effectiveness, Hadley added. “We found the technique to be effective based on our experience, but it was exciting to see that a rigorously designed randomized trial proved that it is indeed a very effective technique to facilitate cannulation.”

Hadley noted the technique does not increase PEP incidence, unlike the commonly used precut sphincterotomy and the double-wire method for difficult cannulations. “As a result, the forceps-assisted technique may be an effective first-line option and may reduce the need for additional, more invasive procedures including surgery and repeat ERCP to obtain the therapeutic intent of the original ERCP.”

The paper outlines the technique’s methodology, he added, “so we believe endoscopists who read the manuscript will be able to start implementing the technique into their practice.”

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Christopher J. DiMaio, MD, regional director of Endoscopy for Northwell Health Physician Partners Gastroenterology and a gastroenterologist in Greenlawn, New York, called it potentially helpful but aimed at a niche group of expert practitioners. “The technique appears safe and very effective, which is the number one concern, and I would definitely keep it in my back pocket,” he said. “I expect it will be used more commonly now because of this study.”

He added that although expert endoscopists are familiar with the approach, they use more time-tested and sometimes more aggressive maneuvers to cope with difficult cannulations. “But this is a simple technique using a device that should be available to most high-volume endoscopists.”

DiMaio also noted that he would have liked to see an actual decrease in PEP incidence in the intervention group.

Looking ahead, Hadley said it would be interesting to compare the effectiveness of the double-wire technique against forceps-assisted cannulation in a randomized context. “A study we’re already looking into is seeing whether physician experience with the technique impacts outcomes.”

This study was supported by the American College of Gastroenterology. The authors and DiMaio reported having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first randomized controlled trial of forceps-assisted cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has shown that this technique can significantly improve the success rate of the procedure.

The results emerged from the small, single-center SOCCER trial of 152 patients recruited from March 2022 to October 2024 and are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Both groups had a slightly higher number of female participants, and the mean ages of the participants were 61.9 years in the forceps group and 68.3 years in the no forceps group.

First author Steven M. Hadley Jr, an MD candidate at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and colleagues reported that forceps assistance in difficult cannulations yielded significantly higher success rates than no forceps assistance (100% vs 83.9%; P < .001).

The investigators noted that difficult cannulations during ERCP have a frequency of 42%. Cannulation failure is associated with increased morbidity — including longer hospitalization, increased ICU admissions, readmissions, and increased financial cost — as well as mortality rates of up to 10%.

SOCCER defined difficult cannulation as a papilla in or on the rim of a diverticulum, five or more attempts, attempts lasting 5 or more minutes, or two or more unintended pancreatic duct wire passages. Other features were redundant tissue overlaying the papilla or a type 2, 3, or 4 papilla.

The study found forceps assistance also had a nonstatistically significant lower rate of difficult cannulations than no forceps (57.1% vs 69.1%; P = .132). The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was similarly low in both groups: 5.7% with forceps vs 3.7% without forceps (P = .705). The no forceps group had significantly more cannulation attempts after randomization than the forceps group (14 vs 8.3; P = .026).

Patients who crossed over to forceps assistance all had successful cannulations.

The technique has long been used to overcome cannulation difficulties, said Timothy B. Gardner, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, and a coauthor of the study. “It was particularly effective for cannulations with redundant tissue limiting access to the papilla,” Gardner told GI & Hepatology News. “We decided to design a randomized trial to determine the extent to which this technique worked. We believed our study would answer an important question that would hopefully lead to an improvement in endoscopy practice.”

While a few case reports and video demos had described the technique, no trials had assessed its effectiveness, Hadley added. “We found the technique to be effective based on our experience, but it was exciting to see that a rigorously designed randomized trial proved that it is indeed a very effective technique to facilitate cannulation.”

Hadley noted the technique does not increase PEP incidence, unlike the commonly used precut sphincterotomy and the double-wire method for difficult cannulations. “As a result, the forceps-assisted technique may be an effective first-line option and may reduce the need for additional, more invasive procedures including surgery and repeat ERCP to obtain the therapeutic intent of the original ERCP.”

The paper outlines the technique’s methodology, he added, “so we believe endoscopists who read the manuscript will be able to start implementing the technique into their practice.”

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Christopher J. DiMaio, MD, regional director of Endoscopy for Northwell Health Physician Partners Gastroenterology and a gastroenterologist in Greenlawn, New York, called it potentially helpful but aimed at a niche group of expert practitioners. “The technique appears safe and very effective, which is the number one concern, and I would definitely keep it in my back pocket,” he said. “I expect it will be used more commonly now because of this study.”

He added that although expert endoscopists are familiar with the approach, they use more time-tested and sometimes more aggressive maneuvers to cope with difficult cannulations. “But this is a simple technique using a device that should be available to most high-volume endoscopists.”

DiMaio also noted that he would have liked to see an actual decrease in PEP incidence in the intervention group.

Looking ahead, Hadley said it would be interesting to compare the effectiveness of the double-wire technique against forceps-assisted cannulation in a randomized context. “A study we’re already looking into is seeing whether physician experience with the technique impacts outcomes.”

This study was supported by the American College of Gastroenterology. The authors and DiMaio reported having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first randomized controlled trial of forceps-assisted cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has shown that this technique can significantly improve the success rate of the procedure.

The results emerged from the small, single-center SOCCER trial of 152 patients recruited from March 2022 to October 2024 and are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Both groups had a slightly higher number of female participants, and the mean ages of the participants were 61.9 years in the forceps group and 68.3 years in the no forceps group.

First author Steven M. Hadley Jr, an MD candidate at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and colleagues reported that forceps assistance in difficult cannulations yielded significantly higher success rates than no forceps assistance (100% vs 83.9%; P < .001).

The investigators noted that difficult cannulations during ERCP have a frequency of 42%. Cannulation failure is associated with increased morbidity — including longer hospitalization, increased ICU admissions, readmissions, and increased financial cost — as well as mortality rates of up to 10%.

SOCCER defined difficult cannulation as a papilla in or on the rim of a diverticulum, five or more attempts, attempts lasting 5 or more minutes, or two or more unintended pancreatic duct wire passages. Other features were redundant tissue overlaying the papilla or a type 2, 3, or 4 papilla.

