Citations

Abstract Transition services—programs that support adolescents and young adults (AYAs) as they move from a child‐centered to a more autonomous, adult‐orientated healthcare system—have been associated with improved short‐ and long‐term healthcare outcomes. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of evidence exploring transition services within the neurogastroenterology and motility (NGM) field. The overall aim of this article, endorsed by the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society and European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, is to promote a discussion about the role of transition services for patients with NGM disorders. The AYAs addressed herein are those who have: (a) a ROME positive disorder of gut–brain interaction (DGBI), (b) a primary or secondary motility disorder (including those with motility disorders that have been surgically managed), or (c) an artificial feeding requirement (parenteral or enteral tube feeding) to manage malnutrition secondary to categories (a) or (b). The issues explored in this position paper include the specific physical and psychological healthcare needs of patients with NGM disorders; key healthcare professionals who should form part of a secondary care NGM transition service; the triadic relationship between healthcare professionals, caregivers, and patients; approaches to selecting patients who may benefit most from transition care; methods to assess transition readiness; and strategies with which to facilitate transfer of care between healthcare professionals. Key areas for future research are also addressed, including the construction of NGM‐specific transition readiness questionnaires, tools to assess post‐transfer healthcare outcomes, and educational programs to train healthcare professionals about transition care in NGM.

Introduction: Immune-mediated graft failure (also termed graft rejection) is a feared complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and there is no effective intervention. Multiple pre-transplant risk factors for graft failure are known and recent studies from our groups identified interferon gamma (IFNγ) as a mechanistically important and pharmacologically targetable cytokine involved in graft failure pathophysiology. CXCL9, a downstream marker of IFNγ production, was also identified as a biomarker. We describe an international multicenter retrospective pooled analysis of emapalumab (EMA), an IFNγ neutralizing agent, for the prevention/treatment of immune-mediated graft failure after HSCT. Methods: The safety and preliminary efficacy of EMA were studied in predominantly pediatric patients who received EMA using two different strategies: 1) graft failure treatment and 2) graft failure prophylaxis. Patients at US centers were treated with EMA if they developed clinical and laboratory signs of graft failure after HSCT. All treatment patients met 2 or more of the following criteria: 1) HLA mismatched donor and/or prior graft failure, 2) unexplained fever >39°C (or >38°C if prior history of graft failure) after HSCT, 3) absolute neutrophil count decline after initial engraftment, 4) delayed neutrophil engraftment after HSCT, 5) real-time CXCL9 > 2.5x upper limit of normal (ULN). Temperature and CXCL9 cutoffs were based on a prior graft failure biomarker publication (Sabulski et al, Blood Advances 2021). Patients treated at European centers received prophylactic EMA to prevent graft failure if they were deemed at high-risk prior to transplant. High-risk patients had a prior history of graft failure after HSCT or had two or more of the following established risk factors: a) affected by a disease with high risk of graft failure, including acquired severe aplastic anemia, thalassemia, primary HLH; b) ex-vivo T cell-depleted stem cell product; c) transplant from unrelated cord blood unit or mismatched related/unrelated donor. Results: Thirty-six HSCTs used EMA for graft failure treatment or prophylaxis and were included in this study.EMA was used for graft failure treatment in 25 HSCTs wherein patients developed clinical and laboratory signs of graft failure (Table 1). Most HSCTs in the treatment cohort were performed for bone marrow failure syndromes (n=16). All patients tolerated EMA without complications and no side effects or infections were attributed to EMA. Fifty six percent (14/25) of patients treated with EMA for impending graft failure engrafted and had resolution of graft failure concerns, while the remaining 44% suffered graft failure. Responders had a median ANC of 0.29 x10 3 cells/μL (range 0.05-0.79) prior to EMA, which increased to a median of 0.6 x10 3cells/μL (range, 0-5.1) and 2.97 x10 3 cells/μL (range, 0.85-8.7) on days 3 and 7 after EMA dosing. Eighty percent (20/25) of CXCL9 levels were elevated in the treatment cohort prior to EMA dosing. The median CXCL9 level prior to EMA dosing was elevated 2.4 x ULN (range, 0.3-157.8). The median pre-EMA CXCL9 level in patients who ultimately suffered graft failure in the treatment cohort was 3.3x ULN (range, 0.7-157.8) compared to a median of 2.2x ULN (range, 0.3-30.4) in subjects who had signs of graft failure but did not suffer graft failure (p=0.24). Eleven patients received prophylactic EMA based on a prior history of graft failure or other pre-transplant risk factors. EMA was well tolerated in these patients and 91% (10/11) of patients engrafted while one patient with prior history of graft failure suffered recurrent graft failure. The pre-HSCT (day -2) CXCL9 level in the lone prophylactic patient who suffered graft failure was 4x the ULN. Conclusions: This study reports the largest cohort of HSCTs that used EMA therapy for the novel purpose of treating or preventing graft failure. EMA was well tolerated in all patients. Efficacy conclusions are preliminary and limited by the study design, however our treatment study successfully identified a cohort of patients with a markedly high graft failure rate (44%) and we show preliminary evidence to suggest emaplaumab prevented graft failure in patients who had signs of impending graft failure at the time of treatment. The safety and preliminary efficacy observations in this study support a larger prospective study of IFNγ blockade for graft failure prevention after HSCT.

