Gastrointestinal Peptides During Chronic Gastric Electrical Stimulation in Patients With Intractable Vomiting

Gastric and sacral electrical stimulation for motility disorders-A clinical perspective

BACKGROUND

Electrical stimulation of the gut has been investigated in recent decades with a view to treating various gastro-intestinal motility disorders including, among others, gastric electrical stimulation to relieve nausea and vomiting associated with gastroparesis and sacral neuromodulation to treat fecal incontinence and/or constipation. Although their symptomatic efficacy has been ascertained by randomized controlled trials, their mechanisms of action are not fully understood.

PURPOSE

This review summarizes the past year's literature on the mechanisms of action of gut electrical stimulation therapies, including their impact on the gut-brain axis.

Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Polypeptide and Substance P Mediate Emetic Response Induction by Masked Trichothecene Deoxynivalenol-3-Glucoside through Ca2+ Signaling

Deoxynivalenol (DON), the most naturally-occurring trichothecenes, may affect animal and human health by causing vomiting as a hallmark of food poisoning. Deoxynivalenol-3-glucoside (D3G) usually co-occurs with DON as its glucosylated form and is another emerging food safety issue in recent years. However, the toxicity of D3G is not fully understood compared to DON, especially in emetic potency. The goals of this research were to (1) compare emetic effects to D3G by oral and intraperitoneal (IP) routes and relate emetic effects to brain-gut peptides glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and substance P (SP) in mink; (2) determine the roles of calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR) and transient receptor potential (TRP) channel in D3G’s emetic effect. Both oral and IP exposure to D3G elicited marked emetic events. This emetic response corresponded to an elevation of GIP and SP. Blocking the GIP receptor (GIPR) diminished emetic response induction by GIP and D3G. The neurokinin 1 receptor (NK-1R) inhibitor Emend^® restrained the induction of emesis by SP and D3G. Importantly, CaSR antagonist NPS-2143 or TRP channel antagonist ruthenium red dose-dependently inhibited both D3G-induced emesis and brain-gut peptides GIP and SP release; cotreatment with both antagonists additively suppressed both emetic and brain-gut peptide responses to D3G. To summarize, our findings demonstrate that activation of CaSR and TRP channels contributes to D3G-induced emesis by mediating brain-gut peptide exocytosis in mink.

Gastric Electrical Stimulation: Role and Clinical Impact on Chronic Nausea and Vomiting

Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is currently used as an alternative treatment for medically refractory gastroparesis. GES has been initially developed to accelerate gastric motility, in order to relieve the symptoms of the patients. Subsequent studies, unfortunately, failed to demonstrate the acceleration of gastric emptying using high-frequency stimulation - low energy stimulation although the technique has shown a clinical impact with a reduction of nausea and vomiting for patients with gastroparesis. The present review details the clinical efficacy of GES in gastroparesis as well as its putative mechanisms of action.

The Actions of Centrally Administered Nesfatin-1 on Emesis, Feeding, and Locomotor Activity in Suncus murinus (House Musk Shrew)

Nesfatin-1 is an anorectic peptide expressed in both peripheral tissues and brain areas involved in the regulation of feeding, emotion and emesis. The aim of the present study is to characterize the distribution of NUCB2/nesfatin-1 in Suncus murinus and to investigate the actions of nesfatin-1 to affect gastrointestinal contractility, emesis, food and water intake, and locomotor activity. The deduced amino acid sequence of S. murinus nesfatin-1 using in silico cloning showed high homology with humans and rodents. NUCB2 mRNA was detected throughout the entire brain and in the gastrointestinal tract, including the stomach and gut. Western blot analysis and immunohistochemistry confirmed the expression of nesfatin-1 protein in these regions. The NUCB2 mRNA levels in the hypothalamus, hippocampus and brainstem were significantly decreased, whereas that in the striatum were increased after 24 h starvation compared to ad libitum-fed animals (p < 0.05). In in vitro studies, nesfatin-1 (0.3–1,000 pM) failed to contract or relax the isolated gastric antrum and intestinal segments. In conscious, freely moving animals, intracerebroventricular administration of nesfatin-1 (1–50 pmol) induced emesis (p < 0.05) and suppressed 6-h cumulative food intake (p < 0.05), without affecting the latency to feeding. Nesfatin-1 (25 pmol, i.c.v.) decreased 24-h cumulative food and water intake by 28.3 and 35.4%, respectively (p < 0.01). No significant differences in locomotor activity were observed. In conclusion, NUCB2/nesfatin-1 might be a potent regulator of feeding and emesis in S. murinus. Further studies are required to elucidate the mechanism of actions of this peptide as a mediator linking the brainstem NUCB2/nesfatin-1 to forebrain system.

