Upper GI Tract

Routine screening for Helicobacter pylori in patients hospitalized for myocardial infarction (MI) did not significantly reduce the risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding overall — but benefits were seen in high-risk subgroups, according to the HELP-MI SWEDEHEART trial published in JAMA and presented at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2025.

Bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract is a common complication after MI. It increases morbidity and mortality itself but can also reduce the effectiveness of antithrombotic treatments and lead to new cardiovascular events. It is often related to infection with H. pylori, the bacterium that can cause stomach inflammation, ulcers, and cancer, said Robin Hofmann, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, who presented the trial results.Hofmann and his colleagues wondered whether screening for the bacterium using a simple urea breath test would help reduce the risk for bleeds. Using Sweden’s national SWEDEHEART registry, researchers performed a cluster-randomized crossover trial of more than 18,000 patients with MI at 35 Swedish hospitals. They found that screening for H. pylori reduced the risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding by 10%, but the results were not statistically significant.

Several factors may have contributed to the neutral result, noted Hofmann. Just 70% of the people in the screening population were actually screened — though he said that is a fairly good number for a diagnostic test. A relatively small number, around 23%, were positive for H. pylori, a much lower rate than in many other parts of the world, and about 25% of participants in both arms of the trial were already taking proton pump inhibitors to reduce the risk for bleeding.

 

Signals of Benefit in High-Risk Patients

But in some high-risk subgroups, there was a clearer signal of benefit. Patients with anemia or kidney failure, for example, who are at higher risk for bleeding, saw a relative risk reduction of around 50% in the screening group — though the numbers were too small for formal statistical analysis.

“In unselected patients with myocardial infarction we could not show a significant reduction in bleeding,” said Hofmann. “But it’s very likely that there is a clinical effect, at least in those individuals at increased risk of bleeding.”

Discussant Paul Ridker, MD, a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said he agreed that the trial was technically neutral but clinically positive. He noted that in every subgroup, the trend was in the direction of benefit, with only the top end of the cardiac indices crossing over into no benefit. And the benefit appeared larger among high-risk patients with anemia or kidney failure.

“These are the very patients I’m most concerned about and don’t want to bleed,” he said.Because the urea breath test and eradication therapy are simple, safe, and inexpensive, Hofmann said he thinks there is “good evidence to recommend H. pylori screening in patients at higher risk of bleeding.”

“I’m very sure from a clinical perspective that we will be able to identify the groups that are low-hanging fruit,” he said. “But the guideline committees will have to decide if this evidence is enough.”

Hofmann and Ridker reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Routine screening for Helicobacter pylori in patients hospitalized for myocardial infarction (MI) did not significantly reduce the risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding overall — but benefits were seen in high-risk subgroups, according to the HELP-MI SWEDEHEART trial published in JAMA and presented at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2025.

Bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract is a common complication after MI. It increases morbidity and mortality itself but can also reduce the effectiveness of antithrombotic treatments and lead to new cardiovascular events. It is often related to infection with H. pylori, the bacterium that can cause stomach inflammation, ulcers, and cancer, said Robin Hofmann, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, who presented the trial results.Hofmann and his colleagues wondered whether screening for the bacterium using a simple urea breath test would help reduce the risk for bleeds. Using Sweden’s national SWEDEHEART registry, researchers performed a cluster-randomized crossover trial of more than 18,000 patients with MI at 35 Swedish hospitals. They found that screening for H. pylori reduced the risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding by 10%, but the results were not statistically significant.

Several factors may have contributed to the neutral result, noted Hofmann. Just 70% of the people in the screening population were actually screened — though he said that is a fairly good number for a diagnostic test. A relatively small number, around 23%, were positive for H. pylori, a much lower rate than in many other parts of the world, and about 25% of participants in both arms of the trial were already taking proton pump inhibitors to reduce the risk for bleeding.

 

Signals of Benefit in High-Risk Patients

But in some high-risk subgroups, there was a clearer signal of benefit. Patients with anemia or kidney failure, for example, who are at higher risk for bleeding, saw a relative risk reduction of around 50% in the screening group — though the numbers were too small for formal statistical analysis.

“In unselected patients with myocardial infarction we could not show a significant reduction in bleeding,” said Hofmann. “But it’s very likely that there is a clinical effect, at least in those individuals at increased risk of bleeding.”

