American Journal of Gastroenterology最新文献

Introduction: Owing to the therapeutic ceiling associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies, some patients may require 2 advanced therapeutic agents, known as advanced combination treatment (ACT) to control disease or treat associated extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs).

Methods: We included adult patients with IBD from 9 Canadian centers treated with either 2 biological therapies, a biological plus an oral small molecule, or 2 small molecules. Indications for ACT were the following: (i) refractory IBD, (ii) uncontrolled immune mediated diseases, and (iii) uncontrolled EIMs. Primary outcomes were cumulative rates of clinical and endoscopic response and remission at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events and infections. Cox-proportional hazard analyses identified independent predictors of treatment effectiveness.

Results: We included 105 IBD patients (76 Crohn's disease, 29 ulcerative colitis) with median age 35 years (Interquartile Range 35.4-40.8). At baseline, 39% had perianal involvement, 58% had failed at least 3 advanced therapies, and 40% had previous surgery. The primary reason for ACT was refractory IBD (63.8%), with the add-on approach used in 97.1% cases. The most frequent combination was antitumor necrosis factor + anti-integrin. At 12 months, cumulative rates of clinical and endoscopic response were 60.0% and 32.4%, respectively, and remission rates were 29.5% and 28.6%. Perianal disease was associated with reduced clinical remission (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.65, P = 0.001) and endoscopic response (HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.12-0.50, P = 0.001). Longer disease duration (HR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.92-0.99, P = 0.035) and baseline steroid use (HR = 0.39, P = 0.006) was associated with reduced clinical remission. Serious adverse events and infections occurred in 12.4% and 7.6% of patients, respectively.

Discussion: ACT was effective in achieving clinical and endoscopic outcomes in patients with refractory IBD or concomitant immune-mediated diseases/EIMs, with favorable safety profile.

Introduction: We aimed to explore the prevalence of carbohydrate (lactose and fructose) intolerance in patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) and to characterize those patients regarding gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal symptoms.

Methods: Patients with DGBI who were referred to the physiology unit of our hospital between May 2022 and December 2023 for lactose (25 g) and fructose (25 g) breath tests were prospectively included. Patients were required to have a negative glucose breath test, before lactose and fructose breath tests, and to have completed the adult carbohydrate perception questionnaire during each breath test. Intolerance was defined as an increase of ≥20 mm in the Visual Analog Scale score from baseline in at least 1 of the 5 symptoms (pain, nausea, bloating, flatulence, and diarrhea) assessed with the adult Carbohydrate Perception Questionnaire.

Results: Among the 301 patients with DGBI included in our analysis, 178 (59.1%) had carbohydrate intolerance. Carbohydrate-intolerant patients were significantly more likely to be female ( P value < 0.001), to have 2 or more DGBI ( P value = 0.001), to have lactose maldigestion ( P value< 0.001) and fructose malabsorption ( P value = 0.023), higher irritable bowel syndrome and somatic symptom severity, and lower quality of life ( P value < 0.001) compared with patients without carbohydrate intolerance. The binary logistic regression showed that lactose maldigestion ( P value = 0.001), as well as somatic symptoms ( P value = 0.025), were independently associated with carbohydrate intolerance (Nagelkerke R Square = 0.206).

Discussion: Carbohydrate intolerance affects a substantial group of patients with DGBI, affecting their quality of life and symptom severity. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms in patients who do not have carbohydrate malabsorption/maldigestion.

Introduction: The term laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is frequently applied to aerodigestive symptoms despite lack of objective reflux evidence. The aim of this initiative was to develop a modern care paradigm for LPR supported by otolaryngology and gastroenterology disciplines.

Methods: A 28-member international interdisciplinary working group developed practical statements within the following domains: definition/terminology, initial diagnostic evaluation, reflux monitoring, therapeutic trials, behavioral factors and therapy, and risk stratification. Literature reviews guided statement development and were presented at virtual/in-person meetings. Each statement underwent 2 or more rounds of voting per the RAND Appropriateness Method; statements reaching appropriateness with ≥80% agreement are included as recommendations.

