Oral Drug Dosing Following Bariatric Surgery: General Concepts and Specific Dosing Advice

Bariatric or weight-loss surgery is a popular option for weight reduction. Depending on the surgical procedure, gastric changes like decreased transit time and volume and increased pH, decreased absorption surface in the small intestine, decreased exposure to bile acids and enterohepatic circulation, and decreased gastrointestinal transit time may be expected. In the years after bariatric surgery, patients will also substantially lose weight. As a result of these changes, the absorption, distribution, metabolism and/or elimination of drugs may be altered. The purpose of this article is to report the general influence of bariatric surgery on oral drug absorption, and to provide guidance for dosing of commonly used drugs in this special population. Upon oral drug administration, the time to maximum concentration is often earlier and this concentration may be higher with less consistent effects on trough concentrations and exposure. Additionally, prescription of liquid formulations to bariatric patients is supported by some reports, even though the high sugar load of these suspensions may be of concern. Studies on extended-release medications result in an unaltered exposure for a substantial number of drugs. Also, studies evaluating the influence of timing after surgery show dynamic absorption profiles. Although for this group specific advice can be proposed for many drugs, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence for general advice for oral drug therapy after bariatric surgery, implying that a risk assessment on a case-by-case basis is required for each drug

Patient-reported outcomes during repetitive oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases in a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 trial (CRC-PIPAC)

BACKGROUND: CRC-PIPAC prospectively assessed repetitive oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) as a palliative monotherapy (i.e., without concomitant systemic therapy in between subsequent procedures) for unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study explored patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during trial treatment. METHODS: In this single-arm phase 2 trial in two tertiary centers, patients with isolated unresectable CPM received 6-weekly PIPAC-OX (92 mg/m(2)). PROs (calculated from EQ-5D-5L, and EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29) were compared between baseline and 1 and 4 weeks after the first three procedures using linear mixed modeling with determination of clinical relevance (Cohen’s D ≥ 0.50) of statistically significant differences. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent 59 procedures (median 3 [range 1–6]). Several PROs solely worsened 1 week after the first procedure (index value − 0.10, p < 0.001; physical functioning − 20, p < 0.001; role functioning − 27, p < 0.001; social functioning − 18, p < 0.001; C30 summary score − 16, p < 0.001; appetite loss + 15, p = 0.007; diarrhea + 15, p = 0.002; urinary frequency + 13, p = 0.004; flatulence + 13, p = 0.001). These PROs returned to baseline at subsequent time points. Other PROs worsened 1 week after the first procedure (fatigue + 23, p < 0.001; pain + 29, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 32, p < 0.001), second procedure (fatigue + 20, p < 0.001; pain + 21, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 20, p = 0.002), and third procedure (pain + 22, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 22, p = 0.002). Except for appetite loss, all changes were clinically relevant. All analyzed PROs returned to baseline 4 weeks after the third procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving repetitive PIPAC-OX monotherapy for unresectable CPM had clinically relevant but reversible worsening of several PROs, mainly 1 week after the first procedure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03246321; Netherlands trial register: NL6426. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08802-6

DIRECT trial. Diverticulitis recurrences or continuing symptoms: Operative versus conservative Treatment. A MULTICENTER RANDOMISED CLINICAL TRIAL

Background: Persisting abdominal complaints are common after an episode of diverticulitis treated conservatively. Furthermore, some patients develop frequent recurrences. These two groups of patients suffer greatly from their disease, as shown by impaired health related quality of life and increased costs due to multiple specialist consultations, pain medication and productivity losses. Both conservative and operative management of patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or frequently recurring diverticulitis are applied. However, direct comparison by a randomised controlled trial is necessary to determine which is superior in relieving symptoms, optimising health related quality of life, minimising costs and preventing diverticulitis recurrences against acceptable morbidity and mortality associated with surgery or the occurrence of a complicated recurrence after conservative management. We, therefore, constructed a randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatment strategies. Methods/design: The DIRECT trial is a multicenter randomised clinical trial. Patients (18-75 years) presenting themselves with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or three or more recurrences within 2 years will be included and randomised. Patients randomised for conservative treatment are treated according to the current daily practice (antibiotics, analgetics and/or expectant management). Patients randomised for elective resection will undergo an elective resection of the affected colon segment. Preferably, a laparoscopic approach is used. The primary outcome is health related quality of life measured by the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index, Short-Form 36, EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale for pain quantification. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, mortality and total costs. The total follow-u

Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis; the COLOPEC randomized multicentre trial

Background: The peritoneum is the second most common site of recurrence in colorectal cancer. Early detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) by imaging is difficult. Patients eventually presenting with clinically apparent PC have a poor prognosis. Median survival is only about five months if untreated and the benefit of palliative systemic chemotherapy is limited. Only a quarter of patients are eligible for curative treatment, consisting of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CR/HIPEC). However, the effectiveness depends highly on the extent of disease and the treatment is associated with a considerable complication rate. Methods/Design: The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of adjuvant HIPEC in preventing the development of PC in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal recurrence. This study will be performed in the nine Dutch HIPEC centres, starting in April 2015. Eligible for inclusion are patients who underwent curative resection for T4 or intra-abdominally perforated cM0 stage colon cancer. After resection of the primary tumour, 176 patients will be randomized to adjuvant HIPEC followed by routine adjuvant systemic chemotherapy in the experimental arm, or to systemic chemotherapy only in the control arm. Adjuvant HIPEC will be performed simultaneously or shortly after the primary resection. Oxaliplatin will be used as chemotherapeutic agent, for 30 min at 42-43 °C. Just before HIPEC, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin will be administered intravenously. Primary endpoint is peritoneal disease-free survival at 18 months. Diagnostic laparoscopy will be performed routinely after 18 months postoperatively in both arms of the study in patients without evidence of disease based on routine follow-up using CT imaging and CEA. Discussion: Adjuvant HIPEC is assumed to reduce the expected 25 % absolute risk of PC in patients with T4 or perforated colon cancer to a risk of 10 %. This reduction is likely to translate into a prolonged overall survival. Trial registration number: NCT02231086 (Clinicaltrials.gov)

Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis; the COLOPEC randomized multicentre trial

Background: The peritoneum is the second most common site of recurrence in colorectal cancer. Early detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) by imaging is difficult. Patients eventually presenting with clinically apparent PC have a poor prognosis. Median survival is only about five months if untreated and the benefit of palliative systemic chemotherapy is limited. Only a quarter of patients are eligible for curative treatment, consisting of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CR/HIPEC). However, the effectiveness depends highly on the extent of disease and the treatment is associated with a considerable complication rate. These clinical problems underline the need for effective adjuvant therapy in high-risk patients to minimize the risk of outgrowth of peritoneal micro metastases. Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) seems to be suitable for this purpose. Without the need for cytoreductive surgery, adjuvant HIPEC can be performed with a low complication rate and short hospital stay. Methods/Design: The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of adjuvant HIPEC in preventing the development of PC in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal recurrence. This study will be performed in the nine Dutch HIPEC centres, starting in April 2015. Eligible for inclusion are patients who underwent curative resection for T4 or intra-abdominally perforated cM0 stage colon cancer. After resection of the primary tumour, 176 patients will be randomized to adjuvant HIPEC followed by routine adjuvant systemic chemotherapy in the experimental arm, or to systemic chemotherapy only in the control arm. Adjuvant HIPEC will be performed simultaneously or shortly after the primary resection. Oxaliplatin will be used as chemotherapeutic agent, for 30 min at 42-43 degrees C. Just before HIPEC, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin will be administered intravenously. Primary endpoint is peritoneal disease-free survival at 18 months. Diagnostic laparoscopy will be performed routinely after 18 months postoperatively in both arms of the study in patients without evidence of disease based on routine follow-up using CT imaging and CEA. Discussion: Adjuvant HIPEC is assumed to reduce the expected 25 % absolute risk of PC in patients with T4 or perforated colon cancer to a risk of 10 %. This reduction is likely to translate into a prolonged overall survival

The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitisA and Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitisB in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037)

Background: Recently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy. The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis). Methods/Design: In this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and powe

Rebanding for slippage after gastric banding: should we do it?

