Immune checkpoint inhibitor gastritis is often associated with concomitant enterocolitis, which impacts the clinical course.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events are frequently caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and often require interruption of cancer treatment. Compared with ICI colitis and enteritis, limited information exists about ICI gastritis. This study characterized clinical features and treatment outcomes of ICI gastritis. METHODS: Consecutive cancer patients who received ICIs and underwent endoscopy with gastric biopsies while on ICIs from 2011 to 2021 were retrospectively assessed. Specific histopathologic features identified ICI gastritis. RESULTS: Of 6450 ICI-treated patients, 162 (2.5%) underwent endoscopy with gastric biopsies. ICI gastritis was identified in 54 (33%) biopsied patients; 38 (70%) had concurrent ICI enteritis/colitis and 16 (30%) had isolated ICI gastritis. Dyspepsia (38%) and bloating (25%) were the most frequent symptoms of isolated ICI gastritis. Compared with patients with concomitant enteritis/colitis, patients with isolated gastritis were less likely to have diarrhea (13% vs 68%; p < .001) or abdominal pain (19% vs 47%; p = .07). Patients with isolated ICI gastritis less frequently required glucocorticoids (69% vs 92%; p = .04) and had lower incidence of ICI hold/withdrawal (13% vs 42%; p = .06). There was no association between severity or extent of luminal inflammation and antitumor response (p = .85 and p = .44, respectively). Endoscopically, gastric mucosa appeared normal in 11 (20%) patients with biopsy-proven ICI gastritis. CONCLUSION: ICI gastritis may present alone or more commonly with concurrent enteritis/colitis, which may differentiate its clinical course. Gastric biopsies are required to diagnose a substantial minority of endoscopically normal, clinically significant cases. Most patients with isolated gastritis can continue ICI therapy uninterrupted, but a notable proportion require glucocorticoids. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are effective anticancer treatments, but can cause inflammatory toxicities, including of the stomach (gastritis), intestine, and colon. Limited information is available on gastritis triggered by these agents. Adult patients with cancer who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and had an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsies of the stomach were examined. More than two-thirds (70%) of people with checkpoint inhibitor gastritis also had inflammatory changes of the small intestine and/or colon. Compared with patients with isolated checkpoint gastritis, the subgroup with concomitant enteritis/colitis more frequently had abdominal pain, diarrhea, needed steroids, and/or needed to pause or stop antitumor therapy.

Gastrointestinal Manifestations of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Across the United States: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Background and Aims: Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms occur among patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and there is clear evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the causative pathogen, infects the GI tract. In this large, multicenter cohort study, we evaluated variations in gastrointestinal and hepatic manifestations of COVID-19 throughout the United States (US). Methods: Patients hospitalized with a positive COVID-19 test prior to October 2020 were identified at 7 US academic centers. Demographics, presenting symptoms, laboratory data, and hospitalization outcomes were abstracted. Descriptive and regression analyses were used to evaluate GI manifestations and their potential predictors. Results: Among 2031 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, GI symptoms were present in 18.9%; diarrhea was the most common (15.2%), followed by nausea and/or vomiting (12.6%) and abdominal pain (6.0%). GI symptoms were less common in the Western cohort (16.0%) than the Northeastern (25.6%) and Midwestern (26.7%) cohorts. Compared to nonintensive care unit (ICU) patients, ICU patients had a higher prevalence of abnormal aspartate aminotransferase (58.1% vs 37.3%; P < .01), alanine aminotransferase (37.5% vs 29.3%; P = .01), and total bilirubin (12.7% vs 9.0%; P < .01). ICU patients also had a higher mortality rate (22.7% vs 4.7%; P < .01). Chronic liver disease was associated with the development of GI symptoms. Abnormal aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase was associated with an increased risk of ICU admission. Conclusion: We present the largest multicenter cohort of patients with COVID-19 across the United States. GI manifestations were common among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, although there was significant variability in prevalence and predictors across the United States.