The study found forceps assistance also had a nonstatistically significant lower rate of difficult cannulations than no forceps (57.1% vs 69.1%; P = .132). The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was similarly low in both groups: 5.7% with forceps vs 3.7% without forceps (P = .705). The no forceps group had significantly more cannulation attempts after randomization than the forceps group (14 vs 8.3; P = .026).

Patients who crossed over to forceps assistance all had successful cannulations.

The technique has long been used to overcome cannulation difficulties, said Timothy B. Gardner, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, and a coauthor of the study. “It was particularly effective for cannulations with redundant tissue limiting access to the papilla,” Gardner told GI & Hepatology News. “We decided to design a randomized trial to determine the extent to which this technique worked. We believed our study would answer an important question that would hopefully lead to an improvement in endoscopy practice.”

While a few case reports and video demos had described the technique, no trials had assessed its effectiveness, Hadley added. “We found the technique to be effective based on our experience, but it was exciting to see that a rigorously designed randomized trial proved that it is indeed a very effective technique to facilitate cannulation.”

Hadley noted the technique does not increase PEP incidence, unlike the commonly used precut sphincterotomy and the double-wire method for difficult cannulations. “As a result, the forceps-assisted technique may be an effective first-line option and may reduce the need for additional, more invasive procedures including surgery and repeat ERCP to obtain the therapeutic intent of the original ERCP.”

The paper outlines the technique’s methodology, he added, “so we believe endoscopists who read the manuscript will be able to start implementing the technique into their practice.”

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Christopher J. DiMaio, MD, regional director of Endoscopy for Northwell Health Physician Partners Gastroenterology and a gastroenterologist in Greenlawn, New York, called it potentially helpful but aimed at a niche group of expert practitioners. “The technique appears safe and very effective, which is the number one concern, and I would definitely keep it in my back pocket,” he said. “I expect it will be used more commonly now because of this study.”

He added that although expert endoscopists are familiar with the approach, they use more time-tested and sometimes more aggressive maneuvers to cope with difficult cannulations. “But this is a simple technique using a device that should be available to most high-volume endoscopists.”

DiMaio also noted that he would have liked to see an actual decrease in PEP incidence in the intervention group.

Looking ahead, Hadley said it would be interesting to compare the effectiveness of the double-wire technique against forceps-assisted cannulation in a randomized context. “A study we’re already looking into is seeing whether physician experience with the technique impacts outcomes.”

This study was supported by the American College of Gastroenterology. The authors and DiMaio reported having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with gastrointestinal (GI) diseases are significantly more likely to experience sleep disturbances than those without GI conditions, a new study involving more than 10,000 individuals has found.

“Emerging evidence suggests a bidirectional relationship between GI diseases and sleep disorders, whereby dysfunction in one domain may exacerbate the other,” wrote Shicheng Ye, PhD, of The Third Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, and colleagues. However, previous studies on the association between GI and sleep problems have been small, and the role of depression as a mediator has not been well explored.

In the study, which was published online in BMC Gastroenterology, the researchers reviewed data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2005 and 2014. The study population included 10,626 adults aged 20 years or older, with a mean age of 45.6 years, 50.8% of whom were women. Of these, 6444 were identified as having GI disease on the basis of a “yes” response to the question of whether they had a stomach or intestinal illness with vomiting or diarrhea within the past 30 days.

Researchers also examined responses to survey questions related to sleep duration, trouble sleeping, and diagnosis of a sleep disorder. Individuals with vs without GI diseases had a significantly higher prevalence of sleep trouble (37.99% vs 24.21%; P < .001) and a greater frequency of diagnosed sleep disorders (14.99% vs 8.08%; P < .001).

An analysis adjusted for demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors found that individuals with vs without GI diseases were 70% more likely to have sleep trouble. Individuals with vs without GI diseases were also significantly more likely to have a diagnosed sleep disorder and a reduction in sleep duration (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; adjusted beta, -0.15).

The association between GI diseases and sleep problems remained consistent across individuals of multiple subgroups, including those without hypertension, diabetes, or a history of smoking. It also remained significant among individuals with coronary heart disease and higher scores on the dietary index for gut microbiota. No significant interaction effects related to age, sex, or chronic disease appeared in any subgroup (P > .05).

An additional mediation analysis found that depression partly mediated the associations between GI diseases and sleep issues. Depression accounted for 21.29% of the total effect on sleep problems, 19.23% of the effect on sleep disorders, and 26.68% of the effect on sleep duration.

The mediating role of depression on the association between GI disease and sleep problems may not be exclusive, the researchers wrote. Other potential mechanisms may include systemic inflammation, visceral hypersensitivity, and metabolic dysfunction.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possibly underpowered sample size for machine-learning models and the reliance on self-reports of GI diseases, sleep outcomes, and coronary heart disease, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for confounding factors, including obstructive sleep apnea, chronic pain, and hypertension.

However, the results illustrate the need to address both psychological and GI factors in clinical practice to improve sleep health, the researchers wrote. More research is needed to identify causal pathways and develop targeted, multidimensional interventions for this interconnected trio of health problems.

 

Increasing Evidence for Gut-Brain Interaction

Both sleep disorders and disorders of GBI (DGBI) are highly prevalent worldwide, Jatin Roper, MD, gastroenterologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News.

“A growing body of evidence suggests that DGBI, including irritable bowel syndrome, are caused by imbalances in signaling between the brain and the intestine, which include the vagus nerve, hormonal signals, the gut microbiota, and immune system,” said Roper, who was not involved in the current study.

“Since many sleep disturbances are centrally mediated, it is plausible that sleep and gastrointestinal disorders could be mechanistically linked,” he said. Rigorous analysis of patient databases for a possible association between sleep and GI disorders, as was done in the current study, is an important step.

The current study findings were not unexpected, “particularly the finding that depression may mediate a link between sleep and GI disorders, because depression is well known to be associated to sleep disturbances and DGBI,” Roper said.

However, GI doctors often do not ask patients about problems with sleep, and pulmonary doctors or sleep specialists may not ask patients about GI symptoms, Roper noted. Similarly, patients may not bring up all their symptoms when seeing these specialists.

“The current study underscores the need for comprehensive, multisystem evaluations in specialty clinics for sleep and GI conditions and appropriate referrals to specialists, when necessary,” he said.

