IBD & Intestinal Disorders

Patients with Crohn’s disease who experienced complete endoscopic healing with biologic therapy had significantly lower subsequent rates of treatment failure, intestinal resection, and hospitalization, compared with patients who experienced only partial mucosal healing, according to the findings of a two-center retrospective study.

Over a median of 4.8 years of follow-up (interquartile range, 2.1-7.2 years) rates of treatment failure were 25% in patients with complete mucosal healing at baseline (that is, a Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity [CDEIS] score of 0) and 48% in patients with partial healing (CDEIS score greater than 0 but less than 4). The difference was statistically significant (P = .045). No patient with a baseline CDEIS score of 0 required intestinal resection, compared with 11% of patients with scores greater than 0 but less than 4 (P = .031). Rates of hospitalization because of Crohn’s disease were 3.5% versus 18.5%, respectively (P = .013). Clara Yzet, MD, of Amiens (France) University Hospital, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, reported the findings together with her associates in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Mucosal healing is a key therapeutic target in Crohn’s disease that has been linked to desirable outcomes, such as steroid-free remission and a lower rate of intestinal resection. However, prior observational studies have inconsistently defined mucosal healing, and clinical trials of biologics have used any of at least seven different definitions, the researchers wrote. Recently, in patients with ulcerative colitis, a Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology and another in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis linked a stricter definition of mucosal healing (an endoscopic Mayo score of 0, or histologic healing) with superior long-term clinical outcomes. In patients with Crohn’s disease, however, there has been no established threshold for mucosal healing based on either the CDEIS or the Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD).

Therefore, Dr. Yzet and her associates identified and reviewed the medical records of 84 consecutive adults with clinically remitted Crohn’s disease who received anti–tumor necrosis factor therapies (infliximab and adalimumab) or vedolizumab at two university hospitals in France between 2008 and 2015. All patients received baseline and follow-up colonoscopies, with results scored on the CDEIS. In all cases, the second CDEIS score was less than 4 (the CDEIS ranges from 0 to 44). The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for biologic optimization (increasing the dose or shortening the dosing interval of the biologic), corticosteroids, or immunosuppressants; a Harvey-Bradshaw score greater than 4 associated with a change in treatment; or the need for intestinal resection or hospitalization because of Crohn’s disease.

At baseline, 57 patients had CDEIS scores of 0 (complete mucosal healing) and 27 patients had scores greater than 0 but less than 4 (partial mucosal healing). The two groups were otherwise similar except that patients with complete mucosal healing had a shorter median duration of Crohn’s disease (10.3 vs. 15.1 years in the partial healing group; P = .029) and a lower prevalence of Crohn’s disease phenotype B2 (stricturing) according to the Vienna classification (1.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .035). In the multivariate analysis, CDEIS score was the only factor associated with treatment failure (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-5.88; P = .02).

“Our findings suggest that we should be more ambitious in clinical practice to change patients’ life and disease course by achieving complete endoscopic healing. However, this strategy could be limited by the ability of current drugs to achieve complete mucosal healing,” the researchers wrote. “Obtaining a complete mucosal healing would require today a significant need for optimization or change of biologics.”

No external funding sources were reported. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Biogaran, Biogen, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies. The remaining investigators reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yzet C et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.025.
 

Patients with Crohn’s disease who experienced complete endoscopic healing with biologic therapy had significantly lower subsequent rates of treatment failure, intestinal resection, and hospitalization, compared with patients who experienced only partial mucosal healing, according to the findings of a two-center retrospective study.

Over a median of 4.8 years of follow-up (interquartile range, 2.1-7.2 years) rates of treatment failure were 25% in patients with complete mucosal healing at baseline (that is, a Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity [CDEIS] score of 0) and 48% in patients with partial healing (CDEIS score greater than 0 but less than 4). The difference was statistically significant (P = .045). No patient with a baseline CDEIS score of 0 required intestinal resection, compared with 11% of patients with scores greater than 0 but less than 4 (P = .031). Rates of hospitalization because of Crohn’s disease were 3.5% versus 18.5%, respectively (P = .013). Clara Yzet, MD, of Amiens (France) University Hospital, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, reported the findings together with her associates in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Mucosal healing is a key therapeutic target in Crohn’s disease that has been linked to desirable outcomes, such as steroid-free remission and a lower rate of intestinal resection. However, prior observational studies have inconsistently defined mucosal healing, and clinical trials of biologics have used any of at least seven different definitions, the researchers wrote. Recently, in patients with ulcerative colitis, a Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology and another in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis linked a stricter definition of mucosal healing (an endoscopic Mayo score of 0, or histologic healing) with superior long-term clinical outcomes. In patients with Crohn’s disease, however, there has been no established threshold for mucosal healing based on either the CDEIS or the Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD).

Therefore, Dr. Yzet and her associates identified and reviewed the medical records of 84 consecutive adults with clinically remitted Crohn’s disease who received anti–tumor necrosis factor therapies (infliximab and adalimumab) or vedolizumab at two university hospitals in France between 2008 and 2015. All patients received baseline and follow-up colonoscopies, with results scored on the CDEIS. In all cases, the second CDEIS score was less than 4 (the CDEIS ranges from 0 to 44). The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for biologic optimization (increasing the dose or shortening the dosing interval of the biologic), corticosteroids, or immunosuppressants; a Harvey-Bradshaw score greater than 4 associated with a change in treatment; or the need for intestinal resection or hospitalization because of Crohn’s disease.

At baseline, 57 patients had CDEIS scores of 0 (complete mucosal healing) and 27 patients had scores greater than 0 but less than 4 (partial mucosal healing). The two groups were otherwise similar except that patients with complete mucosal healing had a shorter median duration of Crohn’s disease (10.3 vs. 15.1 years in the partial healing group; P = .029) and a lower prevalence of Crohn’s disease phenotype B2 (stricturing) according to the Vienna classification (1.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .035). In the multivariate analysis, CDEIS score was the only factor associated with treatment failure (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-5.88; P = .02).

“Our findings suggest that we should be more ambitious in clinical practice to change patients’ life and disease course by achieving complete endoscopic healing. However, this strategy could be limited by the ability of current drugs to achieve complete mucosal healing,” the researchers wrote. “Obtaining a complete mucosal healing would require today a significant need for optimization or change of biologics.”

No external funding sources were reported. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Biogaran, Biogen, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies. The remaining investigators reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yzet C et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.025.
 

Patients with Crohn’s disease who experienced complete endoscopic healing with biologic therapy had significantly lower subsequent rates of treatment failure, intestinal resection, and hospitalization, compared with patients who experienced only partial mucosal healing, according to the findings of a two-center retrospective study.

Over a median of 4.8 years of follow-up (interquartile range, 2.1-7.2 years) rates of treatment failure were 25% in patients with complete mucosal healing at baseline (that is, a Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity [CDEIS] score of 0) and 48% in patients with partial healing (CDEIS score greater than 0 but less than 4). The difference was statistically significant (P = .045). No patient with a baseline CDEIS score of 0 required intestinal resection, compared with 11% of patients with scores greater than 0 but less than 4 (P = .031). Rates of hospitalization because of Crohn’s disease were 3.5% versus 18.5%, respectively (P = .013). Clara Yzet, MD, of Amiens (France) University Hospital, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, reported the findings together with her associates in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Mucosal healing is a key therapeutic target in Crohn’s disease that has been linked to desirable outcomes, such as steroid-free remission and a lower rate of intestinal resection. However, prior observational studies have inconsistently defined mucosal healing, and clinical trials of biologics have used any of at least seven different definitions, the researchers wrote. Recently, in patients with ulcerative colitis, a Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology and another in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis linked a stricter definition of mucosal healing (an endoscopic Mayo score of 0, or histologic healing) with superior long-term clinical outcomes. In patients with Crohn’s disease, however, there has been no established threshold for mucosal healing based on either the CDEIS or the Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD).

Therefore, Dr. Yzet and her associates identified and reviewed the medical records of 84 consecutive adults with clinically remitted Crohn’s disease who received anti–tumor necrosis factor therapies (infliximab and adalimumab) or vedolizumab at two university hospitals in France between 2008 and 2015. All patients received baseline and follow-up colonoscopies, with results scored on the CDEIS. In all cases, the second CDEIS score was less than 4 (the CDEIS ranges from 0 to 44). The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for biologic optimization (increasing the dose or shortening the dosing interval of the biologic), corticosteroids, or immunosuppressants; a Harvey-Bradshaw score greater than 4 associated with a change in treatment; or the need for intestinal resection or hospitalization because of Crohn’s disease.

At baseline, 57 patients had CDEIS scores of 0 (complete mucosal healing) and 27 patients had scores greater than 0 but less than 4 (partial mucosal healing). The two groups were otherwise similar except that patients with complete mucosal healing had a shorter median duration of Crohn’s disease (10.3 vs. 15.1 years in the partial healing group; P = .029) and a lower prevalence of Crohn’s disease phenotype B2 (stricturing) according to the Vienna classification (1.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .035). In the multivariate analysis, CDEIS score was the only factor associated with treatment failure (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-5.88; P = .02).

“Our findings suggest that we should be more ambitious in clinical practice to change patients’ life and disease course by achieving complete endoscopic healing. However, this strategy could be limited by the ability of current drugs to achieve complete mucosal healing,” the researchers wrote. “Obtaining a complete mucosal healing would require today a significant need for optimization or change of biologics.”

