Gastroenterology Today Summer 2023

Gastroenterology Today Summer 2023

Gastroenterology Today Summer 2023


You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Volume 33 No. 2<br />

<strong>Summer</strong> <strong>2023</strong><br />

Passionate about Endoscopy?<br />

We are clearing NHS trust waiting lists<br />

one weekend at a time, and<br />

we need your help<br />

18 Week Support <strong>Gastroenterology</strong>:<br />

Building Expert Teams

Better Resource<br />

Management<br />

for Digestive<br />

Disease Pathways<br />

Quantum Blue ® for Point of<br />

Care helps triage patients<br />

in clinic giving results in a<br />

rapid time frame (15 mins)<br />

Calprotectin Testing<br />

Make more informed<br />

clinical decisions without<br />

waiting for lab results.<br />

IBDoc ® Home Tests. Supporting<br />

remote patient monitoring and<br />

virtual clinics<br />

Faecal Immunochemical Testing<br />

Complete bespoke solutions to triage patients<br />

within the colorectal cancer pathway.<br />

New kit ordering portal for<br />

convenient logistics<br />

Customised FIT Kits delivered to patient<br />

‘ready to use’ – everything the patient<br />

requires to take their sample safely at<br />

home for return to a laboratory<br />

19 TH – 22 ND JUNE<br />

COME AND<br />

SEE US ON<br />

STAND B17<br />

Supplied by<br />

For more information, to discuss your requirements or organise an<br />

evaluation please contact: digestivedx@alphalabs.co.uk<br />

T: +44 (0)23 8048 3000<br />

E: sales@alphalabs.co.uk<br />

W: www.alphalabs.co.uk<br />

02380 483000 • sales@alphalabs.co.uk • www.alphalabs.co.uk




6 FEATURE Evaluation of non-gastric upper gastrointestinal<br />

system polyps: an epidemiological assessment<br />

13 FEATURE Evaluation of gut microbiota of Iranian patients<br />

with celiac disease, non-celiac wheat sensitivity,<br />

and irritable bowel syndrome: are there any<br />

similarities?<br />



18 Week Support is the leading insourcing provider in the UK, partnering with<br />

trusts to address their waiting lists by optimising the utilisation of their theatres<br />

and clinics. Although we cover a wide range of specialties, our emphasis lies in<br />

Endoscopy and <strong>Gastroenterology</strong>, where we strive to ensure the highest quality<br />

of care for our patients.<br />

After Covid 19, the number of patients waiting more than 6 weeks for<br />

endoscopies, gastroscopies and flexible sigmoidoscopies rose dramatically,<br />

from 9.3% in February 2020 to 67.6% in May 2020. Since then, the NHS has<br />

been working tirelessly to address the influx of patients waiting for procedures,<br />

although this has not been easy. In March <strong>2023</strong>, the percentage of patients<br />

waiting more than 6 weeks for this procedure was 37.5%; still far greater than<br />

the 5% aim set out by the NHS <strong>2023</strong>/2024 Operating Plan.<br />

This issue edited by:<br />

Andrew Poullis<br />

c/o Media Publishing Company<br />

Greenoaks<br />

Lockhill<br />

Upper Sapey, Worcester, WR6 6XR<br />


Media Publishing Company<br />

Greenoaks, Lockhill<br />

Upper Sapey, Worcester, WR6 6XR<br />

Tel: 01886 853715<br />

E: info@mediapublishingcompany.com<br />

www.MediaPublishingCompany.com<br />


March, June, September and December.<br />


Media Publishing Company<br />

Greenoaks<br />

Lockhill<br />

Upper Sapey, Worcester, WR6 6XR<br />


The views and opinions expressed in<br />

this issue are not necessarily those of<br />

the Publisher, the Editors or Media<br />

Publishing Company.<br />

Next Issue Autumn <strong>2023</strong><br />

Designed in the UK by me&you creative<br />

While progress has been made since Covid 19, recent data points to a<br />

potential increase in patients waiting more than 6 weeks for these procedures.<br />

We believe that the solution to this problem lies in maximising the use of<br />

existing capacity in addition to the new capacity created by the government as<br />

it continues to invest in community diagnostics centres.<br />

We need to support the NHS in transforming its model to a seven-day<br />

service to tackle this problem thereby making full use of the existing capacity.<br />

Insourcing can achieve this by providing flexible workforce models and making<br />

better use of the capacity already available within the NHS.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />




GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

“Over the<br />

years a<br />

number<br />

of Nobel<br />

prize<br />

winners<br />

for<br />

medicine<br />

have<br />

originated<br />

in<br />

Liverpool<br />

or carried<br />

out their<br />

early<br />

works in<br />

this city.”<br />

Liverpool <strong>2023</strong><br />

Eurovision and BSG! Liverpool is having a busy <strong>2023</strong>. Although no home grown success<br />

in the Eurovision this year Liverpool is a city with a long history of awards and international<br />

successes. Ignoring the obvious footballing awards, in the field of science and medicine<br />

Liverpool has a long history.<br />

Over the years a number of Nobel prize winners for medicine have originated in Liverpool or<br />

carried out their early works in this city.<br />

Sir Ronald Ross in 1902 was recognised for his work on transmission of malaria.<br />

In 1932 Sir Charles Scott Sherrington was recognised as he defined the spinal reflex and<br />

defined synapses.<br />

More pertinent to gastroenterology was Professor Rodney Porter, who started his studies in<br />

Liverpool, and was awarded Nobel prize in 1972 determining the chemical structure of an<br />

antibody - an important first step in the field of biologic drug therapies which have become<br />

the cornerstone of IBD management.<br />

The BSG conference will showcase national and international work in its annual meeting in<br />

Liverpool.<br />

Andrew Poullis<br />

St George’s Hospital<br />






Çağdaş Erdoğan*, Derya Arı, Bayram Yeşil, Kenan Koşar, Orhan Coşkun, İlyas Tenlik, Hasan Tankut Köseoğlu & Mahmut Yüksel<br />

Department of <strong>Gastroenterology</strong>, Ankara City Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Bilkent Avenue, Çankaya, 06800 Ankara, Turkey. *email: cagdas.erdogan@saglik.gov.tr;<br />

cagdas_edogan@hotmail.com Scientific Reports | (<strong>2023</strong>) 13:6168 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33451-1<br />

Abstract<br />

Non-gastric upper gastrointestinal system polyps are detected rarely<br />

and mostly incidentally during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. While<br />

the majority of lesions are asymptomatic and benign, some lesions<br />

have the potential to become malignant, and may be associated with<br />

other malignancies. Between May 2010 and June 2022, a total of<br />

127,493 patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy<br />

were retrospectively screened. Among these patients, those who had<br />

polyps in the esophagus and duodenum and biopsied were included in<br />

the study. A total of 248 patients with non-gastric polyps were included<br />

in this study. The esophageal polyp detection rate was 80.00/100,000,<br />

while the duodenal polyp detection rate was 114.52/100,000. In<br />

102 patients (41.1%) with esophageal polyps, the mean age was<br />

50.6 ± 15.1, and 44.1% (n = 45) were male. The most common type<br />

of polyps was squamous papilloma (n = 61, 59.8%), followed by<br />

inflammatory papilloma (n = 18, 17.6%). In 146 patients (58.9%) with<br />

duodenal polyps, the mean age of patients was 58.3 ± 16.5, and 69.8%<br />

(n = 102) were male. Brunner’s gland hyperplasia, inflammatory polyp,<br />

ectopic gastric mucosa, and adenomatous polyp were reported to be<br />

the most prevalent types of polyps in the duodenum overall (28.1%,<br />

27.4%, 14.4%, and 13.7%, respectively). It is crucial to identify rare nongastric<br />

polyps and create an effective follow-up and treatment plan in<br />

the era of frequently performed upper gastrointestinal endoscopies. The<br />

epidemiological assessment of non-gastric polyps, as well as a followup<br />

and treatment strategy, are presented in this study.<br />

some lesions can be considered as premalignant. Since glycogenic<br />

acanthosis, the most prevalent polypoid lesion in the esophagus, has a<br />

frequency of 3.5–15%, a characteristic structure, and a benign nature,<br />

these lesions are simple to identify and don’t need to be biopsied or<br />

evaluated pathologically 3-5 . With a rate between 0.01% and 0.45%,<br />

esophageal squamous papilloma (Fig. 1) are relatively the most prevalent<br />

polypoid lesions in the esophagus 6,7 . It is mostly seen in patients<br />

around 50 years of age, in the distal esophagus and as a single lesion 8 .<br />

Although most papilloma are asymptomatic, dysphagia due to large<br />

papilloma has been reported rarely 9 . Esophageal papillomas are followed<br />

in incidence by inflammatory polyps 10 , esophageal parakeratosis 11 ,<br />

and esophageal adenomas 12-14 that develop on the basis of Barrett’s<br />

esophagus and carry malignant potential.<br />

Lymphangiomas 15 and neuroendocrine tumors that originate from the<br />

submucosa are other esophageal lesions that can come across. These<br />

lesions can, however, only be found extremely rare. Neuroendocrine<br />

tumors can be seen in the pancreas or tubular organs of the GI<br />

system and show neuroendocrine differentiation. Endoscopically,<br />

neuroendocrine tumors of the digestive tract can present as polypoid<br />

forms, nodules, masses, ulcers, or stenosis, and they can be single or<br />

multiple and range in size from a few millimeters to several centimeters.<br />

These tumors, which are rare in the esophagus (only 50 cases have<br />

been documented), typically form sessile polypoid structures in the<br />

lower third 16 .<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

6<br />

Introduction<br />

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy,<br />

EGD) includes evaluation of the oropharynx, esophagus, stomach, and<br />

proximal duodenum. EGD can be performed with indications such as<br />

dyspeptic complaints unresponsive to medical treatment, presence<br />

of alarm symptoms, upper gastrointestinal symptoms after the age of<br />

50, dysphagia, persistent vomiting, or upper gastrointestinal bleeding.<br />

Polyps are mostly detected incidentally during upper gastrointestinal<br />

endoscopy. However, management and appropriate pathological<br />

evaluation of polyps are very important 1,2 .<br />

Many benign lesions can be encountered during the endoscopic<br />

evaluation of the esophagus. Most lesions are rare and asymptomatic.<br />

Although most of these lesions do not have malignant potential,<br />

Duodenal polyps are generally quite rare and can be classified as nonneoplastic<br />

and neoplastic. Based on the respective incidence, nonneoplastic<br />

lesions include ectopic gastric mucosa, inflammatory polyps,<br />

Brunner’s gland hyperplasia, peutz-jeghers polyps, and hyperplastic<br />

polyps. Whereas, neoplastic lesions include adenomas, gastrointestinal<br />

stromal tumors, Brunner’s gland adenoma, carcinoid tumors,<br />

leiomyoma, lipoma, schwannoma can be counted. Duodenal adenomas<br />

(Figs. 2, 3) have three major types: villous adenomas, tubular adenomas,<br />

and Brunner’s gland adenomas. Villous adenomas carry a significant<br />

risk of malignancy. Since the incidence of colon adenomas increases in<br />

patients with duodenal polyps, colonoscopy should be performed when<br />

these polyps are detected 17 .<br />

Tubular adenomas are more common in the duodenum, are mostly<br />

asymptomatic and have less malignant potential. Brunner’s gland<br />

adenomas are rare small intestinal polyps that are more common,


In this study we aimed to evaluate the epidemiological distribution of<br />

polyps detected during EGD and submitted to pathological assessment<br />

by biopsy, as well as the follow-up and treatment strategy in polyps with<br />

malignant potential or symptomatic.<br />

Patients/material and methods<br />

Figure 1. Esophageal squamous papilloma.<br />

Our study was approved by Ankara City Hospital Scientific Research<br />

Evaluation and Ethics Committee (Approval No: E1-22-2328). The<br />

procedures implemented until February 2019 were carried out at Ankara<br />

Turkey Yüksek İhtisas Training and Research Hospital. Since Ankara<br />

Turkey Yüksek İhtisas Training and Research Hospital joined the Ankara<br />

City Hospital after February 2019, the patients included in the study after<br />

this date were selected among the patients followed up and treated at<br />

Ankara City Hospital.<br />

Between May 2010 and June 2022, a total of 127,493 patients who<br />

underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with indications such as<br />

dyspepsia, dysphagia, and iron deficiency anemia were retrospectively<br />

screened. Among these patients, those who had polyps in the<br />

esophagus and duodenum and biopsied were included in the study.<br />

Figure 2. Duodenal adenomatous polyp.<br />

In patients who underwent EGD, biopsy or excision was performed on<br />

all polyps detected in the esophagus that were solitary or larger than<br />

1 cm. All patients with Barrett’s esophagus discovered to have polyps<br />

underwent biopsies. When dysplasia clusters are observed rather<br />

than a single polyp formation in Barrett’s esophagus, which is where<br />

the majority of esophageal adenomas arise from, the vascular pattern<br />

was assessed with NBI endoscopy, and a biopsy was collected for<br />

esophageal adenoma. In addition, biopsies or excisions were performed<br />

on hyperemic polyps, polyps with aberrant vascular patterns on narrowband<br />

imaging (NBI) endoscopy, and ulcerated polyps. However, no<br />

biopsy was performed when multiple instances of glycogenic acanthosis<br />

were found. In case of detection of polyps in the duodenum, polyps<br />

were biopsied or excised from all patients.<br />

Figure 3. Duodenal adenomatous polyp magnified.<br />

accounting for 10.6% of duodenal tumors 18 . Ectopic gastric mucosa may<br />

present as polypoid lesions which are rare congenital disorders and are<br />

detected incidentally during upper GI endoscopy. It has been reported<br />

in the literature that heterotopic gastric mucosa may be associated with<br />

duodenal ulcers 19 . Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are mostly<br />

encountered in the stomach, they can also be seen in the esophagus<br />

(< 1%) and duodenum (5%) 20 . Tumors originating from the upper GI may<br />

present with dysphagia, GI bleeding, or obstructive jaundice.<br />

Duodenal or ampullary NETs are extremely rare and account for<br />

approximately 2.6% of all NETs 21 . These tumors are of clinical<br />

importance as most of them are asymptomatic and potentially<br />

malignant. They typically occur in the I and II duodenal sections,<br />

preferring the peripapillary region, and under endoscopic vision, they<br />

show as a single, small lesion (frequently less than 1 cm in size).<br />

Additionally, they may exist in groups or be linked to neuroendocrine<br />

tumors in other organs 16 .<br />

Patients who had polyps but could not be biopsied due to<br />

antiaggregant/anticoagulant use, hemodynamic instability, and patient<br />

intolerance were excluded from the study. In addition, patients with<br />

gastric polyps were also excluded. Additionally, patients with esophageal<br />

polyps who underwent biopsies and who, upon pathologic inspection,<br />

revealed to have glycogenic acanthosis were removed from the study.<br />

Patients’ demographic characteristics such as age, gender, smoking,<br />

history of comorbid diseases and drug use were recorded. Polyp sizes,<br />

polyp types, number of polyps and histopathological findings were<br />

recorded in patients who were found to have esophageal and duodenal<br />

polyps and biopsied. Additionally, antrum biopsies were performed to check<br />

for H. pylori in patients with polyps. The pathologists stained the tissue<br />

samples with Giemsa and tested for the presence of H. pylori. Patients<br />

with helicobacter pylori positivity as a result of pathology were separately<br />

identified. According to the pathology results, whether the patients<br />

had reflux findings in their histories, whether they had a history of head<br />

and neck cancer, and previous endoscopic and colonoscopy findings,<br />

if any, were evaluated. The frequency per 100,000 of esophageal and<br />

duodenal polyps detected in the patients was reported. The pathological<br />

distributions of the polyps were also displayed as a rate per 100,000.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />



In patients undergoing colonoscopy the cleanliness of the colonoscopy<br />

was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).<br />

Following colonoscopy cleaning, patients with BBPS 0 or 1 were taken<br />

for another colonoscopy. Colonoscopy cleanliness scores BBPS 2 and 3<br />

were used to assess all study participants who had non-gastric polyps.<br />

Withdrawal from the colonoscopy took at least 10 min.<br />

Endoscopic evaluation was performed with Olympus brand GIF-Q260<br />

model gastroscopes. Before the procedure, patients were given<br />

sedo-analgesia or topical anesthetic containing 10% lidocaine to the<br />

oropharynx, accompanied by an anesthesiologist. The lesions were<br />

removed with forceps or snare. The biopsy material was fixed with 10%<br />

formaldehyde solution and sent for pathological evaluation.<br />

Statistical analysis<br />

All statistical analyzes were performed using SPSS software (SPSS<br />

for Windows, version 25.0, IBM. Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The<br />

Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to determine the normality of the<br />

continuous variables. Normally distributed variables were expressed<br />

as mean ± standard deviation and non-normally distributed variables<br />

as median and interquartile range. Normally distributed variables<br />

were compared using the student t test and non-normally distributed<br />

variables using the Mann–Whitney U test. Chi-square (χ 2 ) test and<br />

Fisher’s Exact test were used for group comparisons (cross tables)<br />

of nominal variables. Two-tailed p values < 0.05 were considered<br />

statistically significant.<br />

Ethics committee approval<br />

This study was complied with the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Helsinki<br />

Declaration that was then modified in 2008. The study protocol was<br />

approved by Ankara City Hospital ethics committee (Approval No: E1-<br />

22-2328).<br />

Informed consent<br />

Informed consent was obtained from all patients participating in the<br />

study.<br />

All patients (n = 102)<br />

Age, years 50.6 ± 15.1 –<br />

Gender, male, n (%) 45 (44.1) –<br />

Smoking, n (%) 56 (54.9) –<br />

Polyp size, mm 5.0 (4.0–7.0) –<br />

Number of polyps 1.0 (1.0–1.0) –<br />

Polyp type, n (%)<br />

Pedunculated 65 (63.7) –<br />

Sessile 37 (36.3) –<br />

Pathology, n (%)<br />

Squamous papilloma 65 (63.7) 50.98<br />

Inflammatory polyp 21 (20.7) 16.47<br />

Hyperplastic polyp 3 (2.9) 2.35<br />

Lymphangioma 3 (2.9) 2.35<br />

Esophageal parakeratosis 6 (5.9) 4.70<br />

Esophageal adenoma 4 (3.9) 3.14<br />

Helicobacter pylori, n (%) 26 (25.5) –<br />

Reflux esophagitis, n (%) 17 (16.7) –<br />

Other endoscopic findings, n (%)<br />

Normal 8 (7.8) –<br />

Antral gastritis 31 (30.4) –<br />

Bulbitis 3 (2.9) –<br />

Pangastritis 49 (48.0) –<br />

Antral gastritis + bulbitis 9 (8.9) –<br />

Gastric lymphoma 2 (2.0) –<br />

Colonoscopy, n (%) 76 (74.5) –<br />

Colon polyp localization, n (%)<br />

Transverse + ascending + sigmoid 3 (2.9) –<br />

Transverse + ascending + rectum 3 (2.9) –<br />

Descending + transverse 4 (3.9) –<br />

Rectum 5 (4.9) –<br />

Colon polyp pathology, n (%)<br />

Adenomatous 15 (14.7) –<br />

Rate per 100,000 patients<br />

Table Table 1. 1. Demographic characteristics, endoscopic endoscopic and and colonoscopy colonoscopy findings, and pa<br />

of patients findings, with and esophageal pathological polyps, evaluations pathologic of patients findings with as esophageal rate per 100,000 patients. D<br />

median polyps, ± SD pathologic or median findings (IQR) or as frequency rate per 100,000 (%). SD patients. standard Data deviation. are<br />

expressed as median ± SD or median (IQR) or frequency (%).<br />

SD standard deviation.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

Results<br />

Vol:.(1234567890)<br />

A total of 248 patients who were evaluated for non-gastric polyps<br />

were included in this study. Total evaluation revealed a detection rate<br />

of 194.52 non-gastric polyps per 100,000 patients. In this context,<br />

the esophageal polyp detection rate was 80.00 per 100,000, while<br />

the duodenal polyp detection rate was 114.52 per 100,000.<br />

One hundred and two (41.1%) of the included patients were those<br />

with esophageal polyps. The mean age of patients with esophageal<br />

polyps was 50.6 ± 15.1, and 44.1% (n = 45) were male. The median<br />

size of esophageal polyps was 5.0 (4.0–7.0) mm. Pedunculated<br />

polyps were seen in 63.7% of cases (n = 65), while sessile polyps<br />

were found in 36.3% of cases (n = 37). The most common type<br />

of polyps was squamous papilloma (n = 65, 63.7%), followed by<br />

inflammatory papilloma (n = 18, 17.6%). Helicobacter pylori was<br />

found in 26 (25.5%) and reflux esophagitis in 21 (20.7%) patients.<br />

The most common endoscopic gastric finding was pangastritis<br />

(n = 49, %48.0) followed by antral gastritis (n = 31, %30.4).<br />

Adenomatous polyps were detected in 15 of 76 patients with<br />

esophageal polyps who underwent colonoscopy. Table 1 includes<br />

demographic information as well as endoscopic and colonoscopic<br />

findings, pathology results, and epidemiological rates of patients<br />

with esophageal polyps.<br />

When patients with duodenal polyps were evaluated (n = 146),<br />

polyps were observed in the duodenal bulb in 91 patients (62.3%)<br />

and in the second part of the duodenum (D2) in 55 patients (37.7%).<br />

The mean age of patients with duodenal polyps was 58.3 ± 16.5,<br />

and 69.8% (n = 102) were male. The median size of duodenal polyps<br />

was 7.0 (3.5–15.0) mm. Brunner’s gland hyperplasia, inflammatory<br />

polyp, ectopic gastric mucosa, and adenomatous polyp were<br />

reported to be the most prevalent types of polyps in the duodenum<br />

overall (28.1%, 27.4%, 14.4%, and 13.7%, respectively). In<br />

subgroup analysis Brunner’s gland hyperplasia was most common<br />

in bulbus (36%), while adenomatous polyp was most common in D2<br />

(bulbus vs. D2; 2 vs. 18; p < 0.001). All polyps with adenomatous<br />

pathology were detected in the second continent of the duodenum,<br />

whereas individuals with ectopic gastric mucosa as a result of<br />

pathology had polyp localization in the first continent (p0.00.1 for<br />

both findings). The presence of antral gastritis, bulbitis, duodenitis,<br />



pangastritis, pangastritis + bulbitis, atrophic gastritis, FAP, gastric<br />

cancer and peutz-jeghers syndrome was at similar rates between<br />

both groups. In addition, colonoscopy was performed in 88 (%60.3)<br />

patients with polyps in the duodenum, and polyps were detected in<br />

the colon in 35 (%24) of them. While hyperplastic polyp was found<br />

in the colon in two patients with polyp in the bulbus, adenomatous<br />

polyp was detected in the colon in the 33 patients and in all patients<br />

with polyps in the second part of the duodenum. Table 2 includes<br />

demographic information as well as endoscopic and colonoscopic<br />

findings, pathology results, and epidemiological rates of patients<br />

with duodenal polyps.<br />

All patients (n = 146)<br />

Age, years 58.3 ± 16.5 –<br />

Gender, male, n (%) 102 (69.8) –<br />

Smoking, n (%) 81 (55.5) –<br />

Polyp size, mm 7.0 (3.5–15.0) –<br />

Number of polyps 1.0 (1.0–2.5) –<br />

Polyp localization, n (%)<br />

Duodenal bulb 91 (62.3) 71.38<br />

Second part of the duodenum (D2) 55 (37.7) 43.14<br />

Pathology, n (%)<br />

Brunner gland hyperplasia 41 (28.1) 32.16<br />

Ectopic gastric mucosa 21 (14.4) 16.47<br />

Inflammatory polyp 40 (27.4) 31.37<br />

Villous adenoma 4 (2.7) 3.14<br />

Neuroendocrine tumor 3 (2.1) 2.35<br />

Tubular adenoma 4 (2.7) 3.14<br />

Hyperplastic polyp 7 (4.8) 5.49<br />

Adenomatous polyp 20 (13.7) 15.69<br />

Hamartomatous polyp 6 (4.1) 4.71<br />

Helicobacter pylori, n (%) 14 (9.6) –<br />

Other endoscopic findings, n (%)<br />

Antral gastritis 50 (34.2) –<br />

Duodenal ulcer 13 (8.8) –<br />

Duodenitis 3 (2.1) –<br />

Pangastritis 64 (43.8) –<br />

Pangastritis + bulbitis 5 (3.4) –<br />

Atrophic gastritis 3 (2.1) –<br />

FAP 3 (2.1) –<br />

Gastric CA 3 (2.1) –<br />

Peutz-jeger 2 (1.4) –<br />

Colonoscopy, n (%) 88 (60.3)<br />

Detection of polyps in colonoscopy, n (%) 35 (24.0) –<br />

Colon polyp localization, n (%)<br />

Rectosigmoid 22 (15.1) –<br />

Other colonic parts 13 (8.9) –<br />

Polyp type, n (%)<br />

Rate per 100,000 patients<br />

In our study, esophageal adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 6<br />

individuals who underwent biopsies following the discovery of an<br />

esophageal polypoid lesion. Two of the individuals who were found<br />

to have duodenal polypoid lesions had a biopsy, which revealed<br />

duodenal adenocarcinoma. All malignant esophageal and duodenal<br />

lesions were ulcero-vegetative and fragile in appearance, and they<br />

were all assessed separately from benign esophageal lesions.<br />

Discussion<br />

As the frequency of performing upper GI endoscopy increases in<br />

the world, the detection of non-gastric polyps has also increased.<br />

Although gastric polyps can be assessed more easily due to their<br />

frequency, non-gastric polyps cannot be recognized adequately<br />

due to their rarity. These polyps may be benign, as well as they<br />

may carry the risk of malignancy, and may be an indicator of an<br />

accompanying malignancy. In this study we sought to assess the<br />

prevalence of non-gastric polyps in the general population, their<br />

distribution by localization, their clinical significance, and follow-up<br />

and treatment approaches. Our research revealed that 194.52 out of<br />

100,000 upper GI endoscopies discovered non-gastric polyps. When<br />

assessed according to polyp localization, the rate of esophageal<br />

polyp identification was 80.00 per 100,000, whereas the rate of<br />

duodenal polyp detection was 114.52 per 100,000. Squamous<br />

papilloma, inflammatory papilloma, and esophageal parakeratosis are<br />

the most frequently detected esophageal polyps (50.98, 16.47, and<br />

4.70 per 100,000, respectively), whereas Brunner gland hyperplasia,<br />

inflammatory polyp, ectopic gastric mucosa, and adenomatous polyp<br />

are the most frequently detected duodenal polyps (32.16, 31.37,<br />

16.47, and 15.69 per 100,000, respectively,).<br />

Bulur et al. 22 evaluated 19,560 patients and found non-gastric polyps<br />

in 38 of them. In our study, 127,493 patients were evaluated, and<br />

248 non-gastric polyps were detected. Total evaluation revealed a<br />

detection rate of 194.52 non-gastric polyps per 100,000 patients.<br />

We were able to report the incidence rate in 100,000 patients as an<br />

epidemiological data for rare non-gastric polyps as a result of our<br />

study because of the large patient group we screened.<br />

Hyperplastic 2 (1.4) –<br />

Adenomatous 33 (22.6) –<br />

In the series of Szanto et al. 7 evaluating 35-year upper gastrointestinal<br />

endoscopies, nearly 60,000 upper GI endoscopy was performed,<br />

Table Table 2. 2. Demographic characteristics, characteristics, endoscopic endoscopic and colonoscopy and colonoscopy findings, and pathological and squamous evaluations papilloma was detected in 155 patients. None of<br />

of patients findings, with and duodenal pathological polyps, evaluations pathologic findings of patients as rate with per duodenal 100,000 patients. Data are expressed as<br />

median polyps, ± SD pathologic or median (IQR) findings or frequency as rate per (%). 100,000 SD standard patients. deviation. Data are<br />

expressed as median ± SD or median (IQR) or frequency (%).<br />

SD standard deviation.<br />

these have turned into malignancies. Mosca et al. 9 examined 7618<br />

upper GI endoscopy procedures and detected squamous papilloma<br />

in 9 patients. In our study, squamous papilloma was detected in 65<br />

of 127,493 patients evaluated over a 12-year period. Looking at the<br />

studies in the literature, the rate of detecting squamous papilloma<br />

in upper GIS endoscopy has been reported between 0.045 and<br />

0.26% 6,7,9 . Consistently with the literature, this rate was found 50.98<br />

per 100,000 patients in our study. None of the patients developed<br />

malignancy during their mean follow-up of 3.2 years. In a case<br />

presented by Kostiainen et al. 23 , the patient had the symptoms<br />

of dysphagia and vomiting due to large squamous papilloma.<br />

In our study, 63 of 65 patients with squamous papillomas were<br />

asymptomatic, while squamous papilloma larger then 20 mm was<br />

detected in two patient who had intermittent nausea and vomiting.<br />

Mandard et al. 24 found accompanying esophageal parakeratosis in<br />

approximately 40% of 400 patients, newly diagnosed with head and<br />

neck squamous cell carcinoma. However, no malignancy was found to<br />

originate from the parakeratotic area in the esophagus. In our study, 4<br />

Vol.:(0123456789)<br />

of 6 patients (66.6%) with esophageal parakeratosis had a history of<br />

squamous cell head and neck cancer (larynx and hypopharynx). In the<br />

light of these findings, it would be appropriate to screen the patients<br />

for possible head and neck malignancies in the case of esophageal<br />

parakeratosis detected incidentally in upper GI endoscopy.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />



Esophageal adenomas typically present as wide islets of dysplasia rather<br />

than a single polyp and typically develop in the presence of Barrett’s<br />

esophagus. In a case series presented by Wong et al. 13 , polypoid<br />

lesions developing on the ground of Barrett’s esophagus, with dysplastic<br />

adenomas and adenocarcinomas found in the pathology were evaluated.<br />

In our study, esophageal adenoma was detected in four patients and all<br />

four also had Barrett’s esophagus. These patients underwent surgical<br />

esophagectomy afterward. The risk of adenocarcinoma is quite high<br />

in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and accompanying adenoma in<br />

the esophagus, and these patients should be evaluated further, and<br />

the lesion should be removed endoscopically or surgically. Due to the<br />

presence of Barrett’s esophagus in these patients, mucosectomy or<br />

ablation procedures for the disease should be integrated into endoscopic<br />

treatment strategies in addition to polyp excision. An esophagectomy is a<br />

surgical option in which the patient’s polyp and esophagus segment are<br />

removed together, and the small intestine or stomach is anastomosed.<br />

Europe. In addition to being an epidemiological study with a large<br />

patient group to evaluate, our study also offers suggestions for the best<br />

examination and treatment approaches to use when non-gastric polyps<br />

are found. The epidemiological study we conducted is the largest on<br />

non-gastric polyps ever published in the world’s literature.<br />

In conclusion, nowadays, with the widespread utilization upper GI<br />

system endoscopy, it is critical to recognize, monitor, and treat common<br />

lesions as well as less frequent but clinically significant lesions. Our<br />

study is not only the broadest evaluation of non-gastric polyps, but it<br />

also provides clinical approach recommendations for these polyps and<br />

discloses the prevalence of these polyps in the general population.<br />

Data availability<br />

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available<br />

from the corresponding author on reasonable request.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

Levine et al. 25 evaluated 27 patients with Brunner gland hyperplasia<br />

detected in the duodenum, and GIS bleeding was found in 10 of the<br />

patients, obstruction in 10, and incidentally in 7 patients. In our study,<br />

Brunner’s gland hyperplasia was detected in the duodenum in 41<br />

patients with 21 of them having GI bleeding and 9 signs of obstruction.<br />

It was detected incidentally in 11 of them. Although Brunner’s gland<br />

hyperplasia are benign lesions, they should be treated as they may have<br />

clinical symptoms. We treated all patients endoscopically, except for one<br />

patient with obstruction. In the long-term follow-up, the patients were<br />

observed up as stable.<br />

Ectopic gastric mucosa are benign lesions that can be detected incidentally<br />

in the duodenum. Naguchi et al. 19 found ectopic gastric mucosa in 76 (55%)<br />

of 137 patients with duodenal ulcer, and Helicobacter pylori was detected in<br />