The research raised an important question of whether sleep and GI disorders are associated with each other because of other underlying medical conditions, which may be difficult to control for in cross-sectional studies, or whether sleep problems cause GI problems or vice versa, Roper said. Other uncertainties include whether the conditions are biologically linked, possibly through shared changes in the brain-gut axis.

Long-term observational studies would be useful to identify whether sleep disturbances precede DGBI or vice versa, Roper added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with gastrointestinal (GI) diseases are significantly more likely to experience sleep disturbances than those without GI conditions, a new study involving more than 10,000 individuals has found.

“Emerging evidence suggests a bidirectional relationship between GI diseases and sleep disorders, whereby dysfunction in one domain may exacerbate the other,” wrote Shicheng Ye, PhD, of The Third Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, and colleagues. However, previous studies on the association between GI and sleep problems have been small, and the role of depression as a mediator has not been well explored.

In the study, which was published online in BMC Gastroenterology, the researchers reviewed data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2005 and 2014. The study population included 10,626 adults aged 20 years or older, with a mean age of 45.6 years, 50.8% of whom were women. Of these, 6444 were identified as having GI disease on the basis of a “yes” response to the question of whether they had a stomach or intestinal illness with vomiting or diarrhea within the past 30 days.

Researchers also examined responses to survey questions related to sleep duration, trouble sleeping, and diagnosis of a sleep disorder. Individuals with vs without GI diseases had a significantly higher prevalence of sleep trouble (37.99% vs 24.21%; P < .001) and a greater frequency of diagnosed sleep disorders (14.99% vs 8.08%; P < .001).

An analysis adjusted for demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors found that individuals with vs without GI diseases were 70% more likely to have sleep trouble. Individuals with vs without GI diseases were also significantly more likely to have a diagnosed sleep disorder and a reduction in sleep duration (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; adjusted beta, -0.15).

The association between GI diseases and sleep problems remained consistent across individuals of multiple subgroups, including those without hypertension, diabetes, or a history of smoking. It also remained significant among individuals with coronary heart disease and higher scores on the dietary index for gut microbiota. No significant interaction effects related to age, sex, or chronic disease appeared in any subgroup (P > .05).

An additional mediation analysis found that depression partly mediated the associations between GI diseases and sleep issues. Depression accounted for 21.29% of the total effect on sleep problems, 19.23% of the effect on sleep disorders, and 26.68% of the effect on sleep duration.

The mediating role of depression on the association between GI disease and sleep problems may not be exclusive, the researchers wrote. Other potential mechanisms may include systemic inflammation, visceral hypersensitivity, and metabolic dysfunction.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possibly underpowered sample size for machine-learning models and the reliance on self-reports of GI diseases, sleep outcomes, and coronary heart disease, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for confounding factors, including obstructive sleep apnea, chronic pain, and hypertension.

However, the results illustrate the need to address both psychological and GI factors in clinical practice to improve sleep health, the researchers wrote. More research is needed to identify causal pathways and develop targeted, multidimensional interventions for this interconnected trio of health problems.

 

Increasing Evidence for Gut-Brain Interaction

Both sleep disorders and disorders of GBI (DGBI) are highly prevalent worldwide, Jatin Roper, MD, gastroenterologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News.

“A growing body of evidence suggests that DGBI, including irritable bowel syndrome, are caused by imbalances in signaling between the brain and the intestine, which include the vagus nerve, hormonal signals, the gut microbiota, and immune system,” said Roper, who was not involved in the current study.

“Since many sleep disturbances are centrally mediated, it is plausible that sleep and gastrointestinal disorders could be mechanistically linked,” he said. Rigorous analysis of patient databases for a possible association between sleep and GI disorders, as was done in the current study, is an important step.

The current study findings were not unexpected, “particularly the finding that depression may mediate a link between sleep and GI disorders, because depression is well known to be associated to sleep disturbances and DGBI,” Roper said.

However, GI doctors often do not ask patients about problems with sleep, and pulmonary doctors or sleep specialists may not ask patients about GI symptoms, Roper noted. Similarly, patients may not bring up all their symptoms when seeing these specialists.

“The current study underscores the need for comprehensive, multisystem evaluations in specialty clinics for sleep and GI conditions and appropriate referrals to specialists, when necessary,” he said.

The research raised an important question of whether sleep and GI disorders are associated with each other because of other underlying medical conditions, which may be difficult to control for in cross-sectional studies, or whether sleep problems cause GI problems or vice versa, Roper said. Other uncertainties include whether the conditions are biologically linked, possibly through shared changes in the brain-gut axis.

Long-term observational studies would be useful to identify whether sleep disturbances precede DGBI or vice versa, Roper added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with gastrointestinal (GI) diseases are significantly more likely to experience sleep disturbances than those without GI conditions, a new study involving more than 10,000 individuals has found.

“Emerging evidence suggests a bidirectional relationship between GI diseases and sleep disorders, whereby dysfunction in one domain may exacerbate the other,” wrote Shicheng Ye, PhD, of The Third Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, and colleagues. However, previous studies on the association between GI and sleep problems have been small, and the role of depression as a mediator has not been well explored.

In the study, which was published online in BMC Gastroenterology, the researchers reviewed data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2005 and 2014. The study population included 10,626 adults aged 20 years or older, with a mean age of 45.6 years, 50.8% of whom were women. Of these, 6444 were identified as having GI disease on the basis of a “yes” response to the question of whether they had a stomach or intestinal illness with vomiting or diarrhea within the past 30 days.

Researchers also examined responses to survey questions related to sleep duration, trouble sleeping, and diagnosis of a sleep disorder. Individuals with vs without GI diseases had a significantly higher prevalence of sleep trouble (37.99% vs 24.21%; P < .001) and a greater frequency of diagnosed sleep disorders (14.99% vs 8.08%; P < .001).

An analysis adjusted for demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors found that individuals with vs without GI diseases were 70% more likely to have sleep trouble. Individuals with vs without GI diseases were also significantly more likely to have a diagnosed sleep disorder and a reduction in sleep duration (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; adjusted beta, -0.15).

The association between GI diseases and sleep problems remained consistent across individuals of multiple subgroups, including those without hypertension, diabetes, or a history of smoking. It also remained significant among individuals with coronary heart disease and higher scores on the dietary index for gut microbiota. No significant interaction effects related to age, sex, or chronic disease appeared in any subgroup (P > .05).