No external funding sources were reported. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Biogaran, Biogen, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies. The remaining investigators reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yzet C et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.025.
 

In individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis, younger age at diagnosis, male sex, and Afro-Caribbean heritage were significant risk factors for liver transplantation and disease-related death, based on a 10-year prospective population-based study.

These factors should be incorporated into the design of clinical trials, models for predicting disease, and studies of prognostic biomarkers for primary sclerosing cholangitis, Palak T. Trivedi, MBBS, MRCP, of the Universty of Birmingham (England) wrote with his associates in Gastroenterology.

The researchers identified newly diagnosed cases from a national health care registry in England between 2006 and 2016 (data on outcomes were collected through mid-2019). In all, 284,560 individuals had a new diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease, among whom 2,588 also had primary sclerosing cholangitis. The investigators tracked deaths, liver transplantation, colonic resection, cholecystectomy, and diagnoses of colorectal cancer, cholangiosarcoma, and cancers of the pancreas, gallbladder, and liver. They evaluated rates of these outcomes among individuals with both primary sclerosing cholangitis and inflammatory bowel disease (PSC-IBD) and those with IBD only.

After controlling for sex, race, socioeconomic level, comorbidities, and older age, the researchers found that both men and women with PSC-IBD had a significantly greater risk for all-cause mortality, compared with individuals with IBD alone (hazard ratio, 3.20; 95% confidence interval, 3.01-3.40; P less than .001). Strikingly, individuals who were diagnosed with PSC when they were younger than 40 years had a more than sevenfold higher rate of all-cause mortality, compared with individuals with IBD only. In contrast, the incidence rate ratio for individuals diagnosed with PSC when they were older than 60 years was less than 1.5, compared with IBD-only individuals.

Having PSC and ulcerative colitis, being younger when diagnosed with PSC, and being of Afro-Carribean heritage all correlated with higher incidence of liver transplantation or death related to PSC. Individuals with PSC-IBD who were of Afro-Caribbean heritage had an approximately twofold greater risk for liver transplantation or PSC-related death compared with Whites (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.14-3.70; P = .016). In contrast, women with PSC-IBD were at significantly lower risk for liver transplantation or disease-related death than were men (adjusted HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .026).

“The onset of PSC confers heightened risks of all hepatobiliary malignancies, although annual imaging surveillance may associate with a reduced risk of cancer-related death,” the investigators found. Among patients with hepatobiliary cancer, annual imaging was associated with a twofold decrease in risk for cancer-related death (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.80; P = .037).

Colorectal cancer tended to occur at a younger age among individuals with PSC-IBD, compared with those with IBD alone (median ages at diagnosis, 59 vs. 69 years; P less than .001). Notably, individuals with PSC diagnosed under age 50 years had about a fivefold higher incidence of colorectal cancer than did those with IBD alone, while those diagnosed at older ages had only about a twofold increase. With regard to colectomy, men diagnosed with PSC at younger ages were at the greatest risk, compared with women or individuals diagnosed after age 50 years. Individuals with ulcerative colitis and PSC had a 40% greater risk for colectomy risk than did IBD-only individuals (time-dependent adjusted HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.45-1.85; P less than .001).

“Whilst all-cause mortality rates increase with age, younger patients [with PSC] show a disproportionately increased incidence of liver transplantation, PSC-related death, and colorectal cancer,” the researchers concluded. “Consideration of age at diagnosis should therefore be applied in the stratification of patients for future clinical trials, disease prediction models, and prognostic biomarker discovery.”

Dr. Trivedi disclosed support from the National Institute for Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham. No other disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: Trivedi PJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.049.
 

In individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis, younger age at diagnosis, male sex, and Afro-Caribbean heritage were significant risk factors for liver transplantation and disease-related death, based on a 10-year prospective population-based study.

These factors should be incorporated into the design of clinical trials, models for predicting disease, and studies of prognostic biomarkers for primary sclerosing cholangitis, Palak T. Trivedi, MBBS, MRCP, of the Universty of Birmingham (England) wrote with his associates in Gastroenterology.

The researchers identified newly diagnosed cases from a national health care registry in England between 2006 and 2016 (data on outcomes were collected through mid-2019). In all, 284,560 individuals had a new diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease, among whom 2,588 also had primary sclerosing cholangitis. The investigators tracked deaths, liver transplantation, colonic resection, cholecystectomy, and diagnoses of colorectal cancer, cholangiosarcoma, and cancers of the pancreas, gallbladder, and liver. They evaluated rates of these outcomes among individuals with both primary sclerosing cholangitis and inflammatory bowel disease (PSC-IBD) and those with IBD only.

After controlling for sex, race, socioeconomic level, comorbidities, and older age, the researchers found that both men and women with PSC-IBD had a significantly greater risk for all-cause mortality, compared with individuals with IBD alone (hazard ratio, 3.20; 95% confidence interval, 3.01-3.40; P less than .001). Strikingly, individuals who were diagnosed with PSC when they were younger than 40 years had a more than sevenfold higher rate of all-cause mortality, compared with individuals with IBD only. In contrast, the incidence rate ratio for individuals diagnosed with PSC when they were older than 60 years was less than 1.5, compared with IBD-only individuals.

Having PSC and ulcerative colitis, being younger when diagnosed with PSC, and being of Afro-Carribean heritage all correlated with higher incidence of liver transplantation or death related to PSC. Individuals with PSC-IBD who were of Afro-Caribbean heritage had an approximately twofold greater risk for liver transplantation or PSC-related death compared with Whites (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.14-3.70; P = .016). In contrast, women with PSC-IBD were at significantly lower risk for liver transplantation or disease-related death than were men (adjusted HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .026).

“The onset of PSC confers heightened risks of all hepatobiliary malignancies, although annual imaging surveillance may associate with a reduced risk of cancer-related death,” the investigators found. Among patients with hepatobiliary cancer, annual imaging was associated with a twofold decrease in risk for cancer-related death (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.80; P = .037).

Colorectal cancer tended to occur at a younger age among individuals with PSC-IBD, compared with those with IBD alone (median ages at diagnosis, 59 vs. 69 years; P less than .001). Notably, individuals with PSC diagnosed under age 50 years had about a fivefold higher incidence of colorectal cancer than did those with IBD alone, while those diagnosed at older ages had only about a twofold increase. With regard to colectomy, men diagnosed with PSC at younger ages were at the greatest risk, compared with women or individuals diagnosed after age 50 years. Individuals with ulcerative colitis and PSC had a 40% greater risk for colectomy risk than did IBD-only individuals (time-dependent adjusted HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.45-1.85; P less than .001).

“Whilst all-cause mortality rates increase with age, younger patients [with PSC] show a disproportionately increased incidence of liver transplantation, PSC-related death, and colorectal cancer,” the researchers concluded. “Consideration of age at diagnosis should therefore be applied in the stratification of patients for future clinical trials, disease prediction models, and prognostic biomarker discovery.”

Dr. Trivedi disclosed support from the National Institute for Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham. No other disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: Trivedi PJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.049.
 

In individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis, younger age at diagnosis, male sex, and Afro-Caribbean heritage were significant risk factors for liver transplantation and disease-related death, based on a 10-year prospective population-based study.

These factors should be incorporated into the design of clinical trials, models for predicting disease, and studies of prognostic biomarkers for primary sclerosing cholangitis, Palak T. Trivedi, MBBS, MRCP, of the Universty of Birmingham (England) wrote with his associates in Gastroenterology.

The researchers identified newly diagnosed cases from a national health care registry in England between 2006 and 2016 (data on outcomes were collected through mid-2019). In all, 284,560 individuals had a new diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease, among whom 2,588 also had primary sclerosing cholangitis. The investigators tracked deaths, liver transplantation, colonic resection, cholecystectomy, and diagnoses of colorectal cancer, cholangiosarcoma, and cancers of the pancreas, gallbladder, and liver. They evaluated rates of these outcomes among individuals with both primary sclerosing cholangitis and inflammatory bowel disease (PSC-IBD) and those with IBD only.

After controlling for sex, race, socioeconomic level, comorbidities, and older age, the researchers found that both men and women with PSC-IBD had a significantly greater risk for all-cause mortality, compared with individuals with IBD alone (hazard ratio, 3.20; 95% confidence interval, 3.01-3.40; P less than .001). Strikingly, individuals who were diagnosed with PSC when they were younger than 40 years had a more than sevenfold higher rate of all-cause mortality, compared with individuals with IBD only. In contrast, the incidence rate ratio for individuals diagnosed with PSC when they were older than 60 years was less than 1.5, compared with IBD-only individuals.

Having PSC and ulcerative colitis, being younger when diagnosed with PSC, and being of Afro-Carribean heritage all correlated with higher incidence of liver transplantation or death related to PSC. Individuals with PSC-IBD who were of Afro-Caribbean heritage had an approximately twofold greater risk for liver transplantation or PSC-related death compared with Whites (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.14-3.70; P = .016). In contrast, women with PSC-IBD were at significantly lower risk for liver transplantation or disease-related death than were men (adjusted HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .026).

