Broad external validation of a multivariable risk prediction model for gastrointestinal malignancy in iron deficiency anaemia.

BACKGROUND: Using two large datasets from Dorset, we previously reported an internally validated multivariable risk model for predicting the risk of GI malignancy in IDA-the IDIOM score. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to validate the IDIOM model using two independent external datasets. METHODS: The external validation datasets were collected, in a secondary care setting, by different investigators from cohorts in Oxford and Sheffield derived under different circumstances, comprising 1117 and 474 patients with confirmed IDA respectively. The data were anonymised prior to analysis. The predictive performance of the original model was evaluated by estimating measures of calibration, discrimination and clinical utility using the validation datasets. RESULTS: The discrimination of the original model using the external validation data was 70% (95% CI 65, 75) for the Oxford dataset and 70% (95% CI 61, 79) for the Sheffield dataset. The analysis of mean, weak, flexible and across the risk groups' calibration showed no tendency for under or over-estimated risks in the combined validation data. Decision curve analysis demonstrated the clinical value of the IDIOM model with a net benefit that is higher than 'investigate all' and 'investigate no-one' strategies up to a threshold of 18% in the combined validation data, using a risk cut-off of around 1.2% to categorise patients into the very low risk group showed that none of the patients stratified in this risk group proved to have GI cancer on investigation in the validation datasets. CONCLUSION: This external validation exercise has shown promising results for the IDIOM model in predicting the risk of underlying GI malignancy in independent IDA datasets collected in different clinical settings.

Abdominal Pain Relieved By A Warm Hot Water Bottle: An Atypical Presentation Of Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis.

A 26-year-old woman presented with a 3-month history of worsening episodic abdominal pain, which was associated with frequent passage of watery stools, nausea and dyspepsia. Her peripheral eosinophil count was markedly elevated. This responded well to a reducing regimen of corticosteroids. Her symptoms completely resolved with a corresponding fall in eosinophil count. The patient was diagnosed with eosinophilic gastroenteritis. We have not considered steroid-sparing agents at this point, but should she have future exacerbations then this will be considered. LEARNING POINTS: Keep eosinophilic gastroenteritis in mind when reviewing patients with atypical gastrointestinal symptoms and elevated peripheral eosinophil counts, particularly in patients with a history of atopy.The clinical history, histology and cross-sectional imaging is complementary in securing a diagnosis.Follow-up imaging and endoscopic evaluation can be useful in monitoring response to treatment.

Diagnostic yield of magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy versus gastroscopy in recurrent and refractory iron deficiency anemia.

BACKGROUND: Small-bowel capsule endoscopy is advocated and repeat upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be considered for evaluation of recurrent or refractory iron deficiency anemia (IDA). A new device that allows magnetic steering of the capsule around the stomach (magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy [MACE]), followed by passive small-bowel examination might satisfy both requirements in a single procedure. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, MACE and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were performed in patients with recurrent or refractory IDA. Comparisons of total (upper GI and small bowel) and upper GI diagnostic yields, gastric mucosal visibility, and patient comfort scores were the primary end points. RESULTS: 49 patients were recruited (median age 64 years; 39 % male). Combined upper and small-bowel examination using the new capsule yielded more pathology than EGD alone (113 vs. 52; P < 0.001). In upper GI examination (proximal to the second part of the duodenum, D2), MACE identified more total lesions than EGD (88 vs. 52; P < 0.001). There was also a difference if only IDA-associated lesions (esophagitis, altered/fresh blood, angioectasia, ulcers, and villous atrophy) were included (20 vs. 10; P = 0.04). Pathology distal to D2 was identified in 17 patients (34.7 %). Median scores (0 - 10 for none - extreme) for pain (0 vs. 2), discomfort (0 vs. 3), and distress (0 vs. 4) were lower for MACE than for EGD (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Combined examination of the upper GI tract and small bowel using the MACE capsule detected more pathology than EGD alone in patients with recurrent or refractory IDA. MACE also had a higher diagnostic yield than EGD in the upper GI tract and was better tolerated by patients.

Sheffield Clinical Research Fellowship programme: a transferable model for UK gastroenterology.

Out of programme (OOP) opportunities are to be encouraged. This article gives an insightful view of the Sheffield Clinical Research Fellowship Programme. Unique trainee feedback is provided. The take home message is clear - trainees should grab OOP experiences with both hands! For consultants the logistics described are potentially transferrable to their own regions.