Discussant Paul Ridker, MD, a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said he agreed that the trial was technically neutral but clinically positive. He noted that in every subgroup, the trend was in the direction of benefit, with only the top end of the cardiac indices crossing over into no benefit. And the benefit appeared larger among high-risk patients with anemia or kidney failure.

“These are the very patients I’m most concerned about and don’t want to bleed,” he said.Because the urea breath test and eradication therapy are simple, safe, and inexpensive, Hofmann said he thinks there is “good evidence to recommend H. pylori screening in patients at higher risk of bleeding.”

“I’m very sure from a clinical perspective that we will be able to identify the groups that are low-hanging fruit,” he said. “But the guideline committees will have to decide if this evidence is enough.”

Hofmann and Ridker reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Routine screening for Helicobacter pylori in patients hospitalized for myocardial infarction (MI) did not significantly reduce the risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding overall — but benefits were seen in high-risk subgroups, according to the HELP-MI SWEDEHEART trial published in JAMA and presented at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2025.

Bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract is a common complication after MI. It increases morbidity and mortality itself but can also reduce the effectiveness of antithrombotic treatments and lead to new cardiovascular events. It is often related to infection with H. pylori, the bacterium that can cause stomach inflammation, ulcers, and cancer, said Robin Hofmann, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, who presented the trial results.Hofmann and his colleagues wondered whether screening for the bacterium using a simple urea breath test would help reduce the risk for bleeds. Using Sweden’s national SWEDEHEART registry, researchers performed a cluster-randomized crossover trial of more than 18,000 patients with MI at 35 Swedish hospitals. They found that screening for H. pylori reduced the risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding by 10%, but the results were not statistically significant.

Several factors may have contributed to the neutral result, noted Hofmann. Just 70% of the people in the screening population were actually screened — though he said that is a fairly good number for a diagnostic test. A relatively small number, around 23%, were positive for H. pylori, a much lower rate than in many other parts of the world, and about 25% of participants in both arms of the trial were already taking proton pump inhibitors to reduce the risk for bleeding.

 

Signals of Benefit in High-Risk Patients

But in some high-risk subgroups, there was a clearer signal of benefit. Patients with anemia or kidney failure, for example, who are at higher risk for bleeding, saw a relative risk reduction of around 50% in the screening group — though the numbers were too small for formal statistical analysis.

“In unselected patients with myocardial infarction we could not show a significant reduction in bleeding,” said Hofmann. “But it’s very likely that there is a clinical effect, at least in those individuals at increased risk of bleeding.”

Discussant Paul Ridker, MD, a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said he agreed that the trial was technically neutral but clinically positive. He noted that in every subgroup, the trend was in the direction of benefit, with only the top end of the cardiac indices crossing over into no benefit. And the benefit appeared larger among high-risk patients with anemia or kidney failure.

“These are the very patients I’m most concerned about and don’t want to bleed,” he said.Because the urea breath test and eradication therapy are simple, safe, and inexpensive, Hofmann said he thinks there is “good evidence to recommend H. pylori screening in patients at higher risk of bleeding.”

“I’m very sure from a clinical perspective that we will be able to identify the groups that are low-hanging fruit,” he said. “But the guideline committees will have to decide if this evidence is enough.”

Hofmann and Ridker reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Large language models (LLMs) may help streamline clinical guideline development by dramatically reducing the time and cost required for systematic reviews, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.

“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”

To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines. 

The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission. 

Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.

After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented. 

The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.

Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.

Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics. 

The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.

Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.

The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.

“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”

This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

Large language models (LLMs) may help streamline clinical guideline development by dramatically reducing the time and cost required for systematic reviews, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.

“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”

To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines. 

The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission. 

Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.

After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented. 

The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.

Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.

Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics. 

The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.

Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.

The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.

“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”

This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

Large language models (LLMs) may help streamline clinical guideline development by dramatically reducing the time and cost required for systematic reviews, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.

“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”

To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines. 

The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission. 

Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.

After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented. 

The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.

Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.

Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics. 

The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.

Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.

The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.

“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”

This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Increasing Evidence for Gut-Brain Interaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Increasing Evidence for Gut-Brain Interaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Increasing Evidence for Gut-Brain Interaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new study casts doubt on international guidelines advising up to a week of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

Pooled data from 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a high probability that no or shorter durations of antibiotic prophylaxis are not worse than longer durations in preventing death from any cause in these patients.

The findings suggest that recommendations for routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding “should be reassessed,” the authors said.

They acknowledged, however, that the studies were of low-to-moderate quality and higher quality randomized clinical trial data are needed.