“The onset of PSC confers heightened risks of all hepatobiliary malignancies, although annual imaging surveillance may associate with a reduced risk of cancer-related death,” the investigators found. Among patients with hepatobiliary cancer, annual imaging was associated with a twofold decrease in risk for cancer-related death (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.80; P = .037).

Colorectal cancer tended to occur at a younger age among individuals with PSC-IBD, compared with those with IBD alone (median ages at diagnosis, 59 vs. 69 years; P less than .001). Notably, individuals with PSC diagnosed under age 50 years had about a fivefold higher incidence of colorectal cancer than did those with IBD alone, while those diagnosed at older ages had only about a twofold increase. With regard to colectomy, men diagnosed with PSC at younger ages were at the greatest risk, compared with women or individuals diagnosed after age 50 years. Individuals with ulcerative colitis and PSC had a 40% greater risk for colectomy risk than did IBD-only individuals (time-dependent adjusted HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.45-1.85; P less than .001).

“Whilst all-cause mortality rates increase with age, younger patients [with PSC] show a disproportionately increased incidence of liver transplantation, PSC-related death, and colorectal cancer,” the researchers concluded. “Consideration of age at diagnosis should therefore be applied in the stratification of patients for future clinical trials, disease prediction models, and prognostic biomarker discovery.”

Dr. Trivedi disclosed support from the National Institute for Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham. No other disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: Trivedi PJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.049.
 

Among adults who consumed a proinflammatory diet, switching to a diet with lower inflammatory potential was associated with a significant subsequent decrease in risk for Crohn’s disease, according to a study of three longitudinal observational cohorts.

Researchers calculated empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) scores based on food-frequency questionnaires completed by 166,903 women and 41,931 men who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Questionnaires were completed at two time points, separated by 8 years. Overall, adults whose cumulative average EDIP scores fell within the highest quartile – meaning their diets had the highest inflammatory potential – were at 51% greater risk for developing Crohn’s disease than were adults whose diets fell within the lowest EDIP quartile (hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.07; P = .01).

Strikingly, however, adults who initially consumed a proinflammatory diet (which is high in calories, red meat, high-fat dairy, and refined grains) and then switched to a low-inflammatory diet (one based around fruit, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, fish, and lean protein) had a statistically similar risk for Crohn’s disease as adults who consumed a low-inflammatory diet at both time points. The 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio crossed 1.0 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.76-3.00). In contrast, adults who initially consumed a low-inflammatory diet and later changed to a proinflammatory diet were at twofold greater risk for Crohn’s disease than were those who remained on a low-inflammatory diet (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.10-3.79).

These findings accounted for potential confounders, such as age, study cohort, time period, race, smoking, physical activity, and use of oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy, wrote Chun-Han Lo, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, together with his associates in Gastroenterology.

The EDIP score is a weighted sum of 18 food groups that characterizes the potential for dietary inflammation based on circulating concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers. A proinflammatory diet may “trigger the onset of intestinal inflammation by inducing changes in [the] gut microbiome, altering host homeostasis, and regulating T-cell immune response,” the investigators noted.

In this study, which included nearly 5 million person-years of follow-up, 328 individuals were diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and 428 individuals developed ulcerative colitis. Median age at inflammatory bowel disease diagnosis was 55 years, with a range of 29-85 years. Notably, change in EDIP score was not linked to ulcerative colitis risk. Diet may be more relevant in Crohn’s disease than ulcerative colitis, and dietary factors linked to ulcerative colitis were not associated with inflammatory markers in the cohorts and, thus, were not factored into EDIP score, the researchers wrote.

The link between EDIP score and Crohn’s disease in this study did not change after controlling for fiber intake. Red wine (which contains anti-inflammatory resveratrol) might be a protective factor, the researchers hypothesized. They also found that pizza – a processed, calorie-dense food – was significantly inversely linked to inflammatory markers, perhaps because pizza contains abundant lycopene (from tomato paste) and fat (which facilitate lycopene absorption).

Prior studies on diet and inflammatory bowel disease assessed diets at only one time point and categorized dietary habits based on food groups, rather than linking foods with inflammatory markers, the researchers wrote. “Here, by identifying a combination of food groups predictive of circulating markers of inflammation, we provide a more robust evidence base behind the association of these foods with inflammation and inflammatory bowel disease.”

Most study participants were white health professionals. The researchers noted that “studies of dietary risk factors have not revealed a strong ethnicity-specific association, [but] extrapolating our findings to individuals of other ethnicity should be performed with caution.”

The National Institutes of Health, the Beker Foundation, the Chleck Family Foundation, and the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation provided funding. Three coinvestigators disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bayer Pharma AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Janssen, Kyn Therapeutics, Merck Pfizer, Policy Analysis Inc., and Takeda.

SOURCE: Lo C-H et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.011.
 

Among adults who consumed a proinflammatory diet, switching to a diet with lower inflammatory potential was associated with a significant subsequent decrease in risk for Crohn’s disease, according to a study of three longitudinal observational cohorts.

Researchers calculated empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) scores based on food-frequency questionnaires completed by 166,903 women and 41,931 men who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Questionnaires were completed at two time points, separated by 8 years. Overall, adults whose cumulative average EDIP scores fell within the highest quartile – meaning their diets had the highest inflammatory potential – were at 51% greater risk for developing Crohn’s disease than were adults whose diets fell within the lowest EDIP quartile (hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.07; P = .01).

Strikingly, however, adults who initially consumed a proinflammatory diet (which is high in calories, red meat, high-fat dairy, and refined grains) and then switched to a low-inflammatory diet (one based around fruit, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, fish, and lean protein) had a statistically similar risk for Crohn’s disease as adults who consumed a low-inflammatory diet at both time points. The 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio crossed 1.0 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.76-3.00). In contrast, adults who initially consumed a low-inflammatory diet and later changed to a proinflammatory diet were at twofold greater risk for Crohn’s disease than were those who remained on a low-inflammatory diet (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.10-3.79).

These findings accounted for potential confounders, such as age, study cohort, time period, race, smoking, physical activity, and use of oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy, wrote Chun-Han Lo, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, together with his associates in Gastroenterology.

The EDIP score is a weighted sum of 18 food groups that characterizes the potential for dietary inflammation based on circulating concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers. A proinflammatory diet may “trigger the onset of intestinal inflammation by inducing changes in [the] gut microbiome, altering host homeostasis, and regulating T-cell immune response,” the investigators noted.

In this study, which included nearly 5 million person-years of follow-up, 328 individuals were diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and 428 individuals developed ulcerative colitis. Median age at inflammatory bowel disease diagnosis was 55 years, with a range of 29-85 years. Notably, change in EDIP score was not linked to ulcerative colitis risk. Diet may be more relevant in Crohn’s disease than ulcerative colitis, and dietary factors linked to ulcerative colitis were not associated with inflammatory markers in the cohorts and, thus, were not factored into EDIP score, the researchers wrote.

The link between EDIP score and Crohn’s disease in this study did not change after controlling for fiber intake. Red wine (which contains anti-inflammatory resveratrol) might be a protective factor, the researchers hypothesized. They also found that pizza – a processed, calorie-dense food – was significantly inversely linked to inflammatory markers, perhaps because pizza contains abundant lycopene (from tomato paste) and fat (which facilitate lycopene absorption).

Prior studies on diet and inflammatory bowel disease assessed diets at only one time point and categorized dietary habits based on food groups, rather than linking foods with inflammatory markers, the researchers wrote. “Here, by identifying a combination of food groups predictive of circulating markers of inflammation, we provide a more robust evidence base behind the association of these foods with inflammation and inflammatory bowel disease.”

Most study participants were white health professionals. The researchers noted that “studies of dietary risk factors have not revealed a strong ethnicity-specific association, [but] extrapolating our findings to individuals of other ethnicity should be performed with caution.”

The National Institutes of Health, the Beker Foundation, the Chleck Family Foundation, and the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation provided funding. Three coinvestigators disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bayer Pharma AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Janssen, Kyn Therapeutics, Merck Pfizer, Policy Analysis Inc., and Takeda.

SOURCE: Lo C-H et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.011.
 

Among adults who consumed a proinflammatory diet, switching to a diet with lower inflammatory potential was associated with a significant subsequent decrease in risk for Crohn’s disease, according to a study of three longitudinal observational cohorts.

Researchers calculated empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) scores based on food-frequency questionnaires completed by 166,903 women and 41,931 men who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Questionnaires were completed at two time points, separated by 8 years. Overall, adults whose cumulative average EDIP scores fell within the highest quartile – meaning their diets had the highest inflammatory potential – were at 51% greater risk for developing Crohn’s disease than were adults whose diets fell within the lowest EDIP quartile (hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.07; P = .01).

Strikingly, however, adults who initially consumed a proinflammatory diet (which is high in calories, red meat, high-fat dairy, and refined grains) and then switched to a low-inflammatory diet (one based around fruit, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, fish, and lean protein) had a statistically similar risk for Crohn’s disease as adults who consumed a low-inflammatory diet at both time points. The 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio crossed 1.0 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.76-3.00). In contrast, adults who initially consumed a low-inflammatory diet and later changed to a proinflammatory diet were at twofold greater risk for Crohn’s disease than were those who remained on a low-inflammatory diet (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.10-3.79).

