Diana Swift

Findings on intestinal ultrasound (IUS) are useful for predicting remission in recent-onset Crohn’s disease (CD), a prospective, population-based cohort of newly diagnosed patients in Denmark reported.

Adding to the growing body of evidence on the utility of this noninvasive imaging tool in monitoring disease activity in the newly diagnosed, the multicenter study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology characterized ultrasonographic features at diagnosis and evaluated IUS’s prognostic value. Existing literature has focused on patients with long-standing disease.

Investigators led by first author Gorm R. Madsen, MD, PhD, of the Copenhagen Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Children, Adolescents and Adults at Copenhagen University Hospital, observed continued improvement in most IUS parameters throughout the first year. “Our findings thereby emphasize the role of IUS in improving patient management, and its use in patient risk stratification already at diagnosis,” the investigators wrote.

Some 38% of patients reached ultrasonic transmural remission within 3 months of diagnosis, an achievement associated with higher rates of sustained steroid-free clinical remission and reduced need for treatment escalation.

“Ultrasonic transmural remission is achievable early in Crohn’s disease and is associated with favorable outcomes, underscoring the value of intestinal ultrasound in early disease management,” the researchers wrote.

 

Study Details

While IUS is increasingly recognized for monitoring CD, little was known about its prognostic value early in the disease course. “We aimed to determine whether sonographic inflammation at diagnosis — and particularly the achievement pftransmural remission after 3 months — could predict future outcomes,” Madsen told GI & Hepatology News. “This is important, as early identification of patients at risk of surgery or treatment escalation may help guide therapy decisions more effectively.”

From May 2021 to April 2023, 201 patients (mean age, 35 years; 54.2% men) with new adult-onset CD were followed by IUS and monitored with symptomatic, biochemical, and endoscopic evaluations.

After 3 months, transmural remission was achieved more often by patients with colonic disease, and no associations were found between sonographic inflammation at diagnosis and diagnostic delay.

“We were positively surprised. Nearly 40% of newly diagnosed Crohn’s patients achieved transmural remission within 3 months — a higher proportion than seen in earlier studies, which mostly focused on long-standing or trial-selected populations,” Madsen said. “It was also striking how strongly early IUS findings predicted the need for surgery, outperforming endoscopy and biomarkers.”

In other findings, transmural remission at 3 months was significantly associated with steroid-free clinical remission at both 3 months and all subsequent follow-ups within the first year. It was also linked to a lower risk for treatment escalation during the follow-up through to 12 months: 26% vs 53% (P =.003). At 12 months, 41% had achieved transmural remission.

Higher baseline body mass index significantly reduced the likelihood of 12-month transmural remission. For overweight, the odds ratio (OR) was 0.34 (95% CI, 0.12-0.94), while for obesity, the OR was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.04-0.73).

The International Bowel Ultrasound Segmental Activity Score in the terminal ileum at diagnosis emerged as the best predictor of ileocecal resection during the first year, with an optimal threshold of 63 (area under the curve, 0.92; sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 73%).

The use of IUS has expanded considerably in the past 3 years, and in 2024, the American Gastroenterological Association updated its clinical practice guidance on the role of this modality in inflammatory bowel disease.

IUS is noninvasive, radiation-free, inexpensive, and doable at the bedside with immediate results, Madsen said. “For patients, this means less anxiety and discomfort. For healthcare systems, it enables faster clinical decisions, reduced need for endoscopy or MRI, and closer disease monitoring, particularly valuable in treat-to-target strategies.”

In terms of limitations, however, IUS is operator-dependent and consistent training is crucial, he added. “Certain anatomical regions, particularly the proximal small bowel, can be more challenging to evaluate. Additionally, while IUS is highly effective for assessing inflammatory activity, it becomes more difficult to accurately assess disease involvement when inflammation extends beyond approximately 20 cm of the small bowel.”

 

Key Insights

Commenting on the Danish study from a US perspective, Anna L. Silverman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, agreed the findings in adult patients with newly diagnosed, rather than long-standing, CD contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting IUS’s applicability for both treatment monitoring and prognosis.

“By focusing on early-stage CD, the study provides clearer insights into initial disease activity and response to therapy, reinforcing the value of this noninvasive, point-of-care modality,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “These findings enhance our understanding of IUS as a tool to help guide early management decisions in CD.”

Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, concurred that this is an important study. “It includes newly diagnosed patients — so a very ‘clean’ cohort in terms of not being influenced by confounders,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

“We don’t fully know yet the best treatment target in CD, and this study highlights the importance of early transmural healing in determining outcomes at 1 year,” he noted. In addition, the study highlighted a convenient tool that can increasingly be applied at point of care in the United States. “Colonoscopy at 3 months is not practical and has low patient acceptability, so using IUS in this circumstance would have value and impact.”

Ananthakrishnan pointed to several unanswered questions, however. “Are there patients who may not have healing early but may take some extra time to achieve transmural remission, and if so, what are their outcomes? What is the best timepoint for transmural healing assessment? What is the incremental value of measuring it at 3 vs 6 months?”

In addition, he wondered, how much is the added value of IUS over clinical symptoms and/or markers such as calprotectin and C-reactive protein? “In the subset of patients with clinical and transmural remission, there was no difference in endoscopic outcomes at 1 year, so this is an unanswered question,” Ananthakrishnan said.

This study was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Madsen reported receiving a speaker’s fee from Tillotts. Multiple coauthors disclosed having various financial relationships with numerous private-sector companies, including Novo Nordisk. Silverman and Ananthakrishnan reported having no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings on intestinal ultrasound (IUS) are useful for predicting remission in recent-onset Crohn’s disease (CD), a prospective, population-based cohort of newly diagnosed patients in Denmark reported.

Adding to the growing body of evidence on the utility of this noninvasive imaging tool in monitoring disease activity in the newly diagnosed, the multicenter study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology characterized ultrasonographic features at diagnosis and evaluated IUS’s prognostic value. Existing literature has focused on patients with long-standing disease.

Investigators led by first author Gorm R. Madsen, MD, PhD, of the Copenhagen Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Children, Adolescents and Adults at Copenhagen University Hospital, observed continued improvement in most IUS parameters throughout the first year. “Our findings thereby emphasize the role of IUS in improving patient management, and its use in patient risk stratification already at diagnosis,” the investigators wrote.

Some 38% of patients reached ultrasonic transmural remission within 3 months of diagnosis, an achievement associated with higher rates of sustained steroid-free clinical remission and reduced need for treatment escalation.

“Ultrasonic transmural remission is achievable early in Crohn’s disease and is associated with favorable outcomes, underscoring the value of intestinal ultrasound in early disease management,” the researchers wrote.