59% (45/76) of the biopsies taken from them. In our study, duodenal ulcer<br />

was detected in 12 (57.1%) of 21 patients with ectopic gastric mucosa, and<br />

HP positivity was observed in 13 (61.9%) of them.<br />

Sporadic duodenal adenomas are very rare and have the potential to<br />

transform into adenocarcinoma by showing similar morphological and<br />

molecular features with colorectal adenomas. The majority of sporadic<br />

duodenal adenomas are flat or sessile solitary lesions with pearly villi<br />

surfaces that develop on the descending duodenum’s posterior or lateral<br />

walls 26 . Witterman et al. 17 showed that 42% of patients with duodenal<br />

villous adenoma had malignant cells. In addition, it was shown that the<br />

rate of detecting concomitant colon adenoma is increased in these<br />

patients. In our study, all 20 adenomas detected in the duodenum<br />

originated from the second part of the duodenum, and malignant cells<br />

were detected in 1 of 4 villous adenomas. Again, 17 (85.0%) of these<br />

patients had adenomatous polyps in the colon. When polyps are found<br />

in the duodenum, they should be removed via snare polypectomy,<br />

endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal<br />

dissection (ESD), or argon plasma coagulation (APC) ablation due to<br />

their potential for malignancy. Then again, based on these findings, it<br />

would be a reasonable approach to be careful in terms of malignancy<br />

in patients with adenomatous polyps in the duodenum and to perform<br />

colon screening in these patients.<br />

With a bed capacity of 3600 patients and more than 300 endoscopic<br />

procedures carried out each day, our center has the title of largest<br />

institution in Turkey and one of the three largest institutes in all of<br />

Received: 20 December 2022; Accepted: 13 April <strong>2023</strong><br />

Published online: 15 April <strong>2023</strong><br />

References<br />

1. Hirota, W. K. et al. ASGE guideline: The role of endoscopy in<br />

the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper GI tract.<br />

Gastrointest. Endosc. 63, 570 (2006).<br />

2. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al. Endoscopic mucosal<br />

tissue sampling. Gastrointest. Endosc. 78, 216 (2013).<br />

3. Vadva, M. D. & Triadafilopoulos, G. Glycogenic acanthosis of the<br />

esophagus and gastroesophageal reflux. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 17,<br />

79 (1993).<br />

4. Ghahremani, G. G. & Rushovich, A. M. Glycogenic acanthosis of<br />

the esophagus: Radiographic and pathologic features. Gastrointest.<br />

Radiol. 9, 93 (1984).<br />

5. Stern, Z. et al. Glycogenic acanthosis of the esophagus. A benign<br />

but confusing endoscopic lesion. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 74, 261<br />

(1980).<br />

6. Sablich, R., Benedetti, G., Bignucolo, S. & Serraino, D. Squamous<br />

cell papilloma of the esophagus. Report on 35 endoscopic cases.<br />

Endoscopy 20, 5 (1988).<br />

7. Szántó, I. et al. Squamous papilloma of the esophagus. Clinical and<br />

pathological observations based on 172 papillomas in 155 patients.<br />

Orv. Hetil. 146, 547 (2005).<br />

8. Carr, N. J., Monihan, J. M. & Sobin, L. H. Squamous cell papilloma<br />

of the esophagus: A clinicopathologic and follow-up study of 25<br />

cases. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 89, 245 (1994).<br />

9. Mosca, S. et al. Squamous papilloma of the esophagus: Long-term<br />

follow up. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 16, 857 (2001).<br />

10. LiVolsi, V. A. & Perzin, K. H. Inflammatory pseudotumors<br />

(inflammatory fibrous polyps) of the esophagus. A clinicopathologic<br />

study. Am. J. Dig. Dis. 20, 475 (1975).<br />

11. Guelrud, M., Herrera, I. & Eggenfeld, H. Compact parakeratosis of<br />

esophageal mucosa. Gastrointest. Endosc. 51, 329 (2000).<br />

12. Lee, R. G. Adenomas arising in Barrett’s esophagus. Am. J. Clin.<br />

Pathol. 85, 629 (1986).<br />

13. Wong, R. S. et al. Multiple polyposis and adenocarcinoma arising in<br />

Barrett’s esophagus. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 61, 216 (1996).<br />

14. Adoke, K. U. et al. Hyperplastic polyps of the esophagus and<br />

esophagogastric junction with esophageal constriction—a<br />

case report. Pathology 46(Supplement 2), S81. https://doi.<br />

org/10.1097/01.PAT.0000454378.95070.60 (2014).<br />

15. Saers, T., Parusel, M., Brockmann, M. & Krakamp, B.<br />

Lymphangioma of the esophagus. Gastrointest. Endosc. 62, 181<br />

(2005).<br />



16. Sivero, L. et al. Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of<br />

neuroendocrine tumors of the digestive system. Open Med. 11(1),<br />

369–373. https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2016-0067 (2016).<br />

17. Witteman, B. J., Janssens, A. R., Griffioen, G. & Lamers, C. B.<br />

Villous tumours of the duodenum. An analysis of the literature with<br />

emphasis on malignant transformation. Neth. J. Med. 42, 5 (1993).<br />

18. Levine, J. A., Burgart, L. J., Batts, K. P. & Wang, K. K. Brunner’s<br />

gland hamartomas: Clinical presentation and pathological features<br />

of 27 cases. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 90, 290–294 (1995).<br />

19. Noguchi, H. et al. Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection rate<br />

in heterotopic gastric mucosa in histological analysis of duodenal<br />

specimens from patients with duodenal ulcer. Histol. Histopathol.<br />

35(2), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.14670/HH-18-142 (2020)<br />

(Epub 2019 Jul 2).<br />

20. Singhal, S. et al. Anorectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor: A case<br />

report and literature review. Case Rep. Gastrointest. Med. 2013,<br />

934875 (2013).<br />

21. Modlin, I. M., Lye, K. D. & Kidd, M. A 5-decade analysis of 13,715<br />

carcinoid tumors. Cancer 97, 934–959 (2003).<br />

22. Bulur, A. et al. Polypoid lesions detected in the upper<br />

gastrointestinal endoscopy: A retrospective analysis in 19560<br />

patients, a single-center study of a 5-year experience in Turkey.<br />

N. Clin. Istanb. 8(2), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.14744/<br />

nci.2020.16779 (2020).<br />

23. Kostiainen, S., Teppo, L. & Virkkula, L. Papilloma of the<br />

oesophagus. Report of a case. Scand. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc.<br />

Surg. 7(1), 95–97. https://doi.org/10.3109/14017437309139176<br />

(1973).<br />

24. Mandard, A. M. et al. Cancer of the esophagus and associated<br />

lesions: Detailed pathologic study of 100 esophagectomy<br />

specimens. Hum. Pathol. 15, 660 (1984).<br />

25. Levine, J. A., Burgart, L. J., Batts, K. P. & Wang, K. K. Brunner’s<br />

gland hamartomas: Clinical presentation and pathological features<br />

of 27 cases. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 90(2), 290–294 (1995).<br />

26. Ma, M. X. & Bourke, M. J. Management of duodenal polyps. Best<br />

Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 31(4), 389–399 (2017).<br />

Author contributions<br />

Ç.E., M.Y.: conception, design, supervision, materials, data collection<br />

and processing, analysis and interpretation, literature review, writer<br />

and critical review. D.A., B.Y., K.K. O.C., İ.T., H.T.K.: materials, data<br />

collection and processing, analysis and interpretation, literature review<br />

and manuscript supervision.<br />

Competing interests<br />

The authors declare no competing interests.<br />

Additional information<br />

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Ç.E.<br />

Reprints and permissions information is available at<br />

www.nature.com/reprints.<br />

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to<br />

jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.<br />

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons<br />

Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,<br />

adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as<br />

long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,<br />

provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes<br />

were made. The images or other third party material in this article are<br />

included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated<br />

otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the<br />

article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted<br />

by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to<br />

obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this<br />

licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.<br />

© The Author(s) <strong>2023</strong><br />


<strong>Gastroenterology</strong> <strong>Today</strong> welcomes the submission of<br />

clinical papers and case reports or news that<br />

you feel will be of interest to your colleagues.<br />

Material submitted will be seen by those working within all<br />

UK gastroenterology departments and endoscopy units.<br />

All submissions should be forwarded to info@mediapublishingcompany.com<br />

If you have any queries please contact the publisher Terry Gardner via:<br />

info@mediapublishingcompany.com<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />



Stronger Together<br />

Cantel, Key Surgical and Diagmed are now part of STERIS.<br />

Our companies share a commitment to provide the very best<br />

solutions for our Customers and we are excited to bring the<br />

power of our teams together, and to provide a more extensive<br />

and innovative suite of offerings to new and existing<br />

Customers around the world.<br />

The unique strength of our collective organisation will continue<br />

to uphold our mission of HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS CREATE<br />


GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

Come join us<br />

at BSG!<br />

Stand A26<br />

The Arena<br />

12<br />







Kaveh Naseri 1 , Hossein Dabiri 2 , Meysam Olfatifar 3 , Mohammad Amin Shahrbaf 4 , Abbas Yadegar 5 , Mona Soheilian‐Khorzoghi 4 ,<br />

Amir Sadeghi 4 , Saeede Saadati 4 , Mohammad Rostami‐Nejad 4* , Anil K. Verma 6 and Mohammad Reza Zali 4<br />

Naseri et al. BMC <strong>Gastroenterology</strong> (<strong>2023</strong>) 23:15 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-02649-y<br />

Abstract<br />

Introduction<br />

Background and aims<br />

Individuals with celiac disease (CD), non-celiac wheat sensitivity<br />

(NCWS), and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), show overlapping clinical<br />

symptoms and experience gut dysbiosis. A limited number of studies so<br />

far compared the gut microbiota among these intestinal conditions. This<br />

study aimed to investigate the similarities in the gut microbiota among<br />

patients with CD, NCWS, and IBS in comparison to healthy controls<br />

(HC).<br />

Materials and methods<br />

In this prospective study, in total 72 adult subjects, including CD (n = 15),<br />

NCWS (n = 12), IBS (n = 30), and HC (n = 15) were recruited. Fecal<br />

samples were collected from each individual. A quantitative real-time<br />

PCR (qPCR) test using 16S ribosomal RNA was conducted on stool<br />

samples to assess the relative abundance of Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes,<br />

Bifidobacterium spp., and Lactobacillus spp.<br />

Results<br />

In all groups, Firmicutes and Lactobacillus spp. had the highest and<br />

lowest relative abundance respectively. The phylum Firmicutes had<br />

a higher relative abundance in CD patients than other groups. On<br />

the other hand, the phylum Bacteroidetes had the highest relative<br />

abundance among healthy subjects but the lowest in patients with<br />

NCWS. The relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. was lower in<br />

subjects with CD (P = 0.035) and IBS (P = 0.001) compared to the HCs.<br />

Also, the alteration of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio (F/B ratio) was<br />

statistically significant in NCWS and CD patients compared to the HCs<br />

(P = 0.05).<br />

Conclusion<br />

The principal coordinate analysis (PCoA), as a powerful multivariate<br />

analysis, suggested that the investigated gut microbial profile of patients<br />

with IBS and NCWS share more similarities to the HCs. In contrast,<br />

patients with CD had the most dissimilarity compared to the other<br />

groups in the context of the studied gut microbiota.<br />

Keywords<br />

Celiac disease, Irritable bowel syndrome, Non-celiac wheat sensitivity,<br />

Gut microbiota, Dysbiosis<br />

The human gastrointestinal (GI) tract harbors an incredibly complex<br />

and abundant ensemble of microbes referred to as gut microbiota<br />

[1]. Gut microbiota plays a pivotal role in human health and<br />

diseases [2–4] and its composition depends on various factors,<br />

including age [5], diet [6], geography [7], malnourishment [8], race,<br />

ethnicity [9], and socioeconomic status [10]. Balance in the gut<br />

microbiota composition and the presence or absence of critical<br />

species capable of causing specific responses contribute to<br />

ensuring homeostasis in the intestinal mucosa and other organs<br />

[11–14]. An imbalanced or disturbed composition and quantity<br />

of the gut microbiota, known as dysbiosis [15], can affect the<br />

bacterial function and is associated with a variety of GI disorders<br />

[16–20]. Celiac disease (CD), non-celiac wheat sensitivity (NCWS),<br />

and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), have intestinal dysbiosis as<br />

a causative factor in the initiation of their symptoms [21–24].<br />

CD is a chronic small intestinal inflammation, triggered by the<br />

consumption of gluten, resulting in villous atrophy in genetically<br />

susceptible individuals [25]. IBS is a functional gastrointestinal<br />

disorder that afflicts nearly 15% of the population worldwide,<br />

characterized by recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort, and<br />

changes in bowel habits, in the absence of any other disease to<br />

cause these symptoms [26, 27]. NCWS is still an unclear diagnosis,<br />

characterized by a combination of CD-like or IBS-like symptoms<br />

(e.g., diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloating), behavior disturbances,<br />

and systemic manifestations, related to the ingestion of gluten in<br />

subjects who are not affected by either CD or wheat allergy [28,<br />

29]. Therefore, since these three disorders are related to dysbiosis<br />

in gut microbiota and share similarities in their symptoms, these<br />

data form a hypothesis regarding the possible similarities in the<br />

alterations of the gut microbiota in subjects with the aforementioned<br />

disorders. Although the findings are inconsistent, previous<br />

studies mainly reported decreased levels of fecal Lactobacilli and<br />

Bifidobacteria, and increased ratios of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes<br />

in patients with IBS when compared to healthy individuals [21, 30–<br />

32]. According to most studies conducted on the gut microbiota of<br />

CD patients, Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli levels are decreased in<br />

comparison to healthy controls [22, 33, 34]. Due to NCWS being a<br />

relatively new diagnosis, few studies have examined gut microbiota<br />

in this group.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

* Correspondence: Mohammad Rostami‐Nejad<br />

m.rostamii@gmail.com<br />

© The Author(s) <strong>2023</strong>.<br />



GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

14<br />

To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have investigated<br />

the possible similarities in the gut microbiota profile of patients with CD,<br />

NCWS, and IBS compared to healthy control. Hence, we designed this<br />

monocentric prospective observational study to compare the relative<br />

abundance of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, as the two most dominant<br />

phyla [35–38], and Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, as two highly<br />

controversial genera of fecal microbial communities, among Iranian<br />

subjects with CD, NCWS, and IBS compared to HCs.<br />

Materials and methods<br />

Study population<br />

From March 2020 to November 2020, consecutive newly diagnosed<br />

CD, NCWS, and IBS patients were recruited from an outpatient<br />

gastroenterology clinic in Taleghani Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Convenience<br />

sampling was used for participants’ selection. Subjects who had<br />

recently been diagnosed with CD, NCWS, and IBS, and were not<br />

on therapeutic diets such as gluten-free or low-FODMAP diets or<br />

taking supplements such as probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics were<br />

considered as patients groups. CD diagnosis was established according<br />

to the “4 out of 5” rule and four of the following criteria were considered<br />

sufficient for disease diagnosis: typical CD related symptoms, positivity<br />

of CD-specific antibodies, HLA-DQ2 or 8 genotypes, intestinal damages<br />

at duodenal biopsy and clinical response to GFD [39]. Twelve patients<br />

with NCWS that fulfilled the Salerno consensus criteria [40] were<br />

included. All NCWS subjects demonstrated negative serology results for<br />

tissue-transglutaminase IgA antibodies, and the duodenal biopsy results<br />

were normal [41].<br />

IBS diagnosis was based on fulfilling the ROME-IV criteria [27], including<br />

recurrent abdominal pain at least one day per week over the previous<br />

3 months, along with two or more of the following criteria: (a) changes<br />

in defecation, (b) changes in frequency, and (c) changes in the form of<br />

stool, with no medication to alleviate symptoms in the last 3 months.<br />

Anti-Tissue Trans-glutaminase (Anti-tTG) and/or endomysial antibodies<br />

(EMA), histological findings compatible with atrophy (according to the<br />

Marsh classification), and wheat-specific Immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels<br />

were negative in all thirty patients with IBS. Apart from these, fifteen<br />

healthy volunteers, with no history of digestive pathologies lacking<br />

CD-specific antibodies, were enrolled in the healthy control (HC)<br />

group. These HCs had normal bowel movements without abdominal<br />

symptoms, coronary artery disease, inflammatory conditions, IBS,<br />

NCWS, and diabetes mellitus.<br />

Pregnant and lactating women, individuals with any systemic<br />

inflammatory diseases like autoimmune conditions, gastrointestinal<br />

diseases (i.e. inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)) or any other acute<br />

or chronic diseases, gastrointestinal surgery, cancer, and those who<br />

were not willing to participate in the study were excluded from all<br />

study groups. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) usage,<br />

excessive alcohol consumption, systemic use of immunosuppressive<br />

agents, poorly controlled psychiatric diseases and the history of broadspectrum<br />

antibiotics and probiotics consumption were also considered<br />

as exclusion criteria. Participants were also asked not to take any<br />

antibiotics, eat spicy food, and smoke four weeks prior to sample<br />

collection.<br />

Fecal samples collection and homogenization<br />

Fresh early-morning fecal samples, representative of whole gut<br />

microbiome, were collected from each participant in sterile fecal<br />

specimen containers at the study’s baseline. A water ban was also<br />

required after midnight and before collecting the samples in the morning.<br />

Stool specimens were collected and handled by experienced clinicians<br />

and trained technicians. Homogenization of the stool samples was<br />

conducted through agitation by using a vortex. Afterward, stool samples<br />

were divided into three aliquots within 3 h of defecation. Using screwcapped<br />

cryovial containers, the aliquots were immediately frozen and<br />

stored at − 80 °C until used for DNA extraction [42].<br />

DNA extraction from fecal samples<br />

QIAamp ® DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen Retsch GmbH, Hannover,<br />