An additional mediation analysis found that depression partly mediated the associations between GI diseases and sleep issues. Depression accounted for 21.29% of the total effect on sleep problems, 19.23% of the effect on sleep disorders, and 26.68% of the effect on sleep duration.

The mediating role of depression on the association between GI disease and sleep problems may not be exclusive, the researchers wrote. Other potential mechanisms may include systemic inflammation, visceral hypersensitivity, and metabolic dysfunction.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possibly underpowered sample size for machine-learning models and the reliance on self-reports of GI diseases, sleep outcomes, and coronary heart disease, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for confounding factors, including obstructive sleep apnea, chronic pain, and hypertension.

However, the results illustrate the need to address both psychological and GI factors in clinical practice to improve sleep health, the researchers wrote. More research is needed to identify causal pathways and develop targeted, multidimensional interventions for this interconnected trio of health problems.

 

Increasing Evidence for Gut-Brain Interaction

Both sleep disorders and disorders of GBI (DGBI) are highly prevalent worldwide, Jatin Roper, MD, gastroenterologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News.

“A growing body of evidence suggests that DGBI, including irritable bowel syndrome, are caused by imbalances in signaling between the brain and the intestine, which include the vagus nerve, hormonal signals, the gut microbiota, and immune system,” said Roper, who was not involved in the current study.

“Since many sleep disturbances are centrally mediated, it is plausible that sleep and gastrointestinal disorders could be mechanistically linked,” he said. Rigorous analysis of patient databases for a possible association between sleep and GI disorders, as was done in the current study, is an important step.

The current study findings were not unexpected, “particularly the finding that depression may mediate a link between sleep and GI disorders, because depression is well known to be associated to sleep disturbances and DGBI,” Roper said.

However, GI doctors often do not ask patients about problems with sleep, and pulmonary doctors or sleep specialists may not ask patients about GI symptoms, Roper noted. Similarly, patients may not bring up all their symptoms when seeing these specialists.

“The current study underscores the need for comprehensive, multisystem evaluations in specialty clinics for sleep and GI conditions and appropriate referrals to specialists, when necessary,” he said.

The research raised an important question of whether sleep and GI disorders are associated with each other because of other underlying medical conditions, which may be difficult to control for in cross-sectional studies, or whether sleep problems cause GI problems or vice versa, Roper said. Other uncertainties include whether the conditions are biologically linked, possibly through shared changes in the brain-gut axis.

Long-term observational studies would be useful to identify whether sleep disturbances precede DGBI or vice versa, Roper added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Did you know you can honor a family member, friend, or colleague whose life has been touched by GI research through a gift to the AGA Research Foundation? Your gift will honor a loved one or yourself and support the AGA Research Awards Program, while giving you a tax benefit.

Named award. An AGA pilot award can be renamed after you or a loved one, and targeted for a specific gastrointestinal research area. A new pilot research award can be established with a pledge of $40,000+ or through an estate gift. Gifts of cash or appreciated securities may be used to establish a named award. 

Your next step. A named award gift is a wonderful way to acknowledge a loved one’s vision for the future. To learn more about ways to recognize your honoree, contact us at [email protected].

A lack of funding can prevent talented individuals from pursuing a research career, thereby denying them the opportunity to conduct work that will ultimately benefit patients with critical needs. A named award donation to the AGA Research Foundation will help support and fund investigators with a research grant in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology.

Did you know you can honor a family member, friend, or colleague whose life has been touched by GI research through a gift to the AGA Research Foundation? Your gift will honor a loved one or yourself and support the AGA Research Awards Program, while giving you a tax benefit.

Named award. An AGA pilot award can be renamed after you or a loved one, and targeted for a specific gastrointestinal research area. A new pilot research award can be established with a pledge of $40,000+ or through an estate gift. Gifts of cash or appreciated securities may be used to establish a named award. 

Your next step. A named award gift is a wonderful way to acknowledge a loved one’s vision for the future. To learn more about ways to recognize your honoree, contact us at [email protected].

A lack of funding can prevent talented individuals from pursuing a research career, thereby denying them the opportunity to conduct work that will ultimately benefit patients with critical needs. A named award donation to the AGA Research Foundation will help support and fund investigators with a research grant in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology.

Did you know you can honor a family member, friend, or colleague whose life has been touched by GI research through a gift to the AGA Research Foundation? Your gift will honor a loved one or yourself and support the AGA Research Awards Program, while giving you a tax benefit.

Named award. An AGA pilot award can be renamed after you or a loved one, and targeted for a specific gastrointestinal research area. A new pilot research award can be established with a pledge of $40,000+ or through an estate gift. Gifts of cash or appreciated securities may be used to establish a named award. 

Your next step. A named award gift is a wonderful way to acknowledge a loved one’s vision for the future. To learn more about ways to recognize your honoree, contact us at [email protected].

A lack of funding can prevent talented individuals from pursuing a research career, thereby denying them the opportunity to conduct work that will ultimately benefit patients with critical needs. A named award donation to the AGA Research Foundation will help support and fund investigators with a research grant in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology.

Patients with intestinal methanogen overgrowth (IMO) have a higher rate and severity of constipation but a lower rate and severity of diarrhea, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“The distinct phenotype of patients with IMO should be incorporated in patient-reported outcome measures and further correlated with mechanistic microbiome studies,” wrote investigators led by gastroenterologist Ali Rezaie, MD, MSc, medical director of the GI Motility Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and director of biotechnology in the center’s Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program. Recognizing specific GI symptom profiles can improve diagnosis and treatment strategies, facilitating further clinical trials and targeted microbiome studies to optimize patient care. 

Excessive luminal loads of methanogenic archaea – archaea being bacteria-like prokaryotes and one of the main three domains of the tree of life – have been implicated in the pathophysiology of various diseases, including constipation. 

 

The Study

To elucidate the phenotypical presentation of IMO in patients, Rezaie’s group compared the prevalence and severity of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in individuals who had IMO with those who did not have IMO. IMO was based on excess levels of this gaseous GI byproduct in exhaled breath tests.

Searching electronic databases from inception to September 2023, the researchers identified 19 eligible studies from diverse geographical regions with 1293 IMO patients and 3208 controls. Eleven studies were performed in the United States; the other studies were conducted in France (n = 2), India (n = 2), New Zealand (n = 1), South Korea (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), and the United Kingdom (n = 1). Thirteen studies were of high quality, as defined by a Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale score of 6. 