 

Study Details

While IUS is increasingly recognized for monitoring CD, little was known about its prognostic value early in the disease course. “We aimed to determine whether sonographic inflammation at diagnosis — and particularly the achievement pftransmural remission after 3 months — could predict future outcomes,” Madsen told GI & Hepatology News. “This is important, as early identification of patients at risk of surgery or treatment escalation may help guide therapy decisions more effectively.”

From May 2021 to April 2023, 201 patients (mean age, 35 years; 54.2% men) with new adult-onset CD were followed by IUS and monitored with symptomatic, biochemical, and endoscopic evaluations.

After 3 months, transmural remission was achieved more often by patients with colonic disease, and no associations were found between sonographic inflammation at diagnosis and diagnostic delay.

“We were positively surprised. Nearly 40% of newly diagnosed Crohn’s patients achieved transmural remission within 3 months — a higher proportion than seen in earlier studies, which mostly focused on long-standing or trial-selected populations,” Madsen said. “It was also striking how strongly early IUS findings predicted the need for surgery, outperforming endoscopy and biomarkers.”

In other findings, transmural remission at 3 months was significantly associated with steroid-free clinical remission at both 3 months and all subsequent follow-ups within the first year. It was also linked to a lower risk for treatment escalation during the follow-up through to 12 months: 26% vs 53% (P =.003). At 12 months, 41% had achieved transmural remission.

Higher baseline body mass index significantly reduced the likelihood of 12-month transmural remission. For overweight, the odds ratio (OR) was 0.34 (95% CI, 0.12-0.94), while for obesity, the OR was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.04-0.73).

The International Bowel Ultrasound Segmental Activity Score in the terminal ileum at diagnosis emerged as the best predictor of ileocecal resection during the first year, with an optimal threshold of 63 (area under the curve, 0.92; sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 73%).

The use of IUS has expanded considerably in the past 3 years, and in 2024, the American Gastroenterological Association updated its clinical practice guidance on the role of this modality in inflammatory bowel disease.

IUS is noninvasive, radiation-free, inexpensive, and doable at the bedside with immediate results, Madsen said. “For patients, this means less anxiety and discomfort. For healthcare systems, it enables faster clinical decisions, reduced need for endoscopy or MRI, and closer disease monitoring, particularly valuable in treat-to-target strategies.”

In terms of limitations, however, IUS is operator-dependent and consistent training is crucial, he added. “Certain anatomical regions, particularly the proximal small bowel, can be more challenging to evaluate. Additionally, while IUS is highly effective for assessing inflammatory activity, it becomes more difficult to accurately assess disease involvement when inflammation extends beyond approximately 20 cm of the small bowel.”

 

Key Insights

Commenting on the Danish study from a US perspective, Anna L. Silverman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, agreed the findings in adult patients with newly diagnosed, rather than long-standing, CD contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting IUS’s applicability for both treatment monitoring and prognosis.

“By focusing on early-stage CD, the study provides clearer insights into initial disease activity and response to therapy, reinforcing the value of this noninvasive, point-of-care modality,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “These findings enhance our understanding of IUS as a tool to help guide early management decisions in CD.”

Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, concurred that this is an important study. “It includes newly diagnosed patients — so a very ‘clean’ cohort in terms of not being influenced by confounders,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

“We don’t fully know yet the best treatment target in CD, and this study highlights the importance of early transmural healing in determining outcomes at 1 year,” he noted. In addition, the study highlighted a convenient tool that can increasingly be applied at point of care in the United States. “Colonoscopy at 3 months is not practical and has low patient acceptability, so using IUS in this circumstance would have value and impact.”

Ananthakrishnan pointed to several unanswered questions, however. “Are there patients who may not have healing early but may take some extra time to achieve transmural remission, and if so, what are their outcomes? What is the best timepoint for transmural healing assessment? What is the incremental value of measuring it at 3 vs 6 months?”

In addition, he wondered, how much is the added value of IUS over clinical symptoms and/or markers such as calprotectin and C-reactive protein? “In the subset of patients with clinical and transmural remission, there was no difference in endoscopic outcomes at 1 year, so this is an unanswered question,” Ananthakrishnan said.

This study was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Madsen reported receiving a speaker’s fee from Tillotts. Multiple coauthors disclosed having various financial relationships with numerous private-sector companies, including Novo Nordisk. Silverman and Ananthakrishnan reported having no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings on intestinal ultrasound (IUS) are useful for predicting remission in recent-onset Crohn’s disease (CD), a prospective, population-based cohort of newly diagnosed patients in Denmark reported.

Adding to the growing body of evidence on the utility of this noninvasive imaging tool in monitoring disease activity in the newly diagnosed, the multicenter study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology characterized ultrasonographic features at diagnosis and evaluated IUS’s prognostic value. Existing literature has focused on patients with long-standing disease.

Investigators led by first author Gorm R. Madsen, MD, PhD, of the Copenhagen Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Children, Adolescents and Adults at Copenhagen University Hospital, observed continued improvement in most IUS parameters throughout the first year. “Our findings thereby emphasize the role of IUS in improving patient management, and its use in patient risk stratification already at diagnosis,” the investigators wrote.

Some 38% of patients reached ultrasonic transmural remission within 3 months of diagnosis, an achievement associated with higher rates of sustained steroid-free clinical remission and reduced need for treatment escalation.

“Ultrasonic transmural remission is achievable early in Crohn’s disease and is associated with favorable outcomes, underscoring the value of intestinal ultrasound in early disease management,” the researchers wrote.

 

Study Details

While IUS is increasingly recognized for monitoring CD, little was known about its prognostic value early in the disease course. “We aimed to determine whether sonographic inflammation at diagnosis — and particularly the achievement pftransmural remission after 3 months — could predict future outcomes,” Madsen told GI & Hepatology News. “This is important, as early identification of patients at risk of surgery or treatment escalation may help guide therapy decisions more effectively.”

From May 2021 to April 2023, 201 patients (mean age, 35 years; 54.2% men) with new adult-onset CD were followed by IUS and monitored with symptomatic, biochemical, and endoscopic evaluations.

After 3 months, transmural remission was achieved more often by patients with colonic disease, and no associations were found between sonographic inflammation at diagnosis and diagnostic delay.

“We were positively surprised. Nearly 40% of newly diagnosed Crohn’s patients achieved transmural remission within 3 months — a higher proportion than seen in earlier studies, which mostly focused on long-standing or trial-selected populations,” Madsen said. “It was also striking how strongly early IUS findings predicted the need for surgery, outperforming endoscopy and biomarkers.”