Germany) was used for DNA extraction [43]. DNA concentration was<br />

quantified by NanoDrop ND-2000 Spectrophotometer (NanoDrop<br />

products, Wilmington, DE, USA). In addition, Nanodrop (DeNovix<br />

Inc., USA) was used for assessing the concentration and purity of the<br />

extracted DNA. Extracted DNA samples were stored at − 20 °C until<br />

further analysis.<br />

Microbiota analysis by quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR)<br />

We performed qPCR assay to evaluate the relative abundance of two<br />

bacterial phyla, including Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, and two genera,<br />

including Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. The qPCR was<br />

conducted by SYBR Green chemistry using universal and group-specific<br />

primers based on the bacterial 16S rRNA sequences presented in<br />

Additional file 1: Table S1. All PCRs were performed in a volume of 25<br />

μL, comprising 12.5 μL of SYBR green PCR master mix (Ampliqon,<br />

Odense, Denmark), 1 μL of 10 pmol of forward, and reverse primers,<br />

and 100 ng of the DNA template.<br />

Rotor-Gene ® Q (Qiagen, Germany) real-time PCR system was used<br />

for the PCR amplification. The amplification reaction parameters were<br />

assumed as 95 °C for 10 min and 40 cycles at 95 °C for 20 and 30 s for<br />

each primer (Additional file 1: Table S1) and 72 °C for the 20 s. Melting<br />

curve analysis was conducted to assess the amplification accuracy by<br />

increasing temperature from 60 to 95 °C (0.5 °C increase in every 5 s).<br />

The relative abundance of studied taxa was evaluated based on the ratio<br />

of the 16S rRNA copy number of the specific bacteria to the total 16S<br />

rRNA copy number of all bacteria using the previously described method<br />

[32]. Accordingly, the average Ct value for primers was reported as the<br />

percentage values using the following formula:<br />

univ<br />

(Eff. Univ)Ct<br />

Χ =<br />

(Eff. Spec)<br />

Ct spec<br />

×100<br />

The percentage of 16S taxon-specific copy numbers was indicated by<br />

“X”. Furthermore, “Eff. Univ” and “Eff. Spec” represents the efficiency<br />

of the universal primers (2 = 100% and 1 = 0%) and the efficiency of the<br />

taxon-specific primers respectively. The threshold cycles registered by<br />

the thermocycler were indicated by “Ct univ” and “Ct spec”.<br />

Statistical analysis<br />

Analysis of collected data was performed using Statistical Package<br />

for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL,<br />

USA. Figures were drawn using GRAPHPAD Prism 8.4.0 (GraphPad<br />

Software, Inc, San Diego, CA). Quantitative variables were reported as


Table 1 Baseline characteristics of study participants at enrollment<br />

Variables HC (n = 15) IBS (n = 30) NCWS (n = 12) CD (n = 15) Total (n = 72) P‐value*<br />

Table Age (years) 1 Baseline characteristics 32.8 ± 12.2 of study 37.8 participants ± 10.7 at enrollment 31.8 ± 6.4 40.1 ± 8.2 35.5 ± 6.4 0.76<br />

Variables<br />

Males (n%)<br />

HC<br />

7 (46.7%)<br />

(n = 15) IBS<br />

15 (50%)<br />

(n = 30) NCWS<br />

5 (41.7%)<br />

(n = 12) CD<br />

6 (50%)<br />

(n = 15) Total<br />

33 (45.8%)<br />

(n = 72) P‐value*<br />

0.83<br />

Females (n%) 8 (53.3%) 15 (50%) 7 (58.3%) 6 (50%) 39 (54.2%) 0.45<br />

Age Smoking (years) (n%) 32.8 4 (26.6%) ± 12.2 37.8 9 (30%) ± 10.7 31.8 4 (33.3%) ± 6.4 40.1 2 (13.3%) ± 8.2 35.5 19 (26.4%) ± 0.76 0.65<br />

Males (n%) 7 (46.7%) 15 (50%) 5 (41.7%) 6 (50%) 33 (45.8%) 0.83<br />

HC, healthy control; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; NCWS, non-celiac wheat sensitivity; CD, celiac disease<br />

Females (n%) 8 (53.3%) 15 (50%) 7 (58.3%) 6 (50%) 39 (54.2%) 0.45<br />

*P-values obtained by Kruskal–Wallis test<br />

Smoking (n%) 4 (26.6%) 9 (30%) 4 (33.3%) 2 (13.3%) 19 (26.4%) 0.65<br />

HC, healthy control; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; NCWS, non-celiac wheat sensitivity; CD, celiac disease<br />

*P-values obtained by Kruskal–Wallis test<br />

mean ± standard deviation (SD) and qualitative variables were reported statistically significant (p = 0.002). Whereas the phylum Bacteroidetes<br />

as numerical (%) data. ANOVA test was used for the assessment of the was significantly lower in patients with IBS (P = 0.049) and NCWS<br />

relative abundance differences between the two phyla. In addition, we (P = 0.006). This phylum had the lowest relative abundance in the<br />

used R software and Principal Coordinate Analysis (PCoA) method to NCWS group (7.3 ± 4.0%). In addition, the relative abundance of<br />

assess dissimilarities in this study. The PCoA was calculated based on Bifidobacterium spp. was statistically lower in subjects with CD<br />

the Bray Curtis dissimilarity method [44].<br />

(P = 0.022) and IBS (P = 0.001); with the lowest percentage in the IBS<br />

group (0.5 ± 0.5). Moreover, Lactobacillus spp. was significantly lower<br />

Results<br />

in subjects with CD (P = 0.022) and IBS (P = 0.007) compared to the<br />

HCs. The relative abundance of this genus was also lower in subjects<br />

with NCWS, though not statistically significant (P = 0.12). The results<br />

Demographics<br />

Seventy-two samples from adult participants were enrolled in this<br />

study. Due to age-related changes in the gut microbiota, the study<br />

groups were adjusted according to their age so as not to have<br />

for the relative abundance are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 1. As<br />

shown in Table 2 the results obtained from the Kruskal–Wallis test also<br />

revealed significant inter-groups differences for all the studied bacteria<br />



Fig. 1 Box plot for the distribution of the selected bacterial taxa by the median abundance that constitutes the fecal microbiota in each group of<br />

the study population. Differences in each group of the patients were compared to the healthy control (HC) and were considered to be statistically<br />

significant when *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

16<br />

Discussion<br />

The current study examined fecal samples from adult participants<br />

with three GI disorders, including CD, NCWS, and IBS. Comparing<br />

gut dysbiosis to healthy controls, the microbiota analysis interestingly<br />

showed a significant difference in the relative abundance of Firmicutes,<br />

Bacteroidetes, Bifidobacterium spp., and Lactobacillus spp. in<br />

CD patients. In addition, the analysis of the relative abundance of<br />

Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. in IBS patients and<br />

Bacteroidetes in NCWS revealed a statistically significant decrease<br />

compared to the HC group. Furthermore, Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes<br />

ratio (F/B ratio) assessment, as a valuable index for detecting the<br />

alterations in gut microbiota, was another aim of the current study.<br />

Changes in the F/B ratio could be particularly important. Firmicutes and<br />

Bacteroidetes are two predominant phyla accounting for up to 90%<br />

of the total gut microbiota composition [45]. The F/B ratio has been<br />

suggested as an important index of gut microbiota health. [46]. This<br />

ratio is associated with different pathological states [47]. For instance,<br />

the association of a high F/B ratio with several conditions including<br />

GI disorders has been observed repeatedly [48–50]. Particularly, it<br />

is associated with the production of short-chain fatty acids such as<br />

butyrate and propionate [51]. Short-chain fatty acids generated by<br />

microbiota can have a significant influence on human health. The antiinflammatory<br />

molecule butyrate, in particular, acts both on enterocytes<br />

and circulating immune cells, regulating gut barrier integrity. Additionally,<br />

propionate production plays a crucial role in human health since it<br />

promotes satiety and prevents hepatic lipogenesis, which in turn lowers<br />

cholesterol production [52, 53]. Moreover, the increased F/B ratio is<br />

associated with an increased energy harvest from colonic fermentation<br />

[54]. According to our analysis, the F/B ratio was significantly higher in<br />

the subjects with CD and NCWS than in the HCs. In contrast, it was<br />

not statistically significant in subjects with IBS, suggesting a higher level<br />

of alteration in the gut microbiota of individuals with CD and NCWS<br />

than in the IBS compared to the HCs. Recent studies suggested that<br />

the alteration of gut microbiota composition is associated with CD<br />

pathogenesis [55–57]. In the study of Golfetto et al., the concentration<br />

of Bifidobacterium spp. in CD patients was significantly lower compared<br />

to the HCs [58]. Another study conducted by Bodkhe et al., reported<br />

that Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes were the major phyla in the duodenal<br />

microbiota of subjects with CD [59]. Several other studies have<br />

demonstrated that Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. protect<br />

the intestinal epithelial cells from gliadin damage [60,61,62]. Accordingly,<br />

it has been suggested that the fecal transplant which can cause an<br />

increment in Bifidobacterium spp. could reverse the inflammatory<br />

pathway in CD patients [63]. Among all the groups we studied,<br />

Firmicutes predominated the gut microbiota. In addition, Bacteroidetes,


Bifidobacterium spp., and Lactobacillus spp. had significantly lower<br />

abundance in subjects with CD compared to the HCs. In terms of the<br />

alteration and relative abundance of the studied bacterial groups, the<br />

current study’s results were largely consistent with the previous reports.<br />

Fig. 2 Box plots showing the Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes (F/B) I each<br />

group of participants. This ratio was significantly (*P = 0.05) increased<br />

in the NCWS and CD patients but non‐significant in the IBS patients<br />

compared with the healthy controls (HC)<br />

Gut microbiota dysbiosis in individuals with IBS has been reported<br />

in several studies [64–66]. In fact, gastrointestinal dysbiosis in these<br />

patients is associated with intestinal hypersensitivity, mucosal immune<br />

activation, and chronic inflammation, which are the three important<br />

pathophysiological factors in this disease [67, 68]. A number of studies<br />

have reported lower amounts of Bacteroidetes and higher amounts of<br />

Firmicutes in subjects with IBS compared to HCs [32, 69, 70]. In the<br />

current study, both of these phyla had lower relative abundances than<br />

those of HCs, although their differences were not statistically significant.<br />

Furthermore, it has been suggested that IBS is associated with the<br />

lower relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus<br />

spp. [71, 72] which is in accordance with the current study. However, it<br />

is noteworthy that Maccaferri et al. observed an increase in the relative<br />

abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus among subjects<br />

with IBS [73]. It seems that further evidence is needed to confirm<br />

these results. As for NCWS, dysbiosis in these individuals is one of<br />

the important issues which can cause constipation, diarrhea, chronic<br />

inflammation, intestinal hypersensitivity, and immune dysfunction [74].<br />

Fig. 3 Shepherd plot showing the correlation between the distance from the dissimilarity matrix and the coordination distance for NMDS analysis<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />



Fig. 4 Bray–Curtis dissimilarity metric plotted in PCoA space comparing the microbial communities from different patient groups (CD, NCWS, IBS,<br />

and HC). Each circle representing a participant colored according to the studied group<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

18<br />

Garcia-Mazcorro et al. reported a high relative abundance of Firmicutes<br />

and a low relative abundance of Bacteroidetes in the fecal microbiota<br />

of the individuals with NCWS [75]. According to the current study,<br />

the Phylum Bacteroidetes was significantly lower in NCWS patients<br />

compared to HCs, in agreement with the previous study.<br />

Analysis of the dissimilarity and PCoA in this study suggests that<br />

individuals with CD experience a higher level of dysbiosis compared to<br />

the other subjects with microbiota-related GI disorders. In fact, fewer<br />

similarities were observed in the studied bacterial profile of subjects<br />

with IBS and those with NCWS. Overall, it may explain why this<br />

disorder exhibits more severe symptoms when compared to the other<br />

GI disorders, suggesting that the recovery of gut microbiota should be<br />

emphasized more in the treatment of this disease. According to these<br />

analyses, the composition of the gut microbiota in the subjects with IBS<br />

and NCWS is more similar to that of the HCs’, which may suggest a<br />

more favorable outcome for IBS and NCWS than for CD.<br />

The present study had some limitations. First, the sample size is not<br />

large enough to extrapolate the results. Actually, the present study has<br />

monocentric nature that was conducted in a limited population with<br />

specific features. Even if this matter has been addressed with bigger<br />

sample sizes, the results cannot be generalized from one population<br />

to others. Second, based on the meta-genomic data, the human gut<br />

microbiome may contain more than 1000 bacterial species. Although<br />

the studied bacterial phyla and genera are the most dominant and<br />

critical taxonomical groups, there are other groups that should be taken<br />

into consideration. Third, alimentary habits of the included subjects,<br />

which can consistently modify gut microbiota, were not assessed in the<br />

current study. Considering the fact that, eating habits such as using fiber<br />

sub-types, food additives, ultra-processed foods and etc. can affect the<br />

gut bacteria composition, performing further similar microbiota studies<br />

evaluating patients’ dietary pattern is highly recommended. Moreover,<br />

the lack of a follow-up of patients and comparison of results before and<br />

after receiving treatment is another important limitation.<br />

To our knowledge, no previous publication has compared the gut<br />

microbiota profile of subjects with CD, NCWS, and IBS. In fact,<br />

the potential overlap between NCWS and IBS diagnosis and the<br />

unavailability of gluten challenge tests in many medical centers make it<br />

difficult to explore the gut microbiota among these groups. Thus, this<br />

study represents promising findings for future research. Additionally,<br />

investigating all components of the gut microbiota including bacteria,<br />

viruses, fungi, and archaea in order to identify microbial patterns,


conducting multi-centric studies, and examining the fecal microbiome<br />

and mucosal microbiome simultaneously to have a better perspective on<br />

the differences between the mucosal microbiome and fecal microbiome<br />

would have been of great importance.<br />

Consent for publication<br />

Not applicable.<br />

Competing interests<br />

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.<br />

Conclusion<br />

Results of our study indicate that the human intestinal microbiota<br />

composition differs across the studied groups with different microbiotarelated<br />

GI disorders. Specifically, patients with CD had the highest<br />

level of dissimilarity compared to the other studied groups with GI<br />

disorders and HCs. In contrast, those with IBS had the lowest level of<br />

dissimilarity with HCs. This study found some microbial changes that<br />

were inconsistent with the previous results, possibly due to genetics,<br />

geographical pattern, ethnicity, or diet.<br />

Supplementary Information<br />

The online version contains supplementary material available at<br />

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-02649-y.<br />

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. The taxon-specific primers<br />

used in this study.<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

The authors wish to thank the laboratory staffs of the Foodborne<br />

and Waterborne Diseases Research Center, Research Institute for<br />

<strong>Gastroenterology</strong> and Liver Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of<br />

Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, specially Ms. Masoumeh Azimirad and<br />

Ms. Nastaran Asri for their sincere assistance.<br />

Author contributions<br />

KN, SS, and MSK collected the samples and KN performed the<br />

real-time PCR analysis; MRN and HD designed and supervised the<br />

study; KN and MO participated in data analysis; KN, and MAS wrote<br />

the manuscript; MRN, AY, AS, HD, AKV, and MRZ critically revised the<br />

manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.<br />

Funding<br />

<strong>Gastroenterology</strong> and Liver Diseases Research Center, Research<br />

Institute for <strong>Gastroenterology</strong> and Liver Diseases, Shahid Beheshti<br />

University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, supported the study.<br />

Availability of data and materials<br />

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available<br />

from the corresponding author on reasonable request.<br />

Declarations<br />

Ethics approval and consent to participate<br />

The study protocol was submitted for evaluation and approval to the Ethical<br />

Review Committee of the Research Institute for <strong>Gastroenterology</strong> and Liver<br />

Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences to ensure that it<br />

meets ethical standards and guidelines. The present study was approved<br />

by mentioned Ethical Review Committee under the number IR.SBMU.<br />

RIGLD. REC.1396.154. The study was performed according to the revised<br />

Declaration of Helsinki 2013 [39] and informed consent was obtained from<br />

all subjects and/or their legal guardians prior to sample collection.<br />

Author details<br />

1<br />

School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne,<br />

VIC, Australia. 2 Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Shahid<br />

Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3 <strong>Gastroenterology</strong><br />

and Hepatology Diseases Research Center, Qom University of Medical<br />

Sciences, Qom, Iran. 4 Celiac Disease Department, <strong>Gastroenterology</strong> and<br />