The study, with first author Connor Prosty, MD, of McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

 

Questionable Benefit?

Antibiotic prophylaxis became standard decades ago, when up to 60% of variceal bleeds were complicated by infections, which were thought to increase the risk for rebleeding and death. 

Yet, the evidence to support the recommendation remains limited, and a recent RCT called into question the necessity of prophylaxis. The study showed no statistically significant difference in mortality or infection among patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis randomized to receive no prophylaxis compared to third-generation cephalosporin.

While generally perceived as safe, antibiotics have potential adverse effects and can select for resistant superinfections, Prosty and colleagues pointed out.

They also noted that shorter courses of antibiotics have been proven to be as good, if not better, than longer courses across numerous other infectious indications. Recommendations for primary and secondary antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis are being reassessed due to a weak evidence base, lack of mortality benefit, and potential for harm.

To revisit antibiotic prophylaxis for upper GI bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, Prosty and colleagues did a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 RCTs involving 1322 patients.

Two of the trials compared longer (5-7 days) with shorter (2-3 days) antibiotics, and 12 compared any antibiotic prophylaxis (1-10 days) to none.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 5% on the risk difference (RD) scale. Secondary outcomes included early rebleeding and bacterial infections.

Overall, shorter antibiotic durations (including none) had a 97.3% probability of noninferiority to longer durations for all-cause mortality (RD, 0.9%; 95% credible interval [CrI], -2.6% to 4.9%).

Shorter durations had a 73.8% probability of noninferiority for early rebleeding (RD, 2.9%; 95% CrI, -4.2% to 10.0%) but were associated with more study-defined bacterial infections (RD, 15.2%; 95% CrI, 5.0%-25.9%). However, the authors cited methodological concerns about the definitions of these infections in the included studies.

The probabilities of noninferiority of shorter durations for mortality, early rebleeding, and bacterial infections were higher in studies published after 2004.

 

Change Practice Now?

“Our findings re-open the discussion surrounding the long-standing and firmly held belief that antibiotic prophylaxis has a mortality benefit in patients with cirrhosis presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeds,” Prosty and colleagues wrote.

They cautioned, however, that the study quality was “low to moderate, bacterial infections were heterogeneously defined, and no studies reported adverse events. Higher-quality RCTs are needed to determine the benefit and optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in the modern era of advanced interventions.”

The authors of a commentary published with the study noted that management of upper GI bleeding in cirrhosis patients has “greatly improved” since the 1990s, when some of the trials included in the analysis were conducted.

Hepatologists Catherine Mezzacappa, MD, MPH, and Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, both at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, agree that it “may be time to revisit whether prophylactic antibiotics continue to provide benefit in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding, and if so, in which patients.”

They caution, however, that the current level of evidence is “inadequate to answer whether it is time to stop this practice, which has become the standard of care.

New trials for shorter duration and no antibiotic prophylaxis “should be designed in specific patient populations to compare sequelae of antibiotic prophylaxis, including subsequent infections and all-cause mortality,” Mezzacappa and Garcia-Tsao concluded.

The study received no specific funding. The authors and commentary writers had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study casts doubt on international guidelines advising up to a week of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

Pooled data from 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a high probability that no or shorter durations of antibiotic prophylaxis are not worse than longer durations in preventing death from any cause in these patients.

The findings suggest that recommendations for routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding “should be reassessed,” the authors said.

They acknowledged, however, that the studies were of low-to-moderate quality and higher quality randomized clinical trial data are needed.

The study, with first author Connor Prosty, MD, of McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

 

Questionable Benefit?

Antibiotic prophylaxis became standard decades ago, when up to 60% of variceal bleeds were complicated by infections, which were thought to increase the risk for rebleeding and death. 

Yet, the evidence to support the recommendation remains limited, and a recent RCT called into question the necessity of prophylaxis. The study showed no statistically significant difference in mortality or infection among patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis randomized to receive no prophylaxis compared to third-generation cephalosporin.

While generally perceived as safe, antibiotics have potential adverse effects and can select for resistant superinfections, Prosty and colleagues pointed out.

They also noted that shorter courses of antibiotics have been proven to be as good, if not better, than longer courses across numerous other infectious indications. Recommendations for primary and secondary antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis are being reassessed due to a weak evidence base, lack of mortality benefit, and potential for harm.

To revisit antibiotic prophylaxis for upper GI bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, Prosty and colleagues did a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 RCTs involving 1322 patients.