Patients with IMO were found to exhibit a range of GI symptoms, including bloating (78%), constipation (51%), diarrhea (33%), abdominal pain (65%), nausea (30%), and flatulence (56%).

In other findings:

• Patients with IMO had a significantly higher prevalence of constipation vs controls: 47% vs 38% (odds ratio [OR], 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-2.83, P < .0001).
• They had a lower prevalence of diarrhea: 37% vs 52% (OR .58, 95% CI, .37-.90, P = .01); and nausea: 32% vs 45%; (OR, .75; 95% CI, .60-.94, P = .01).
• Patients with IMO had more severe constipation: standard mean deviation [SMD], .77 (95% CI, .11-1.43, P = .02) and a lower severity of diarrhea: SMD, –.71 (95% CI, –1.39 to –.03, P = .04). Significant heterogeneity of effect, however, was detected.
• Constipation was more prevalent in IMO diagnosed with the lactulose breath test and the glucose breath test and constipation was particularly prevalent in Europe and the United States.

Mechanism of Action

The findings on constipation and diarrhea corroborate methane’s slowing physiologic effects on motility, the authors noted. It has been consistently found to delay gut transit, both small bowel and colonic transit.

Mechanistically, methane reduces small intestinal peristaltic velocity while augmenting non-propagating contraction amplitude, suggesting that reduction of intestinal transit time is mediated through promotion of non-propulsive contractions.

“This study further consolidates methane’s causal role in constipation and paves the way to establish validated disease-specific patient-reported outcomes,” Rezaie and associates wrote, calling for longitudinal and mechanistic studies assessing the archaeome in order to advance understanding of IMO.

This study was funded in part by Nancy Stark and Stanley Lezman in support of the MAST Program’s Innovation Project at Cedars-Sinai.

Rezaie serves as a consultant/speaker for Bausch Health. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center has a licensing agreement with Gemelli Biotech, in which Rezaie and coauthor Pimentel have equity. They also hold equity in Good LIFE. Pimentel consults for and has received grant support from Bausch Health.

Patients with intestinal methanogen overgrowth (IMO) have a higher rate and severity of constipation but a lower rate and severity of diarrhea, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“The distinct phenotype of patients with IMO should be incorporated in patient-reported outcome measures and further correlated with mechanistic microbiome studies,” wrote investigators led by gastroenterologist Ali Rezaie, MD, MSc, medical director of the GI Motility Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and director of biotechnology in the center’s Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program. Recognizing specific GI symptom profiles can improve diagnosis and treatment strategies, facilitating further clinical trials and targeted microbiome studies to optimize patient care. 

Excessive luminal loads of methanogenic archaea – archaea being bacteria-like prokaryotes and one of the main three domains of the tree of life – have been implicated in the pathophysiology of various diseases, including constipation. 

 

The Study

To elucidate the phenotypical presentation of IMO in patients, Rezaie’s group compared the prevalence and severity of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in individuals who had IMO with those who did not have IMO. IMO was based on excess levels of this gaseous GI byproduct in exhaled breath tests.

Searching electronic databases from inception to September 2023, the researchers identified 19 eligible studies from diverse geographical regions with 1293 IMO patients and 3208 controls. Eleven studies were performed in the United States; the other studies were conducted in France (n = 2), India (n = 2), New Zealand (n = 1), South Korea (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), and the United Kingdom (n = 1). Thirteen studies were of high quality, as defined by a Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale score of 6. 

Patients with IMO were found to exhibit a range of GI symptoms, including bloating (78%), constipation (51%), diarrhea (33%), abdominal pain (65%), nausea (30%), and flatulence (56%).

In other findings:

• Patients with IMO had a significantly higher prevalence of constipation vs controls: 47% vs 38% (odds ratio [OR], 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-2.83, P < .0001).
• They had a lower prevalence of diarrhea: 37% vs 52% (OR .58, 95% CI, .37-.90, P = .01); and nausea: 32% vs 45%; (OR, .75; 95% CI, .60-.94, P = .01).
• Patients with IMO had more severe constipation: standard mean deviation [SMD], .77 (95% CI, .11-1.43, P = .02) and a lower severity of diarrhea: SMD, –.71 (95% CI, –1.39 to –.03, P = .04). Significant heterogeneity of effect, however, was detected.
• Constipation was more prevalent in IMO diagnosed with the lactulose breath test and the glucose breath test and constipation was particularly prevalent in Europe and the United States.

Mechanism of Action

The findings on constipation and diarrhea corroborate methane’s slowing physiologic effects on motility, the authors noted. It has been consistently found to delay gut transit, both small bowel and colonic transit.

Mechanistically, methane reduces small intestinal peristaltic velocity while augmenting non-propagating contraction amplitude, suggesting that reduction of intestinal transit time is mediated through promotion of non-propulsive contractions.

“This study further consolidates methane’s causal role in constipation and paves the way to establish validated disease-specific patient-reported outcomes,” Rezaie and associates wrote, calling for longitudinal and mechanistic studies assessing the archaeome in order to advance understanding of IMO.

This study was funded in part by Nancy Stark and Stanley Lezman in support of the MAST Program’s Innovation Project at Cedars-Sinai.

Rezaie serves as a consultant/speaker for Bausch Health. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center has a licensing agreement with Gemelli Biotech, in which Rezaie and coauthor Pimentel have equity. They also hold equity in Good LIFE. Pimentel consults for and has received grant support from Bausch Health.

Patients with intestinal methanogen overgrowth (IMO) have a higher rate and severity of constipation but a lower rate and severity of diarrhea, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“The distinct phenotype of patients with IMO should be incorporated in patient-reported outcome measures and further correlated with mechanistic microbiome studies,” wrote investigators led by gastroenterologist Ali Rezaie, MD, MSc, medical director of the GI Motility Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and director of biotechnology in the center’s Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program. Recognizing specific GI symptom profiles can improve diagnosis and treatment strategies, facilitating further clinical trials and targeted microbiome studies to optimize patient care. 

Excessive luminal loads of methanogenic archaea – archaea being bacteria-like prokaryotes and one of the main three domains of the tree of life – have been implicated in the pathophysiology of various diseases, including constipation. 