In other findings, transmural remission at 3 months was significantly associated with steroid-free clinical remission at both 3 months and all subsequent follow-ups within the first year. It was also linked to a lower risk for treatment escalation during the follow-up through to 12 months: 26% vs 53% (P =.003). At 12 months, 41% had achieved transmural remission.

Higher baseline body mass index significantly reduced the likelihood of 12-month transmural remission. For overweight, the odds ratio (OR) was 0.34 (95% CI, 0.12-0.94), while for obesity, the OR was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.04-0.73).

The International Bowel Ultrasound Segmental Activity Score in the terminal ileum at diagnosis emerged as the best predictor of ileocecal resection during the first year, with an optimal threshold of 63 (area under the curve, 0.92; sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 73%).

The use of IUS has expanded considerably in the past 3 years, and in 2024, the American Gastroenterological Association updated its clinical practice guidance on the role of this modality in inflammatory bowel disease.

IUS is noninvasive, radiation-free, inexpensive, and doable at the bedside with immediate results, Madsen said. “For patients, this means less anxiety and discomfort. For healthcare systems, it enables faster clinical decisions, reduced need for endoscopy or MRI, and closer disease monitoring, particularly valuable in treat-to-target strategies.”

In terms of limitations, however, IUS is operator-dependent and consistent training is crucial, he added. “Certain anatomical regions, particularly the proximal small bowel, can be more challenging to evaluate. Additionally, while IUS is highly effective for assessing inflammatory activity, it becomes more difficult to accurately assess disease involvement when inflammation extends beyond approximately 20 cm of the small bowel.”

 

Key Insights

Commenting on the Danish study from a US perspective, Anna L. Silverman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, agreed the findings in adult patients with newly diagnosed, rather than long-standing, CD contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting IUS’s applicability for both treatment monitoring and prognosis.

“By focusing on early-stage CD, the study provides clearer insights into initial disease activity and response to therapy, reinforcing the value of this noninvasive, point-of-care modality,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “These findings enhance our understanding of IUS as a tool to help guide early management decisions in CD.”

Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, concurred that this is an important study. “It includes newly diagnosed patients — so a very ‘clean’ cohort in terms of not being influenced by confounders,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

“We don’t fully know yet the best treatment target in CD, and this study highlights the importance of early transmural healing in determining outcomes at 1 year,” he noted. In addition, the study highlighted a convenient tool that can increasingly be applied at point of care in the United States. “Colonoscopy at 3 months is not practical and has low patient acceptability, so using IUS in this circumstance would have value and impact.”

Ananthakrishnan pointed to several unanswered questions, however. “Are there patients who may not have healing early but may take some extra time to achieve transmural remission, and if so, what are their outcomes? What is the best timepoint for transmural healing assessment? What is the incremental value of measuring it at 3 vs 6 months?”

In addition, he wondered, how much is the added value of IUS over clinical symptoms and/or markers such as calprotectin and C-reactive protein? “In the subset of patients with clinical and transmural remission, there was no difference in endoscopic outcomes at 1 year, so this is an unanswered question,” Ananthakrishnan said.

This study was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Madsen reported receiving a speaker’s fee from Tillotts. Multiple coauthors disclosed having various financial relationships with numerous private-sector companies, including Novo Nordisk. Silverman and Ananthakrishnan reported having no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adult patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and moderate or advanced liver fibrosis showed improved liver histology with a once-weekly dose of semaglutide (Wegovy), an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial reported.

The glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) is currently a candidate for treating MASH.

Preliminary results of the two-part phase 3, double-blind ESSENCE trial, conducted in at 253 clinical sites in 37 countries, were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

 

A previous phase 2 study by Loomba et al suggested semaglutide was effective in reducing liver injury. “That study, however, did not show improvement in liver fibrosis, which this study has done,” study co-lead Philip Newsome, PhD, professor in the department of immunology and immunotherapy and Honorary Professor of Experimental Hepatology at the University of Birmingham in England, said in an interview.

“The results aligned with expectations in that the impact on liver fibrosis was anticipated — but with some uncertainty, so this study is important in that regard.” 

 

Study Details

From May 2020 to April 2023, researchers led by Newsome and Arun J. Sanyal, MBBS, MD, of Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, randomized 1197 patients with a mean age of 56 years. Of these, 57% were women and 67.5% were White individuals. Mean body mass index was 34.6, and 55.9% had type 2 diabetes.

All had biopsy-defined MASH and fibrosis stage 2 or 3 according to the Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network classification and a Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score ≥ 4.

Rates of fibrosis were 31.3% for stage 2 fibrosis and 68.8% for stage 3. Diverse geographic site locations included Asia (25.1%), Europe (25.3%), North America (35.0%), and South America (7.9%), and others (6.8%).

In a 2:1 ratio, they were assigned to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg or placebo for 240 weeks. A planned interim analysis of the first 800 patients was done at week 72, with primary endpoints being resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of liver fibrosis and reduction in liver fibrosis without worsening of steatohepatitis.

Resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis occurred in 62.9% of the 534 patients in the semaglutide group and in 34.3% of the 266 patients in the placebo group (estimated difference, 28.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 21.1-36.2, P < .001).

A reduction in liver fibrosis without worsening of steatohepatitis was reported in 36.8% of semaglutide recipients and 22.4% of placebo recipients (estimated difference, 14.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 7.5-21.3, P < .001). 

In secondary findings, the combined resolution of steatohepatitis and reduction in liver fibrosis was reported in 32.7% in the semaglutide group vs 16.1% in the placebo group (estimated difference, 16.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.2-22.8; P < .001). 

The mean change in body weight was –10.5% with semaglutide and –2.0% with placebo (estimated difference, –8.5 percentage points; 95% CI, –9.6 to –7.4, P < .001). Mean changes in bodily pain scores did not differ significantly between arms. 

The histologic benefits of semaglutide also emerged in improvements on all prespecified noninvasive tests — including aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase levels and liver stiffness. Emerging evidence has suggested an association between reductions in liver stiffness and clinical benefit. 

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the semaglutide group.

 

Commenting on the study from a nonparticipant’s perspective, Naga P. Chalasani, MD, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said results from the ESSENCE trial were “long awaited and they certainly advance the field of MASH clinical trials substantially.”

Furthermore, he added, the results are well aligned with those of a phase 2b trial of semaglutide by Newsome and colleagues for what was then termed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and “they also align with what is known about the positive role of incretins, digestive hormones imitated by GLP-1s to improve liver health in patients with MASLD and MASH.” 