Two of the trials compared longer (5-7 days) with shorter (2-3 days) antibiotics, and 12 compared any antibiotic prophylaxis (1-10 days) to none.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 5% on the risk difference (RD) scale. Secondary outcomes included early rebleeding and bacterial infections.

Overall, shorter antibiotic durations (including none) had a 97.3% probability of noninferiority to longer durations for all-cause mortality (RD, 0.9%; 95% credible interval [CrI], -2.6% to 4.9%).

Shorter durations had a 73.8% probability of noninferiority for early rebleeding (RD, 2.9%; 95% CrI, -4.2% to 10.0%) but were associated with more study-defined bacterial infections (RD, 15.2%; 95% CrI, 5.0%-25.9%). However, the authors cited methodological concerns about the definitions of these infections in the included studies.

The probabilities of noninferiority of shorter durations for mortality, early rebleeding, and bacterial infections were higher in studies published after 2004.

 

Change Practice Now?

“Our findings re-open the discussion surrounding the long-standing and firmly held belief that antibiotic prophylaxis has a mortality benefit in patients with cirrhosis presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeds,” Prosty and colleagues wrote.

They cautioned, however, that the study quality was “low to moderate, bacterial infections were heterogeneously defined, and no studies reported adverse events. Higher-quality RCTs are needed to determine the benefit and optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in the modern era of advanced interventions.”

The authors of a commentary published with the study noted that management of upper GI bleeding in cirrhosis patients has “greatly improved” since the 1990s, when some of the trials included in the analysis were conducted.

Hepatologists Catherine Mezzacappa, MD, MPH, and Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, both at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, agree that it “may be time to revisit whether prophylactic antibiotics continue to provide benefit in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding, and if so, in which patients.”

They caution, however, that the current level of evidence is “inadequate to answer whether it is time to stop this practice, which has become the standard of care.

New trials for shorter duration and no antibiotic prophylaxis “should be designed in specific patient populations to compare sequelae of antibiotic prophylaxis, including subsequent infections and all-cause mortality,” Mezzacappa and Garcia-Tsao concluded.

The study received no specific funding. The authors and commentary writers had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study casts doubt on international guidelines advising up to a week of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

Pooled data from 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a high probability that no or shorter durations of antibiotic prophylaxis are not worse than longer durations in preventing death from any cause in these patients.

The findings suggest that recommendations for routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding “should be reassessed,” the authors said.

They acknowledged, however, that the studies were of low-to-moderate quality and higher quality randomized clinical trial data are needed.

The study, with first author Connor Prosty, MD, of McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

 

Questionable Benefit?

Antibiotic prophylaxis became standard decades ago, when up to 60% of variceal bleeds were complicated by infections, which were thought to increase the risk for rebleeding and death. 

Yet, the evidence to support the recommendation remains limited, and a recent RCT called into question the necessity of prophylaxis. The study showed no statistically significant difference in mortality or infection among patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis randomized to receive no prophylaxis compared to third-generation cephalosporin.

While generally perceived as safe, antibiotics have potential adverse effects and can select for resistant superinfections, Prosty and colleagues pointed out.

They also noted that shorter courses of antibiotics have been proven to be as good, if not better, than longer courses across numerous other infectious indications. Recommendations for primary and secondary antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis are being reassessed due to a weak evidence base, lack of mortality benefit, and potential for harm.

To revisit antibiotic prophylaxis for upper GI bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, Prosty and colleagues did a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 RCTs involving 1322 patients.

Two of the trials compared longer (5-7 days) with shorter (2-3 days) antibiotics, and 12 compared any antibiotic prophylaxis (1-10 days) to none.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 5% on the risk difference (RD) scale. Secondary outcomes included early rebleeding and bacterial infections.

Overall, shorter antibiotic durations (including none) had a 97.3% probability of noninferiority to longer durations for all-cause mortality (RD, 0.9%; 95% credible interval [CrI], -2.6% to 4.9%).

Shorter durations had a 73.8% probability of noninferiority for early rebleeding (RD, 2.9%; 95% CrI, -4.2% to 10.0%) but were associated with more study-defined bacterial infections (RD, 15.2%; 95% CrI, 5.0%-25.9%). However, the authors cited methodological concerns about the definitions of these infections in the included studies.

The probabilities of noninferiority of shorter durations for mortality, early rebleeding, and bacterial infections were higher in studies published after 2004.

 

Change Practice Now?