 

The Study

To elucidate the phenotypical presentation of IMO in patients, Rezaie’s group compared the prevalence and severity of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in individuals who had IMO with those who did not have IMO. IMO was based on excess levels of this gaseous GI byproduct in exhaled breath tests.

Searching electronic databases from inception to September 2023, the researchers identified 19 eligible studies from diverse geographical regions with 1293 IMO patients and 3208 controls. Eleven studies were performed in the United States; the other studies were conducted in France (n = 2), India (n = 2), New Zealand (n = 1), South Korea (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), and the United Kingdom (n = 1). Thirteen studies were of high quality, as defined by a Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale score of 6. 

Patients with IMO were found to exhibit a range of GI symptoms, including bloating (78%), constipation (51%), diarrhea (33%), abdominal pain (65%), nausea (30%), and flatulence (56%).

In other findings:

• Patients with IMO had a significantly higher prevalence of constipation vs controls: 47% vs 38% (odds ratio [OR], 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-2.83, P < .0001).
• They had a lower prevalence of diarrhea: 37% vs 52% (OR .58, 95% CI, .37-.90, P = .01); and nausea: 32% vs 45%; (OR, .75; 95% CI, .60-.94, P = .01).
• Patients with IMO had more severe constipation: standard mean deviation [SMD], .77 (95% CI, .11-1.43, P = .02) and a lower severity of diarrhea: SMD, –.71 (95% CI, –1.39 to –.03, P = .04). Significant heterogeneity of effect, however, was detected.
• Constipation was more prevalent in IMO diagnosed with the lactulose breath test and the glucose breath test and constipation was particularly prevalent in Europe and the United States.

Mechanism of Action

The findings on constipation and diarrhea corroborate methane’s slowing physiologic effects on motility, the authors noted. It has been consistently found to delay gut transit, both small bowel and colonic transit.

Mechanistically, methane reduces small intestinal peristaltic velocity while augmenting non-propagating contraction amplitude, suggesting that reduction of intestinal transit time is mediated through promotion of non-propulsive contractions.

“This study further consolidates methane’s causal role in constipation and paves the way to establish validated disease-specific patient-reported outcomes,” Rezaie and associates wrote, calling for longitudinal and mechanistic studies assessing the archaeome in order to advance understanding of IMO.

This study was funded in part by Nancy Stark and Stanley Lezman in support of the MAST Program’s Innovation Project at Cedars-Sinai.

Rezaie serves as a consultant/speaker for Bausch Health. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center has a licensing agreement with Gemelli Biotech, in which Rezaie and coauthor Pimentel have equity. They also hold equity in Good LIFE. Pimentel consults for and has received grant support from Bausch Health.

No evidence of a causal relationship between previously suspected pharmacologic triggers and increased risk of microscopic colitis (MC) emerged from a nationwide longitudinal study of older Swedish individuals in a national database.

“Sensitivity analyses suggest that previously reported associations and persistent association with SSRI [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] initiation may be due to surveillance bias,” wrote gastroenterologist Hamed Khalili, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues in Annals of Internal Medicine, advising clinicians to carefully balance the benefits of these medication classes against the very low likelihood of a causal relationship with MC.

While two smaller studies had challenged the belief that these medications can cause MC, Khalili told GI & Hepatology News, “the quality of the data that supported or refuted this hypothesis were low. Nevertheless, most in the field consider MC to be largely related to medications so we thought it was important to systematically answer this question.”

While most medications thought to trigger MC were found not to be causally linked, he added, “we did observe a marginal association with SSRIs but could not rule out the possibility that the association is related to residual bias.”

The authors noted that the incidence of MC in older persons is rising rapidly and is thought to account for more than 30% of chronic diarrhea cases in this group.

Despite weak evidence in the literature, the treatment guidelines of several societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association, recommend discontinuing potential pharmacologic triggers as first-line prevention or as an adjunct therapy, particularly in recurrent or refractory MC. But this approach may be ineffective in patients with established disease and could lead to inappropriate discontinuation of medication such as antihypertensives, the authors argued.

As to proposed mechanisms of action, said Khalili, “for PPIs [proton-pump inhibitors,] people thought it was related to changes in the gut microbiome. For NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs], people thought it could be related to changes in the gut barrier function. But overall, not a single mechanism would have explained all the prior associations that were observed.”

While medications such as PPIs and SSRIs can cause diarrhea in a small subset of users, Khalili added, “most patients generally catch these side effects very quickly and realize that stopping these medications will improve their diarrhea. This is very different than most patients we as gastroenterologists see with a new diagnosis of MC. Many of them may have been on these medications for a long time. We believe that stopping medications in these patients is unnecessary.” 

 

Study Details

The investigators looked at eligible residents in Sweden age 65 years or older in the years 2006 to 2017 (n = 191,482 to 2,634,777). Participants had no history of inflammatory bowel disease and different cohorts were examined for various common medications from calcium channel blockers to statins.

With a primary outcome of biopsy-verified MC, dates of diagnosis were obtained from Sweden’s national histopathology cohort ESPRESSO (Epidemiology Strengthened by Histopathology Reports in Sweden). Among the findings:

• The 12- and 24-month cumulative incidences of MC were less than 0.05% under all treatment strategies.
• Estimated 12-month risk differences were close to null under angiotensin-converting enzyme vs calcium-channel blocker (CCB) initiation, angiotensin-receptor blocker vs CCB initiation, NSAID initiation vs noninitiation, PPI inhibitor initiation vs noninitiation, and statin initiation vs noninitiation.
• The estimated 12-month risk difference was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.03%-0.05%) for SSRIs vs mirtazapine.
• Results were similar for 24-month risk differences. Several medications such as SSRIs were also associated with increased risk for undergoing colonoscopy with a normal colorectal mucosa biopsy result.

“We think it’s unlikely that stopping these medications will improve symptoms of MC,” Khalili said. 

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, codirector of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said, “This study strengthens the argument that MC is an immune-mediated disease, not primarily driven by drug exposures. But future studies in diverse cohorts are required to validate these findings.” He said the study nevertheless provides reassurance that previously reported associations may have been overstated or confounded by factors such as reverse causation and increased healthcare utilization preceding the MC diagnosis.