Use of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in High-Risk Hospitalized Noncritically Ill Patients With Diabetes After Cardiac Surgery and During Their Transition of Care From the Intensive Care Unit During COVID-19: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has demonstrated benefits in managing inpatient diabetes. We initiated this single-arm pilot feasibility study during the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 patients with diabetes to determine the feasibility and accuracy of real-time CGM in patients who underwent cardiac surgery and whose care was being transitioned from the intensive care unit. METHODS: A Clarke error grid analysis was used to compare CGM and point-of-care measurements. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of the paired measurements was calculated to assess the accuracy of CGM for glucose measurements during the first 24 hours on CGM, the remaining time on CGM, and for different chronic kidney disease (CKD) strata. RESULTS: Overall MARD between point-of-care and CGM measurements was 14.80%. MARD for patients without CKD IV and V with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥20 mL/min/1.73 m2 was 12.13%. Overall, 97% of the CGM values were within the no-risk zone of the Clarke error grid analysis. For the first 24 hours, a sensitivity analysis of the overall MARD for all patients and those with an eGFR of ≥20 mL/min/1.73 m2 was 15.42% ± 14.44% and 12.80% ± 7.85%, respectively. Beyond the first 24 hours, overall MARD for all patients and those with an eGFR of ≥20 mL/min/1.73 m2 was 14.54% ± 13.21% and 11.86% ± 7.64%, respectively. CONCLUSION: CGM has shown great promise in optimizing inpatient diabetes management in the noncritical care setting and after the transition of care from the intensive care unit with high clinical reliability and accuracy. More studies are needed to further assess CGM in patients with advanced CKD.

Provider Differences in Monitoring and Management of Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency in Chronic Pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a common cause of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI). Regular monitoring and treatment are recommended to decrease morbidity. This study evaluates whether provider type impacts EPI monitoring and management in CP. METHODS: Fecal elastase 1 (FE-1) testing and pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) utilization were retrospectively compared between primary care providers (PCPs), gastroenterologists and pancreas specialists using pairwise comparisons. Multivariate analysis was conducted to study the association between adequate PERT and age, sex, race, insurance status, provider type, and etiology. RESULTS: Among 256 patients, FE-1 was measured in 115 (44.9%) and of 143 (55.9%) patients who received PERT, 100 (69.9%) received adequate dosage. Fecal elastase 1 testing was performed in 7/57 (12.3%) by PCP, 11/38 (28.9%) by gastroenterologists, and 97/161 (60.2%) by pancreas specialists (P < 0.0001). Adequate PERT was prescribed in 7/24 (29.2%) patients by PCPs, 11/20 (55.0%) by gastroenterologists, and 82/99 (82.8%) by pancreas specialists (P < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, pancreas specialists were significantly more likely to prescribe adequate PERT compared with PCP (odds ratio, 11.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.3-38.2; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with CP receive inadequate surveillance and EPI treatment. Pancreas specialists are more likely to surveil and treat EPI adequately.

Provider type influences adherence to lifestyle changes in chronic pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: /Objectives: Alcohol and smoking cessation are recommended in chronic pancreatitis. The aim of this study is to measure the rates of alcohol and smoking cessation counselling among providers and adherence to recommendations. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of chronic pancreatitis patients at a tertiary hospital. Provider types were defined as primary care (PCP), gastroenterologist, or pancreas specialist. Pairwise comparisons and multivariable analysis were conducted to assess the relation between provider type and smoking/alcohol cessation. RESULTS: Of 256 patients with chronic pancreatitis, 142 (55.5%) consumed alcohol and 130 (91.5%) were advised to stop. Alcohol cessation was advised to 88.9, 96.0 and 92.5% of patients followed by PCP, gastroenterologists and pancreas specialists, respectively. Sixty-one patients (46.9%) were compliant with the recommendation: 31.3, 44.0 and 54.1% of patients followed by PCP, gastroenterologists and pancreas specialists, respectively (Pairwise comparisons PCP vs Pancreas: p = 0.03, others nonsignificant). In multivariable analysis, patients followed by pancreas specialists were more likely to adhere to alcohol cessation recommendation compared to those followed by PCP (OR = 4.31, CI 1.52-12.20, p = 0.006). Smoking cessation was advised to all the 127 current smokers (100%). Fifty-six (44.1%) were compliant with the recommendation: 24.1, 58.3 and 47.3% of patients followed by PCP, gastroenterologists and pancreas specialists, respectively (Pairwise comparisons PCP vs Pancreas: p = 0.03, PCP vs. Gastroenterologist: p = 0.01, others nonsignificant). Multivariable analysis did not confirm this finding. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of providers counsel for alcohol/smoking cessation. Less than half the patients follow the recommendations. Patients followed by pancreas specialists were more likely to adhere to alcohol cessation recommendation.

Does Provider Type Affect Bone Health Surveillance in Chronic Pancreatitis?