“Our findings re-open the discussion surrounding the long-standing and firmly held belief that antibiotic prophylaxis has a mortality benefit in patients with cirrhosis presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeds,” Prosty and colleagues wrote.

They cautioned, however, that the study quality was “low to moderate, bacterial infections were heterogeneously defined, and no studies reported adverse events. Higher-quality RCTs are needed to determine the benefit and optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in the modern era of advanced interventions.”

The authors of a commentary published with the study noted that management of upper GI bleeding in cirrhosis patients has “greatly improved” since the 1990s, when some of the trials included in the analysis were conducted.

Hepatologists Catherine Mezzacappa, MD, MPH, and Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, both at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, agree that it “may be time to revisit whether prophylactic antibiotics continue to provide benefit in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding, and if so, in which patients.”

They caution, however, that the current level of evidence is “inadequate to answer whether it is time to stop this practice, which has become the standard of care.

New trials for shorter duration and no antibiotic prophylaxis “should be designed in specific patient populations to compare sequelae of antibiotic prophylaxis, including subsequent infections and all-cause mortality,” Mezzacappa and Garcia-Tsao concluded.

The study received no specific funding. The authors and commentary writers had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An increase of patients presenting with the complex combination of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) with co-existing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and/or mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), has prompted the issuance of clinical practice guidance from AGA to help clinicians comprehend such cases.

“Recognizing and treating GI symptoms in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and comorbid POTS or MCAS present major challenges for clinicians, who often feel under equipped to address their needs,” AGA reported in the update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Importantly, “the poor understanding of these overlapping syndromes can lead to nonstandardized approaches to diagnostic evaluation and management,” the authors noted.

“Gastroenterology providers should be aware of the features of [these syndromes] to recognize the full complexity of patients presenting with multisystemic symptoms.”

Hypermobility spectrum disorders, which include hEDS, are typically genetic, and patients experience pain along with joint hypermobility, or extreme flexibility of joints beyond the normal range of motion.

With research showing that most of those patients — up to 98% — also experience GI symptoms, gastroenterologists may be encountering them more commonly than realized, Lucinda A. Harris, MD, AGAF, of the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, in Scottsdale, Arizona, explained to GI & Hepatology News.

“As our knowledge in gastroenterology has progressed, we realize that hypermobility itself predisposes individuals to disorders of brain-gut interaction,” she said. “We may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to diagnosing patients with hypermobility.”

Additionally, “many of these patients have POTS, which has also been increasingly diagnosed,” Harris added. “The strong overlap of these conditions prompted us to present this data.”

With a lack of evidence-based understanding of the overlapping syndromes, AGA’s guidance does not carry formal ratings but is drawn from a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

In addition to the key recommendation of being aware of the observed combination of syndromes, their recommendations include:

• Regarding testing: Testing for POTS/MCAS should be targeted to patients presenting with clinical manifestations of the disorders, but universal testing for POTS/MCAS in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders is not currently supported by the evidence, the guidance advises.
• Gastroenterologists seeing patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction should inquire about joint hypermobility and strongly consider incorporating the Beighton score for assessing joint hypermobility into their practice as a screening tool; if the screen is positive, gastroenterologists may consider applying 2017 diagnostic criteria to diagnose hEDS or offer appropriate referral to a specialist where resources are available, the AGA recommends.
• Medical management: Management of GI symptoms in hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and POTS/MCAS should focus on treating the most prominent GI symptoms and abnormal GI function test results.
• In addition to general disorders of gut-brain interactions and GI motility disorder treatment, management should also include treating any symptoms attributable to POTS and/or MCAS.

Treatment of POTS may include increasing fluid and salt intake, exercise training, and use of compression garments. Special pharmacological treatments for volume expansion, heart rate control, and vasoconstriction with integrated care from multiple specialties (eg, cardiology, neurology) should be considered in patients who do not respond to conservative lifestyle measures.

In patients presenting to gastroenterology providers, testing for mast cell disorders including MCAS should be considered in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and disorders of gut-brain interaction with episodic symptoms that suggest a more generalized mast cell disorder involving two or more physiological systems. However, current data does not support the use of these tests for routine evaluation of GI symptoms in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders without clinical or laboratory evidence of a primary or secondary mast cell disorder, the authors noted.

Harris explained that patients presenting with gut-brain disorders are often mistakenly classified as having irritable bowel syndrome or dyspepsia, whereas these conditions may be affecting the GI disorders they have.