In the meantime, Axelrad added, the findings “may reduce the inclination to promptly discontinue medications historically associated with MC in newly diagnosed cases. Also, these data help shift the clinical focus away from medication cessation alone and toward a needed and broader MC management strategy. US-based validation would likely highlight these changes in our patients.”

Despite concerns about the study’s unmeasured confounding because of differential healthcare utilization or surveillance, the modest association observed between SSRI and MC is supported by literature linking catecholamine and serotonin to gut innate immunity and microbiota, Khalili’s group wrote. “However, this finding may also be confounded by other factors including persisting surveillance and protopathic bias, especially since an association was also seen for risk for receipt of a colonoscopy with normal mucosa.”

Khalili believes the Swedish results are applicable even to the more diverse US population. He noted that lack of primary care data limited measurement of and adjustment for symptoms and medical diagnoses that increase risk. But according to Axelrad, MC is more prevalent in White, older patients, who are well-represented in Swedish cohorts but to a lesser extent in US populations. “Additionally, environmental factors and medication use patterns differ between Sweden and the US, particularly in regard to over-the-counter medication access.”

The findings have implications for future research in pharmacoepidemiologic studies of gastrointestinal-related outcomes. Since many routinely prescribed medications such as SSRIs were associated with an apparent increased risk for colonoscopies with normal colorectal biopsy results, future studies that examine gastrointestinal-specific adverse events should carefully consider potential surveillance bias.

In the meantime, Khalili stressed, it’s important to highlight that while some of these medications cause diarrhea in a small subset of patients, stopping medications in these patients is unnecessary.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Swedish Research Council. Khalili disclosed grants from the Crohn’s & Coiltis Foundation, the NIH and the Helmsley CharitableTrust, as well as stock ownership in Cylinder Health. One coauthor is employed by Massachusetts General Hospital. Axelrad had no relevant competing interests.







 

No evidence of a causal relationship between previously suspected pharmacologic triggers and increased risk of microscopic colitis (MC) emerged from a nationwide longitudinal study of older Swedish individuals in a national database.

“Sensitivity analyses suggest that previously reported associations and persistent association with SSRI [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] initiation may be due to surveillance bias,” wrote gastroenterologist Hamed Khalili, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues in Annals of Internal Medicine, advising clinicians to carefully balance the benefits of these medication classes against the very low likelihood of a causal relationship with MC.

While two smaller studies had challenged the belief that these medications can cause MC, Khalili told GI & Hepatology News, “the quality of the data that supported or refuted this hypothesis were low. Nevertheless, most in the field consider MC to be largely related to medications so we thought it was important to systematically answer this question.”

While most medications thought to trigger MC were found not to be causally linked, he added, “we did observe a marginal association with SSRIs but could not rule out the possibility that the association is related to residual bias.”

The authors noted that the incidence of MC in older persons is rising rapidly and is thought to account for more than 30% of chronic diarrhea cases in this group.

Despite weak evidence in the literature, the treatment guidelines of several societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association, recommend discontinuing potential pharmacologic triggers as first-line prevention or as an adjunct therapy, particularly in recurrent or refractory MC. But this approach may be ineffective in patients with established disease and could lead to inappropriate discontinuation of medication such as antihypertensives, the authors argued.

As to proposed mechanisms of action, said Khalili, “for PPIs [proton-pump inhibitors,] people thought it was related to changes in the gut microbiome. For NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs], people thought it could be related to changes in the gut barrier function. But overall, not a single mechanism would have explained all the prior associations that were observed.”

While medications such as PPIs and SSRIs can cause diarrhea in a small subset of users, Khalili added, “most patients generally catch these side effects very quickly and realize that stopping these medications will improve their diarrhea. This is very different than most patients we as gastroenterologists see with a new diagnosis of MC. Many of them may have been on these medications for a long time. We believe that stopping medications in these patients is unnecessary.” 

 

Study Details

The investigators looked at eligible residents in Sweden age 65 years or older in the years 2006 to 2017 (n = 191,482 to 2,634,777). Participants had no history of inflammatory bowel disease and different cohorts were examined for various common medications from calcium channel blockers to statins.

With a primary outcome of biopsy-verified MC, dates of diagnosis were obtained from Sweden’s national histopathology cohort ESPRESSO (Epidemiology Strengthened by Histopathology Reports in Sweden). Among the findings:

• The 12- and 24-month cumulative incidences of MC were less than 0.05% under all treatment strategies.
• Estimated 12-month risk differences were close to null under angiotensin-converting enzyme vs calcium-channel blocker (CCB) initiation, angiotensin-receptor blocker vs CCB initiation, NSAID initiation vs noninitiation, PPI inhibitor initiation vs noninitiation, and statin initiation vs noninitiation.
• The estimated 12-month risk difference was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.03%-0.05%) for SSRIs vs mirtazapine.
• Results were similar for 24-month risk differences. Several medications such as SSRIs were also associated with increased risk for undergoing colonoscopy with a normal colorectal mucosa biopsy result.

“We think it’s unlikely that stopping these medications will improve symptoms of MC,” Khalili said. 

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, codirector of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said, “This study strengthens the argument that MC is an immune-mediated disease, not primarily driven by drug exposures. But future studies in diverse cohorts are required to validate these findings.” He said the study nevertheless provides reassurance that previously reported associations may have been overstated or confounded by factors such as reverse causation and increased healthcare utilization preceding the MC diagnosis.

In the meantime, Axelrad added, the findings “may reduce the inclination to promptly discontinue medications historically associated with MC in newly diagnosed cases. Also, these data help shift the clinical focus away from medication cessation alone and toward a needed and broader MC management strategy. US-based validation would likely highlight these changes in our patients.”

Despite concerns about the study’s unmeasured confounding because of differential healthcare utilization or surveillance, the modest association observed between SSRI and MC is supported by literature linking catecholamine and serotonin to gut innate immunity and microbiota, Khalili’s group wrote. “However, this finding may also be confounded by other factors including persisting surveillance and protopathic bias, especially since an association was also seen for risk for receipt of a colonoscopy with normal mucosa.”

Khalili believes the Swedish results are applicable even to the more diverse US population. He noted that lack of primary care data limited measurement of and adjustment for symptoms and medical diagnoses that increase risk. But according to Axelrad, MC is more prevalent in White, older patients, who are well-represented in Swedish cohorts but to a lesser extent in US populations. “Additionally, environmental factors and medication use patterns differ between Sweden and the US, particularly in regard to over-the-counter medication access.”