AbstractBackgroundThere are minimal epidemiological data comparing the burden of disorders of gut brain interaction (DGBI) in the UK with other countries. We compared the prevalence of DGBI in the UK with other countries that participated in the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) online.MethodsParticipants from 26 countries completed the RFGES survey online including the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire and an in‐depth supplemental questionnaire with questions about dietary habits. UK sociodemographic and prevalence data were compared with the other 25 countries pooled together.Key ResultsThe proportion of participants with at least one DGBI was lower in UK participants compared with in the other 25 countries (37.6% 95% CI 35.5%–39.7% vs. 41.2%; 95% CI 40.8%–41.6%,p = 0.001). The UK prevalence of 14 of 22 Rome IV DGBI, including irritable bowel syndrome (4.3%) and functional dyspepsia (6.8%), was similar to the other countries. Fecal incontinence, opioid‐induced constipation, chronic nausea and vomiting, and cannabinoid hyperemesis (p < 0.05) were more prevalent in the UK. Cyclic vomiting, functional constipation, unspecified functional bowel disorder, and proctalgia fugax (p < 0.05) were more prevalent in the other 25 countries. Diet in the UK population consisted of higher consumption of meat and milk (p < 0.001), and lower consumption of rice, fruit, eggs, tofu, pasta, vegetables/legumes, and fish (p < 0.001).Conclusions and InferencesThe prevalence and burden of DGBI is consistently high in the UK and in the rest of the world. Opioid prescribing, cultural, dietary, and lifestyle factors may contribute to differences in the prevalence of some DGBI between the UK and other countries.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders seen by clinicians in both primary and secondary care. Since publication of the last British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guideline in 2007, substantial advances have been made in understanding its complex pathophysiology, resulting in its re-classification as a disorder of gut-brain interaction, rather than a functional gastrointestinal disorder. Moreover, there has been a considerable amount of new evidence published concerning the diagnosis, investigation and management of IBS. The primary aim of this guideline, commissioned by the BSG, is to review and summarise the current evidence to inform and guide clinical practice, by providing a practical framework for evidence-based management of patients. One of the strengths of this guideline is that the recommendations for treatment are based on evidence derived from a comprehensive search of the medical literature, which was used to inform an update of a series of trial-based and network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of dietary, pharmacological and psychological therapies in treating IBS. Specific recommendations have been made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, summarising both the strength of the recommendations and the overall quality of evidence. Finally, this guideline identifies novel treatments that are in development, as well as highlighting areas of unmet need for future research.

Objective Antireflux surgery can be proposed in patients with GORD, especially when proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use leads to incomplete symptom improvement. However, to date, international consensus guidelines on the clinical criteria and additional technical examinations used in patient selection for antireflux surgery are lacking. We aimed at generating key recommendations in the selection of patients for antireflux surgery. Design We included 35 international experts (gastroenterologists, surgeons and physiologists) in a Delphi process and developed 37 statements that were revised by the Consensus Group, to start the Delphi process. Three voting rounds followed where each statement was presented with the evidence summary. The panel indicated the degree of agreement for the statement. When 80% of the Consensus Group agreed (A+/A) with a statement, this was defined as consensus. All votes were mutually anonymous. Results Patients with heartburn with a satisfactory response to PPIs, patients with a hiatal hernia (HH), patients with oesophagitis Los Angeles (LA) grade B or higher and patients with Barrett’s oesophagus are good candidates for antireflux surgery. An endoscopy prior to antireflux surgery is mandatory and a barium swallow should be performed in patients with suspicion of a HH or short oesophagus. Oesophageal manometry is mandatory to rule out major motility disorders. Finally, oesophageal pH (±impedance) monitoring of PPI is mandatory to select patients for antireflux surgery, if endoscopy is negative for unequivocal reflux oesophagitis. Conclusion With the ICARUS guidelines, we generated key recommendations for selection of patients for antireflux surgery.

AbstractWhile the pharmacological armamentarium for chronic constipation has expanded over the past few years, a substantial proportion of constipated patients do not respond to these medications. This review summarizes the pharmacological and behavioral options for managing constipation and details the management of refractory constipation. Refractory constipation is defined as an inadequate improvement in constipation symptoms evaluated with an objective scale despite adequate therapy (ie, pharmacological and/or behavioral) that is based on the underlying pathophysiology of constipation. Minimally invasive (ie, rectal irrigation and percutaneous endoscopic colostomy) and surgical therapies are used to manage refractory constipation. This review appraises these options, and in particular, percutaneous endoscopic colostomy, which as detailed by an article in this issue, is a less invasive option for managing refractory constipation than surgery. While these options benefit some patients, the evidence of the risk: benefit profile for these therapies is limited.

Background and aims The functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) are extremely common conditions associated with a considerable personal, social and health economic burden. Managing FGIDs in clinical practice is challenging because of the uncertainty of symptom-based diagnosis, the high frequency of overlap between these conditions and the limited efficacy of available therapies. It has often been argued that successful drug development and management of FGIDs requires knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology. Numerous and highly variable candidate pathophysiological mechanisms have been implicated in the generation of FGID symptoms, but there is no current consensus on how to best define the relevance of these disturbances. Methods A group of international experts on FGIDs developed plausibility criteria that should be fulfilled by relevant pathophysiological mechanisms in FGIDs. Results Five criteria are proposed: (1) the presence of the abnormality in a subset of patients, (2) temporal association between proposed mechanism and symptom(s), (3) correlation between the level of impairment of the mechanism and symptom(s), (4) induction of the symptom(s) by provoking the pathophysiological abnormality in healthy subjects and (5) treatment response by a therapy specifically correcting the underlying disorder or congruent natural history of symptoms and dysfunction in the absence of specific therapy. Based on strength of evidence for these five criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, a plausibility score can be calculated for each mechanism. Conclusion Evaluation of the strength of evidence for candidate pathophysiological abnormalities fulfilling these five plausibility criteria will help to identify the most relevant mechanisms to target for novel diagnostic approaches and for the development of new therapies.