“The results from this study certainly make a case for semaglutide to be the backbone therapy for diabetic or obese patients with MASH and fibrosis,” Chalasani said. “More than 80% of patients with MASH and fibrosis have either diabetes and/or obesity.” 

He added that a better understanding is needed of how semaglutide works in patients with MASH cirrhosis since the previous small study was unsuccessful. “But this may need to be repeated as the published study was underpowered. Outcomes in the ESSENCE trial will help to clarify whether semaglutide will improve clinical outcomes beyond improving liver histology.”

According to Newsome, GLP-1s will become the backbone of therapy in MASH given their range of metabolic and liver benefit. But questions remain, he said. “Will there be further improvements with longer treatment with semaglutide? What noninvasive tests should we use to determine treatment success? Which patients will benefit from combination treatment?”

This study was supported by Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Wegovy. Sanyal reported having various financial relationships with multiple private-sector companies, including Novo Nordisk. Newsome reported consulting for Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim. Several study coauthors reported having similar relationships with pharmaceutical companies or employment with Novo Nordisk. Chalasani declared being involved in several MASH clinical trials conducted by other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adult patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and moderate or advanced liver fibrosis showed improved liver histology with a once-weekly dose of semaglutide (Wegovy), an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial reported.

The glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) is currently a candidate for treating MASH.

Preliminary results of the two-part phase 3, double-blind ESSENCE trial, conducted in at 253 clinical sites in 37 countries, were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

 

A previous phase 2 study by Loomba et al suggested semaglutide was effective in reducing liver injury. “That study, however, did not show improvement in liver fibrosis, which this study has done,” study co-lead Philip Newsome, PhD, professor in the department of immunology and immunotherapy and Honorary Professor of Experimental Hepatology at the University of Birmingham in England, said in an interview.

“The results aligned with expectations in that the impact on liver fibrosis was anticipated — but with some uncertainty, so this study is important in that regard.” 

 

Study Details

From May 2020 to April 2023, researchers led by Newsome and Arun J. Sanyal, MBBS, MD, of Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, randomized 1197 patients with a mean age of 56 years. Of these, 57% were women and 67.5% were White individuals. Mean body mass index was 34.6, and 55.9% had type 2 diabetes.

All had biopsy-defined MASH and fibrosis stage 2 or 3 according to the Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network classification and a Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score ≥ 4.

Rates of fibrosis were 31.3% for stage 2 fibrosis and 68.8% for stage 3. Diverse geographic site locations included Asia (25.1%), Europe (25.3%), North America (35.0%), and South America (7.9%), and others (6.8%).

In a 2:1 ratio, they were assigned to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg or placebo for 240 weeks. A planned interim analysis of the first 800 patients was done at week 72, with primary endpoints being resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of liver fibrosis and reduction in liver fibrosis without worsening of steatohepatitis.

Resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis occurred in 62.9% of the 534 patients in the semaglutide group and in 34.3% of the 266 patients in the placebo group (estimated difference, 28.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 21.1-36.2, P < .001).

A reduction in liver fibrosis without worsening of steatohepatitis was reported in 36.8% of semaglutide recipients and 22.4% of placebo recipients (estimated difference, 14.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 7.5-21.3, P < .001). 

In secondary findings, the combined resolution of steatohepatitis and reduction in liver fibrosis was reported in 32.7% in the semaglutide group vs 16.1% in the placebo group (estimated difference, 16.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.2-22.8; P < .001). 

The mean change in body weight was –10.5% with semaglutide and –2.0% with placebo (estimated difference, –8.5 percentage points; 95% CI, –9.6 to –7.4, P < .001). Mean changes in bodily pain scores did not differ significantly between arms. 

The histologic benefits of semaglutide also emerged in improvements on all prespecified noninvasive tests — including aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase levels and liver stiffness. Emerging evidence has suggested an association between reductions in liver stiffness and clinical benefit. 

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the semaglutide group.

 

Commenting on the study from a nonparticipant’s perspective, Naga P. Chalasani, MD, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said results from the ESSENCE trial were “long awaited and they certainly advance the field of MASH clinical trials substantially.”

Furthermore, he added, the results are well aligned with those of a phase 2b trial of semaglutide by Newsome and colleagues for what was then termed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and “they also align with what is known about the positive role of incretins, digestive hormones imitated by GLP-1s to improve liver health in patients with MASLD and MASH.” 

“The results from this study certainly make a case for semaglutide to be the backbone therapy for diabetic or obese patients with MASH and fibrosis,” Chalasani said. “More than 80% of patients with MASH and fibrosis have either diabetes and/or obesity.” 

He added that a better understanding is needed of how semaglutide works in patients with MASH cirrhosis since the previous small study was unsuccessful. “But this may need to be repeated as the published study was underpowered. Outcomes in the ESSENCE trial will help to clarify whether semaglutide will improve clinical outcomes beyond improving liver histology.”

According to Newsome, GLP-1s will become the backbone of therapy in MASH given their range of metabolic and liver benefit. But questions remain, he said. “Will there be further improvements with longer treatment with semaglutide? What noninvasive tests should we use to determine treatment success? Which patients will benefit from combination treatment?”

This study was supported by Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Wegovy. Sanyal reported having various financial relationships with multiple private-sector companies, including Novo Nordisk. Newsome reported consulting for Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim. Several study coauthors reported having similar relationships with pharmaceutical companies or employment with Novo Nordisk. Chalasani declared being involved in several MASH clinical trials conducted by other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adult patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and moderate or advanced liver fibrosis showed improved liver histology with a once-weekly dose of semaglutide (Wegovy), an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial reported.

The glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) is currently a candidate for treating MASH.

Preliminary results of the two-part phase 3, double-blind ESSENCE trial, conducted in at 253 clinical sites in 37 countries, were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

 

A previous phase 2 study by Loomba et al suggested semaglutide was effective in reducing liver injury. “That study, however, did not show improvement in liver fibrosis, which this study has done,” study co-lead Philip Newsome, PhD, professor in the department of immunology and immunotherapy and Honorary Professor of Experimental Hepatology at the University of Birmingham in England, said in an interview.

“The results aligned with expectations in that the impact on liver fibrosis was anticipated — but with some uncertainty, so this study is important in that regard.” 

 

Study Details

From May 2020 to April 2023, researchers led by Newsome and Arun J. Sanyal, MBBS, MD, of Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, randomized 1197 patients with a mean age of 56 years. Of these, 57% were women and 67.5% were White individuals. Mean body mass index was 34.6, and 55.9% had type 2 diabetes.

All had biopsy-defined MASH and fibrosis stage 2 or 3 according to the Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network classification and a Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score ≥ 4.