These findings accounted for potential confounders, such as age, study cohort, time period, race, smoking, physical activity, and use of oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy, wrote Chun-Han Lo, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, together with his associates in Gastroenterology.

The EDIP score is a weighted sum of 18 food groups that characterizes the potential for dietary inflammation based on circulating concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers. A proinflammatory diet may “trigger the onset of intestinal inflammation by inducing changes in [the] gut microbiome, altering host homeostasis, and regulating T-cell immune response,” the investigators noted.

In this study, which included nearly 5 million person-years of follow-up, 328 individuals were diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and 428 individuals developed ulcerative colitis. Median age at inflammatory bowel disease diagnosis was 55 years, with a range of 29-85 years. Notably, change in EDIP score was not linked to ulcerative colitis risk. Diet may be more relevant in Crohn’s disease than ulcerative colitis, and dietary factors linked to ulcerative colitis were not associated with inflammatory markers in the cohorts and, thus, were not factored into EDIP score, the researchers wrote.

The link between EDIP score and Crohn’s disease in this study did not change after controlling for fiber intake. Red wine (which contains anti-inflammatory resveratrol) might be a protective factor, the researchers hypothesized. They also found that pizza – a processed, calorie-dense food – was significantly inversely linked to inflammatory markers, perhaps because pizza contains abundant lycopene (from tomato paste) and fat (which facilitate lycopene absorption).

Prior studies on diet and inflammatory bowel disease assessed diets at only one time point and categorized dietary habits based on food groups, rather than linking foods with inflammatory markers, the researchers wrote. “Here, by identifying a combination of food groups predictive of circulating markers of inflammation, we provide a more robust evidence base behind the association of these foods with inflammation and inflammatory bowel disease.”

Most study participants were white health professionals. The researchers noted that “studies of dietary risk factors have not revealed a strong ethnicity-specific association, [but] extrapolating our findings to individuals of other ethnicity should be performed with caution.”

The National Institutes of Health, the Beker Foundation, the Chleck Family Foundation, and the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation provided funding. Three coinvestigators disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bayer Pharma AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Janssen, Kyn Therapeutics, Merck Pfizer, Policy Analysis Inc., and Takeda.

SOURCE: Lo C-H et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.011.
 

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

Help your patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at www.gastro.org/biosimilars.

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

Help your patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at www.gastro.org/biosimilars.

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

Help your patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at www.gastro.org/biosimilars.

Among nonsecretors – individuals who express a less diverse array of fucosylated histoblood group antigen carbohydrates (HBGAs) and consequently are less susceptible to some norovirus strains – natural infection with norovirus strain GII.2 induced cellular and antibody immunity that lasted for at least 30 days for T cells, monocytes, and dendritic cells and for at least 180 days for blocking antibodies, researchers reported.

“Multiple cellular lineages expressing interferon-gamma and tumor necrosis factor [TNF]–alpha dominated the response. Both T-cell and B-cell responses were cross-reactive with other GII strains, but not GI strains,” Lisa C. Lindesmith of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and her associates wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The researchers also found that bile salts enable GII.2 to bind HBGAs produced by nonsecretors. “[I]n addition to HBGAs, one or more specific components of bile also is likely to be an essential co-factor for human norovirus attachment and infection,” the researchers wrote.

Susceptibility to norovirus depends on whether individuals express secretor enzyme, which is encoded by the FUT2 gene. Nonsecretors (who are FUT2–/–) express less varied HBGA, are susceptible to fewer norovirus strains, and are resistant to the predominant norovirus strain, GII.4. “Because future human norovirus vaccines will comprise GII.4 antigen, and because secretor phenotype impacts GII.4 infection and immunity, nonsecretors may mimic young children immunologically in response to GII.4 vaccination,” the researchers explained. But until now, most vaccines have focused on adult secretors, they said.

Their study focused on a familial norovirus outbreak in Chapel Hill that was the first to be characterized among nonsecretors who were naturally infected with norovirus GII.2. Four adults provided blood samples, and one provided a stool sample from which the researchers isolated and cloned the G11.2 capsid gene sequence. They used neutralization assays to study serologic immunity and flow cytometry to assess cellular activation and cytokine production in blood samples from the four cases and from seven healthy donors.

Norovirus GII.2 infection activated both innate and adaptive immunity and typical production of antiviral helper T cell (Th)1 and Th2 cytokines. The cellular immune response lasted at least 30 days, “long after symptom resolution,” the investigators wrote.

Compared with healthy donors, blood specimens from infected nonsecretors showed increases in non-class-switched memory, transitional B cells, and plasmablast B cells, and both naive and memory B cells also were positive for activation markers for at least 30 days after infection. Activated interferon-gamma+ T cells, natural killer cells, TNF-alpha+ monocytes, IL-10+, TNF-alpha+ myeloid dendritic cells, and TNF plasmacytoid dendritic cells also persisted for at least 30 days. Cross-reactive GII immunity was evident for at least 180 days. “GII.2 infection boosted cross-reactive blocking antibodies to GII.3, GII.14, and GII.17, as well as T-cell responses to GII.4, despite the lack of clear serologic evidence of previous GII.4 exposure,” the investigators wrote.

Based on prior reports that bile enhances norovirus growth or ligand binding, they inoculated specimens with chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) and glycochenodeoxycholic acid (GCDCA), pig bile, ox bile, or human bile. “Strikingly, the addition of bile enabled GII.2 Chapel Hill outbreak virus-like particle to bind to saliva from the four nonsecretor donors,” the researchers wrote. Bile acids “may override the genetic advantage of less-diverse HBGA expression in nonsecretors by improving the avidity of GII.2 binding to nonsecretor HBGAs, potentially paving the way for infection.” However, bile salts did not enable the GII.2 strain to replicate in human intestinal enteroid cells, which suggests that additional factors play into how norovirus enters human cells, according to the researchers.

The findings, they wrote, “support development of within-genogroup, cross-reactive antibody and T-cell immunity, key outcomes that may provide the foundation for eliciting broad immune responses after GII.4 vaccination in individuals with limited GII.4 immunity, including young children.”

The National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a Cancer Center Core support provided funding. Ms. Lindesmith and her associates reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lindesmith LC et al. Cell Molec Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;10:245-67.
 

Among nonsecretors – individuals who express a less diverse array of fucosylated histoblood group antigen carbohydrates (HBGAs) and consequently are less susceptible to some norovirus strains – natural infection with norovirus strain GII.2 induced cellular and antibody immunity that lasted for at least 30 days for T cells, monocytes, and dendritic cells and for at least 180 days for blocking antibodies, researchers reported.

“Multiple cellular lineages expressing interferon-gamma and tumor necrosis factor [TNF]–alpha dominated the response. Both T-cell and B-cell responses were cross-reactive with other GII strains, but not GI strains,” Lisa C. Lindesmith of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and her associates wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The researchers also found that bile salts enable GII.2 to bind HBGAs produced by nonsecretors. “[I]n addition to HBGAs, one or more specific components of bile also is likely to be an essential co-factor for human norovirus attachment and infection,” the researchers wrote.

Susceptibility to norovirus depends on whether individuals express secretor enzyme, which is encoded by the FUT2 gene. Nonsecretors (who are FUT2–/–) express less varied HBGA, are susceptible to fewer norovirus strains, and are resistant to the predominant norovirus strain, GII.4. “Because future human norovirus vaccines will comprise GII.4 antigen, and because secretor phenotype impacts GII.4 infection and immunity, nonsecretors may mimic young children immunologically in response to GII.4 vaccination,” the researchers explained. But until now, most vaccines have focused on adult secretors, they said.

Their study focused on a familial norovirus outbreak in Chapel Hill that was the first to be characterized among nonsecretors who were naturally infected with norovirus GII.2. Four adults provided blood samples, and one provided a stool sample from which the researchers isolated and cloned the G11.2 capsid gene sequence. They used neutralization assays to study serologic immunity and flow cytometry to assess cellular activation and cytokine production in blood samples from the four cases and from seven healthy donors.

Norovirus GII.2 infection activated both innate and adaptive immunity and typical production of antiviral helper T cell (Th)1 and Th2 cytokines. The cellular immune response lasted at least 30 days, “long after symptom resolution,” the investigators wrote.

Compared with healthy donors, blood specimens from infected nonsecretors showed increases in non-class-switched memory, transitional B cells, and plasmablast B cells, and both naive and memory B cells also were positive for activation markers for at least 30 days after infection. Activated interferon-gamma+ T cells, natural killer cells, TNF-alpha+ monocytes, IL-10+, TNF-alpha+ myeloid dendritic cells, and TNF plasmacytoid dendritic cells also persisted for at least 30 days. Cross-reactive GII immunity was evident for at least 180 days. “GII.2 infection boosted cross-reactive blocking antibodies to GII.3, GII.14, and GII.17, as well as T-cell responses to GII.4, despite the lack of clear serologic evidence of previous GII.4 exposure,” the investigators wrote.