Liver Diseases Research Center, Research Institute for <strong>Gastroenterology</strong><br />

and Liver Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences,<br />

Tehran, Iran. 5 Foodborne and Waterborne Diseases Research Center,<br />

Research Institute for <strong>Gastroenterology</strong> and Liver Diseases, Shahid<br />

Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 6 Celiac Disease<br />

Research Laboratory, Department of Pediatrics, Università Politecnica<br />

Delle Marche, 60123 Ancona, Italy.<br />

Received: 2 June 2022 Accepted: 11 January <strong>2023</strong><br />

Published online: 16 January <strong>2023</strong><br />

References<br />

1. Hooper LV, Wong MH, Thelin A, et al. Molecular analysis of<br />

commensal host-microbial relationships in the intestine. Science.<br />

2001;291(5505):881–4.<br />

2. Altveş S, Yildiz HK, Vural HC. Interaction of the microbiota with the<br />

human body in health and diseases. Biosci Microbiota Food Health.<br />

2019;39:19–023.<br />

3. Clemente JC, Ursell LK, Parfrey LW, et al. The impact of the<br />

gut microbiota on human health: an integrative view. Cell.<br />

2012;148(6):1258–70.<br />

4. Ogunrinola GA, Oyewale JO, Oshamika OO, et al. The human<br />

microbiome and its impacts on health. Int J Microbiol. 2020;2020.<br />

5. Teng F, Felix KM, Bradley CP, et al. The impact of age and gut<br />

microbiota on Th17 and Tfh cells in K/BxN autoimmune arthritis.<br />

Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19(1):1–13.<br />

6. David LA, Maurice CF, Carmody RN, et al. Diet rapidly and<br />

reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature.<br />

2014;505(7484):559–63.<br />

7. Prideaux L, Kang S, Wagner J, et al. Impact of ethnicity, geography,<br />

and disease on the microbiota in health and inflammatory bowel<br />

disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19(13):2906–18.<br />

8. Million M, Diallo A, Raoult D. Gut microbiota and malnutrition.<br />

Microb Pathog. 2017;106:127–38.<br />

9. Renson A, Herd P, Dowd JB. Sick individuals and sick (microbial)<br />

populations: challenges in epidemiology and the microbiome. Annu<br />

Rev Public Health. 2020;2(41):63–80.<br />

10. Chong CW, Ahmad AF, Lim YAL, et al. Effect of ethnicity and<br />

socioeconomic variation to the gut microbiota composition among<br />

pre-adolescent in Malaysia. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):1–12.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />



GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

20<br />

11. Lin L, Zhang J. Role of intestinal microbiota and metabolites on gut<br />

homeostasis and human diseases. BMC Immunol. 2017;18(1):1–<br />

25.<br />

12. Takiishi T, Fenero CIM, Câmara NOS. Intestinal barrier and gut<br />

microbiota: shaping our immune responses throughout life. Tissue<br />

barriers. 2017;5(4): e1373208.<br />

13. Thursby E, Juge N. Introduction to the human gut microbiota.<br />

Biochem J. 2017;474(11):1823–36.<br />

14. Wu H-J, Wu E. The role of gut microbiota in immune homeostasis<br />

and autoimmunity. Gut Microb. 2012;3(1):4–14.<br />

15. Belizário JE, Faintuch J. Microbiome and gut dysbiosis. Metabolic<br />

interaction in infection. Springer; 2018. p. 459–76.<br />

16. Chang C, Lin H. Dysbiosis in gastrointestinal disorders. Best Pract<br />

Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;30(1):3–15.<br />

17. Fukui H, Xu X, Miwa H. Role of gut microbiota-gut hormone axis<br />

in the pathophysiology of functional gastrointestinal disorders. J<br />

Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;24(3):367.<br />

18. Lopetuso LR, Petito V, Graziani C, et al. Gut microbiota in health,<br />

diverticular disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and inflammatory<br />

bowel diseases: time for microbial marker of gastrointestinal<br />

disorders. Dig Dis. 2018;36(1):56–65.<br />

19. Malikowski T, Khanna S, Pardi DS. Fecal microbiota transplantation<br />

for gastrointestinal disorders. Curr Opin Gastroenterol.<br />

2017;33(1):8–13.<br />

20. Ostadmohammadi S, Azimirad M, Houri H, et al. Characterization<br />

of the gut microbiota in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis<br />

compared to inflammatory bowel disease and healthy controls. Mol<br />

Biol Rep. 2021;48(7):5519–29.<br />

21. Bhattarai Y, Muniz Pedrogo DA, Kashyap PC. Irritable bowel<br />

syndrome: a gut microbiota-related disorder? Am J Physiol<br />

Gastrointestinal Liver Physiol. 2017;312(1):52–62.<br />

22. Marasco G, Di Biase AR, Schiumerini R, et al. Gut microbiota and<br />

celiac disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61(6):1461–72.<br />

23. Igbinedion SO, Ansari J, Vasikaran A, et al. Non-celiac gluten<br />

sensitivity: all wheat attack is not celiac. World J Gastroenterol.<br />

2017;23(40):7201.<br />

24. Leccioli V, Oliveri M, Romeo M, et al. A new proposal for the<br />

pathogenic mechanism of non-coeliac/non-allergic gluten/wheat<br />

sensitivity: piecing together the puzzle of recent scientific evidence.<br />

Nutrients. 2017;9(11):1203.<br />

25. Shannahan S, Leffler DA. Diagnosis and updates in celiac disease.<br />

Gastrointestinal Endosc Clin. 2017;27(1):79–92.<br />

26. Buono JL, Carson RT, Flores NM. Health-related quality of life, work<br />

productivity, and indirect costs among patients with irritable bowel<br />

syndrome with diarrhea. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):1–8.<br />

27. Lacy BE, Patel NK. Rome criteria and a diagnostic approach to<br />

irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Med. 2017;6(11):99.<br />

28. Barbaro MR, Cremon C, Stanghellini V, et al. Recent advances<br />

in understanding non-celiac gluten sensitivity. F1000Research.<br />

2018;7.<br />

29. Catassi C, Bai JC, Bonaz B, et al. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity:<br />

the new frontier of gluten related disorders. Nutrients.<br />

2013;5(10):3839–53.<br />

30. Hills RD Jr, Pontefract BA, Mishcon HR, et al. Gut Microbiome:<br />

profound implications for diet and disease. Nutrients.<br />

2019;11(7):1613.<br />

31. Salem AE, Singh R, Ayoub YK, et al. The gut microbiome and<br />

irritable bowel syndrome: state of art review. Arab J Gastroenterol.<br />

2018;19(3):136–41.<br />

32. Naseri K, Dabiri H, Rostami-Nejad M, et al. Influence of low<br />

FODMAP-gluten free diet on gut microbiota alterations and<br />

symptom severity in Iranian patients with irritable bowel syndrome.<br />

BMC Gastroenterol. 2021;21(1):1–14.<br />

33. Chander AM, Yadav H, Jain S, et al. Cross-talk between gluten,<br />

intestinal microbiota and intestinal mucosa in celiac disease: recent<br />

advances and basis of autoimmunity. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2597.<br />

34. Losurdo G, Principi M, Iannone A, et al. The interaction between<br />

celiac disease and intestinal microbiota. J Clin Gastroenterol.<br />

2016;50:S145–7.<br />

35. Khanna S, Tosh PK. A clinician’s primer on the role of the<br />

microbiome in human health and disease. Mayo Clin Proc.<br />

2014;89(1):107–14.<br />

36. Johnson EL, Heaver SL, Walters WA, et al. Microbiome and<br />

metabolic disease: revisiting the bacterial phylum Bacteroidetes. J<br />

Mol Med. 2017;95(1):1–8.<br />

37. Kumar H, Lund R, Laiho A, et al. Gut microbiota as an epigenetic<br />

regulator: pilot study based on whole-genome methylation analysis.<br />

MBio. 2014;5(6):e02113-e2114.<br />

38. Mahowald MA, Rey FE, Seedorf H, et al. Characterizing a model<br />

human gut microbiota composed of members of its two dominant<br />

bacterial phyla. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106(14):5859–64.<br />

39. Raiteri A, Granito A, Giamperoli A, et al. Current guidelines for<br />

the management of celiac disease: a systematic review with<br />

comparative analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2022;28(1):154–75.<br />

40. Catassi C, Elli L, Bonaz B, et al. Diagnosis of non-celiac gluten<br />

sensitivity (NCGS): the Salerno experts’ criteria. Nutrients.<br />

2015;7(6):4966–77.<br />

41. Taraghikhah N, Ashtari S, Asri N, et al. An updated overview<br />

of spectrum of gluten-related disorders: clinical and diagnostic<br />

aspects. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020;20(1):258.<br />

42. Soheilian-Khorzoghi M, Rezasoltani S, Moheb-Alian A, Yadegar A,<br />

Rostami-Nejad M, Azizmohammad-Looha M, Verma AK, Haddadi<br />

A, Dabiri H. Impact of nutritional profile on gut microbiota diversity<br />

in patients with celiac disease. Curr Microbiol. 2022;79(5):129.<br />

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-022-02820-w.<br />

43. Mirsepasi H, Persson S, Struve C, et al. Microbial diversity in fecal<br />

samples depends on DNA extraction method: easyMag DNA<br />

extraction compared to QIAamp DNA stool mini kit extraction. BMC<br />

Res Notes. 2014;21(7):50.<br />

44. Bray JR, Curtis JT. An ordination of the upland forest communities<br />

of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr. 1957;27(4):326–49.

Distal<br />

ulcerative colitis:<br />

Together we know more.<br />

Together we do more.<br />


Real<br />

challenges<br />

When you’ve just been diagnosed with ulcerative colitis,<br />

rectal therapy isn’t always the most welcome prospect<br />

Real<br />

solution<br />

Salofalk Granules are a simple oral treatment providing the<br />

once-daily dosing that patients prefer, along with the efficacy<br />

that patients need – even for those with distal disease 1-3<br />

Salofalk Granules have a clever delivery mechanism providing prolonged<br />

release throughout the colon, shown using gamma-scintigraphy 1,4<br />

4 h 6 h 8 h 10 h 12 h<br />

Mesalazine, the Dr Falk way<br />

Prescribing Information (refer to full SPC before prescribing):<br />

Presentation: Salofalk 250mg gastro-resistant tablets: gastro-resistant tablet<br />

Prescribing containing 250mg Information mesalazine. (refer Salofalk to full 500mg SPC and before 1g gastro-resistant prescribing): tablet (UK<br />

Salofalk ONLY) containing gastro-resistant 500mg prolonged-release and 1g mesalazine granules respectively. Salofalk<br />

Presentation: 500mg/1000mg/1500mg/3000mg Stick-formed or prolonged-release round, greyish granules: white prolonged-release<br />

gastro-resistant<br />

granules containing 500mg,1000mg, 1500mg or 3000mg mesalazine per sachet.<br />

prolonged-release granules in sachets containing 500mg, 1000mg,<br />

Indications: Salofalk 250mg tablets (UK): treatment and maintenance of remission<br />

1.5g of mild/moderate or 3g mesalazine ulcerative per colitis. sachet. Salofalk Indications: 250mg tablets Treatment (Ireland): as of an acute antiinflammatory<br />

and in the management maintenance of ulcerative of remission colitis and of in ulcerative the treatment colitis. of<br />

episodes<br />

Dosage: Crohn’s disease. Adults: Salofalk Once daily 500mg 1 tablets sachet (UK): of 3g treatment granules, and 1 or maintenance 2 sachets of of<br />

1.5g remission granules of ulcerative or 3 sachets colitis. Salofalk 1000mg 1g tablets or 500mg (UK): treatment granules of (equivalent acute episodes to<br />

of mild/moderate ulcerative colitis. Salofalk granules: treatment of acute episodes<br />

1.5 – 3.0g mesalazine daily) preferably taken in the morning, according<br />

and the maintenance of remission of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Dosage:<br />

to Salofalk individual 250mg clinical tablets - requirement. Adults and elderly: May acute be treatment taken in 6 three -12 tablets divided daily doses in 3<br />

(1 divided sachet doses. of 500mg Maintenance granules treatment three 6 tablets times daily in or 3 divided 1 sachet doses. of 1000mg Salofalk<br />

granules 500mg tablets three (UK times only): 1 daily) or 2 tablets if more 3 times convenient. daily. Maintenance: Maintenance: 1 tablet 3 times 0.5g<br />

mesalazine daily. Salofalk 1g three tablets times (UK only): daily 1 tablet (morning, three times midday daily. Salofalk and granules evening) –<br />

corresponding<br />

adults: acute treatment<br />

to a<br />

–<br />

total<br />

once<br />

dose<br />

daily 1<br />

of<br />

sachet<br />

1.5g<br />

of<br />

mesalazine<br />

3g granules, 1<br />

per<br />

or 2<br />

day.<br />

sachets<br />

For<br />

of<br />

patients<br />

Salofalk<br />

1.5g granules, 3 sachets of 500mg granules or 3 sachets of 1000mg granules<br />

known (equivalent to be to at 1.5 increased – 3.0g mesalazine risk for relapse daily), preferably for medical taken reasons in the or morning. due to<br />

difficulties Alternatively, the to dose adhere can to be taken three divided daily doses, in three doses. give 3.0g Maintenance mesalazine treatment as a<br />

single – 1 sachet daily of 500mg dose, granules preferably 3 times in daily the (1.5g morning. mesalazine Children: daily). Where There needed, is only<br />

limited 3.0g per day documentation in a single morning for dose an may effect be taken. in children Method of administration: (age 6-18 years). oral.<br />

Children<br />

Tablets - taken<br />

6 years<br />

whole without<br />

of age<br />

chewing,<br />

and older:<br />

with<br />

Active<br />

liquid, one<br />

disease:<br />

hour before<br />

To be<br />

meals.<br />

determined<br />

Granules<br />

- taken on the tongue and swallowed, without chewing, with plenty of liquid.<br />

individually, Duration of treatment starting is with usually 30-50mg/kg/day 8 weeks. To be determined once daily by physician. preferably Children in the<br />

morning (all formulations): in divided there is only doses. limited Maximum documentation dose: for 75mg/kg/day. an effect in children The (age total<br />

dose 6-18 years). should Children not 6 exceed years and the older: maximum active disease adult – on individual dose. Maintenance<br />

basis starting<br />

treatment: with 30-50mg/kg/day To be determined either once daily individually, (granules) starting or divided with doses 15-30mg/kg/day (tablets and<br />

in granules). divided Maximum doses. The 75mg/kg/day. total dose Total should dose not should exceed not exceed the recommended<br />

adult dose. Maintenance - on individual basis starting with 15-30mg/kg/day in<br />

adult<br />

divided<br />

dose.<br />

doses.<br />

It<br />

Total<br />

is generally<br />

dose should<br />

recommended<br />

not exceed recommended<br />

that half the<br />

adult<br />

adult<br />

dose.<br />

dose<br />

Generally<br />

may<br />

be recommended given to children that half the up adult to a body dose may weight be given of 40kg; to children and up the to normal a body weight adult<br />

dose of 40kg to and those the above normal 40kg. adult dose Method to those of administration: above 40kg. Contra-indications:<br />

Taken the<br />

tongue Hypersensitivity and swallowed, to salicylates without or any of chewing, the excipients. with Severe plenty impairment of liquid. of Contraindications:<br />

hepatic function. Hypersensitivity Warnings/Precautions: to salicylates Blood tests and or any urinary of status the excipients. (dip sticks)<br />

renal or<br />

should be determined prior to and during treatment. Caution is recommended in<br />

Severe impairment of renal or hepatic function. Warnings/Precautions:<br />

patients with impaired hepatic function. Should not be used in patients with<br />