Rates of fibrosis were 31.3% for stage 2 fibrosis and 68.8% for stage 3. Diverse geographic site locations included Asia (25.1%), Europe (25.3%), North America (35.0%), and South America (7.9%), and others (6.8%).

In a 2:1 ratio, they were assigned to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg or placebo for 240 weeks. A planned interim analysis of the first 800 patients was done at week 72, with primary endpoints being resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of liver fibrosis and reduction in liver fibrosis without worsening of steatohepatitis.

Resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis occurred in 62.9% of the 534 patients in the semaglutide group and in 34.3% of the 266 patients in the placebo group (estimated difference, 28.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 21.1-36.2, P < .001).

A reduction in liver fibrosis without worsening of steatohepatitis was reported in 36.8% of semaglutide recipients and 22.4% of placebo recipients (estimated difference, 14.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 7.5-21.3, P < .001). 

In secondary findings, the combined resolution of steatohepatitis and reduction in liver fibrosis was reported in 32.7% in the semaglutide group vs 16.1% in the placebo group (estimated difference, 16.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.2-22.8; P < .001). 

The mean change in body weight was –10.5% with semaglutide and –2.0% with placebo (estimated difference, –8.5 percentage points; 95% CI, –9.6 to –7.4, P < .001). Mean changes in bodily pain scores did not differ significantly between arms. 

The histologic benefits of semaglutide also emerged in improvements on all prespecified noninvasive tests — including aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase levels and liver stiffness. Emerging evidence has suggested an association between reductions in liver stiffness and clinical benefit. 

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the semaglutide group.

 

Commenting on the study from a nonparticipant’s perspective, Naga P. Chalasani, MD, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said results from the ESSENCE trial were “long awaited and they certainly advance the field of MASH clinical trials substantially.”

Furthermore, he added, the results are well aligned with those of a phase 2b trial of semaglutide by Newsome and colleagues for what was then termed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and “they also align with what is known about the positive role of incretins, digestive hormones imitated by GLP-1s to improve liver health in patients with MASLD and MASH.” 

“The results from this study certainly make a case for semaglutide to be the backbone therapy for diabetic or obese patients with MASH and fibrosis,” Chalasani said. “More than 80% of patients with MASH and fibrosis have either diabetes and/or obesity.” 

He added that a better understanding is needed of how semaglutide works in patients with MASH cirrhosis since the previous small study was unsuccessful. “But this may need to be repeated as the published study was underpowered. Outcomes in the ESSENCE trial will help to clarify whether semaglutide will improve clinical outcomes beyond improving liver histology.”

According to Newsome, GLP-1s will become the backbone of therapy in MASH given their range of metabolic and liver benefit. But questions remain, he said. “Will there be further improvements with longer treatment with semaglutide? What noninvasive tests should we use to determine treatment success? Which patients will benefit from combination treatment?”

This study was supported by Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Wegovy. Sanyal reported having various financial relationships with multiple private-sector companies, including Novo Nordisk. Newsome reported consulting for Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim. Several study coauthors reported having similar relationships with pharmaceutical companies or employment with Novo Nordisk. Chalasani declared being involved in several MASH clinical trials conducted by other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental study in zebrafish has suggested the decades-old, first-generation antihistamine chlorcyclizine and/or other antihistamines may be a strategy for treating erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP)-associated liver disease by decreasing hepatic protoporphorin IX (PP-IX) accumulation.

Currently, liver transplantation is the primary treatment for this rare, painful, and life-threatening genetic disease, which is caused by excessive PP-IX accumulation and affects about 4000 people in the United States.

The findings could eventually lead to a simpler treatment that prevent shepatic damage at a much earlier stage, according to researchers led by M. Bishr Omary, MD, PhD, a professor in the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine and Robert Wood Johnson Medical School at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey.

Reporting in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators found that chlorcyclizine reduced PP-IX levels. EPP is caused by mutations leading to deficiency of the enzyme ferrochelatase, which inserts iron into PP-IX to generate heme. The resulting condition is characterized by PP-IX accumulation, skin photosensitivity, cholestasis, and end-stage liver disease. “Despite available drugs that address photosensitivity, the treatment of EPP-related liver disease remains an unmet need,” Omary and colleagues wrote.

 

The Study

In order to trigger PP-IX overproduction and accumulation, the investigators administered delta-aminolevulinic acid and deferoxamine to zebrafish. These freshwater tropical fish share many physiological characteristics with humans and have been used to model human disease and develop drugs. Furthermore, these fish are transparent at the larval stage, allowing quantification and visualization of porphyrin, which is fluorescent.

The researchers had screened some 2500 approved and bioactive compounds and identified chlorcyclizine as a potent PP-IX–lowering agent.

High-throughput compound screening of ALA + DFO-treated zebrafish found that the HH-1 blocker reduced zebrafish liver PP-IX levels. The effect of chlorcyclizine was validated in porphyrin-loaded primary mouse hepatocytes, transgenic mice, and mice fed the porphyrinogenic compound 3,5-diethoxycarbonyl-1,4-dihydrocollidine. 

Plasma and tissue PP-IX were measured by fluorescence; livers were analyzed by histology, immunoblotting, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

Chlorcyclizine-treated zebrafish larvae as well as the two types of mice all showed reduced hepatic PP-IX levels compared with controls. While the neurotransmitter played an important role in PP-IX accumulation in porphyrin-stressed hepatocytes, blockading notably decreased PP-IX levels. 

Detailed analysis showed that chlorcyclizine appeared to work through multiple mechanisms, helping the liver clear toxic porphyrin buildup and reducing inflammation. It also decreased the presence of histamine-producing mast cells. The result was less liver injury, decreased porphyrin-triggered protein aggregation and oxidation, and increased clearance of s PP-I in stool.

Interestingly, in both mouse models, chlorcyclizine lowered PP-IX levels in female but not male mice in liver, erythrocytes, and bone marrow. This sex-specific effect appeared to be related to the greater speed at which male murines metabolize the drug, the authors explained in a news release. In rats, for example, the metabolism of chlorcyclizine is 8 times higher in male than in female livers. 

The investigators plan to launch a clinical trial in EPP patients to evaluate the effectiveness of chlorcyclizine for both liver and skin involvement. And a phase 2 trial is already underway testing the antacid cimetidine for treating EPP skin manifestations. It is possible that the different antihistamines may act additively or synergistically.

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and the Henry and Mala Dorfman Family Professorship of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

Omary is a member of the NIH/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Data and Safety Monitoring Board of the Porphyrias Consortium.