Based on prior reports that bile enhances norovirus growth or ligand binding, they inoculated specimens with chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) and glycochenodeoxycholic acid (GCDCA), pig bile, ox bile, or human bile. “Strikingly, the addition of bile enabled GII.2 Chapel Hill outbreak virus-like particle to bind to saliva from the four nonsecretor donors,” the researchers wrote. Bile acids “may override the genetic advantage of less-diverse HBGA expression in nonsecretors by improving the avidity of GII.2 binding to nonsecretor HBGAs, potentially paving the way for infection.” However, bile salts did not enable the GII.2 strain to replicate in human intestinal enteroid cells, which suggests that additional factors play into how norovirus enters human cells, according to the researchers.

The findings, they wrote, “support development of within-genogroup, cross-reactive antibody and T-cell immunity, key outcomes that may provide the foundation for eliciting broad immune responses after GII.4 vaccination in individuals with limited GII.4 immunity, including young children.”

The National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a Cancer Center Core support provided funding. Ms. Lindesmith and her associates reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lindesmith LC et al. Cell Molec Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;10:245-67.
 

Among nonsecretors – individuals who express a less diverse array of fucosylated histoblood group antigen carbohydrates (HBGAs) and consequently are less susceptible to some norovirus strains – natural infection with norovirus strain GII.2 induced cellular and antibody immunity that lasted for at least 30 days for T cells, monocytes, and dendritic cells and for at least 180 days for blocking antibodies, researchers reported.

“Multiple cellular lineages expressing interferon-gamma and tumor necrosis factor [TNF]–alpha dominated the response. Both T-cell and B-cell responses were cross-reactive with other GII strains, but not GI strains,” Lisa C. Lindesmith of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and her associates wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The researchers also found that bile salts enable GII.2 to bind HBGAs produced by nonsecretors. “[I]n addition to HBGAs, one or more specific components of bile also is likely to be an essential co-factor for human norovirus attachment and infection,” the researchers wrote.

Susceptibility to norovirus depends on whether individuals express secretor enzyme, which is encoded by the FUT2 gene. Nonsecretors (who are FUT2–/–) express less varied HBGA, are susceptible to fewer norovirus strains, and are resistant to the predominant norovirus strain, GII.4. “Because future human norovirus vaccines will comprise GII.4 antigen, and because secretor phenotype impacts GII.4 infection and immunity, nonsecretors may mimic young children immunologically in response to GII.4 vaccination,” the researchers explained. But until now, most vaccines have focused on adult secretors, they said.

Their study focused on a familial norovirus outbreak in Chapel Hill that was the first to be characterized among nonsecretors who were naturally infected with norovirus GII.2. Four adults provided blood samples, and one provided a stool sample from which the researchers isolated and cloned the G11.2 capsid gene sequence. They used neutralization assays to study serologic immunity and flow cytometry to assess cellular activation and cytokine production in blood samples from the four cases and from seven healthy donors.

Norovirus GII.2 infection activated both innate and adaptive immunity and typical production of antiviral helper T cell (Th)1 and Th2 cytokines. The cellular immune response lasted at least 30 days, “long after symptom resolution,” the investigators wrote.

Compared with healthy donors, blood specimens from infected nonsecretors showed increases in non-class-switched memory, transitional B cells, and plasmablast B cells, and both naive and memory B cells also were positive for activation markers for at least 30 days after infection. Activated interferon-gamma+ T cells, natural killer cells, TNF-alpha+ monocytes, IL-10+, TNF-alpha+ myeloid dendritic cells, and TNF plasmacytoid dendritic cells also persisted for at least 30 days. Cross-reactive GII immunity was evident for at least 180 days. “GII.2 infection boosted cross-reactive blocking antibodies to GII.3, GII.14, and GII.17, as well as T-cell responses to GII.4, despite the lack of clear serologic evidence of previous GII.4 exposure,” the investigators wrote.

Based on prior reports that bile enhances norovirus growth or ligand binding, they inoculated specimens with chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) and glycochenodeoxycholic acid (GCDCA), pig bile, ox bile, or human bile. “Strikingly, the addition of bile enabled GII.2 Chapel Hill outbreak virus-like particle to bind to saliva from the four nonsecretor donors,” the researchers wrote. Bile acids “may override the genetic advantage of less-diverse HBGA expression in nonsecretors by improving the avidity of GII.2 binding to nonsecretor HBGAs, potentially paving the way for infection.” However, bile salts did not enable the GII.2 strain to replicate in human intestinal enteroid cells, which suggests that additional factors play into how norovirus enters human cells, according to the researchers.

The findings, they wrote, “support development of within-genogroup, cross-reactive antibody and T-cell immunity, key outcomes that may provide the foundation for eliciting broad immune responses after GII.4 vaccination in individuals with limited GII.4 immunity, including young children.”

The National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a Cancer Center Core support provided funding. Ms. Lindesmith and her associates reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lindesmith LC et al. Cell Molec Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;10:245-67.
 

The role of probiotics in the management of gastrointestinal disorders remains largely unclear, according to a clinical practice guideline published by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

Out of eight disorders reviewed by the guideline panel, four had enough relevant data to support conditional recommendations, while the other four were associated with knowledge gaps that precluded guidance, reported lead author Grace L. Su, MD, AGAF, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“It is estimated that 3.9 million American adults used some form of probiotics or prebiotics ... in 2015, an amount which is four times that in 2007,” the guideline panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “Given widespread use and often biased sources of information, it is essential that clinicians have objective guidance for their patients about the appropriate use of and indications for probiotics.”

The creation of such guidance, however, proved a challenging task for the panel, who faced an “extremely varied” evidence base.

Dr. Su and colleagues, who were selected by the AGA Governing Board and Clinical Guidelines Committee, encountered “differences in the strain of microbe(s) used, dose, and route of administration.”

They noted that such differences can significantly affect clinical outcomes.

“Within species, different strains can have widely different activities and biologic effects,” they wrote. “Many immunologic, neurologic, and biochemical effects of gut microbiota are likely not only to be strain specific, but also dose specific. Furthermore, combinations of different microbial strains may also have widely different activity as some microbial activities are dependent on interactions between different strains.”

Beyond differences in treatments, the investigators also reported wide variability in endpoints and outcomes, as well as relatively small study populations compared with pharmacological trials.

Still, data were sufficient to provide some conditional recommendations.

The guideline supports probiotics for patients with pouchitis, those receiving antibiotic therapy, and preterm/low-birthweight infants. In contrast, the panel recommended against probiotics for children with acute infectious gastroenteritis, noting that this recommendation differs from those made by other medical organizations.

“While other society guidelines have previously recommended the use of probiotics in [children with acute infectious gastroenteritis], these guidelines were developed without utilizing GRADE methodology and also relied on data outside of North America which became available after the recommendations were made,” wrote Dr. Su and colleagues. They described a moderate quality of evidence relevant to this indication.

In comparison, the quality of evidence was very low for patients with pouchitis, low for those receiving antibiotics, and moderate/high for preterm/low-birthweight infants.

For Clostridioides difficile infection, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and irritable bowel syndrome, the panel recommended probiotics only in the context of a clinical trial, citing knowledge gaps in these areas.

They also noted that probiotics may not be suitable for those at high risk of infection.

“[F]or patients who place a high value on avoidance of potential harms, particularly those with severe illnesses or immunosuppression, it would be reasonable to select not to use probiotics,” the panelists wrote.

Concluding their discussion, Dr. Su and colleagues called for more high-quality research.

“We identified that significant knowledge gaps exist in this very promising and important area of research due to the significant heterogeneity between studies and variability in the probiotic strains studied,” they wrote. “The lack of consistent harms reporting makes it difficult to assess true harms. The lack of product manufacturing details prohibits true comparisons and decreases the feasibility of obtaining certain products by patients. Future high-quality studies are urgently needed which address these pitfalls.”

According to the panelists, the probiotic guideline will be updated in 3-5 years, or possibly earlier if practice-altering findings are published.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Nestex, AbbVie, Takeda, and others.

The role of probiotics in the management of gastrointestinal disorders remains largely unclear, according to a clinical practice guideline published by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

Out of eight disorders reviewed by the guideline panel, four had enough relevant data to support conditional recommendations, while the other four were associated with knowledge gaps that precluded guidance, reported lead author Grace L. Su, MD, AGAF, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“It is estimated that 3.9 million American adults used some form of probiotics or prebiotics ... in 2015, an amount which is four times that in 2007,” the guideline panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “Given widespread use and often biased sources of information, it is essential that clinicians have objective guidance for their patients about the appropriate use of and indications for probiotics.”

The creation of such guidance, however, proved a challenging task for the panel, who faced an “extremely varied” evidence base.

Dr. Su and colleagues, who were selected by the AGA Governing Board and Clinical Guidelines Committee, encountered “differences in the strain of microbe(s) used, dose, and route of administration.”

They noted that such differences can significantly affect clinical outcomes.

“Within species, different strains can have widely different activities and biologic effects,” they wrote. “Many immunologic, neurologic, and biochemical effects of gut microbiota are likely not only to be strain specific, but also dose specific. Furthermore, combinations of different microbial strains may also have widely different activity as some microbial activities are dependent on interactions between different strains.”

Beyond differences in treatments, the investigators also reported wide variability in endpoints and outcomes, as well as relatively small study populations compared with pharmacological trials.

Still, data were sufficient to provide some conditional recommendations.

The guideline supports probiotics for patients with pouchitis, those receiving antibiotic therapy, and preterm/low-birthweight infants. In contrast, the panel recommended against probiotics for children with acute infectious gastroenteritis, noting that this recommendation differs from those made by other medical organizations.