“For example, a patient with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome might have problems with constipation, which is impacted by pelvic floor dysfunction,” she said. “Due to their hypermobility, they may experience more pelvic floor descent than usual.”

“If we do not recognize this, the patient risks developing rectal prolapse or not effectively addressing their constipation.”

Regarding patient characteristics, Harris said that those with hEDS and POTS appear to more likely be women and tend to present in younger patients, aged 18-50 years. Of note, there is no genetic test for hEDS.

“The take-home point for clinicians should be to consider POTS and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome when encountering young female patients with symptoms of palpitations, hypermobility, and orthostatic intolerance,” she said.

“Recognizing hypermobility is crucial, not only for GI symptoms but also to prevent joint dislocations, tendon ruptures, and other connective tissue issues.”

Clinicians are further urged to “offer informed counseling, and guide patients away from unreliable sources or fragmented care to foster therapeutic relationships and evidence-based care,” the authors added.

 

Deciphering Gut-Brain Disorder Challenges

Commenting to GI & Hepatology News, Clair Francomano, MD, a professor of medical and molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine, in Indianapolis, said the new guidance sheds important light on the syndromes.

“I’m delighted to see this guidance offered through the AGA as it will encourage gastroenterologists to think of EDS, POTS and MCAS when they are evaluating patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction,” Francomano said.

“This should allow patients to receive more accurate and timely diagnoses and appropriate management.”

Francomano noted that the Ehlers-Danlos Society, which provides information for clinicians and patients alike on the syndromes, and where she serves on the medical scientific board, has also been active in raising awareness.

“While co-occurrence of POTS and MCAS with EDS has in fact been recognized for many years, I do think awareness is increasing, in large part due to the advocacy and educational efforts of the Ehlers-Danlos Society,” she said.

The take-home message? “When clinicians see disorders of the gut-brain axis, POTS or MCAS, they should be thinking, ‘Could this be related to joint hypermobility or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome?’” Francomano said.

Harris reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Ardelyx, Salix, and Gemelli Biotech and reported receiving research support from Takeda and Anyx. Francomano did not report any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An increase of patients presenting with the complex combination of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) with co-existing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and/or mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), has prompted the issuance of clinical practice guidance from AGA to help clinicians comprehend such cases.

“Recognizing and treating GI symptoms in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and comorbid POTS or MCAS present major challenges for clinicians, who often feel under equipped to address their needs,” AGA reported in the update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Importantly, “the poor understanding of these overlapping syndromes can lead to nonstandardized approaches to diagnostic evaluation and management,” the authors noted.

“Gastroenterology providers should be aware of the features of [these syndromes] to recognize the full complexity of patients presenting with multisystemic symptoms.”

Hypermobility spectrum disorders, which include hEDS, are typically genetic, and patients experience pain along with joint hypermobility, or extreme flexibility of joints beyond the normal range of motion.

With research showing that most of those patients — up to 98% — also experience GI symptoms, gastroenterologists may be encountering them more commonly than realized, Lucinda A. Harris, MD, AGAF, of the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, in Scottsdale, Arizona, explained to GI & Hepatology News.

“As our knowledge in gastroenterology has progressed, we realize that hypermobility itself predisposes individuals to disorders of brain-gut interaction,” she said. “We may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to diagnosing patients with hypermobility.”

Additionally, “many of these patients have POTS, which has also been increasingly diagnosed,” Harris added. “The strong overlap of these conditions prompted us to present this data.”

With a lack of evidence-based understanding of the overlapping syndromes, AGA’s guidance does not carry formal ratings but is drawn from a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

In addition to the key recommendation of being aware of the observed combination of syndromes, their recommendations include:

• Regarding testing: Testing for POTS/MCAS should be targeted to patients presenting with clinical manifestations of the disorders, but universal testing for POTS/MCAS in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders is not currently supported by the evidence, the guidance advises.
• Gastroenterologists seeing patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction should inquire about joint hypermobility and strongly consider incorporating the Beighton score for assessing joint hypermobility into their practice as a screening tool; if the screen is positive, gastroenterologists may consider applying 2017 diagnostic criteria to diagnose hEDS or offer appropriate referral to a specialist where resources are available, the AGA recommends.
• Medical management: Management of GI symptoms in hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and POTS/MCAS should focus on treating the most prominent GI symptoms and abnormal GI function test results.
• In addition to general disorders of gut-brain interactions and GI motility disorder treatment, management should also include treating any symptoms attributable to POTS and/or MCAS.