A provisional patent application has been submitted for the use of H1-receptor blockers with or without receptor blockers to treat protoporphyrias associated with PP-IX accumulation.
 

An experimental study in zebrafish has suggested the decades-old, first-generation antihistamine chlorcyclizine and/or other antihistamines may be a strategy for treating erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP)-associated liver disease by decreasing hepatic protoporphorin IX (PP-IX) accumulation.

Currently, liver transplantation is the primary treatment for this rare, painful, and life-threatening genetic disease, which is caused by excessive PP-IX accumulation and affects about 4000 people in the United States.

The findings could eventually lead to a simpler treatment that prevent shepatic damage at a much earlier stage, according to researchers led by M. Bishr Omary, MD, PhD, a professor in the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine and Robert Wood Johnson Medical School at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey.

Reporting in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators found that chlorcyclizine reduced PP-IX levels. EPP is caused by mutations leading to deficiency of the enzyme ferrochelatase, which inserts iron into PP-IX to generate heme. The resulting condition is characterized by PP-IX accumulation, skin photosensitivity, cholestasis, and end-stage liver disease. “Despite available drugs that address photosensitivity, the treatment of EPP-related liver disease remains an unmet need,” Omary and colleagues wrote.

 

The Study

In order to trigger PP-IX overproduction and accumulation, the investigators administered delta-aminolevulinic acid and deferoxamine to zebrafish. These freshwater tropical fish share many physiological characteristics with humans and have been used to model human disease and develop drugs. Furthermore, these fish are transparent at the larval stage, allowing quantification and visualization of porphyrin, which is fluorescent.

The researchers had screened some 2500 approved and bioactive compounds and identified chlorcyclizine as a potent PP-IX–lowering agent.

High-throughput compound screening of ALA + DFO-treated zebrafish found that the HH-1 blocker reduced zebrafish liver PP-IX levels. The effect of chlorcyclizine was validated in porphyrin-loaded primary mouse hepatocytes, transgenic mice, and mice fed the porphyrinogenic compound 3,5-diethoxycarbonyl-1,4-dihydrocollidine. 

Plasma and tissue PP-IX were measured by fluorescence; livers were analyzed by histology, immunoblotting, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

Chlorcyclizine-treated zebrafish larvae as well as the two types of mice all showed reduced hepatic PP-IX levels compared with controls. While the neurotransmitter played an important role in PP-IX accumulation in porphyrin-stressed hepatocytes, blockading notably decreased PP-IX levels. 

Detailed analysis showed that chlorcyclizine appeared to work through multiple mechanisms, helping the liver clear toxic porphyrin buildup and reducing inflammation. It also decreased the presence of histamine-producing mast cells. The result was less liver injury, decreased porphyrin-triggered protein aggregation and oxidation, and increased clearance of s PP-I in stool.

Interestingly, in both mouse models, chlorcyclizine lowered PP-IX levels in female but not male mice in liver, erythrocytes, and bone marrow. This sex-specific effect appeared to be related to the greater speed at which male murines metabolize the drug, the authors explained in a news release. In rats, for example, the metabolism of chlorcyclizine is 8 times higher in male than in female livers. 

The investigators plan to launch a clinical trial in EPP patients to evaluate the effectiveness of chlorcyclizine for both liver and skin involvement. And a phase 2 trial is already underway testing the antacid cimetidine for treating EPP skin manifestations. It is possible that the different antihistamines may act additively or synergistically.

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and the Henry and Mala Dorfman Family Professorship of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

Omary is a member of the NIH/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Data and Safety Monitoring Board of the Porphyrias Consortium.

A provisional patent application has been submitted for the use of H1-receptor blockers with or without receptor blockers to treat protoporphyrias associated with PP-IX accumulation.
 

An experimental study in zebrafish has suggested the decades-old, first-generation antihistamine chlorcyclizine and/or other antihistamines may be a strategy for treating erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP)-associated liver disease by decreasing hepatic protoporphorin IX (PP-IX) accumulation.

Currently, liver transplantation is the primary treatment for this rare, painful, and life-threatening genetic disease, which is caused by excessive PP-IX accumulation and affects about 4000 people in the United States.

The findings could eventually lead to a simpler treatment that prevent shepatic damage at a much earlier stage, according to researchers led by M. Bishr Omary, MD, PhD, a professor in the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine and Robert Wood Johnson Medical School at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey.

Reporting in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators found that chlorcyclizine reduced PP-IX levels. EPP is caused by mutations leading to deficiency of the enzyme ferrochelatase, which inserts iron into PP-IX to generate heme. The resulting condition is characterized by PP-IX accumulation, skin photosensitivity, cholestasis, and end-stage liver disease. “Despite available drugs that address photosensitivity, the treatment of EPP-related liver disease remains an unmet need,” Omary and colleagues wrote.

 

The Study

In order to trigger PP-IX overproduction and accumulation, the investigators administered delta-aminolevulinic acid and deferoxamine to zebrafish. These freshwater tropical fish share many physiological characteristics with humans and have been used to model human disease and develop drugs. Furthermore, these fish are transparent at the larval stage, allowing quantification and visualization of porphyrin, which is fluorescent.

The researchers had screened some 2500 approved and bioactive compounds and identified chlorcyclizine as a potent PP-IX–lowering agent.

High-throughput compound screening of ALA + DFO-treated zebrafish found that the HH-1 blocker reduced zebrafish liver PP-IX levels. The effect of chlorcyclizine was validated in porphyrin-loaded primary mouse hepatocytes, transgenic mice, and mice fed the porphyrinogenic compound 3,5-diethoxycarbonyl-1,4-dihydrocollidine. 

Plasma and tissue PP-IX were measured by fluorescence; livers were analyzed by histology, immunoblotting, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

Chlorcyclizine-treated zebrafish larvae as well as the two types of mice all showed reduced hepatic PP-IX levels compared with controls. While the neurotransmitter played an important role in PP-IX accumulation in porphyrin-stressed hepatocytes, blockading notably decreased PP-IX levels. 

Detailed analysis showed that chlorcyclizine appeared to work through multiple mechanisms, helping the liver clear toxic porphyrin buildup and reducing inflammation. It also decreased the presence of histamine-producing mast cells. The result was less liver injury, decreased porphyrin-triggered protein aggregation and oxidation, and increased clearance of s PP-I in stool.

Interestingly, in both mouse models, chlorcyclizine lowered PP-IX levels in female but not male mice in liver, erythrocytes, and bone marrow. This sex-specific effect appeared to be related to the greater speed at which male murines metabolize the drug, the authors explained in a news release. In rats, for example, the metabolism of chlorcyclizine is 8 times higher in male than in female livers. 