“While other society guidelines have previously recommended the use of probiotics in [children with acute infectious gastroenteritis], these guidelines were developed without utilizing GRADE methodology and also relied on data outside of North America which became available after the recommendations were made,” wrote Dr. Su and colleagues. They described a moderate quality of evidence relevant to this indication.

In comparison, the quality of evidence was very low for patients with pouchitis, low for those receiving antibiotics, and moderate/high for preterm/low-birthweight infants.

For Clostridioides difficile infection, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and irritable bowel syndrome, the panel recommended probiotics only in the context of a clinical trial, citing knowledge gaps in these areas.

They also noted that probiotics may not be suitable for those at high risk of infection.

“[F]or patients who place a high value on avoidance of potential harms, particularly those with severe illnesses or immunosuppression, it would be reasonable to select not to use probiotics,” the panelists wrote.

Concluding their discussion, Dr. Su and colleagues called for more high-quality research.

“We identified that significant knowledge gaps exist in this very promising and important area of research due to the significant heterogeneity between studies and variability in the probiotic strains studied,” they wrote. “The lack of consistent harms reporting makes it difficult to assess true harms. The lack of product manufacturing details prohibits true comparisons and decreases the feasibility of obtaining certain products by patients. Future high-quality studies are urgently needed which address these pitfalls.”

According to the panelists, the probiotic guideline will be updated in 3-5 years, or possibly earlier if practice-altering findings are published.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Nestex, AbbVie, Takeda, and others.

The role of probiotics in the management of gastrointestinal disorders remains largely unclear, according to a clinical practice guideline published by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

Out of eight disorders reviewed by the guideline panel, four had enough relevant data to support conditional recommendations, while the other four were associated with knowledge gaps that precluded guidance, reported lead author Grace L. Su, MD, AGAF, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“It is estimated that 3.9 million American adults used some form of probiotics or prebiotics ... in 2015, an amount which is four times that in 2007,” the guideline panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “Given widespread use and often biased sources of information, it is essential that clinicians have objective guidance for their patients about the appropriate use of and indications for probiotics.”

The creation of such guidance, however, proved a challenging task for the panel, who faced an “extremely varied” evidence base.

Dr. Su and colleagues, who were selected by the AGA Governing Board and Clinical Guidelines Committee, encountered “differences in the strain of microbe(s) used, dose, and route of administration.”

They noted that such differences can significantly affect clinical outcomes.

“Within species, different strains can have widely different activities and biologic effects,” they wrote. “Many immunologic, neurologic, and biochemical effects of gut microbiota are likely not only to be strain specific, but also dose specific. Furthermore, combinations of different microbial strains may also have widely different activity as some microbial activities are dependent on interactions between different strains.”

Beyond differences in treatments, the investigators also reported wide variability in endpoints and outcomes, as well as relatively small study populations compared with pharmacological trials.

Still, data were sufficient to provide some conditional recommendations.

The guideline supports probiotics for patients with pouchitis, those receiving antibiotic therapy, and preterm/low-birthweight infants. In contrast, the panel recommended against probiotics for children with acute infectious gastroenteritis, noting that this recommendation differs from those made by other medical organizations.

“While other society guidelines have previously recommended the use of probiotics in [children with acute infectious gastroenteritis], these guidelines were developed without utilizing GRADE methodology and also relied on data outside of North America which became available after the recommendations were made,” wrote Dr. Su and colleagues. They described a moderate quality of evidence relevant to this indication.

In comparison, the quality of evidence was very low for patients with pouchitis, low for those receiving antibiotics, and moderate/high for preterm/low-birthweight infants.

For Clostridioides difficile infection, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and irritable bowel syndrome, the panel recommended probiotics only in the context of a clinical trial, citing knowledge gaps in these areas.

They also noted that probiotics may not be suitable for those at high risk of infection.

“[F]or patients who place a high value on avoidance of potential harms, particularly those with severe illnesses or immunosuppression, it would be reasonable to select not to use probiotics,” the panelists wrote.

Concluding their discussion, Dr. Su and colleagues called for more high-quality research.

“We identified that significant knowledge gaps exist in this very promising and important area of research due to the significant heterogeneity between studies and variability in the probiotic strains studied,” they wrote. “The lack of consistent harms reporting makes it difficult to assess true harms. The lack of product manufacturing details prohibits true comparisons and decreases the feasibility of obtaining certain products by patients. Future high-quality studies are urgently needed which address these pitfalls.”

According to the panelists, the probiotic guideline will be updated in 3-5 years, or possibly earlier if practice-altering findings are published.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Nestex, AbbVie, Takeda, and others.

For preterm, low-birth-weight infants, probiotic formulations containing Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains appear to be superior to single-strain probiotics and to other multiple-strain formulations for reducing the risk of all-cause mortality, according to the findings of a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

The results of a prior Cochrane review indicated that probiotics can help prevent severe necrotizing enterocolitis and all-cause mortality in preterm infants, but the most effective formulations remained unclear. Therefore, Rebecca L. Morgan, PhD, MPH, and her associates searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS Previews, and Google Scholar through Jan. 1, 2019, to identify studies of single-strain and multistrain probiotic formulations in preterm, low-birth-weight neonates. A total of 63 studies involving 15,712 infants met inclusion criteria. “We used a frequentist approach for network meta-analysis and [a] GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence,” they noted.

“High-certainty” evidence indicated that combination therapy with one or more Lactobacillus species and one or more Bifidobacterium species significantly reduced all-cause mortality, compared with placebo (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.80), wrote Dr. Morgan, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, and her coinvestigators. This was the only intervention to have moderate- or high-quality evidence for a reduction in mortality, the researchers wrote in Gastroenterology.

They added that, among the probiotic formulations with moderate- or high-quality evidence for efficacy, compared with placebo, those containing at least one species of Lactobacillus and at least one species of Bifidobacterium, and the single-strain probiotics containing Bifidobacterium animalis subspecies lactis, Lactobacillus reuteri, or Lactobacillus rhamnosus significantly reduced the risk of severe necrotizing enterocolitis (Bell stage II or higher), with statistically significant odds ratios of 0.35, 0.31, 0.55, and 0.44, respectively.

Three formulations were associated with “low-” or “very low-certainty” evidence for a reduction in risk for severe necrotizing enterocolitis, compared with placebo: Bacillus plus Enterococcus species, Lactobacillus plus Bifidobacterium plus Enterococcus species and Bifidobacterium plus Streptococcus salivarius subspecies thermophilus. Estimated odds ratios were 0.23 (risk difference, –4.9%), 0.28 (RD, –4.9%), and 0.38 (RD, –3.9%), respectively.

“The combinations of Bacillus species and Enterococcus species, and one or more Bifidobacterium species and S. salivarius subspecies thermophilus, might produce the largest reduction in necrotizing enterocolitis development,” the investigators wrote. “Further trials are needed.”

Compared with placebo, no probiotic formulation significantly improved the third primary outcome in the meta-analysis, culture-confirmed sepsis. However, several formulations were associated with moderate- or high-quality evidence for efficacy on secondary outcome measures. Compared with placebo, combinations of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium and Saccharomyces boulardii were associated with a significant decrease in the number of days to reach full feeding (mean reduction, 3.3 days; 95% CI, 5.9-0.7 days). Compared with placebo, single-strain therapy with B. animalis subspecies lactis or Lactobacillus reuteri was associated with a shorter duration of hospitalization, with mean reductions of 13.0 days (95% CI, 22.7-3.3 days) and 7.9 days (95% CI, 11.6-4.2 days), respectively.

“Multicenter and large randomized controlled trials should be prioritized to distinguish between the efficacy of single- and multiple-strain probiotics among preterm infants,” Dr. Morgan and her associates concluded. Such studies would further clarify the safety of probiotic formulations in this “fragile population,” they wrote. “Although the primary concern of live microbe administration, intestinal barrier translocation leading to sepsis, is decreased by several probiotic formulations, sound clinical judgement should be exercised.”

Partial support was provided by Mitacs Canada, in partnership with Nestlé Canada. The funder was not involved in designing or conducting the study or writing the manuscript. Dr. Morgan reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. One coinvestigator disclosed ties to AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Morgan RL et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.096.

For preterm, low-birth-weight infants, probiotic formulations containing Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains appear to be superior to single-strain probiotics and to other multiple-strain formulations for reducing the risk of all-cause mortality, according to the findings of a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

The results of a prior Cochrane review indicated that probiotics can help prevent severe necrotizing enterocolitis and all-cause mortality in preterm infants, but the most effective formulations remained unclear. Therefore, Rebecca L. Morgan, PhD, MPH, and her associates searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS Previews, and Google Scholar through Jan. 1, 2019, to identify studies of single-strain and multistrain probiotic formulations in preterm, low-birth-weight neonates. A total of 63 studies involving 15,712 infants met inclusion criteria. “We used a frequentist approach for network meta-analysis and [a] GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence,” they noted.

“High-certainty” evidence indicated that combination therapy with one or more Lactobacillus species and one or more Bifidobacterium species significantly reduced all-cause mortality, compared with placebo (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.80), wrote Dr. Morgan, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, and her coinvestigators. This was the only intervention to have moderate- or high-quality evidence for a reduction in mortality, the researchers wrote in Gastroenterology.