Treatment of POTS may include increasing fluid and salt intake, exercise training, and use of compression garments. Special pharmacological treatments for volume expansion, heart rate control, and vasoconstriction with integrated care from multiple specialties (eg, cardiology, neurology) should be considered in patients who do not respond to conservative lifestyle measures.

In patients presenting to gastroenterology providers, testing for mast cell disorders including MCAS should be considered in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and disorders of gut-brain interaction with episodic symptoms that suggest a more generalized mast cell disorder involving two or more physiological systems. However, current data does not support the use of these tests for routine evaluation of GI symptoms in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders without clinical or laboratory evidence of a primary or secondary mast cell disorder, the authors noted.

Harris explained that patients presenting with gut-brain disorders are often mistakenly classified as having irritable bowel syndrome or dyspepsia, whereas these conditions may be affecting the GI disorders they have.

“For example, a patient with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome might have problems with constipation, which is impacted by pelvic floor dysfunction,” she said. “Due to their hypermobility, they may experience more pelvic floor descent than usual.”

“If we do not recognize this, the patient risks developing rectal prolapse or not effectively addressing their constipation.”

Regarding patient characteristics, Harris said that those with hEDS and POTS appear to more likely be women and tend to present in younger patients, aged 18-50 years. Of note, there is no genetic test for hEDS.

“The take-home point for clinicians should be to consider POTS and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome when encountering young female patients with symptoms of palpitations, hypermobility, and orthostatic intolerance,” she said.

“Recognizing hypermobility is crucial, not only for GI symptoms but also to prevent joint dislocations, tendon ruptures, and other connective tissue issues.”

Clinicians are further urged to “offer informed counseling, and guide patients away from unreliable sources or fragmented care to foster therapeutic relationships and evidence-based care,” the authors added.

 

Deciphering Gut-Brain Disorder Challenges

Commenting to GI & Hepatology News, Clair Francomano, MD, a professor of medical and molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine, in Indianapolis, said the new guidance sheds important light on the syndromes.

“I’m delighted to see this guidance offered through the AGA as it will encourage gastroenterologists to think of EDS, POTS and MCAS when they are evaluating patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction,” Francomano said.

“This should allow patients to receive more accurate and timely diagnoses and appropriate management.”

Francomano noted that the Ehlers-Danlos Society, which provides information for clinicians and patients alike on the syndromes, and where she serves on the medical scientific board, has also been active in raising awareness.

“While co-occurrence of POTS and MCAS with EDS has in fact been recognized for many years, I do think awareness is increasing, in large part due to the advocacy and educational efforts of the Ehlers-Danlos Society,” she said.

The take-home message? “When clinicians see disorders of the gut-brain axis, POTS or MCAS, they should be thinking, ‘Could this be related to joint hypermobility or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome?’” Francomano said.

Harris reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Ardelyx, Salix, and Gemelli Biotech and reported receiving research support from Takeda and Anyx. Francomano did not report any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An increase of patients presenting with the complex combination of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) with co-existing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and/or mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), has prompted the issuance of clinical practice guidance from AGA to help clinicians comprehend such cases.

“Recognizing and treating GI symptoms in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and comorbid POTS or MCAS present major challenges for clinicians, who often feel under equipped to address their needs,” AGA reported in the update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Importantly, “the poor understanding of these overlapping syndromes can lead to nonstandardized approaches to diagnostic evaluation and management,” the authors noted.

“Gastroenterology providers should be aware of the features of [these syndromes] to recognize the full complexity of patients presenting with multisystemic symptoms.”

Hypermobility spectrum disorders, which include hEDS, are typically genetic, and patients experience pain along with joint hypermobility, or extreme flexibility of joints beyond the normal range of motion.

With research showing that most of those patients — up to 98% — also experience GI symptoms, gastroenterologists may be encountering them more commonly than realized, Lucinda A. Harris, MD, AGAF, of the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, in Scottsdale, Arizona, explained to GI & Hepatology News.

“As our knowledge in gastroenterology has progressed, we realize that hypermobility itself predisposes individuals to disorders of brain-gut interaction,” she said. “We may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to diagnosing patients with hypermobility.”

Additionally, “many of these patients have POTS, which has also been increasingly diagnosed,” Harris added. “The strong overlap of these conditions prompted us to present this data.”