The investigators plan to launch a clinical trial in EPP patients to evaluate the effectiveness of chlorcyclizine for both liver and skin involvement. And a phase 2 trial is already underway testing the antacid cimetidine for treating EPP skin manifestations. It is possible that the different antihistamines may act additively or synergistically.

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and the Henry and Mala Dorfman Family Professorship of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

Omary is a member of the NIH/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Data and Safety Monitoring Board of the Porphyrias Consortium.

A provisional patent application has been submitted for the use of H1-receptor blockers with or without receptor blockers to treat protoporphyrias associated with PP-IX accumulation.
 

An irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) elimination diet based on a novel IBS–specific, immunoglobulin G (IgG) was superior to a sham diet for abdominal pain, an 8-center, randomized double-blind controlled trial found.

While elimination diets can provide a personalized approach to dietary therapy, existing studies have had serious methodological issues, noted lead author Prashant Singh, MBBS, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

For example, previous studies on IgG-based diets used assays developed without determining IBS trigger foods or establishing a 95% confidence interval–based cutoff using a healthy control comparison group.

 

Study Details

From June 2018 to December 2021, 238 IBS patients testing positive for at least one food on 18-food IgG ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) testing and an average daily abdominal pain intensity score of 3.0 to 7.5 on an 11.0-point scale during a 2-week run-in period were randomized for 8 weeks to an experimental antibody-guided diet or to a sham diet. The primary outcome was a 30% decrease in abdominal pain intensity (API) for 2 of the last 4 weeks of treatment.

The overall study population had a mean age of about 40 years, and more than three-quarters were female. The 3 IBS types – constipation-predominant (IBS-C), diarrhea-predominant (IBS-D), and mixed bowel habits-predominant (IBS-M) – accounted for about a third each in both arms.

The experimental diet eliminated foods based on a positive ELISA result. Its sham counterpart had the same number of foods removed as the number of positive-testing food sensitivities, but the foods eliminated in the sham diet had tested negative on the IgG assay.

Participants reported daily abdominal pain intensity, bloating, and stool consistency, and frequency. They also reported dietary compliance and daily medication use.

Of the 238 randomized adults, 223 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. A significantly greater proportion of subjects in the experimental group met the primary outcome than those in the sham group: 59.6% vs 42.1%, P = .02). “This highlights the potential effectiveness of a personalized elimination diet based on a novel IBS-specific IgG assay,” the authors wrote.

Symptom improvement between arms began to separate out at around 2 weeks, suggesting the effect of the experimental diet was relatively rapid in onset, and continued for at least 8 weeks. The durability of response, however, needs to be assessed in future studies “and it is unclear if there is a role for repeat IgG testing to monitor treatment response,” the authors wrote.

Subgroup analysis revealed that a higher proportion of those with IBS-C and IBS-M in the experimental diet group met the primary endpoint vs the sham group: 67.1% vs 35.8% and 66% vs 29.5%, respectively.

Interestingly, more patients in the experimental arm were noncompliant with their diet. “It is possible that subjects found the experimental diet more difficult to comply with compared with the sham diet or that because the experimental diet was more likely to improve symptoms, dietary indiscretion may have been more common in this group (a phenomenon seen with other elimination diets such as gluten-free diet in celiac disease),” the authors wrote.

Adverse events, deemed unrelated to either regimen, were 3 in the experimental arm vs 8 in the sham arm, which had 2 urinary tract infections.

The authors called for a larger, adequately powered study to assess the efficacy of an elimination diet based on this novel immunoglobulin G assay in patients with IBS-C and IBS-M. Future studies should perform detailed adherence assessments using food diaries.

“Mechanisms of how immunoglobulin G-antibody response to food antigen generates symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome are not well understood. Delineating this might provide new insights into food-related irritable bowel syndrome pathophysiology,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Biomerica Inc.

An irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) elimination diet based on a novel IBS–specific, immunoglobulin G (IgG) was superior to a sham diet for abdominal pain, an 8-center, randomized double-blind controlled trial found.

While elimination diets can provide a personalized approach to dietary therapy, existing studies have had serious methodological issues, noted lead author Prashant Singh, MBBS, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

For example, previous studies on IgG-based diets used assays developed without determining IBS trigger foods or establishing a 95% confidence interval–based cutoff using a healthy control comparison group.

 

Study Details

From June 2018 to December 2021, 238 IBS patients testing positive for at least one food on 18-food IgG ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) testing and an average daily abdominal pain intensity score of 3.0 to 7.5 on an 11.0-point scale during a 2-week run-in period were randomized for 8 weeks to an experimental antibody-guided diet or to a sham diet. The primary outcome was a 30% decrease in abdominal pain intensity (API) for 2 of the last 4 weeks of treatment.

The overall study population had a mean age of about 40 years, and more than three-quarters were female. The 3 IBS types – constipation-predominant (IBS-C), diarrhea-predominant (IBS-D), and mixed bowel habits-predominant (IBS-M) – accounted for about a third each in both arms.

The experimental diet eliminated foods based on a positive ELISA result. Its sham counterpart had the same number of foods removed as the number of positive-testing food sensitivities, but the foods eliminated in the sham diet had tested negative on the IgG assay.

Participants reported daily abdominal pain intensity, bloating, and stool consistency, and frequency. They also reported dietary compliance and daily medication use.

Of the 238 randomized adults, 223 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. A significantly greater proportion of subjects in the experimental group met the primary outcome than those in the sham group: 59.6% vs 42.1%, P = .02). “This highlights the potential effectiveness of a personalized elimination diet based on a novel IBS-specific IgG assay,” the authors wrote.

Symptom improvement between arms began to separate out at around 2 weeks, suggesting the effect of the experimental diet was relatively rapid in onset, and continued for at least 8 weeks. The durability of response, however, needs to be assessed in future studies “and it is unclear if there is a role for repeat IgG testing to monitor treatment response,” the authors wrote.

Subgroup analysis revealed that a higher proportion of those with IBS-C and IBS-M in the experimental diet group met the primary endpoint vs the sham group: 67.1% vs 35.8% and 66% vs 29.5%, respectively.

Interestingly, more patients in the experimental arm were noncompliant with their diet. “It is possible that subjects found the experimental diet more difficult to comply with compared with the sham diet or that because the experimental diet was more likely to improve symptoms, dietary indiscretion may have been more common in this group (a phenomenon seen with other elimination diets such as gluten-free diet in celiac disease),” the authors wrote.

Adverse events, deemed unrelated to either regimen, were 3 in the experimental arm vs 8 in the sham arm, which had 2 urinary tract infections.

