No abstract

Objectives: Rumination syndrome (RS) can be challenging to treat and data on treatment outcomes in children are limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of children with RS treated with tailored outpatient and inpatient strategies. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of children <18 years old with RS evaluated at our institution from 2018 to 2020. At our institution, we use a multidisciplinary, tiered approach to treatment based on presentation severity. Children with RS either undergo outpatient treatment program (OP) or participate in an intensive outpatient program (IOP) or an intensive inpatient program (IP). We reviewed baseline characteristics and assessed severity (including frequency of regurgitation/vomiting, route of nutrition, and weight loss) at baseline, at completion of treatment, and at a follow-up time point. Results: We included 171 children with RS (64% female, median age 13 years, interquartile range (IQR) 10-15), 123 of whom had post-treatment data after completing OP, IOP, or IP. At baseline, 66% of patients were vomiting daily and 40% were losing weight. After treatment, 72% of OP, 95% of IOP, and 96% of IP patients reported that symptoms were better or fully resolved compared to baseline. In all 3 treatment groups, patients were vomiting, losing weight, and skipping meals significantly less after treatment compared to baseline. At follow-up (median 5.3 months), 86% of IOP and 66% of IP patients had symptoms that remained better or resolved. Conclusions: RS can cause severe symptoms, impacting nutritional status and school participation. However, multidisciplinary care in a tiered approach leads to significant symptomatic improvement.

Objectives: We have had success treating children with severe rumination syndrome using a multidisciplinary intensive outpatient program (IOP) involving multiple treatment sessions daily. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we temporarily transitioned care to telemedicine. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of patients with rumination syndrome who completed IOP treatment in person versus by telemedicine. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with rumination syndrome who participated in IOP treatment from 2018 to 2020. Similar treatment sessions were performed involving medical and behavioral techniques provided by a multidisciplinary team during telemedicine visits. Families/patients were asked to complete a survey outlining their child’s current rumination symptom severity and review the IOP. Results: We included 34 patients (79% F, median age 15 years, range 7–19 years) who completed IOP treatment. Twenty-six patients (76%) were treated in person and 8 patients (24%) by telemedicine. For patients treated in person, 76% (19/25) had improvement in symptoms while 16% (4/25) had complete resolution of symptoms. For patients treated by telemedicine, 88% (7/8) had improvement in their symptoms. There were no significant differences between groups in likelihood of improvement. Overall, 78% (18/23) preferred in person therapy while 17% (4/23) did not have a preference. All 18 of the in-person cohort who completed follow-up surveys preferred in-person management. Conclusions: Multidisciplinary intensive outpatient treatment for children and adolescents with severe rumination syndrome is effective. Although telemedicine may be an alternative to in person therapy, majority of families prefer in person visits.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Background Linaclotide is a well-tolerated and effective agent for adults with functional constipation (FC) or irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). However, data in children are lacking. The aim of this study is to examine the efficacy and safety of linaclotide in children. Methods We performed a retrospective review of children < 18 years old who started linaclotide at our institution (Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio). We excluded children already using linaclotide or whom had an organic cause of constipation or abdominal pain. We recorded information on patient characteristics, medical and surgical history, symptoms, clinical response, course of treatment, and adverse events at baseline, first follow-up, and after 1 year of linaclotide use. A positive clinical response was based on the physician's global assessment of symptoms at the time of the visit as documented. Results We included 93 children treated with linaclotide for FC (n = 60) or IBS-C (n = 33); 60% were female; median age was 14.7 years (IQR 13.2-16.6). Forty-five percent of patients with FC and 42% with IBS-C had a positive clinical response at first follow-up a median of 2.5 and 2.4 months after starting linaclotide, respectively. Approximately a third of patients experienced adverse events and eventually 27% stopped using linaclotide due to adverse events. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, and bloating. Conclusion Nearly half of children with FC or IBS-C benefited from linaclotide, but adverse events were relatively common. Further prospective, controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings and to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from linaclotide.Desiree F. Baaleman and Shivani Gupta contributed equally as co-first authors.

No abstract

Background Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a promising therapy for children with severe nausea and vomiting, but information on long‐term outcomes is limited. We sought to evaluate the long‐term efficacy and safety of GES and to describe patient benefit and satisfaction. Methods Using a prospective registry, we identified patients aged <21 years treated with GES at our institution between 2009 and 2019. Encounters were selected at baseline prior to GES and at follow‐up at 1 month, 12 months, and the most recent visit. We compared symptoms, route of nutrition, and medication usage at baseline to follow‐up timepoints. Factors associated with improvement were evaluated. We recorded complications and need for battery replacement. We contacted families to administer the Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory (GCBI) and a parent satisfaction questionnaire. Key Results Eighty‐five patients (68.2% female, median age 15.8 years) completed a trial of temporary GES due to severe nausea and vomiting. Seventy‐seven (90.6%) had a positive response and underwent permanent stimulator placement. Use of tube feeding or parenteral nutrition (PN) decreased from 72.7% at baseline to 29.9% at the most recent follow‐up (p < 0.001). Higher baseline vomiting severity was associated with the ability to stop supplemental nutrition by 1 month (p < 0.05). Fourteen patients (18.2%) had complications, primarily due to stimulator‐associated discomfort, and 29 (37.7%) required battery replacement. Median GCBI was +52.1, indicating health‐related benefit. Conclusions and Inferences Children with severe nausea and vomiting treated with GES experienced significant and durable improvement in symptom severity and their ability to tolerate oral nutrition.

Objectives: To evaluate whether providing a constipation action plan (CAP) to families of children with constipation at outpatient gastroenterology (GI) visits affects health care utilization of the GI department. Methods: We created a CAP to be included in the after visit summary of children seen in our GI Clinic. We compared the number of patient telephone calls, electronic messages, and urgent care (UC) visits, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations within 3 months after the visit of patients who received the CAP compared to those who did not using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. For families who received the CAP at a follow-up visit, we compared these variables in the 3 months before and after the CAP was provided using paired t test and McNemar's test as appropriate. Results: We included 336 patients who received the CAP and 2812 who did not. After IPTW adjustment, there were fewer patient telephone calls for patients who received the CAP (P = 0.0006). The difference in patient electronic messages was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). For the 45 patients who received the CAP at a follow-up visit, there were on average 1.8 more patient telephone calls made prior to receiving the CAP than after (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.8-2.8; P = 0.0007) and 2.3 more patient electronic messages received (95% CI = 0.1-4.5; P = 0.04). There were no differences in UC/emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Conclusions: We found that providing a CAP to families of children with constipation decreases health care utilization. Further studies are needed to determine whether this impacts patient outcomes.