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a commonly performed bariatric procedure. LAGB is frequently complicated by slippage. Possible treatment for slippage is rebanding, but long-term effects are unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether rebanding after gastric band slippage is associated with weight loss failure. This was a post hoc analysis of a prospectively collected database of 627 consecutive LAGB patients. Rebanding for slippage was performed in 81 patients. The effect of rebanding on weight loss was evaluated by three analyses: (1) in 81 rebanded patients, weight loss was compared before and after rebanding, separately for patients in whom primary LAGB was successful or unsuccessful; (2) 81 rebanded patients were matched to 81 patients without slippage for prognostic variables and compared for weight loss after rebanding; (3) multivariate logistic regression was performed whether rebanding was independently associated with weight loss failure. The chance of a fair result of rebanding for patients following primary successful (n = 34) and unsuccessful LAGB (n = 22) was 62 and 27 % after median follow-up of 113 and 97 months, respectively. There was no difference in weight loss failure between 81 rebanded patients and 81 matched patients: 54 vs 59 % (P = 0.43). In multivariate analysis, rebanding was not significantly associated with weight loss failure: adjusted odds ratio 1.42; 95 % confidence interval 0.85-2.38; P = 0.18. In general, rebanding after LAGB has no negative effect on weight loss. However, patients in whom LAGB was unsuccessful prior to rebanding have poor long-term weight loss result

Timing of cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones

Background: According to the literature, the conversion rate for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) for cholecystodocholithiasis reaches 20%, at least when LC is performed 6 to 8 weeks afterward. It is hypothesized that early planned LC after ES prevents recurrent biliary complications and reduces operative morbidity and hospital stay. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent LC after ES between 2001 and 2004 were retrospectively evaluated. Recurrent biliary complications during the waiting time for LC, conversion rate, postoperative complications, and hospital stay were documented. Results: This study analyzed 167 consecutive patients (59 men) with a median age of 54 years. The median interval between ES and LC was 7 weeks (range, 1–49 weeks). During the waiting time for LC, 33 patients (20%) had recurrent biliary complications including cholecystitis (n = 18, 11%), recurrent choledocholithiasis (n = 9, 5%), cholangitis (n = 4, 2%), and biliary pancreatitis (n = 2, 1%). Of these 33 patients, 15 underwent a second endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC). The median time between ES and the development of recurrent complications was 22 days (range, 3–225 days). Most of the biliary complications (76%) occurred more than 1 week after ES. Conversion to open cholecystectomy occurred for 7 of 33 patients with recurrent complications during the waiting period, compared with 13 of 134 patients with an uncomplicated waiting period (p = 0.14). This concurred with doubled postoperative morbidity (24% vs 11%; p = 0.09) and a longer hospital stay (median, 4 vs 2 days; p < 0.001). Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, 20% of all patients had recurrent biliary complications during the waiting period for cholecystectomy after ES. These recurrent complications were associated with a significantly longer hospital stay. Cholecystectomy within 1 week after ES may prevent recurrent biliary complications in the majority of cases and reduce the postoperative hospital stay

Oral Drug Dosing Following Bariatric Surgery: General Concepts and Specific Dosing Advice

Bariatric or weight-loss surgery is a popular option for weight reduction. Depending on the surgical procedure, gastric changes like decreased transit time and volume and increased pH, decreased absorption surface in the small intestine, decreased exposure to bile acids and enterohepatic circulation, and decreased gastrointestinal transit time may be expected. In the years after bariatric surgery, patients will also substantially lose weight. As a result of these changes, the absorption, distribution, metabolism and/or elimination of drugs may be altered. The purpose of this article is to report the general influence of bariatric surgery on oral drug absorption, and to provide guidance for dosing of commonly used drugs in this special population. Upon oral drug administration, the time to maximum concentration is often earlier and this concentration may be higher with less consistent effects on trough concentrations and exposure. Additionally, prescription of liquid formulations to bariatric patients is supported by some reports, even though the high sugar load of these suspensions may be of concern. Studies on extended-release medications result in an unaltered exposure for a substantial number of drugs. Also, studies evaluating the influence of timing after surgery show dynamic absorption profiles. Although for this group specific advice can be proposed for many drugs, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence for general advice for oral drug therapy after bariatric surgery, implying that a risk assessment on a case-by-case basis is required for each drug