Results: The term laryngopharyngeal symptoms (LPS) applies to aerodigestive symptoms with potential to be induced by reflux and include cough, voice change, throat clearing, excess throat phlegm, and throat pain. Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) refers to patients with LPS and objective evidence of reflux. Importantly, the presence of LPS does not equate to LPRD. Laryngoscopy has value in assessing for nonreflux laryngopharyngeal processes, but laryngoscopic findings alone cannot diagnose LPRD. LPS patients should be categorized as with or without concurrent esophageal reflux symptoms. While lifestyle modification and empiric trials of acid suppression ± alginates are appropriate when esophageal reflux symptoms coexist, upper endoscopy and ambulatory reflux monitoring are required for LPRD diagnosis when symptoms persist, when LPS is isolated, or when management needs to be escalated to include invasive antireflux management. The two recommended ambulatory reflux monitoring modalities, 24-hour pH-impedance and 96-hour wireless pH monitoring, are not mutually exclusive with distinct roles for the evaluation of LPS. Laryngeal hyperresponsiveness and hypervigilance commonly contribute to both LPS and LPRD presentations and are responsive to laryngeal recalibration therapy and neuromodulators.

Discussion: The San Diego Consensus represents the formal modern-day interdisciplinary care paradigm to evaluate and manage LPS and LPRD.

Introduction: Endoscopic classification of ulcerative colitis (UC) shows high interobserver variation. Previous research demonstrated that artificial intelligence (AI) can match the accuracy of central reading in scoring still images. We now extend this assessment to longer colon segments and integrate AI into clinical workflows, evaluating its use for real-time, video-based classification of disease severity, and as a support system for physicians.

Methods: We trained a convolutional neural network with the Mayo Endoscopic Subscores (MESs) of 2,561 images and 53 videos from 645 patients. The model differentiated scorable from unscorable endoscopy sections through open-set recognition. Validation involved 140 video clips from 44 patients with UC. Six inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experts and 16 nonexperts rated these videos, with expert scores as the gold standard. We assessed the model's performance and the value as a supporting system. Last, the model underwent an alpha test on a real-world patient as a real-time endoscopic support.

Results: The model achieved an accuracy of 82%, with no significant differences between the experts and the AI. When used as a supporting system, it improved non-IBD experts' performance by 12% and disagreed with the primary physician in 20%-39% of cases. During the alpha test, it was successfully integrated into clinical practice, accurately distinguishing between MES 0 and MES 1, consistent with endoscopists' assessments.

Discussion: Our innovative AI model shows significant potential for enhancing the accuracy of UC severity classification and improving the proficiency of non-IBD experts. It is designed for clinical use and has proven feasible in real-world testing.

Introduction: Multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) tests (i.e., Cologuard) serve as screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) and are recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force every 1-3 years. In this study, in a primary care setting, our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of MT-sDNA testing and colonoscopy findings after a positive MT-sDNA testing result.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of electronic health record data including all patients who underwent MT-sDNA tests (Cologuard; Exact Sciences, Madison, WI) at 35 network primary care facilities from Winter of 2019 to Spring of 2023. Patients who were at high risk and had a prior colonoscopy or prior negative MT-sDNA test result were excluded. Assessment of pathology was as previously described, including for advanced adenomas and CRC.

Results: Among the 5,827 patients for whom MT-sDNA testing was ordered, 3,119 patients completed the test; 482 (15%) had a positive MT-sDNA test, most of whom were women, had an average age of 65 years, and were predominantly White (Supplemental Figure 1, Table 1). Among these 482 patients, 277 (57%) had a follow-up screening colonoscopy, with 253 patients having complete colonoscopy data. Ten patients (4%) had CRC, 61 (24%) had advanced adenomas, and 184 patients (73%) had neither. The sigmoid colon was the most common site for CRC, with 8 of 10 patients having tumor, node, metastasis stage ≥1 CRC.

Discussion: The rate of colon cancer detection (10/5,827 [0.2%] patients for whom it was ordered and 10/3,119 [0.3%] who completed the test) was lower than expected in a screening cohort. Most patients who completed MT-sDNA testing had a false-positive result for advanced adenomas or CRC (73%). Together, these findings raise questions about the effectiveness of screening based on MT-sDNA testing in an average risk population.