Pathophysiology of Gastroparesis Syndromes Includes Anatomic and Physiologic Abnormalities

BACKGROUND

Factors underlying gastroparesis are not well defined.

AIMS

We hypothesized that multiple systems may be involved in patients with gastroparesis symptoms and performed a comparative physiologic study.

METHODS

We studied 43 consecutive eligible patients with gastroparetic symptoms categorized by GI symptoms, metabolic status, illness quantification, and gastric physiology. Patients were evaluated by two methods in each of five core areas: inflammatory, autonomic, enteric, electrophysiologic, and hormonal with abnormalities examined by correlations.

RESULTS

Patients had similar GI symptoms regardless of baseline gastric emptying or diabetic/idiopathic status, and all patients demonstrated abnormalities in each of the 5 areas studied. Nearly all patients presented with elevated markers of serum TNFα (88%) and serum IL-6 (91%); elevated cutaneous electrogastrogram frequency (95%); and interstitial cells of Cajal count abnormalities (inner: 97%, outer: 100%). Measures of inflammation correlated with a number of autonomic, enteric anatomy, electrophysiologic and hormonal abnormalities.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that patients with the symptoms of gastroparesis have multiple abnormalities, when studied by traditional, as well as newer, diagnostic assessments. Inflammation appears to be a fundamental abnormality that affects other organ systems in symptomatic patients. Future work on gastroparetic syndromes and their treatment may benefit from a focus on the diffuse nature of their illness, diverse pathophysiologic mechanisms involved, especially the possible causes of underlying inflammation and disordered hormonal status.

TRAIL REGISTRY

This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov under study # NCT03178370 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03178370 .

Efficacy of gastric electrical stimulation in intractable nausea and vomiting at 10 years: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data

BACKGROUND

Gastric electrical simulation has been shown to relieve nausea and vomiting in medically refractory patients. Efficacy of gastric electrical stimulation has been reported mostly in short-term studies, but none has evaluated its efficacy beyond 10 years after implantation.

METHODS

Patients implanted at our center for medically refractory severe and chronic nausea and/or vomiting were evaluated before and over 10 years after implantation using symptomatic scale and quality of life (GIQLI) score. Improvement was defined as a reduction of more than 50% in vomiting frequency.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 50 patients were implanted from January 1998 to December 2009. Among them, 7 were explanted due to a lack of efficacy and/or side effects, 2 died, and 4 were lost to follow-up. Mean follow-up was 10.5 ± 3.7 years. In intention-to-treat analysis, 27/50 (54%) patients reported an improvement. Beyond 10 years, an improvement in early satiety (3.05 vs 1.76, <0.001), bloating (2.51 vs 1.70, P = .012), nausea (2.46 vs 1.35, P = .001), and vomiting (3.35 vs 1.49 P < .001) scores were observed. Quality of life improved over 10 years (GIQLI score: 69.7 vs. 86.4, P = .005) and body mass index (BMI: 23.4 vs. 26.2 kg/m² ; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Gastric electrical simulation is effective in the long-term in patients with medically refractory nausea and vomiting, with an efficacy of 54% at 10 years on an intention-to-treat analysis. Other long-term observational studies are warranted to confirm these results.

Gastric Electrical Stimulation Reduces Refractory Vomiting in a Randomized Crossover Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There have been conflicting results from trials of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for treatment of refractory vomiting, associated or not with gastroparesis. We performed a large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial with crossover to study the efficacy of GES in patients with refractory vomiting, with or without gastroparesis.

METHODS

For 4 months, we assessed symptoms in 172 patients (66% women; mean age ± standard deviation, 45 ± 12 years; 133 with gastroparesis) with chronic (>12 months) of refractory vomiting (idiopathic, associated with a type 1 or 2 diabetes, or postsurgical). A GES device was implanted and left unactivated until patients were randomly assigned, in a double-blind manner, to groups that received 4 months of stimulation parameters (14 Hz, 5 mA, pulses of 330 μs) or no stimulation (control); 149 patients then crossed over to the other group for 4 months. Patients were examined at the end of each 4-month period (at 5 and 9 months after implantation). Primary endpoints were vomiting score, ranging from 0 (daily vomiting) to 4 (no vomiting), and the quality of life, assessed by the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index scoring system. Secondary endpoints were changes in other digestive symptoms, nutritional status, gastric emptying, and control of diabetes.