With a lack of evidence-based understanding of the overlapping syndromes, AGA’s guidance does not carry formal ratings but is drawn from a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

In addition to the key recommendation of being aware of the observed combination of syndromes, their recommendations include:

• Regarding testing: Testing for POTS/MCAS should be targeted to patients presenting with clinical manifestations of the disorders, but universal testing for POTS/MCAS in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders is not currently supported by the evidence, the guidance advises.
• Gastroenterologists seeing patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction should inquire about joint hypermobility and strongly consider incorporating the Beighton score for assessing joint hypermobility into their practice as a screening tool; if the screen is positive, gastroenterologists may consider applying 2017 diagnostic criteria to diagnose hEDS or offer appropriate referral to a specialist where resources are available, the AGA recommends.
• Medical management: Management of GI symptoms in hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and POTS/MCAS should focus on treating the most prominent GI symptoms and abnormal GI function test results.
• In addition to general disorders of gut-brain interactions and GI motility disorder treatment, management should also include treating any symptoms attributable to POTS and/or MCAS.

Treatment of POTS may include increasing fluid and salt intake, exercise training, and use of compression garments. Special pharmacological treatments for volume expansion, heart rate control, and vasoconstriction with integrated care from multiple specialties (eg, cardiology, neurology) should be considered in patients who do not respond to conservative lifestyle measures.

In patients presenting to gastroenterology providers, testing for mast cell disorders including MCAS should be considered in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and disorders of gut-brain interaction with episodic symptoms that suggest a more generalized mast cell disorder involving two or more physiological systems. However, current data does not support the use of these tests for routine evaluation of GI symptoms in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders without clinical or laboratory evidence of a primary or secondary mast cell disorder, the authors noted.

Harris explained that patients presenting with gut-brain disorders are often mistakenly classified as having irritable bowel syndrome or dyspepsia, whereas these conditions may be affecting the GI disorders they have.

“For example, a patient with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome might have problems with constipation, which is impacted by pelvic floor dysfunction,” she said. “Due to their hypermobility, they may experience more pelvic floor descent than usual.”

“If we do not recognize this, the patient risks developing rectal prolapse or not effectively addressing their constipation.”

Regarding patient characteristics, Harris said that those with hEDS and POTS appear to more likely be women and tend to present in younger patients, aged 18-50 years. Of note, there is no genetic test for hEDS.

“The take-home point for clinicians should be to consider POTS and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome when encountering young female patients with symptoms of palpitations, hypermobility, and orthostatic intolerance,” she said.

“Recognizing hypermobility is crucial, not only for GI symptoms but also to prevent joint dislocations, tendon ruptures, and other connective tissue issues.”

Clinicians are further urged to “offer informed counseling, and guide patients away from unreliable sources or fragmented care to foster therapeutic relationships and evidence-based care,” the authors added.

 

Deciphering Gut-Brain Disorder Challenges

Commenting to GI & Hepatology News, Clair Francomano, MD, a professor of medical and molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine, in Indianapolis, said the new guidance sheds important light on the syndromes.

“I’m delighted to see this guidance offered through the AGA as it will encourage gastroenterologists to think of EDS, POTS and MCAS when they are evaluating patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction,” Francomano said.

“This should allow patients to receive more accurate and timely diagnoses and appropriate management.”

Francomano noted that the Ehlers-Danlos Society, which provides information for clinicians and patients alike on the syndromes, and where she serves on the medical scientific board, has also been active in raising awareness.

“While co-occurrence of POTS and MCAS with EDS has in fact been recognized for many years, I do think awareness is increasing, in large part due to the advocacy and educational efforts of the Ehlers-Danlos Society,” she said.

The take-home message? “When clinicians see disorders of the gut-brain axis, POTS or MCAS, they should be thinking, ‘Could this be related to joint hypermobility or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome?’” Francomano said.

Harris reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Ardelyx, Salix, and Gemelli Biotech and reported receiving research support from Takeda and Anyx. Francomano did not report any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most GI service chiefs in the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system support point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training, but fewer than half have the technology in their facility, according to a national survey.

Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.

“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”

To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.

Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.

Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.

Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.

Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds. 

Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them. 

Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.

“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway. 

They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

Most GI service chiefs in the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system support point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training, but fewer than half have the technology in their facility, according to a national survey.

Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.

“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”

To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.

Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.

Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.

Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.

Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds. 

Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them. 

Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.

“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway. 

They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

Most GI service chiefs in the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system support point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training, but fewer than half have the technology in their facility, according to a national survey.

Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.

“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”

To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.

Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.

Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.

Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.

Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds. 

Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them. 

Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.

“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway. 

They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.