The findings have implications for future research in pharmacoepidemiologic studies of gastrointestinal-related outcomes. Since many routinely prescribed medications such as SSRIs were associated with an apparent increased risk for colonoscopies with normal colorectal biopsy results, future studies that examine gastrointestinal-specific adverse events should carefully consider potential surveillance bias.

In the meantime, Khalili stressed, it’s important to highlight that while some of these medications cause diarrhea in a small subset of patients, stopping medications in these patients is unnecessary.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Swedish Research Council. Khalili disclosed grants from the Crohn’s & Coiltis Foundation, the NIH and the Helmsley CharitableTrust, as well as stock ownership in Cylinder Health. One coauthor is employed by Massachusetts General Hospital. Axelrad had no relevant competing interests.







 

No evidence of a causal relationship between previously suspected pharmacologic triggers and increased risk of microscopic colitis (MC) emerged from a nationwide longitudinal study of older Swedish individuals in a national database.

“Sensitivity analyses suggest that previously reported associations and persistent association with SSRI [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] initiation may be due to surveillance bias,” wrote gastroenterologist Hamed Khalili, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues in Annals of Internal Medicine, advising clinicians to carefully balance the benefits of these medication classes against the very low likelihood of a causal relationship with MC.

While two smaller studies had challenged the belief that these medications can cause MC, Khalili told GI & Hepatology News, “the quality of the data that supported or refuted this hypothesis were low. Nevertheless, most in the field consider MC to be largely related to medications so we thought it was important to systematically answer this question.”

While most medications thought to trigger MC were found not to be causally linked, he added, “we did observe a marginal association with SSRIs but could not rule out the possibility that the association is related to residual bias.”

The authors noted that the incidence of MC in older persons is rising rapidly and is thought to account for more than 30% of chronic diarrhea cases in this group.

Despite weak evidence in the literature, the treatment guidelines of several societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association, recommend discontinuing potential pharmacologic triggers as first-line prevention or as an adjunct therapy, particularly in recurrent or refractory MC. But this approach may be ineffective in patients with established disease and could lead to inappropriate discontinuation of medication such as antihypertensives, the authors argued.

As to proposed mechanisms of action, said Khalili, “for PPIs [proton-pump inhibitors,] people thought it was related to changes in the gut microbiome. For NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs], people thought it could be related to changes in the gut barrier function. But overall, not a single mechanism would have explained all the prior associations that were observed.”

While medications such as PPIs and SSRIs can cause diarrhea in a small subset of users, Khalili added, “most patients generally catch these side effects very quickly and realize that stopping these medications will improve their diarrhea. This is very different than most patients we as gastroenterologists see with a new diagnosis of MC. Many of them may have been on these medications for a long time. We believe that stopping medications in these patients is unnecessary.” 

 

Study Details

The investigators looked at eligible residents in Sweden age 65 years or older in the years 2006 to 2017 (n = 191,482 to 2,634,777). Participants had no history of inflammatory bowel disease and different cohorts were examined for various common medications from calcium channel blockers to statins.

With a primary outcome of biopsy-verified MC, dates of diagnosis were obtained from Sweden’s national histopathology cohort ESPRESSO (Epidemiology Strengthened by Histopathology Reports in Sweden). Among the findings:

• The 12- and 24-month cumulative incidences of MC were less than 0.05% under all treatment strategies.
• Estimated 12-month risk differences were close to null under angiotensin-converting enzyme vs calcium-channel blocker (CCB) initiation, angiotensin-receptor blocker vs CCB initiation, NSAID initiation vs noninitiation, PPI inhibitor initiation vs noninitiation, and statin initiation vs noninitiation.
• The estimated 12-month risk difference was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.03%-0.05%) for SSRIs vs mirtazapine.
• Results were similar for 24-month risk differences. Several medications such as SSRIs were also associated with increased risk for undergoing colonoscopy with a normal colorectal mucosa biopsy result.

“We think it’s unlikely that stopping these medications will improve symptoms of MC,” Khalili said. 

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, codirector of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said, “This study strengthens the argument that MC is an immune-mediated disease, not primarily driven by drug exposures. But future studies in diverse cohorts are required to validate these findings.” He said the study nevertheless provides reassurance that previously reported associations may have been overstated or confounded by factors such as reverse causation and increased healthcare utilization preceding the MC diagnosis.

In the meantime, Axelrad added, the findings “may reduce the inclination to promptly discontinue medications historically associated with MC in newly diagnosed cases. Also, these data help shift the clinical focus away from medication cessation alone and toward a needed and broader MC management strategy. US-based validation would likely highlight these changes in our patients.”

Despite concerns about the study’s unmeasured confounding because of differential healthcare utilization or surveillance, the modest association observed between SSRI and MC is supported by literature linking catecholamine and serotonin to gut innate immunity and microbiota, Khalili’s group wrote. “However, this finding may also be confounded by other factors including persisting surveillance and protopathic bias, especially since an association was also seen for risk for receipt of a colonoscopy with normal mucosa.”

Khalili believes the Swedish results are applicable even to the more diverse US population. He noted that lack of primary care data limited measurement of and adjustment for symptoms and medical diagnoses that increase risk. But according to Axelrad, MC is more prevalent in White, older patients, who are well-represented in Swedish cohorts but to a lesser extent in US populations. “Additionally, environmental factors and medication use patterns differ between Sweden and the US, particularly in regard to over-the-counter medication access.”

The findings have implications for future research in pharmacoepidemiologic studies of gastrointestinal-related outcomes. Since many routinely prescribed medications such as SSRIs were associated with an apparent increased risk for colonoscopies with normal colorectal biopsy results, future studies that examine gastrointestinal-specific adverse events should carefully consider potential surveillance bias.

In the meantime, Khalili stressed, it’s important to highlight that while some of these medications cause diarrhea in a small subset of patients, stopping medications in these patients is unnecessary.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Swedish Research Council. Khalili disclosed grants from the Crohn’s & Coiltis Foundation, the NIH and the Helmsley CharitableTrust, as well as stock ownership in Cylinder Health. One coauthor is employed by Massachusetts General Hospital. Axelrad had no relevant competing interests.