RESULTS

During both phases of the crossover study, vomiting scores were higher in the group with the device on (median score, 2) than the control group (median score, 1; P < .001), in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Vomiting scores increased significantly when the device was ON in patients with delayed (P < .01) or normal gastric emptying (P = .05). Gastric emptying was not accelerated during the ON period compared with the OFF period. Having the GES turned on was not associated with increased quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized crossover study, we found that GES reduced the frequency of refractory vomiting in patients with and without diabetes, although it did not accelerate gastric emptying or increase of quality of life. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT00903799.

Effectiveness of gastric electrical stimulation in gastroparesis: Results from a large prospectively collected database of national gastroparesis registries

BACKGROUND

Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for treating gastroparesis symptoms is controversial.

METHODS

We studied 319 idiopathic or diabetic gastroparesis symptom patients from the Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium (GpCRC) observational studies: 238 without GES and 81 with GES. We assessed the effects of GES using change in GCSI total score and nausea/vomiting subscales between baseline and 48 weeks. We used propensity score methods to control for imbalances in patient characteristics between comparison groups.

KEY RESULTS

GES patients were clinically worse (40% severe vs. 18% for non-GES; P < .001); worse PAGI-QOL (2.2. vs. 2.6; P = .003); and worse GCSI total scores (3.5 vs. 2.8; P < .001). We observed improvements in 48-week GCSI total scores for GES vs. non-GES: improvement by ≥ 1-point (RR = 1.63; 95% CI = (1.14, 2.33); P = .01) and change from enrollment (difference = -0.5 (-0.8, -0.3); P < .001). When adjusting for patient characteristics, symptom scores were smaller and not statistically significant: improvement by ≥ 1-point (RR = 1.29 (0.88, 1.90); P = .20) and change from the enrollment (difference = -0.3 (-0.6, 0.0); P = .07). Of the individual items, the nausea improved by ≥ 1 point (RR = 1.31 (1.03, 1.67); P = .04). Patients with GCSI score ≥ 3.0 tended to improve more than those with score < 3.0. (Adjusted P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

This multicenter study of gastroparesis patients found significant improvements in gastroparesis symptoms among GES patients. Accounting for imbalances in patient characteristics, only nausea remained significant. Patients with greater symptoms at baseline improved more after GES. A much larger sample of patients is needed to fully evaluate symptomatic responses and to identify patients likely to respond to GES.

Gastroparesis syndromes: Response to electrical stimulation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Factors underlying gastroparesis are not well defined, nor is the mechanism of action of gastric electrical stimulation (GES). We hypothesized that GES acts via several mechanisms related to underlying disordered pathophysiology.

METHODS

We studied 43 consecutive eligible patients with gastroparetic symptoms, previously evaluated by two methods in each of five core areas: inflammatory, autonomic, enteric, electrophysiologic, and hormonal; and also categorized by GI symptoms, metabolic status, illness quantification, and gastric physiology. We then studied 41 patients who underwent temporary GES for 5-7 days. Thirty-six of those patients were implanted and 30 were followed up at 6 months after permanent GES.

RESULTS

In previous but separately reported work, patients had similar GI symptoms regardless of baseline gastric emptying or diabetic/idiopathic status and all patients demonstrated abnormalities in each of the five areas studied. After GES, patients showed early and late effects of electrical stimulation with changes noted in multiple areas, categorized by improvement status.

CONCLUSION

Patients with symptoms of gastroparesis have multiple abnormalities, including systemic inflammation and disordered hormonal status. GES affects many of these abnormalities. We conclude electrical stimulation improves symptoms and physiology with (a) an early and sustained anti-emetic effect; (b) an early and durable gastric prokinetic effect in delayed emptying patients; (c) an early anti-arrhythmic effect that continues over time; (d) a late autonomic effect; (e) a late hormonal effect; (f) an early anti-inflammatory effect that persists; and (g) an early and sustained improvement in health-related quality of life. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov under study # NCT03178370 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03178370).

Current Understanding of the Role of Nesfatin-1

Nesfatin-1 was discovered in 2006 and implicated in the regulation of food intake. Subsequently, its widespread central and peripheral distribution gave rise to additional effects. Indeed, a multitude of actions were described, including modulation of gastrointestinal functions, glucose and lipid metabolism, thermogenesis, mediation of anxiety and depression, as well as cardiovascular and reproductive functions. Recent years have witnessed a great increase in our knowledge of these effects and their underlying mechanisms, which will be discussed in the present review. Lastly, gaps in knowledge will be highlighted to foster further studies.