Blood impaired tests renal and function. urinary Mesalazine-induced status (dip sticks) renal should toxicity should be determined be considered prior if<br />

to renal and function during deteriorates treatment. during Caution treatment is - recommended stop treatment immediately in patients in such with<br />

impaired cases. Cases hepatic of nephrolithiasis function. reported; Should ensure not good be used hydration. in patients Serious blood with<br />

impaired dyscrasias renal have been function. reported Mesalazine-induced very rarely with mesalazine. renal toxicity Hematological should be<br />

investigations should be performed if patients suffer from unexplained<br />

considered if renal function deteriorates during treatment. Cases of<br />

haemorrhages, bruises, purpura, anaemia, fever or pharyngolaryngeal pain. Salofalk<br />

should be discontinued in case of suspected or confirmed blood dyscrasia. Cardiac<br />

hypersensitivity reactions (myocarditis, and pericarditis) induced by mesalazine<br />

nephrolithiasis have been rarely reported. reported; Salofalk ensure should good then be hydration. discontinued Patients immediately. with<br />

pulmonary Patients with disease, pulmonary in disease, particular in particular asthma, asthma, should should be be carefully<br />

monitored. Severe Patients cutaneous with adverse a history reactions of (SCARs), adverse including drug reactions drug reaction to<br />

with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), Stevens-Johnson syndrome<br />

preparations<br />

(SJS) and toxic<br />

containing<br />

epidermal necrolysis<br />

sulphasalazine<br />

(TEN), have<br />

should<br />

been<br />

be<br />

reported.<br />

kept under<br />

Discontinue<br />

close<br />

medical treatment surveillance. at the first appearance If acute of signs intolerance and symptoms reactions of severe e.g., skin abdominal reactions,<br />

cramps, such as skin acute rash, abdominal mucosal lesions, pain, or fever, any severe other sign headache of hypersensitivity. and rash, Patients occur,<br />

stop with a treatment history of adverse immediately. drug reactions Severe to preparations cutaneous containing adverse sulphasalazine reactions<br />

(SCARs), should be kept including under close Stevens-Johnson medical surveillance. syndrome If acute intolerance (SJS) reactions and toxic e.g.,<br />

abdominal cramps, acute abdominal pain, fever, severe headache and rash occur,<br />

epidermal<br />

stop treatment<br />

necrolysis<br />

immediately.<br />

(TEN),<br />

Tablets may<br />

have<br />

be excreted<br />

been<br />

undissolved<br />

reported.<br />

in<br />

Discontinue<br />

patients with<br />

treatment the ileocecal at valve the first removed. appearance Salofalk of granules: signs and contain symptoms aspartame, of severe a source skin of<br />

reactions, phenylalanine. such May as be skin harmful rash, to patients mucosal with lesions, phenylketonuria. or any other Granules sign also of<br />

hypersensitivity. contain sucrose: 0.04mg, Salofalk 0.08mg, granules 0.12mg, contain 0.24mg aspartame, (500mg/1g/1.5g a source and 3g of<br />

phenylalanine granules respectively). that Salofalk may be tablets: harmful For patients for patients on a sodium-controlled with phenylketonuria. diet: the<br />

250mg and 500mg tablets contain 48mg and 49mg of sodium, equivalent to 2.4%<br />

Salofalk granules contain sucrose: 0.02mg, 0.04mg, 0.06mg and<br />

and 2.5% of the recommended maximum daily intake for sodium. Urine may be<br />

0.12mg discoloured (500mg/1g/1.5g red-brown after and contact 3g with granules sodium respectively). hypochlorite bleach Interactions: used in<br />

Specific toilets. Interactions: interaction Specific studies interaction have not studies been have performed. not been performed. Lactulose With or<br />

similar concomitant preparations treatment with that azathioprine, lower stool 6-mercaptopurine pH: possible or reduction thioguanine, of<br />

mesalazine consider a possible release increase from granules in their myelosuppressive due to decreased effects. pH There caused is weak by<br />

bacterial<br />

evidence that<br />

metabolism<br />

mesalazine<br />

of<br />

might<br />

lactulose.<br />

decrease<br />

With<br />

the<br />

concomitant<br />

anticoagulant effect<br />

treatment<br />

of warfarin.<br />

with<br />

Salofalk granules (additionally): lactulose, or similar preparations which lower stool<br />

azathioprine, pH: possible reduction 6-mercaptopurine of mesalazine release or thioguanine from granules consider due to decreased a possible pH<br />

increase caused by in bacterial their myelosuppressive metabolism of lactulose. effects. Use in There pregnancy is weak and lactation: evidence do that not<br />

mesalazine use Salofalk during might pregnancy decrease unless the anticoagulant the potential benefit effect outweighs of warfarin. the possible Use in<br />

pregnancy risks. Limited and experience lactation: in the lactation There are period. no Salofalk adequate should data. only be Do used not during use<br />

during<br />

breast-feeding<br />

pregnancy<br />

if the potential<br />

unless<br />

benefit<br />

the potential<br />

outweighs<br />

benefit<br />

the possible<br />

outweighs<br />

risks; if<br />

the breast-fed<br />

possible<br />

infant develops diarrhoea, breast-feeding should be discontinued. Undesirable<br />

risks. effects: Limited altered blood experience counts in (aplastic the lactation anaemia, period. agranulocytosis, Use during pancytopenia, breastfeeding<br />

neutropenia, only leukopenia, if the potential thrombocytopenia), benefit outweighs hypersensitivity the possible reactions risks; such if the as<br />

infant allergic develops exanthema, diarrhoea, drug fever, breast-feeding lupus erythematosus should syndrome, be discontinued. pancolitis,<br />

Undesirable headache, dizziness, effects: peripheral Headache, neuropathy, dizziness, peri- and peri- myo-carditis, and myocarditis, allergic and<br />

abdominal fibrotic lung pain, reactions diarrhoea, (including dyspepsia, dyspnoea, cough, flatulence, bronchospasm, nausea, vomiting, alveolitis,<br />

pulmonary eosinophilia, lung infiltration, pneumonitis), abdominal pain, diarrhoea,<br />

aplastic<br />

dyspepsia, flatulence,<br />

anaemia,<br />

nausea,<br />

agranulocytosis,<br />

vomiting, acute<br />

pancytopenia,<br />

pancreatitis, cholestatic<br />

neutropenia,<br />

hepatitis,<br />

leukopenia, hepatitis, rash, thrombocytopenia, pruritus, photosensitivity peripheral – especially neuropathy, with pre-existing allergic skin and<br />

fibrotic conditions, lung alopecia, reactions severe (including cutaneous adverse dyspnoea, reactions cough, (SCARs) bronchospasm,<br />

including drug<br />

alveolitis, reaction with pulmonary eosinophilia eosinophilia, and systemic symptoms lung infiltration, (DRESS), Stevens-Johnson<br />

pneumonitis),<br />

acute syndrome pancreatitis, (SJS), toxic epidermal impairment necrolysis of renal (TEN), function arthralgia, including myalgia, impairment acute and<br />

of renal function including acute and chronic interstitial nephritis and renal<br />

chronic interstitial nephritis and renal insufficiency, nephrolithiasis,<br />

insufficiency, nephrolithiasis, asthenia, fatigue, oligospermia (reversible), changes<br />

in hepatic function parameters, changes in pancreatic enzymes, eosinophil count<br />

increased. Legal category: POM. Cost (UK - basic NHS price; Ireland - PtW): Salofalk<br />

photosensitivity 250mg tablets (100s) especially £16.19; with €13.48. pre-existing Salofalk 500mg skin conditions, tablets (100s) alopecia, £32.38.<br />

Stevens-Johnson Salofalk 1g tablets (90s) syndrome £58.50. (SJS), Salofalk toxic 500mg epidermal granules (100 necrolysis sachets) (TEN), £28.74;<br />

myalgia,<br />

€27.93. Salofalk<br />

arthralgia,<br />

1000mg granules<br />

hypersensitivity<br />

(50 sachets)<br />

reactions<br />

£28.74; €32.87.<br />

such<br />

Salofalk<br />

as allergic<br />

1500mg<br />

granules (60 sachets) £48.85; €49.66. Salofalk 3g granules (60 sachets) £97.70;<br />

exanthema,<br />

€101.64. Product<br />

drug<br />

licence<br />

fever, lupus<br />

number:<br />

erythematosus<br />

Salofalk 250mg<br />

syndrome,<br />

tablets: PL10341/0004;<br />

pancolitis,<br />

changes PA573/4/3. in hepatic Salofalk function 500mg parameters, tablets: PL08637/0019. hepatitis, cholestatic Salofalk 1g hepatitis tablets:<br />

and PL08637/0027. oligospermia Salofalk (reversible), 500mg granules: asthenia, PL08637/0007; fatigue, changes PA573/3/1. in pancreatic Salofalk<br />

enzymes, 1000mg granules: eosinophil PL08637/0008; count increased. PA573/3/2. Legal Salofalk category: 1500mg POM. granules: Basic<br />

cost: PL08637/0016; Salofalk 500mg PA573/3/7. granules, Salofalk pack 3g size granules: 100 sachets PL08637/0025; - £28.74; PA573/3/6. €30.39.<br />

Product licence holder: Salofalk 250mg tablets in the UK: Dr Falk Pharma UK Ltd,<br />

Salofalk<br />

Bourne End<br />

1000mg<br />

Business<br />

granules,<br />

Park, Cores<br />

pack<br />

End Road,<br />

size<br />

Bourne<br />

50 sachets<br />

End, SL8<br />

–<br />

5AS.<br />

£28.74;<br />

Salofalk<br />

32.87€.<br />

500mg<br />

Salofalk and 1g tablets 1.5g Granules, and all granules: pack Dr size Falk 60 Pharma sachets GmbH, - £48.85; Leinenweberstr.5, €50.02. Salofalk D-79108<br />

3g Freiburg, Granules Germany. pack Date size of 60 preparation: sachets - January £97.70; <strong>2023</strong> €102.62 (UK- NHS price; IE<br />

- PtW). Product licence number: Salofalk 500mg granules –<br />

Further information is available on request.<br />

PL08637/0007; PA573/3/1. Salofalk 1000mg granules – PL08637/0008;<br />

PA573/3/2. Salofalk 1.5g granules PL08637/0016; PA573/3/7. Salofalk<br />

Adverse events should be reported. In the UK: Reporting forms<br />

3g<br />

and<br />

granules<br />

information<br />

PL08637/0025;<br />

can be<br />

PA573/3/6.Product<br />

found at https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.<br />

licence holder: Dr Falk<br />

Pharma uk/ In GmbH, Ireland: Leinenweberstr.5, Reporting forms D-79108 and information Freiburg, Germany. can be found Date of<br />

preparation: at https://www.hpra.ie/homepage/about-us/report-an-issue/<br />

January 2022.<br />

Further human-adverse-reaction-form information is available on Adverse request. events should also be<br />

reported to Dr Falk Pharma UK Ltd at PV@drfalkpharma.co.uk.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

Adverse events should be reported. Reporting forms and information<br />

References:<br />

can be found at https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/ (UK residents) or in<br />

1. Ireland Salofalk at Granules. https://www.hpra.ie/homepage/about-us/report-anissue/human-adverse-reaction-form<br />

Kruis W et al. Gut 2009; 58(2): Adverse 233-40. events should also be<br />

Summary of Product Characteristics.<br />

2.<br />

3.<br />

reported<br />

Leifeld<br />

to<br />

L<br />

Dr<br />

et<br />

Falk<br />

al. Aliment<br />

Pharma<br />

Pharmacol<br />

UK Ltd at PV@drfalkpharma.co.uk<br />

Ther 2011; 34(9): 1115-22.<br />

4. Data on file, Dr Falk Pharma.<br />

References: UC: ulcerative colitis<br />

1. Salofalk Granules. Summary of Product Characteristics.<br />

2. Date Kruis of W preparation: et al. Gut 2009; March 58(2): <strong>2023</strong> 233-40.<br />

3. UI--2300071<br />

Leifeld L et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 34(9): 1115-22.<br />

4. Data on file, Dr Falk Pharma.<br />

Date of preparation: To March find out 2022more about Salofalk Granules<br />

UI--2200080 watch this 60s animation<br />



GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

45. Consortium HMP. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy<br />

human microbiome. Nature. 2012;486(7402):207.<br />

46. Li W, Ma ZS. FBA ecological guild: trio of firmicutesbacteroidetes<br />

alliance against actinobacteria in human oral<br />

microbiome. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–11.<br />

47. Liang D, Leung RKK, Guan W, et al. Involvement of gut<br />

microbiome in human health and disease: brief overview,<br />

knowledge gaps and research opportunities. Gut Pathogens.<br />

2018;10(1):1–9.<br />

48. Rowin J, Xia Y, Jung B, et al. Gut inflammation and dysbiosis in<br />

human motor neuron disease. Physiol Rep. 2017;5(18): e13443.<br />

49. Stojanov S, Berlec A, Štrukelj B. The influence of probiotics on<br />

the firmicutes/bacteroidetes ratio in the treatment of obesity and<br />

inflammatory bowel disease. Microorganisms. 2020;8(11):1715.<br />

50. Woting A, Blaut M. The intestinal microbiota in metabolic<br />

disease. Nutrients. 2016;8(4):202.<br />

51. Fernandes J, Su W, Rahat-Rozenbloom S, et al. Adiposity, gut<br />

microbiota and faecal short chain fatty acids are linked in adult<br />

humans. Nutr Diabetes. 2014;4(6):e121–e121.<br />

52. Bifari F, Ruocco C, Decimo I, et al. Amino acid supplements<br />

and metabolic health: a potential interplay between intestinal<br />

microbiota and systems control. Genes Nutr. 2017;12(1):1–12.<br />

53. Chambers ES, Preston T, Frost G, et al. Role of gut<br />

microbiota-generated short-chain fatty acids in metabolic and<br />

cardiovascular health. Curr Nutr Rep. 2018;7(4):198–206.<br />

54. Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, et al. An obesityassociated<br />

gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy<br />

harvest. Nature. 2006;444(7122):1027–31.<br />

55. Akobeng AK, Singh P, Kumar M, et al. Role of the gut microbiota<br />

in the pathogenesis of coeliac disease and potential therapeutic<br />

implications. Eur J Nutr. 2020;59:1–22.<br />

56. Caio G, Lungaro L, Segata N, et al. Effect of gluten-free diet on<br />

gut microbiota composition in patients with celiac disease and<br />

non-celiac gluten/wheat sensitivity. Nutrients. 2020;12(6):1832.<br />

57. Schiepatti A, Bacchi S, Biagi F, et al. Relationship between<br />

duodenal microbiota composition, clinical features at diagnosis,<br />

and persistent symptoms in adult Coeliac disease. Dig Liver Dis.<br />

2021;53:972–9.<br />

58. Golfetto L, de Senna FD, Hermes J, et al. Lower bifidobacteria<br />

counts in adult patients with celiac disease on a gluten-free diet.<br />

Arq Gastroenterol. 2014;51(2):139–43.<br />

59. Bodkhe R, Shetty SA, Dhotre DP, et al. Comparison of small<br />

gut and whole gut microbiota of first-degree relatives with<br />

adult celiac disease patients and controls. Front Microbiol.<br />

2019;10:164–164.<br />

60. de Sousa Moraes LF, Grzeskowiak LM, de Sales Teixeira TF, et<br />

al. Intestinal microbiota and probiotics in celiac disease. Clin<br />

Microbiol Rev. 2014;27(3):482–9.<br />

61. Ghodsi A, Sarabi M, Ranjbar G, et al. The gut microbiota and<br />

probiotics in celiac disease. J Nutr Fast Health. 2021;9(2):105–12.<br />

62. Norouzbeigi S, Vahid-Dastjerdi L, Yekta R, et al. Celiac therapy<br />

by administration of probiotics in food products: a review. Curr<br />

Opin Food Sci. 2020;32:58–66.<br />

63. Medina M, De Palma G, Ribes-Koninckx C, et al.<br />

Bifidobacterium strains suppress in vitro the pro-inflammatory<br />

milieu triggered by the large intestinal microbiota of coeliac<br />

patients. J Inflamm. 2008;5(1):1–13.<br />

64. Javanmard A, Ashtari S, Sabet B, et al. Probiotics and their<br />

role in gastrointestinal cancers prevention and treatment; an<br />

overview. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2018;11(4):284.<br />

65. Chey WD, Kurlander J, Eswaran S. Irritable bowel syndrome: a<br />

clinical review. JAMA. 2015;313(9):949–58.<br />

66. Wang Z, Xu C-M, Liu Y-X, et al. Characteristic dysbiosis of<br />

gut microbiota of Chinese patients with diarrhea-predominant<br />

irritable bowel syndrome by an insight into the pan-microbiome.<br />

Chin Med J. 2019;132(8):889.<br />

67. Wang L, Alammar N, Singh R, et al. Gut microbial dysbiosis<br />

in the irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and<br />

meta-analysis of case-control studies. J Acad Nutr Diet.<br />

2020;120(4):565–86.<br />

68. Chong PP, Chin VK, Looi CY, et al. The microbiome and irritable<br />

bowel syndrome—a review on the pathophysiology, current<br />

research and future therapy. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1136.<br />

69. Labus JS, Hollister EB, Jacobs J, et al. Differences in gut<br />

microbial composition correlate with regional brain volumes in<br />

irritable bowel syndrome. Microbiome. 2017;5(1):49.<br />

70. Duan R, Zhu S, Wang B, et al. Alterations of gut microbiota<br />

in patients with irritable bowel syndrome based on 16S<br />

rRNA-targeted sequencing: a systematic review. Clin Transl<br />

Gastroenterol. 2019;10:2.<br />

71. Lee BJ, Bak Y-T. Irritable bowel syndrome, gut microbiota and<br />

probiotics. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011;17(3):252.<br />