BACKGROUND: Bone density screening (DEXA) and vitamin D serum assay (Vit-D) are recommended in chronic pancreatitis, but adherence by providers is unknown. AIMS: Assess DEXA/Vit-D testing according to provider type. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of chronic pancreatitis patients followed in a tertiary hospital (August 2017-2018) was conducted. Provider type was primary care (PCP), gastroenterologist, and pancreas specialist. Chi-square test and multivariable analysis were conducted to assess the relation between provider type and DEXA/Vit-D testing. Subset analyses were performed among patients with fecal elastase < 200 mcg/g. RESULTS: A total of 478 charts were reviewed, and 256 (53.6%) met diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis; 184 (71.9%) definite, 45 (17.6%) probable, and 27 (10.6%) borderline chronic pancreatitis. DEXA was tested in 112/256 (43%) patients; 16/57(28%) patients followed by PCP, 11/38 (28.9%) by gastroenterologists, and 85/161(52.2%) by pancreas specialists (p = 0.001). Vit-D was tested in 210/256 (82.0%) patients; 42/57(73.7%) followed by PCP, 29/38 (76.3%) by gastroenterologists, and 139/161(86.3%) by pancreas specialists (p = 0.06). Multivariate analysis assessing DEXA/Vit-D testing showed pancreas specialists were more likely to test compared to PCP (DEXA: OR 3.70, CI 1.77-7.74, p = 0.001. Vit-D: OR 3.24, CI 1.43-7.38, p = 0.005), but gastroenterologists were not. In patients with low fecal elastase, pancreas specialists were more likely to test DEXA (pancreas specialists: 62.1%, PCP: 40.0%, Gastroenterologists: 11.1%, p = 0.01) and all patients received Vit-D testing. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pancreatitis patients often do not receive optimal preventive care. Pancreas specialists were more likely to perform DEXA and Vit-D testing compared to PCP and gastroenterologists. More physician education is needed.

Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Pre-Existing Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Microscopic Colitis.

PURPOSE: Enterocolitis is among the leading adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). There are limited retrospective data regarding the safety of ICIs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease) because they have been generally excluded from clinical trials testing ICIs. Furthermore, there are no outcome data available in patients with microscopic colitis, a leading cause of chronic diarrhea. We aimed to study the safety of ICIs in patients with cancer with pre-existing IBD or microscopic colitis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients with cancer treated at our institution who received at least 1 dose of either a programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/ PD-1 ligand inhibitor, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitor, or both between 2011 and 2018. We identified patients with pre-existing IBD or microscopic colitis. RESULTS: Of 548 patients with solid tumor treated with an ICI, we identified 25 with pre-existing colitis (21 IBD; 4 microscopic colitis). An enterocolitis flare occurred in 7 patients (28%): 3 of 4 patients (75%) with microscopic colitis and 4 of 21 (19%) with IBD. All were treated with systemic corticosteroids, 2 required an anti-tumor necrosis factor agent, and one required an anti-integrin agent and colectomy for treatment of refractory colitis. ICI therapy was discontinued in all patients who experienced an enterocolitis flare. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, exacerbation of enterocolitis occurred in a notable percentage of patients with IBD and a majority of patients with microscopic colitis, leading to discontinuation of ICIs. Although these data suggest that patients with cancer with pre-existing IBD/microscopic colitis may be treated with ICIs, additional studies are needed to validate our results.

Are Opioid-Naive Patients With Acute Pancreatitis Given Opioid Prescriptions at Discharge?

OBJECTIVES: Opioids are commonly used in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP). Inpatient opioid exposure is known to increase the risk of chronic opioid use after discharge. Prescription patterns for opioids at discharge for AP are unknown. METHODS: Medical records of adult AP patients who presented to the emergency department from September 1, 2013, to August 31, 2016, were reviewed. Opioid prescription at discharge was defined as a prescription for opioids in a patient who was opioid naive at admission. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of opioid prescription at discharge. RESULTS: A total of 259 opioid-naive AP patients were identified. Of these, 108 (41.6%) of 259 were discharged with an opioid prescription and 61 (56.5%) of 108 had discharge pain scores of 3 or lower. Two hundred twenty-two (85.7%) received opioids during admission and 105 (47.3%) of 222 were discharged with an opioid prescription. On multivariable analysis, predictors of discharge opioid prescription included inpatient use of opioids, female sex, and discharge pain score greater than 3. CONCLUSIONS: In opioid-naive AP patients, 41.6% were discharged from the hospital with a new prescription for opioids, even though a significant proportion had pain scores of 3 or lower. Guidelines are needed for opioid prescriptions at discharge for AP.