'Pre-endoscopy point of care test (Simtomax- IgA/IgG-Deamidated Gliadin Peptide) for coeliac disease in iron deficiency anaemia: diagnostic accuracy and a cost saving economic model'.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend coeliac serology in iron deficiency anaemia, and duodenal biopsy for those tested positive to detect coeliac disease. However, pre-endoscopy serology is often unavailable, thus committing endoscopists to take routine duodenal biopsies. Some endoscopists consider duodenal biopsy mandatory in anaemia to exclude other pathologies. We hypothesise that using a point of care test at endoscopy could fill this gap, by providing rapid results to target anaemic patients who require biopsies, and save costs by biopsy avoidance. We therefore assessed three key aspects to this hypothesis: 1) the availability of pre-endoscopy serology in anaemia; 2) the sensitivities and cost effectiveness of pre-endoscopy coeliac screening with Simtomax in anaemia; 3) whether other anaemia-related pathologies could be missed by this targeted-biopsy approach. METHODS: Group 1: pre-endoscopy serology availability was retrospectively analysed in a multicentre cohort of 934 anaemic patients at 4 UK hospitals. Group 2: the sensitivities of Simtomax, endomysial and tissue-transglutaminase antibodies were compared in 133 prospectively recruited patients with iron deficiency anaemia attending for a gastroscopy. The sensitivities were measured against duodenal histology as the reference standard in all patients. The cost effectiveness of Simtomax was calculated based on the number of biopsies that could have been avoided compared to an all-biopsy approach. Group 3: the duodenal histology of 153 patients presenting to a separate iron deficiency anaemia clinic were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: In group 1, serology was available in 361 (33.8 %) patients. In group 2, the sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) were 100 % and 100 % for Simtomax, 96.2 % and 98.9 % for IgA-TTG, and 84.6 % and 96.4 % for EMA respectively. In group 3, the duodenal histology found no causes for anaemia other than coeliac disease. CONCLUSION: Simtomax had excellent diagnostic accuracy in iron deficiency anaemia and was comparable to conventional serology. Duodenal biopsy did not identify any causes other than coeliac disease for iron deficiency anaemia, suggesting that biopsy avoidance in Simtomax negative anaemic patients is unlikely to miss other anaemia-related pathologies. Due to its 100 % NPV, Simtomax could reduce unnecessary biopsies by 66 % if only those with a positive Simtomax were biopsied, potentially saving £3690/100 gastroscopies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The group 2 study was retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov. Trial registration date: 13(th) July 2016; TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02834429 .

Abnormal intestinal permeability in subgroups of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a heterogeneous condition and defined according to symptoms. Low-grade inflammation has been associated with IBS, particularly that following infection, but whether altered intestinal permeability profiles relate to irritable bowel subtype or onset is uncertain. Our aim was to compare small and large intestinal permeability in various subtypes of IBS to healthy controls. METHODS: Intestinal permeability was measured using 1.8 MBq of 51Cr-EDTA and collecting urine over 24 h; Study 1: patients with diarrhea-predominant postinfectious IBS (N=15), constipation-predominant IBS (N=15), and healthy controls (N=15); Study 2: two groups of diarrhea-predominant IBS (D-IBS), one with a history of onset after acute gastroenteritis (postinfectious) (N=15) and the other without such a history (nonpostinfectious) (N=15) both compared with healthy controls (N=12). RESULTS: Permeability expressed as percentage of total dose excreted in urine (median [inter-quartile range]). Study 1: Proximal small intestinal permeability was increased in postinfectious IBS (0.19 [0.12-0.23]) in contrast to constipated IBS (0.085 [0.043-0.13]) and controls (0.07 [0.035-0.19]) (p=0.02). IBS patients with eczema, asthma, or hayfever had increased proximal small intestinal permeability compared with IBS patients without atopy (p=0.02). Study 2: Small intestinal permeability was greater in nonpostinfectious diarrhea-predominant IBS (0.84 [0.69-1.49]) compared with postinfectious IBS (0.43 [0.29-0.63], p=0.028) or controls (0.27 [0.2-0.39]), p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Small intestinal permeability is frequently abnormal in diarrhea-predominant IBS. Those without a history of infectious onset appear to have a more severe defect.

Abnormalities of GI transit in bloated irritable bowel syndrome: effect of bran on transit and symptoms.

OBJECTIVES: Bloating is an important but poorly understood symptom in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) that is often aggravated by bran. The aim of our study was to determine whether IBS patients with bloating responded to bran differently from healthy controls. METHODS: A total of 12 patients with IBS (according to Rome I criteria), all with moderate to severe bloating, and 12 healthy controls participated in a two way, double blind, randomized, cross-over trial of bran versus placebo (crushed biscuits) 15 g b.i.d. An average daily pain index and bloating score were derived from daily symptom diaries. On day 14, gastric emptying, small bowel transit, percent remaining in ascending colon, and geometric center of a meal marker at 24 h were calculated from scintigraphic images obtained after ingesting a Tc99m-labeled rice pudding meal with 15 g of either placebo or coarse bran. RESULTS: Results are given as median (range). Bran significantly increased the pain index and bloating (p < 0.02) in IBS patients but not controls. The most striking finding was that the small bowel transit time of the meal without bran was markedly faster in IBS patients than in controls, being 203 min (range 109-313) versus 367 min (219-543), p < 0.001. Although in controls bran accelerated small bowel transit time to 262 min (180-380), p = 0.03, and significantly reduced % remaining in the ascending colon from 22% (0-46) to 3% (0-25), p = 0.03, this was not seen in the IBS patients. Bran accelerated whole gut transit as assessed by geometric center at 24 h in both IBS patients and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Bran accelerates small bowel transit and ascending colon clearance without causing symptoms in controls. Small bowel transit is rapid in IBS patients with bloating and, unlike in healthy control subjects, cannot be further accelerated by bran, which nevertheless aggravates symptoms of pain and bloating. We speculate that bran-induced bloating may originate in the colon rather than the small bowel.