72. Bellini M, Gambaccini D, Stasi C, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome:<br />

a disease still searching for pathogenesis, diagnosis and<br />

therapy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(27):8807.<br />

73. Maccaferri S, Candela M, Turroni S, et al. IBS-associated<br />

phylogenetic unbalances of the intestinal microbiota are<br />

not reverted by probiotic supplementation. Gut Microb.<br />

2012;3(5):406–13.<br />

74. Daulatzai MA. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity triggers gut<br />

dysbiosis, neuroinflammation, gut-brain axis dysfunction, and<br />

vulnerability for dementia. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets.<br />

2015;14(1):110–31.<br />

75. Garcia-Mazcorro JF, Rivera-Gutierrez X, Cobos-Quevedo OJ,<br />

et al. First insights into the gut microbiota of Mexican patients<br />

with celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Nutrients.<br />

2018;10(11):1641.<br />

Publisher’s Note<br />

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in<br />

published maps and institutional affiliations.<br />


We get the gut<br />




Manipulation of the gut microbiome<br />

in gastrointestinal health<br />


13.00-13.40pm<br />

Stay on tract.<br />

Go further.<br />

A healthy microbiome is vital for a balanced<br />

digestive system.<br />

Delivering 450 billion bacteria across 8 diverse strains,<br />

VSL#3 is one of the most powerful polybiotics available<br />

to help enrich your patients’ gut microbiome. 1 Proven<br />

to survive the harsh stomach conditions 2 , VSL#3<br />

contributes to the diversity of good gut bacteria. 3<br />

Help to enrich your patient’s gut microbiome;<br />

Help them stay on track, with VSL # 3 ® .<br />

For information and samples, visit www.vsl3.co.uk<br />

Sign up to our NEW healthcare<br />

professional newsletter for the<br />

latest updates and research on<br />

gut health and probiotics.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

VSL-23-001. Date of Preparation: April <strong>2023</strong>.<br />

1. Cancello R, et al. Nutrients 2019, 11, 3011.<br />

2. Vecchione A, et al. Front Med. 2018;5(59). doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00059.<br />

3. Singh G, et al. 2021 Clinical Nutrition ESPEN 47 (2022) 70-77.<br />





A first-line test for the stomach<br />

BIOHIT HealthCare’s GastroPanel® is a simple<br />

and effective non-invasive test to diagnose<br />

advanced atrophic gastritis and Helicobacter<br />

pylori (H. pylori) in patients presenting with<br />

dyspepsia and upper abdominal symptoms.<br />

Where endoscopy resources and capacity are stretched,<br />

GastroPanel helps select cases for gastroscopy.<br />

GastroPanel measures three stomach-specific biomarkers,<br />

enabling a thorough and objective investigation of the whole<br />

gastric mucosa, non-invasively, and offers clinicians more<br />

confidence in their diagnoses or referrals.<br />

Atrophic gastritis – a chronic condition of the gastric mucosa,<br />

is considered to be the greatest independent risk factor for<br />

developing gastric cancer and current guidance recommends<br />

that individuals with extensive gastric atrophy undergo<br />

regular endoscopic surveillance to closely monitor their<br />

disease progression. Early detection of those individuals<br />

with a significant risk of developing gastric cancer is the<br />

key to effective patient management, helping to reduce<br />

unnecessary referrals, and improving survival rates through<br />

earlier diagnoses.<br />

Figure 1.<br />

GastroPanel measures<br />

plasma concentrations of<br />

Pepsinogen I, Pepsinogen II,<br />

Gastrin-17 and H. pylori IgG.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

GastroPanel is a simple, effective and low cost blood test This patient-friendly blood test can help transform the<br />

that, through extensive validation, has consistently proven referral pathway for upper GI investigations by identifying<br />

to be effective in the determination of chronic atrophic<br />

those who need enhanced endoscopy with biopsies.<br />

gastritis, acid output disorders, and other diseases of<br />

Implementing GastroPanel could help to relieve the<br />

the gastric mucosa resulting from a H. pylori infection.<br />

burden on overstretched gastroscopy services, streamline<br />

When GastroPanel is positive, it helps direct appropriate and referrals for higher-risk patients, and effectively rule-out<br />

effective treatment plans, including, eradication therapy,<br />

atrophic gastritis for others.<br />

surveillance gastroscopy, and antacid prescription.<br />

Scan to find out more or visit www.biohithealthcare.co.uk<br />

24<br />

BIOHIT HealthCare Ltd<br />

Pioneer House, Pioneer Business Park, North Road,<br />

Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, United Kingdom CH65 1AD<br />

Tel. +44 151 550 4 550<br />

info@biohithealthcare.co.uk<br />





Endoscopy continues to witness a number of important innovations that<br />

contribute to even better clinical outcomes. At the same time, there are still<br />

significant opportunities for further improving patient safety and infection<br />

prevention in the field. Given the constantly changing environment of medical<br />

device reprocessing, which is marked by a heightened consciousness of the<br />

overall environmental impact of healthcare and endoscopy, coupled with a<br />

shortage of hospital staff following Covid-19, improving the decontamination<br />

of endoscopes has become increasingly critical. Market feedback shows<br />

that there is a need for an automated and standardized process to clean<br />

endoscopes to ensure all steps are carried out in a uniform manner.<br />

Paul Caesar, Head of Hygiene, Infection Control and Reprocessing at<br />

PENTAX Medical EMEA, explains: “PENTAX Medical is launching the<br />

AquaTYPHOON to do just that. It is a new brushless solution for the<br />

automated pre-cleaning of endoscopes. The device was developed in<br />

association with PlasmaBiotics and offers an alternative to the manual<br />

pre-cleaning step in endoscope reprocessing without the need for brushes<br />

or detergent, addressing hygiene and sustainability challenges faced by<br />

healthcare providers in daily clinical practice.”<br />

Daniel Vinteler CEO of PlasmaBiotics, explains: “Thanks to its patented<br />

technology, the AquaTYPHOON disperses millions of water droplets in the<br />

endoscope channels through a compressed air flow at up to 200 kilometres<br />

per hour. Such high velocity creates a high shear stress which eliminates the<br />

residues from the endoscope channels walls.”<br />

Vinteler pursues: “Moreover, as this new technology replaces the mechanical<br />

brushing of the endoscope channels, wrist injuries are prevented. The<br />

reprocessing staff can work more comfortably with the height-adjustable<br />

AquaBOX which prevents splashing of the operator and the surrounding<br />

environment or uncomfortable positions.”<br />

Caesar continues: “The AquaTYPHOON offers a completely standardized,<br />

controlled and validated process, thus optimizing the pre-cleaning phase.<br />

No steps can be skipped any more so the results are more constant. I truly<br />

believe this new cutting-edge solution offers more balance between patient<br />

safety and staff productivity along with their well-being as the process is<br />

automated, lowering the risk of contamination.”<br />

PENTAX Medical AquaTYPHOON system with the AquaBOX<br />

The automated solution has built-in validation and safety features that help<br />

preventing human errors. The automated routine, unlike manual pre-cleaning,<br />

is always fully in line with the protocol and the full pre-cleaning procedure is<br />

documented. The system also offers full traceability and can be connected to<br />

hospital networks.<br />

Reprocessing staff member using the PENTAX Medical AquaTYPHOON<br />

Enhancing hygiene with automated pre-cleaning<br />

As an alternative to the manual pre-cleaning phase, the AquaTYPHOON<br />

improves hygiene and patient safety by further enhancing reprocessing<br />

of reusable endoscopes, through developing new ways of pre-cleaning<br />

to reduce the risk of infection. It automatically cleans all endoscope<br />

channels, including the non-brushable ones, removing organic residues<br />

very effectively, supporting the automated endoscope reprocessing (AER)<br />

process following the pre-cleaning.<br />

Supporting reprocessing staff for increased<br />

efficiency and ergonomics<br />

Focusing on efficiency, the AquaTYPHOON was designed to offer a<br />

solution to limits faced by staff, such as time constraints, heavy workloads,<br />

and ergonomic issues. It requires between two and five times less labour<br />

time , which reduces the daily workload for staff and increases productivity.<br />

Depending on the endoscope type being used, the device reduces channel<br />

pre-cleaning time to just 2-7 minutes.<br />

Balancing patient safety, productivity and sustainability<br />

As the AquaTYPHOON combines only water and air, waste generation<br />

due to consumables and/or chemicals is avoided. This solution reduces<br />

significantly water consumption, using this natural resource between six<br />

and ten times less than manual pre-cleaning . By optimizing efficiency but<br />

also reducing waste generation, it not only yields cost benefits but also has<br />

a positive environmental impact - making it an ideal solution for endoscopy<br />

departments looking to minimize their environmental footprint.<br />

By offering a reliable solution which enhances the reprocessing of reusable<br />

and semi-reusables endoscopes like the AquaTYPHOON, PENTAX Medical<br />

removes setbacks physicians might have when considering these devices,<br />

allowing them the highest possible freedom to pick the right equipment for<br />

their procedure. Paul Caesar concludes: “In the reprocessing process of<br />

endoscopes, stringent endoscope pre-cleaning is vital. However, it is much<br />

more than just a flush and a brush. As the industry seeks ways to optimize<br />

endoscope reprocessing, PENTAX Medical is turning to automated precleaning<br />

devices with this cutting-edge solution. Not only does it improve<br />

patient safety, but it also addresses the productivity challenges faced by staff<br />

along with hospitals’ sustainability and costs concerns.”<br />

Join our Digital<br />

Hygiene Event<br />

to learn more about<br />

sustainability in endoscopy.<br />

1<br />

Depending on the local guidelines, AquaTYPHOON requires between 2 and 5 times less labour time compared with today’s manual pre-cleaning solutions.<br />

2<br />

Depending on the endoscope type, AquaTYPHOON requires between 6 and 10 times less water compared with today’s manual pre-cleaning solutions.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />





Dr Peter Rimmer, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham and Amanda Appleton, Senior Product Manager, Alpha Laboratories Ltd.<br />

We are all very familiar with the use of faecal calprotectin testing to help<br />

distinguish inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from functional disorders,<br />

and it has become a staple tool to support the clinical teams in their<br />

diagnosis and management of patients. If a negative faecal calprotectin<br />

result is obtained the cause of a patient’s symptoms is unlikely to be<br />

IBD, however, calprotectin is a non-specific marker for inflammation, and<br />

so a high result may be due to something other than IBD.<br />

There was a significant difference in the median initial calprotectin which<br />

was 949µg/g for patients who were subsequently diagnosed with IBD<br />

compared to 353µg/g for those who didn’t have IBD. If two results were<br />

available, then the difference was even more pronounced with 749µg/g<br />

for those with IBD compared to 34µg/g for those without. This data is<br />

presented in the graphs below:<br />

The literature highlights numerous other situations that can cause<br />

(usually transient) increases in the calprotectin concentration found in<br />

stool samples, for example:<br />

• Use of certain medication e.g. NSAIDs, proton pump inhibitors<br />

• Diverticulitis<br />

• Infections e.g. Salmonella, Campylobacter<br />

• Stomach/duodenal ulcers<br />

• Excessive alcohol<br />

• Cancer<br />

Basically, anything that causes an irritation/ inflammatory response in the<br />

digestive system (mouth to anus) can cause an increase in calprotectin<br />

concentrations. Whereas a negative calprotectin is a good rule out for<br />

IBD, a positive calprotectin result isn’t necessarily a cause for instant<br />

referral to secondary care.<br />

The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham introduced a rapid<br />

access ‘Inception IBD’ clinic based on symptoms and a raised faecal<br />

calprotectin test, Dr Peter Rimmer presented their findings and some<br />

proposed changes to the pathway at the European Crohn’s and Colitis<br />

Organisation (ECCO) conference in Copenhagen earlier this year (P126<br />

Ask Twice: The importance of a repeated faecal calprotectin testing prior<br />

to diagnostic colonoscopy in an adult inception cohort).<br />

The importance of repeated testing prior to diagnostic colonoscopy in<br />

an adult inception cohort - Comparison of first and second testing<br />

Supplementary graphs not presented on the poster show that 88.6%<br />

of calprotectin results fell between the first and second result in patients<br />

that subsequently had IBD excluded:<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

26<br />

“During the triaging process (for the Rapid Access clinic) it became<br />

apparent that the majority of patients only had one result at the point<br />

of referral, so patients were sent a sample pot in the post and asked to<br />

bring the sample back with them to their first outpatient appointment. The<br />

median time between the GP referral and this second result was 34 days.<br />

During this project, we did not reject referrals due to the lack of a<br />

second test, but we did delay the request for a colonoscopy until the<br />

second test was available in those with a borderline initial result or the<br />

clinical history was not strongly suggestive of IBD. This was only a few<br />

days as most brought the sample along to the appointment.”<br />

The data presented in the ECCO poster showed that there were 425 patients<br />

with a single calprotectin result and 185 patients who had two calprotectin<br />

results (using BÜHLMANN fCAL turbo on Abbott Alinity analysers) and a<br />

final diagnosis between January 2021 and November 2022.


It also demonstrates that 83% of patients with an increase<br />

between their first and second calprotectin test were subsequently<br />

found to have IBD.Although the overall statistics are compelling,<br />

interpretation is not always straightforward as Dr Rimmer explains:<br />

The poster concluded that the data, in general, supports repeat<br />

FCP testing to avoid unnecessary investigations adding to post<br />

COVID endoscopy backlogs. A cut-off of two values >200µg/g<br />

had the best overall performance but can miss a small number of<br />

IBD cases, particularly those with isolated ileitis or more indolent<br />

disease course. This cut-off should not be used in those with a<br />

marked increase between the 1st and 2nd result, where IBD is<br />

likely.<br />

Modifications to the local referral pathway are currently being<br />

determined, taking into account the data generated in the study.<br />

This will hopefully enable better use of over stretched resources<br />

which should in turn result in quicker access to those with most<br />

need.<br />

For more information on Faecal Calprotectin Testing visit:<br />

www.calprotectin.co.uk<br />

“We certainly feel that the faecal calprotectin (FCAL) is a highly<br />

accurate test, but there are some inconsistencies and pitfalls, which<br />

to an extent the graph represents:<br />

• The FCAL is just a snapshot from a single time point. In acute<br />

infection it will be high but if symptoms improve and FCAL<br />

normalises then investigation isn’t needed – post infective IBS is<br />

common in this patient group.<br />

• However, IBD is also characterised by periods of relapse and<br />

remission and FCAL will fluctuate alongside this, occasionally<br />

by the time we come to investigate they may have entered a<br />

milder phase of the disease. The clinical history and duration of<br />

symptoms in these patients is important, particularly with Crohn’s<br />

disease where the symptoms can be more insidious.<br />

We also had a handful of patients with mild proctitis in our<br />

cohort would not have been picked up with FCAL alone as<br />

their inflammation had largely resolved by the time we saw<br />

them.<br />

• FCAL will on rare occasions fail to correlate with disease severity,<br />

in the majority of our patients that was in ileal Crohn’s disease.<br />

Again, careful attention to the clinical history is necessary and<br />

investigation required regardless of the FCAL result in those with<br />

progressive symptoms or concerning features such as weight<br />

loss.”<br />

A variety of cut-off values were assessed on the poster, and two<br />

results of >200µg/g gave the best performance overall with a 85.7<br />

PPV% , 86.2 NPV% and a specificity of 89.5% but the sensitivity<br />

was lower than other cut-off values at 81.5%.<br />

SCOPE EVENTS FOR <strong>2023</strong>-24<br />

Scope Health UK<br />

Best Health Care Training & Education Courses Provider 2022<br />

from Northern Enterprise Awards 2022<br />



28th TECNA COURSE 17th JUNE SAT <strong>2023</strong> MANCHESTER<br />

29th TECNA COURSE 4th NOV SAT <strong>2023</strong> BRISTOL<br />


1st GCGP COURSE 9th Sept <strong>2023</strong> MANCHESTER<br />


1st ELRIC COURSE 9th March 2024 MANCHESTER<br />

REGISTER AS EXHIBITORS/SPONSORS FOR <strong>2023</strong>/2024<br />

https://scopehealthuk.com/<br />

SCOPE HEALTH UK is Registered in England and Wales. Registration No 8170455<br />


We look forward to meeting you at the course.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />


