Patients Prescribed Direct-acting Oral Anticoagulants Have Low Risk of Post-Polypectomy Complications

Background & Aims Use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is increasing, but little is known about the associated risks in patients undergoing colonoscopy with polypectomy. We aimed to determine the risk of post-polypectomy complications in patients prescribed DOACs. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis using the Clinformatics Data Mart Database (a de-identified administrative database from a large national insurance provider) to identify adults who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. We collected data from 11,504 patients prescribed antithrombotic agents (1590 DOAC, 3471 warfarin, and 6443 clopidogrel) and 599,983 patients not prescribed antithrombotics of interest (controls). We compared 30-day post-polypectomy complications, including gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), myocardial infarction (MI), and hospital admissions, of patients prescribed DOACs, warfarin, or clopidogrel vs controls. Results Post-polypectomy complications were uncommon but occurred in a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving any antithrombotic vs controls (P<0.001). The percentage of patients in the DOAC group with GIB was 0.63% (95% CI, 0.3%–1.2%) vs 0.2% (95% CI, 0.2%–0.3%) in controls. The percentage of patients with CVA in the DOAC group was 0.06% (95% CI, 0.01%–0.35%) vs 0.04% (95% CI, 0.04%–0.05%) in controls. After we adjusted for bridge anticoagulation, EMR, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age over 75, diabetes, stroke [double weight]) score, patients prescribed DOACs no longer had a statistically significant increase in the odds of GIB (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.44–1.85), CVA (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.06–3.28), MI (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.14–7.72), or hospital admission (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.64–1.16). Clopidogrel, warfarin, bridge anticoagulation, higher CHADS2, CCI, and EMR were associated with increased odds of complications. Conclusion In our retrospective analysis of a large national dataset, we found that patients prescribed DOACs did not have significantly increased adjusted odds of post-polypectomy GIB, MI, CVA, or hospital admission. Bridge anticoagulation, higher CHADS2 score, CCI, and EMR were risk factors for GIB, MI, CVA, and hospital admissions. Studies are needed to determine the optimal peri-procedural dose for high-risk patients

Diet Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Call to the Dining Table

The article comments on the recent systematic review and meta-analysis of dietary interventions for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. We discuss the pitfalls of current data and emphasize the importance of further research into diets and inflammatory bowel diseases

Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder Prevalent Among Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Background & Aims Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients alter their dietary behaviors to reduce disease-related symptoms, avoid feared food triggers, and control inflammation. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), evaluate risk factors, and examine the association with risk of malnutrition in patients with IBD. Methods This cross-sectional study recruited adult patients with IBD from an ambulatory clinic. ARFID risk was measured using the Nine-Item ARFID Screen. Nutritional risk was measured with the Patient Generated-Subjective Global Assessment. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between clinical characteristics and a positive ARFID risk screen. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and medical history were abstracted from medical records. Results Of the 161 participants (Crohn’s disease, 45.3%; ulcerative colitis, 51.6%; IBD-unclassified, 3.1%), 28 (17%) had a positive ARFID risk score (≥24). Most participants (92%) reported avoiding 1 or more foods while having active symptoms, and 74% continued to avoid 1 or more foods even in the absence of symptoms. Active symptoms (odds ratio, 5.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.91–15.01) and inflammation (odds ratio, 3.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–10.29) were significantly associated with positive ARFID risk. Patients with a positive ARFID risk screen were significantly more likely to be at risk for malnutrition (60.7% vs 15.8%; P \u3c .01). Conclusions Avoidant eating behaviors are common in IBD patients, even when in clinical remission. Patients who exhibit active symptoms and/or inflammation should be screened for ARFID risk, with referrals to registered dietitians to help monitor and address disordered eating behaviors and malnutrition risk

Vitamin D for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Vitamin D possesses immunomodulatory properties and has been implicated in the pathogenesis and severity of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Animal studies and emerging epidemiological evidence have demonstrated an association between vitamin D deficiency and worse disease activity. However, the role of vitamin D for the treatment of IBD is unclear. To evaluate the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for IBD. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was Jun 2023. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people of all ages with active or inactive IBD comparing any dose of vitamin D with another dose of vitamin D, another intervention, placebo, or no intervention. We defined doses as: vitamin D (all doses), any-treatment-dose vitamin D (greater than 400 IU/day), high-treatment-dose vitamin D (greater than 1000 IU/day), low-treatment-dose vitamin D (400 IU/day to 1000 IU/day), and supplemental-dose vitamin D (less than 400 IU/day). We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. clinical response for people with active disease, 2. clinical relapse for people in remission, 3. quality of life, and 4. withdrawals due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 5. disease activity at end of study, 6. normalisation of vitamin D levels at end of study, and 7. total serious adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. We included 22 RCTs with 1874 participants. Study duration ranged from four to 52 weeks. Ten studies enroled people with Crohn's disease (CD), five enroled people with ulcerative colitis (UC), and seven enroled people with CD and people with UC. Seventeen studies included adults, three included children, and two included both. Four studies enroled people with active disease, six enroled people in remission, and 12 enroled both. We assessed each study for risk of bias across seven individual domains. Five studies were at low risk of bias across all seven domains. Ten studies were at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain but with no areas of high risk of bias. Seven studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and assessors. Vitamin D (all doses) versus placebo or no treatment Thirteen studies compared vitamin D against placebo or no treatment. We could not draw any conclusions on clinical response for UC as the certainty of the evidence was very low (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 10.57; 1 study, 60 participants). There were no data on CD. There may be fewer clinical relapses for IBD when using vitamin D compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96; 3 studies, 310 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low. We could not draw any conclusions on quality of life for IBD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.13, 95% CI -3.10 to 2.83 (the SMD value indicates a negligent decrease in quality of life, and the corresponding CIs indicate that the effect can range from a large decrease to a large increase in quality of life); 2 studies, 243 participants) or withdrawals due to adverse events for IBD (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.27; 12 studies, 1251 participants; note 11 studies reported withdrawals but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 12). The certainty of the evidence was very low. High-treatment-dose vitamin D versus low-treatment-dose vitamin D Five studies compared high treatment vitamin D doses against low treatment vitamin D doses. There were no data on clinical response. There may be no difference in clinical relapse for CD (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.01; 1 study, 34 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low. We could not draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events for IBD as the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.08; 3 studies, 104 participants; note 2 studies reported withdrawals but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 3). The data on quality of life and disease activity could not be meta-analysed, were of very low certainty, and no conclusions could be drawn. Any-treatment-dose vitamin D versus supplemental-dose vitamin D Four studies compared treatment doses of vitamin D against supplemental doses. There were no data on clinical response and relapse. There were no data on quality of life that could be meta-analysed. We could not draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events for IBD as the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 3.09, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.17; 4 studies, 233 participants; note 3 studies reported withdrawals but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 4). There may be fewer clinical relapses when comparing vitamin D with placebo, but we cannot draw any conclusions on differences in clinical response, quality of life, or withdrawals, due to very low-certainty evidence. When comparing high and low doses of vitamin D, there were no data for clinical response, but there may be no difference in relapse for CD. We cannot draw conclusions on the other outcomes due to very low certainty evidence. Finally, comparing vitamin D (all doses) to supplemental-dose vitamin D, there were no data on clinical relapse or response, and we could not draw conclusions on other outcomes due to very low certainty evidence or missing data. It is difficult to make any clear recommendations for future research on the basis of the findings of this review. Future studies must be clear on the baseline populations, the purpose of vitamin D treatment, and, therefore, study an appropriate dosing strategy. Stakeholders in the field may wish to reach consensus on such issues prior to new studies. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.