They added that, among the probiotic formulations with moderate- or high-quality evidence for efficacy, compared with placebo, those containing at least one species of Lactobacillus and at least one species of Bifidobacterium, and the single-strain probiotics containing Bifidobacterium animalis subspecies lactis, Lactobacillus reuteri, or Lactobacillus rhamnosus significantly reduced the risk of severe necrotizing enterocolitis (Bell stage II or higher), with statistically significant odds ratios of 0.35, 0.31, 0.55, and 0.44, respectively.

Three formulations were associated with “low-” or “very low-certainty” evidence for a reduction in risk for severe necrotizing enterocolitis, compared with placebo: Bacillus plus Enterococcus species, Lactobacillus plus Bifidobacterium plus Enterococcus species and Bifidobacterium plus Streptococcus salivarius subspecies thermophilus. Estimated odds ratios were 0.23 (risk difference, –4.9%), 0.28 (RD, –4.9%), and 0.38 (RD, –3.9%), respectively.

“The combinations of Bacillus species and Enterococcus species, and one or more Bifidobacterium species and S. salivarius subspecies thermophilus, might produce the largest reduction in necrotizing enterocolitis development,” the investigators wrote. “Further trials are needed.”

Compared with placebo, no probiotic formulation significantly improved the third primary outcome in the meta-analysis, culture-confirmed sepsis. However, several formulations were associated with moderate- or high-quality evidence for efficacy on secondary outcome measures. Compared with placebo, combinations of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium and Saccharomyces boulardii were associated with a significant decrease in the number of days to reach full feeding (mean reduction, 3.3 days; 95% CI, 5.9-0.7 days). Compared with placebo, single-strain therapy with B. animalis subspecies lactis or Lactobacillus reuteri was associated with a shorter duration of hospitalization, with mean reductions of 13.0 days (95% CI, 22.7-3.3 days) and 7.9 days (95% CI, 11.6-4.2 days), respectively.

“Multicenter and large randomized controlled trials should be prioritized to distinguish between the efficacy of single- and multiple-strain probiotics among preterm infants,” Dr. Morgan and her associates concluded. Such studies would further clarify the safety of probiotic formulations in this “fragile population,” they wrote. “Although the primary concern of live microbe administration, intestinal barrier translocation leading to sepsis, is decreased by several probiotic formulations, sound clinical judgement should be exercised.”

Partial support was provided by Mitacs Canada, in partnership with Nestlé Canada. The funder was not involved in designing or conducting the study or writing the manuscript. Dr. Morgan reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. One coinvestigator disclosed ties to AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Morgan RL et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.096.

For preterm, low-birth-weight infants, probiotic formulations containing Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains appear to be superior to single-strain probiotics and to other multiple-strain formulations for reducing the risk of all-cause mortality, according to the findings of a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

The results of a prior Cochrane review indicated that probiotics can help prevent severe necrotizing enterocolitis and all-cause mortality in preterm infants, but the most effective formulations remained unclear. Therefore, Rebecca L. Morgan, PhD, MPH, and her associates searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS Previews, and Google Scholar through Jan. 1, 2019, to identify studies of single-strain and multistrain probiotic formulations in preterm, low-birth-weight neonates. A total of 63 studies involving 15,712 infants met inclusion criteria. “We used a frequentist approach for network meta-analysis and [a] GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence,” they noted.

“High-certainty” evidence indicated that combination therapy with one or more Lactobacillus species and one or more Bifidobacterium species significantly reduced all-cause mortality, compared with placebo (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.80), wrote Dr. Morgan, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, and her coinvestigators. This was the only intervention to have moderate- or high-quality evidence for a reduction in mortality, the researchers wrote in Gastroenterology.

They added that, among the probiotic formulations with moderate- or high-quality evidence for efficacy, compared with placebo, those containing at least one species of Lactobacillus and at least one species of Bifidobacterium, and the single-strain probiotics containing Bifidobacterium animalis subspecies lactis, Lactobacillus reuteri, or Lactobacillus rhamnosus significantly reduced the risk of severe necrotizing enterocolitis (Bell stage II or higher), with statistically significant odds ratios of 0.35, 0.31, 0.55, and 0.44, respectively.

Three formulations were associated with “low-” or “very low-certainty” evidence for a reduction in risk for severe necrotizing enterocolitis, compared with placebo: Bacillus plus Enterococcus species, Lactobacillus plus Bifidobacterium plus Enterococcus species and Bifidobacterium plus Streptococcus salivarius subspecies thermophilus. Estimated odds ratios were 0.23 (risk difference, –4.9%), 0.28 (RD, –4.9%), and 0.38 (RD, –3.9%), respectively.

“The combinations of Bacillus species and Enterococcus species, and one or more Bifidobacterium species and S. salivarius subspecies thermophilus, might produce the largest reduction in necrotizing enterocolitis development,” the investigators wrote. “Further trials are needed.”

Compared with placebo, no probiotic formulation significantly improved the third primary outcome in the meta-analysis, culture-confirmed sepsis. However, several formulations were associated with moderate- or high-quality evidence for efficacy on secondary outcome measures. Compared with placebo, combinations of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium and Saccharomyces boulardii were associated with a significant decrease in the number of days to reach full feeding (mean reduction, 3.3 days; 95% CI, 5.9-0.7 days). Compared with placebo, single-strain therapy with B. animalis subspecies lactis or Lactobacillus reuteri was associated with a shorter duration of hospitalization, with mean reductions of 13.0 days (95% CI, 22.7-3.3 days) and 7.9 days (95% CI, 11.6-4.2 days), respectively.

“Multicenter and large randomized controlled trials should be prioritized to distinguish between the efficacy of single- and multiple-strain probiotics among preterm infants,” Dr. Morgan and her associates concluded. Such studies would further clarify the safety of probiotic formulations in this “fragile population,” they wrote. “Although the primary concern of live microbe administration, intestinal barrier translocation leading to sepsis, is decreased by several probiotic formulations, sound clinical judgement should be exercised.”

Partial support was provided by Mitacs Canada, in partnership with Nestlé Canada. The funder was not involved in designing or conducting the study or writing the manuscript. Dr. Morgan reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. One coinvestigator disclosed ties to AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Morgan RL et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.096.

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.

Exposure to Shiga toxin induces a complex intestinal response involving transcriptional changes, necrosis, apoptotic cell death, cellular proliferation, and cross-talk between epithelial and mesenchymal cells, according to investigators.

The study explored new territory in Shiga toxin research, enabled by the use of human intestinal organoids (HIOs), reported lead author Suman Pradhan, PhD, of the University of Cincinnati, and colleagues.

Each year, Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli infections cause approximately 3 million cases of bloody diarrheal disease, with about 4,000 of those patients developing the life-threatening complication of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

But little is known about the underlying biological processes driving Shiga-induced disease.

“Developing effective interventions for disease resulting from Shiga toxin is exacerbated by a lack of tractable model systems,” the investigators wrote. “Mice do not develop the symptoms characteristic of HUS, and the murine intestinal tract is resistant to Shiga toxin.”

To overcome this obstacle, Dr. Pradhan and colleagues turned to HIOs, which are grown in culture by directing differentiation of pluripotent stem cells. HIOs represent the small bowel, complete with a lumen surrounded by epithelial and mesenchymal layers that include typical cell types, such as goblet cells and myofibroblasts. The model is made more realistic by transplantation into mice, where it grows under the kidney capsule to form crypts, structured villi, and proliferating progenitor zones. And HIOs grown with neuronal precursors develop an enteric nervous system, complete with functional peristalsis.

For the present study, the investigators evaluated the effect of Shiga toxin on HIOs both in culture and after transplantation into mice.

First, they demonstrated that HIOs in culture expressed glycolipid Gb3, the Shiga toxin receptor. “Reports regarding expression of glycolipid Gb3 ... on human intestine have been inconsistent,” the investigators noted. “For negative reports, the inability to detect Gb3 could be owing to technical limitations.”

Next, Dr. Pradhan and colleagues showed that HIOs were susceptible to Shiga toxin whether it be delivered lumenally or basolaterally, which respectively represent intestinal exposure and exposure via circulating toxin or after breakdown of the epithelial barrier. Leakage from the lumen was observed with both Shiga toxin 1 (Stx1) and 2 (Stx2). Subsequent testing involved only Stx2, as this form is more relevant to human disease.

In addition to lumenal leakage, Stx2 exposure caused significant transcriptional up-regulation of multiple gene families, including those involved in cellular transport and metabolic processes. Increased expression also was observed for epithelial structural proteins, lineage-specific proteins, factors involved in mucus layer formation and stabilization, and cytokines interleukin-18 and CCL15.

In both epithelial and mesenchymal layers, transcriptional changes were accompanied by cellular necrosis and apoptosis, and, to a greater degree with interstitial exposure, cellular proliferation.

With lumenal exposure, mesenchymal necrosis was observed before loss of epithelial barrier function, indicating toxin access to mesenchymal cells. This phenomenon was explained by transcytosis, which the investigators observed in two-dimensional monolayers of enteroids grown in Transwells.