NEWS<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />





From delivering a full patient pathway, to building services based<br />

on individual requirements, ID Medical’s gastroenterology and<br />

endoscopy clinical services significantly reduce wait times, improve<br />

patient access, and increase outpatients and diagnostic capacity.<br />

ID Medical Clinical Services is a CQC-registered provider already helping<br />

many NHS trusts manage their patients’ healthcare pathways and<br />

improve patient outcomes. All while delivering millions of pounds worth<br />

of savings against NHS Tariffs.<br />

Our <strong>Gastroenterology</strong> Clinical Services are delivered by experienced NHS<br />

Consultants and nursing healthcare professionals. They work alongside our<br />

Senior Operations team, <strong>Gastroenterology</strong> Clinical Lead and Medical Director.<br />

We appreciate how important it is to comply with local service protocols,<br />

policies and processes which is why, whether insourcing or outsourcing<br />

is chosen, we are able to seamlessly integrate within existing services,<br />

working in full partnership with hospitals/trusts as an extension of the<br />

gastroenterology department.<br />

The service can be up and running in as little as two weeks and set up<br />

to meet exacting requirements: a 24/7 elective care service, weekends,<br />

during the week and/or evenings.<br />

More key benefits of IDM Clinical Services include:<br />

• National coverage<br />

• Insourcing/outsourcing options: fixed premises or mobile units to suit<br />

your requirements<br />

• No extra work for staff – from queries to admin, we take care of<br />

everything<br />

• Capacity to flex up or down based on demand<br />

• All Major Framework(s) approved, providing simple contractual<br />

engagement<br />

For further information, please visit id-medical.com/clinical-services,<br />

email clinicalservices@id-medical.com or call 01908 525 756.<br />



For the 1 in 7 people in the UK struggling with constipation, 1<br />

VSL# Fibre offers a unique combination of fibre, poly-biotics and<br />

hibiscus extract, to help maintain a healthy bowel and facilitate<br />

intestinal transit. These natural ingredients are designed to gently<br />

relieve symptoms of constipation, replenish the gut microbiota, and<br />

naturally restore a healthy toilet routine.<br />

Relieve: Psyllium Husk is recommended by NICE for the selfmanagement<br />

of constipation, as it’s over three times more effective than<br />

wheat bran at increasing stool output 2 . Psyllium Husk swells to form a<br />

gel-like substance when in contact with water, helping to ease bowel<br />

movements. It has also been associated with significant changes in gut<br />

microbiota in both healthy adults and people with constipation 3 .<br />

Replenish: Osmotic laxative use has been shown to destroy the<br />

gastrointestinal mucous barrier and alter gut microbial composition, with<br />

long-lasting effect 4 . VSL# Fibre contains the same 8 strains of bacteria<br />

found in VSL#3, offering 30 Billion CFU per serving. These strains<br />

have been proven to survive the harsh conditions of the stomach 5 and<br />

contribute to the diversity of good gut bacteria 6 .<br />

Restore: Alongside lifestyle management, VSL# Fibre could help<br />

restore a healthy toilet routine, facilitating intestinal transit and helping<br />

to maintain a healthy bowel. It can easily slot into your patients’ daily<br />

routine, by mixing it with 200ml water for a delicious fruity drink.<br />

VSL# Fibre is available to order through AAH, or can be purchased by<br />

patients directly from www.vsl3.co.uk<br />

1. Guts UK Charity. https://gutscharity.org.uk/advice-and-information/<br />

symptoms/constipation/<br />

2. NICE Clinical Knowledge Summary: Constipation in Adults. https://<br />

cks.nice.org.uk/ topics/constipation/management/adults/#initial-selfmanagement<br />

3. Jalanka et al. Int. J. Mol. Sci 2019, 20(2) 433<br />

4. Tropini et al. Cell. 2018 June 14; 173(7): 1742–1754<br />

5. Vecchione et al. Front Med. 2018;5(59)<br />

6. Kubacher et al Gut. 2006: 55(6): 833-841<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />





Graham Johnson, Managing Director, BIOHIT Healthcare<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is becoming a more widespread<br />

treatment for dysbiosis-associated conditions, in particular, for<br />

gastrointestinal disorders, and its use was further endorsed recently<br />

when, in 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence<br />

(NICE) approved it for treating recurrent Clostridium difficile infections.<br />

[1] However, several randomized controlled trials investigating FMT in<br />

irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients have revealed huge variability in<br />

treatment response.[2] These contradictory findings may be attributable<br />

to a lack of standardisation in various aspects of the trial protocol<br />

design, one of which is donor selection criteria.[3] At the same time,<br />

there has been a rising tendency to recruit ‘super-donors’ – favourable<br />

both in terms of their microbial diversity and stool composition – with<br />

the aim of ensuring positive outcomes for recipient patients.[4, 5] The<br />

gut microbiota of these donors is currently not always characterised,<br />

but some advocates of FMT are beginning to suggest that this may be<br />

more valuable than simple clinical screening when it comes to matching<br />

recipients to donors, especially with the innovative diagnostic tools<br />

that are now available.[6] Microbial profiling undoubtedly provides key<br />

information, such as the abundance and diversity of bacteria in the<br />

gut – as well as a measure of dysbiosis in patients – and applying this<br />

approach across the board as a measure of standardisation could help<br />

to refine therapeutic FMT strategies and lead to more consistent study<br />

results with favourable patient outcomes.[7]<br />

Purposeful protocol design<br />

This is certainly the strategy chosen by Magdy El-Salhy, Professor of<br />

<strong>Gastroenterology</strong> and Hepatology at the University of Bergen, whose<br />

research team recently conducted a clinical trial to determine the efficacy<br />

of FMT for IBS patients.[8] The study found that FMT is an effective<br />

therapy for IBS, with up to 89.1 % of patients responding to treatment,<br />

and around half of all patients experiencing clinical improvements in<br />

abdominal symptoms, fatigue and quality of life. However, Magdy is<br />

convinced that protocol design was key to ensuring the validity of the<br />

study results. There were five important factors: the super-donors<br />

were screened against set criteria; there was frequent faecal analysis<br />

of the donor to monitor microbiome stability; the fresh donor faeces<br />

were immediately frozen; the sample was mixed manually prior to<br />

administration; and the donor material was administered by gastroscope<br />

directly into the recipient’s duodenum.<br />

The right tool for the job<br />

On top of this, the GA-map ® Dysbiosis Test (GA-map ® Test) – a gut<br />

microbiota DNA-based platform that identifies and characterises<br />

dysbiosis – was used throughout the trial, as Magdy explained: “The<br />

GA map ® Test was fundamental to the analytical element of our trial;<br />

we used it to profile the faecal samples from the donor and to evaluate<br />

the intestinal bacterial profiles of patients following transplantation.”<br />

GA-map ® Test assigns each sample with an index that ranges from 1<br />

for ‘normobiosis’ to any score greater than 2 to represent an increasing<br />

degree of dysbiosis. Samples are then cross-indexed with an additional<br />

value that represents the abundance of present species compared to<br />

the reference population. Indexing in this manner refines the definition of<br />

dysbiosis and multiple FMT studies have correlated the GA-map ® Test<br />

index with effectiveness of therapeutic intervention.[9-12]<br />

Standardisation for success<br />

The trial protocol included faecal analysis of the super-donor at the<br />

start of the study to ensure that they had normal gut microbiota, and<br />

then at three monthly intervals throughout the year to confirm stability<br />

of their microbiome. Christina Casèn, Senior Vice President, Clinical<br />

and Medical Affairs at Genetic Analysis AS, said: “A standardised and<br />

validated test that could be conducted in situ was vital for this study as it<br />

involved repeated sampling and measurements of the donor. Performing<br />

analyses with the GA-map ® Test allowed the trial clinicians to compare<br />

results from different time periods instantaneously and evaluate FMT<br />

efficacy on site.”<br />

Characterisation to further understanding<br />

The study conducted by Magdy and his team confirmed that the<br />

outcome of FMT in IBS patients is donor dependent, and demonstrated<br />

that standardisation of key aspects of the trial protocol is critical. A<br />

donor needs to be well defined with both a normal dysbiosis index and<br />

a favourable specific microbial signature, and using dysbiosis testing<br />

platforms for characterisation can reduce variability in clinical response<br />

and ultimately ensure success of the FMT method. When clinicians are<br />

able to perform DNA-based faecal analysis themselves during trials –<br />

without needing to send samples to an external sequencing laboratory<br />

– they benefit from instantaneous information that guides FMT as an<br />

effective therapeutic intervention.<br />

References<br />

[1] NICE recommends transplant with good bacteria taken from poo to resolve recurrent Clostridium<br />

difficile infections | News | News | NICE, https://www.nice.org.uk/news/nice-recommends-faecalmicrobiota-transplant-for-recurrent-clostridioides-difficile-infection<br />

(accessed 16 January <strong>2023</strong>).<br />

[2] Cammarota G, Ianiro G, Tilg H, et al. European consensus conference on faecal microbiota<br />

transplantation in clinical practice. Gut 2017; 66: 569–580.<br />

[3] El-Salhy M, Hausken T, Hatlebakk JG. Current status of fecal microbiota transplantation for<br />

irritable bowel syndrome. Neurogastroenterology and Motility; 33. Epub ahead of print 1<br />

November 2021. DOI: 10.1111/NMO.14157.<br />

[4] Koren O, Fiorucci S, O’sullivan JM, et al. The Super-Donor Phenomenon in Fecal Microbiota<br />

Transplantation. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org; 1. Epub<br />

ahead of print 2019. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00002.<br />

[5] Moayyedi P, Surette MG, Kim PT, et al. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Induces Remission in<br />

Patients With Active Ulcerative Colitis in a Randomized Controlled Trial. <strong>Gastroenterology</strong> 2015;<br />

149: 102-109.e6.<br />

[6] Allegretti JR, Mullish BH, Kelly C, et al. The evolution of the use of faecal microbiota<br />

transplantation and emerging therapeutic indications. The Lancet 2019; 394: 420–431.<br />

[7] Ianiro G, Punčochář M, Karcher N, et al. Variability of strain engraftment and predictability of<br />

microbiome composition after fecal microbiota transplantation across different diseases. Nature<br />

Medicine 2022 28:9 2022; 28: 1913–1923.<br />

[8] El-Salhy M, Gunnar Hatlebakk J, Kristoffersen AB, et al. Gut microbiota Efficacy of faecal<br />

microbiota transplantation for patients with irritable bowel syndrome in a randomised, doubleblind,<br />

placebo-controlled study. Gut 2020; 69: 859–867.<br />

[9] Wei S, Bahl MI, Dahl Baunwall SM, et al. Determining Gut Microbial Dysbiosis: a Review of Applied<br />

Indexes for Assessment of Intestinal Microbiota Imbalances. Epub ahead of print 2021. DOI:<br />

10.1128/AEM.00395-21.<br />

[10] El-Salhy M, Hausken T, Hatlebakk JG. Increasing the Dose and/or Repeating Faecal Microbiota<br />

Transplantation (FMT) Increases the Response in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).<br />

DOI: 10.3390/nu11061415.<br />

[11] Mazzawi T, Lied GA, Sangnes DA, et al. The kinetics of gut microbial community composition in<br />

patients with irritable bowel syndrome following fecal microbiota transplantation. PLoS One 2018;<br />

13: e0194904.<br />

[12] El-Salhy M, Hatlebakk JG, Gilja OH, et al. Efficacy of faecal microbiota transplantation for patients<br />

with irritable bowel syndrome in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Gut 2020;<br />

69: 859–867.<br />





See the future of endoscopy with the PENTAX Medical INSPIRA video processor (EPK-i8020c) and i20c endoscope series<br />

HAMBURG, 19 April <strong>2023</strong> – PENTAX Medical, a division of HOYA<br />

Group, has launched its two newest innovations: the PENTAX<br />

Medical INSPIRA premium video processor, and the i20c video<br />

endoscope series. The video processor acts as the bridge for<br />

legacy endoscopes 1 , bringing them to next level image quality,<br />

whilst the i20c video endoscope series supports procedures with<br />

superior vision and ergonomics.<br />

Improved clinical outcomes<br />

Boosting diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities is a core consideration<br />

in the development of all PENTAX Medical products. The new<br />

PENTAX Medical INSPIRA video processor aims to improve clinical<br />

outcomes by providing optimum image quality for all PENTAX Medical<br />

endoscopes, including legacy endoscopes 1 . When this processor is<br />

combined with the new i20c endoscope series, visualization is further<br />

enhanced by providing highly detailed images to show vessels and<br />

structures in the best possible clarity. Its ergonomic control body and<br />

steering wheels allow for improved maneuverability. The new platform is<br />

designed to support healthcare professionals in detection, diagnosis and<br />

therapy better than ever.<br />

Maximized value<br />

The PENTAX Medical INSPIRA video processor and i20c video<br />

endoscope series are designed to maximize the value of the endoscopy<br />

suite. The new video processor upgrades legacy endoscope portfolios<br />

to the latest imaging standards 1 , allowing current endoscope<br />

generations to meet high-class clinical needs for an extended duration<br />

of time. By providing an LED light source and smart image processing<br />

to a wide range of compatible endoscopes, it extends the lifecycle of<br />

each endoscope for greater sustainability. The processor’s dual port<br />

is compatible with two connection types, which makes this solution<br />

a gateway to the future of endoscopes. This i20c endoscope series<br />

consists of a unique control body and lightweight connector to enhance<br />

the user experience.<br />

Rainer Burkard, Global President at PENTAX Medical, comments:<br />

“At PENTAX Medical we care about providing the best possible<br />

support for health care professionals. We are very excited about our<br />

new premium platform INSPIRA setting new standards in endoscopy:<br />

the INSPIRA video processor allows physicians to upgrade legacy<br />

endoscopes, whilst being future-proof for the next generation, like<br />

the new i20c video endoscopes. Physicians benefit from optimized<br />

endoscopic workflows, improved imaging, and visualization, while<br />

extending lifecycles and experiencing superior ergonomics.”<br />

Enhanced experience and satisfaction<br />

PENTAX Medical is committed to continuously developing innovative<br />

products in accordance with physicians’ needs, as they spend countless<br />

hours working with these instruments. The unique 7-inch touchscreen<br />

with intuitive plug-and-play features of the new video processor,<br />

alongside the customizable graphical user interface, means that they<br />

can truly focus on their patient.<br />

Dr. Marc Giovannini, Chief of the Department of Medico-surgical<br />

Digestive Oncology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, France, shares: “This<br />

new processor improves dramatically the quality of the endoscopic<br />

image, especially with the 4K screen.” The i20c endoscope series<br />

features improved ergonomics and adjustable stiffness, significantly<br />

improving the user experience for all physicians. This new generation of<br />

endoscopes offers richly detailed imaging, and the Auto-HDR feature<br />

provides true colors and high contrasts. Healthcare professionals can<br />

enjoy outstanding maneuverability, angulation and handling, combined<br />

with further improved vision.<br />

After receiving CE marks in January, these solutions are commercially<br />

available from April 19th, <strong>2023</strong>. Launch dates may vary between global<br />

regions, please contact your local PENTAX Medical sales representative<br />

for further information.<br />

Join PENTAX Medical at the ESGE Days <strong>2023</strong>, in Dublin, for the official<br />

launch event. A team of experts will be there to showcase how these<br />

new innovations help any department meet its goals for patient safety,<br />

productivity, and sustainability. If you are interested in attending this<br />

event in-person or online, or in an interview with an executive, please<br />

contact Charlotte Hérault (charlotte.herault@omnicomprgroup.com).<br />

1<br />

90i, i10, J10, 90K and i10c series endoscopes. Not all models are<br />

compatible. For details, contact your local PENTAX Medical service<br />

facility.<br />

GASTROENTEROLOGY TODAY - SUMMER <strong>2023</strong><br />

PENTAX Medical INSPIRA video processor (EPK-i8020c) and i20c endoscope series<br />


Helicobacter Test INFAI ®<br />

One of the most used<br />

13<br />

C-urea breath tests for the diagnosis<br />

of Hp-infections worldwide<br />

• New line of INFAI packaging and serialization according the EU’s Falsified Medicines Directive<br />

• More than 7.0 million Helicobacter Test INFAI performed worldwide<br />

• Registered in more than 40 countries worldwide<br />

• First approved Hp test for children from the ages of 3 to 11<br />

• Modified Hp test for patients taking PPIs (REFEX)<br />

• Modified Hp test for patients with atrophic gastritis<br />

• Cost-effective CliniPac Basic for hospital and GPs use<br />

INFAI UK Ltd<br />

Innovation Centre, York Science Park<br />

University Road, Heslington<br />

York YO10 5DG UK<br />

Phone: +44 1904 435 228<br />

Fax: +44 1904 435 229<br />

E-Mail: mail@infai.co.uk<br />

Web: www.infai1.com

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!