“[Shiga toxin] was transferred from the apical to the basolateral surface in the absence of loss of epithelial barrier function,” the investigators wrote, noting that this finding explains how Shiga toxin can quickly access the circulatory system, and from there damage the kidneys and brain, as seen in cases of HUS.

Mice with transplanted HIOs, and those receiving HIOs with an enteric nervous system (HIO + ENS), lost weight when organoids were injected with 10 ng of Stx2. Mice with HIO + ENS transplants developed more severe responses, prompting closer analysis.

Postmortem histologic examination of HIO + ENS transplants revealed epithelial damage and blood accumulation in the mesenchyme and villi. Additional staining showed signs of apoptosis and mesenchymal-epithelial transition.

Dr. Pradham and colleagues suggested that their findings could inform therapeutic research.

“If preventing cellular death is to be an effective intervention, it is likely that both necrosis and apoptosis need to be targeted,” the investigators wrote.

More generally, the study supports the use of HIOs as a disease model for future investigations.

“The advent of stem cell–derived human tissue models, both in vitro and in vivo, has a tremendous potential to increase our understanding of Shiga toxin disease and lead to development of therapeutic interventions,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Clinical and Translational Science, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pradhan S et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.02.006.

Exposure to Shiga toxin induces a complex intestinal response involving transcriptional changes, necrosis, apoptotic cell death, cellular proliferation, and cross-talk between epithelial and mesenchymal cells, according to investigators.

The study explored new territory in Shiga toxin research, enabled by the use of human intestinal organoids (HIOs), reported lead author Suman Pradhan, PhD, of the University of Cincinnati, and colleagues.

Each year, Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli infections cause approximately 3 million cases of bloody diarrheal disease, with about 4,000 of those patients developing the life-threatening complication of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

But little is known about the underlying biological processes driving Shiga-induced disease.

“Developing effective interventions for disease resulting from Shiga toxin is exacerbated by a lack of tractable model systems,” the investigators wrote. “Mice do not develop the symptoms characteristic of HUS, and the murine intestinal tract is resistant to Shiga toxin.”

To overcome this obstacle, Dr. Pradhan and colleagues turned to HIOs, which are grown in culture by directing differentiation of pluripotent stem cells. HIOs represent the small bowel, complete with a lumen surrounded by epithelial and mesenchymal layers that include typical cell types, such as goblet cells and myofibroblasts. The model is made more realistic by transplantation into mice, where it grows under the kidney capsule to form crypts, structured villi, and proliferating progenitor zones. And HIOs grown with neuronal precursors develop an enteric nervous system, complete with functional peristalsis.

For the present study, the investigators evaluated the effect of Shiga toxin on HIOs both in culture and after transplantation into mice.

First, they demonstrated that HIOs in culture expressed glycolipid Gb3, the Shiga toxin receptor. “Reports regarding expression of glycolipid Gb3 ... on human intestine have been inconsistent,” the investigators noted. “For negative reports, the inability to detect Gb3 could be owing to technical limitations.”

Next, Dr. Pradhan and colleagues showed that HIOs were susceptible to Shiga toxin whether it be delivered lumenally or basolaterally, which respectively represent intestinal exposure and exposure via circulating toxin or after breakdown of the epithelial barrier. Leakage from the lumen was observed with both Shiga toxin 1 (Stx1) and 2 (Stx2). Subsequent testing involved only Stx2, as this form is more relevant to human disease.

In addition to lumenal leakage, Stx2 exposure caused significant transcriptional up-regulation of multiple gene families, including those involved in cellular transport and metabolic processes. Increased expression also was observed for epithelial structural proteins, lineage-specific proteins, factors involved in mucus layer formation and stabilization, and cytokines interleukin-18 and CCL15.

In both epithelial and mesenchymal layers, transcriptional changes were accompanied by cellular necrosis and apoptosis, and, to a greater degree with interstitial exposure, cellular proliferation.

With lumenal exposure, mesenchymal necrosis was observed before loss of epithelial barrier function, indicating toxin access to mesenchymal cells. This phenomenon was explained by transcytosis, which the investigators observed in two-dimensional monolayers of enteroids grown in Transwells.

“[Shiga toxin] was transferred from the apical to the basolateral surface in the absence of loss of epithelial barrier function,” the investigators wrote, noting that this finding explains how Shiga toxin can quickly access the circulatory system, and from there damage the kidneys and brain, as seen in cases of HUS.

Mice with transplanted HIOs, and those receiving HIOs with an enteric nervous system (HIO + ENS), lost weight when organoids were injected with 10 ng of Stx2. Mice with HIO + ENS transplants developed more severe responses, prompting closer analysis.

Postmortem histologic examination of HIO + ENS transplants revealed epithelial damage and blood accumulation in the mesenchyme and villi. Additional staining showed signs of apoptosis and mesenchymal-epithelial transition.

Dr. Pradham and colleagues suggested that their findings could inform therapeutic research.

“If preventing cellular death is to be an effective intervention, it is likely that both necrosis and apoptosis need to be targeted,” the investigators wrote.

More generally, the study supports the use of HIOs as a disease model for future investigations.

“The advent of stem cell–derived human tissue models, both in vitro and in vivo, has a tremendous potential to increase our understanding of Shiga toxin disease and lead to development of therapeutic interventions,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Clinical and Translational Science, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pradhan S et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.02.006.

Exposure to Shiga toxin induces a complex intestinal response involving transcriptional changes, necrosis, apoptotic cell death, cellular proliferation, and cross-talk between epithelial and mesenchymal cells, according to investigators.

The study explored new territory in Shiga toxin research, enabled by the use of human intestinal organoids (HIOs), reported lead author Suman Pradhan, PhD, of the University of Cincinnati, and colleagues.

Each year, Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli infections cause approximately 3 million cases of bloody diarrheal disease, with about 4,000 of those patients developing the life-threatening complication of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

But little is known about the underlying biological processes driving Shiga-induced disease.

“Developing effective interventions for disease resulting from Shiga toxin is exacerbated by a lack of tractable model systems,” the investigators wrote. “Mice do not develop the symptoms characteristic of HUS, and the murine intestinal tract is resistant to Shiga toxin.”

To overcome this obstacle, Dr. Pradhan and colleagues turned to HIOs, which are grown in culture by directing differentiation of pluripotent stem cells. HIOs represent the small bowel, complete with a lumen surrounded by epithelial and mesenchymal layers that include typical cell types, such as goblet cells and myofibroblasts. The model is made more realistic by transplantation into mice, where it grows under the kidney capsule to form crypts, structured villi, and proliferating progenitor zones. And HIOs grown with neuronal precursors develop an enteric nervous system, complete with functional peristalsis.

For the present study, the investigators evaluated the effect of Shiga toxin on HIOs both in culture and after transplantation into mice.

First, they demonstrated that HIOs in culture expressed glycolipid Gb3, the Shiga toxin receptor. “Reports regarding expression of glycolipid Gb3 ... on human intestine have been inconsistent,” the investigators noted. “For negative reports, the inability to detect Gb3 could be owing to technical limitations.”

Next, Dr. Pradhan and colleagues showed that HIOs were susceptible to Shiga toxin whether it be delivered lumenally or basolaterally, which respectively represent intestinal exposure and exposure via circulating toxin or after breakdown of the epithelial barrier. Leakage from the lumen was observed with both Shiga toxin 1 (Stx1) and 2 (Stx2). Subsequent testing involved only Stx2, as this form is more relevant to human disease.

In addition to lumenal leakage, Stx2 exposure caused significant transcriptional up-regulation of multiple gene families, including those involved in cellular transport and metabolic processes. Increased expression also was observed for epithelial structural proteins, lineage-specific proteins, factors involved in mucus layer formation and stabilization, and cytokines interleukin-18 and CCL15.

In both epithelial and mesenchymal layers, transcriptional changes were accompanied by cellular necrosis and apoptosis, and, to a greater degree with interstitial exposure, cellular proliferation.

With lumenal exposure, mesenchymal necrosis was observed before loss of epithelial barrier function, indicating toxin access to mesenchymal cells. This phenomenon was explained by transcytosis, which the investigators observed in two-dimensional monolayers of enteroids grown in Transwells.

“[Shiga toxin] was transferred from the apical to the basolateral surface in the absence of loss of epithelial barrier function,” the investigators wrote, noting that this finding explains how Shiga toxin can quickly access the circulatory system, and from there damage the kidneys and brain, as seen in cases of HUS.

Mice with transplanted HIOs, and those receiving HIOs with an enteric nervous system (HIO + ENS), lost weight when organoids were injected with 10 ng of Stx2. Mice with HIO + ENS transplants developed more severe responses, prompting closer analysis.

Postmortem histologic examination of HIO + ENS transplants revealed epithelial damage and blood accumulation in the mesenchyme and villi. Additional staining showed signs of apoptosis and mesenchymal-epithelial transition.

Dr. Pradham and colleagues suggested that their findings could inform therapeutic research.

“If preventing cellular death is to be an effective intervention, it is likely that both necrosis and apoptosis need to be targeted,” the investigators wrote.

More generally, the study supports the use of HIOs as a disease model for future investigations.

“The advent of stem cell–derived human tissue models, both in vitro and in vivo, has a tremendous potential to increase our understanding of Shiga toxin disease and lead to development of therapeutic interventions,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Clinical and Translational Science, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pradhan S et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.02.006.