The authors called for a larger, adequately powered study to assess the efficacy of an elimination diet based on this novel immunoglobulin G assay in patients with IBS-C and IBS-M. Future studies should perform detailed adherence assessments using food diaries.

“Mechanisms of how immunoglobulin G-antibody response to food antigen generates symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome are not well understood. Delineating this might provide new insights into food-related irritable bowel syndrome pathophysiology,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Biomerica Inc.

An irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) elimination diet based on a novel IBS–specific, immunoglobulin G (IgG) was superior to a sham diet for abdominal pain, an 8-center, randomized double-blind controlled trial found.

While elimination diets can provide a personalized approach to dietary therapy, existing studies have had serious methodological issues, noted lead author Prashant Singh, MBBS, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Mich., and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

For example, previous studies on IgG-based diets used assays developed without determining IBS trigger foods or establishing a 95% confidence interval–based cutoff using a healthy control comparison group.

 

Study Details

From June 2018 to December 2021, 238 IBS patients testing positive for at least one food on 18-food IgG ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) testing and an average daily abdominal pain intensity score of 3.0 to 7.5 on an 11.0-point scale during a 2-week run-in period were randomized for 8 weeks to an experimental antibody-guided diet or to a sham diet. The primary outcome was a 30% decrease in abdominal pain intensity (API) for 2 of the last 4 weeks of treatment.

The overall study population had a mean age of about 40 years, and more than three-quarters were female. The 3 IBS types – constipation-predominant (IBS-C), diarrhea-predominant (IBS-D), and mixed bowel habits-predominant (IBS-M) – accounted for about a third each in both arms.

The experimental diet eliminated foods based on a positive ELISA result. Its sham counterpart had the same number of foods removed as the number of positive-testing food sensitivities, but the foods eliminated in the sham diet had tested negative on the IgG assay.

Participants reported daily abdominal pain intensity, bloating, and stool consistency, and frequency. They also reported dietary compliance and daily medication use.

Of the 238 randomized adults, 223 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. A significantly greater proportion of subjects in the experimental group met the primary outcome than those in the sham group: 59.6% vs 42.1%, P = .02). “This highlights the potential effectiveness of a personalized elimination diet based on a novel IBS-specific IgG assay,” the authors wrote.

Symptom improvement between arms began to separate out at around 2 weeks, suggesting the effect of the experimental diet was relatively rapid in onset, and continued for at least 8 weeks. The durability of response, however, needs to be assessed in future studies “and it is unclear if there is a role for repeat IgG testing to monitor treatment response,” the authors wrote.

Subgroup analysis revealed that a higher proportion of those with IBS-C and IBS-M in the experimental diet group met the primary endpoint vs the sham group: 67.1% vs 35.8% and 66% vs 29.5%, respectively.

Interestingly, more patients in the experimental arm were noncompliant with their diet. “It is possible that subjects found the experimental diet more difficult to comply with compared with the sham diet or that because the experimental diet was more likely to improve symptoms, dietary indiscretion may have been more common in this group (a phenomenon seen with other elimination diets such as gluten-free diet in celiac disease),” the authors wrote.

Adverse events, deemed unrelated to either regimen, were 3 in the experimental arm vs 8 in the sham arm, which had 2 urinary tract infections.

The authors called for a larger, adequately powered study to assess the efficacy of an elimination diet based on this novel immunoglobulin G assay in patients with IBS-C and IBS-M. Future studies should perform detailed adherence assessments using food diaries.

“Mechanisms of how immunoglobulin G-antibody response to food antigen generates symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome are not well understood. Delineating this might provide new insights into food-related irritable bowel syndrome pathophysiology,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Biomerica Inc.

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed precisely measured human fecal material to foster a new era in gut microbiome research. 

According to AGA’s Center for Gut Microbiome Research & Education, this critical resource will help advance the utility and reproducibility of microbiome-based diagnostics — “which still remain relatively meaningless clinically, although patients continue to buy direct-to-consumer tests, and a standard reference material will mean there’s a better way to ensure quality control and accuracy.” 

Though not a therapeutic, Human Fecal Material RM is expected to speed up gastrointestinal (GI) therapeutics since many microbiome-based drugs are inspired by fecal transplants with human stool as the developmental starting point. A standardized reference material will be an important resource as industry develops and tests new drugs. It can be purchased online at the NIST Store (shop.nist.gov).

The product consists of eight frozen vials of exhaustively studied human feces suspended in aqueous solution. Available are more than 25 pages of data identifying the key microbes and biomolecules in the material. Scientists, including those working at biopharmaceutical and biotech companies, can use this material to further their research and develop new drugs that target the microbiome, including treatments that contain living bacteria. 

 

Development

According to NIST, the stool material is “the most precisely measured, scientifically analyzed, and richly characterized human fecal standard ever produced. 

“The project ran for about 6 years from start to finish, the last 2 for manufacturing, characterization, and writing,” said NIST molecular geneticist Scott A. Jackson, PhD, who helped develop the product. “We hope our reference material will lay the foundation for gut microbiome research to thrive and reach its full potential.” 

As founder of NIST’s Complex Microbial Systems Group, Jackson is leading international efforts to improve microbiome and metagenomic measurements by organizing inter-lab studies and refining reference materials and methods. 

The project collected stool from two cohorts of donors, ie, vegetarians and omnivores, with each cohort comprising four to six donors. Material from each cohort was pooled and homogenized before being aliquoted into 5000 vials per cohort. About 300 tubes from each cohort were picked, and aliquots then underwent multiomic analyses. 

Offering his perspective on the new product, Sudhir K. Dutta, MBBS, associate professor in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said, “This tool will be 100% useful for microbiome research.”

And according to Lori Holtz, MD, MSPH, professor of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, the material will aid microbiome research by allowing interpretability and repeatability across studies. “Microbiome research is a relatively new field, and protocols differ from group to group and lab to lab, so it’s been difficult to compare results across studies,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “A standard stool product will allow for greater comparability in preclinical studies and later clinical trials testing interventions to alter the microbiome.”

The NIST developers are looking forward to reaction from the GI research community. “Over the last several years, we’ve released smaller pilot batches of material to smaller groups of stakeholders,” said Jackson. “We’ve used the feedback on these earlier batches to inform the manufacturing and characterization of the final batch that was released in March, but we don’t yet have any feedback yet on the current material.”

Jackson, Dutta, and Holtz disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed precisely measured human fecal material to foster a new era in gut microbiome research. 

According to AGA’s Center for Gut Microbiome Research & Education, this critical resource will help advance the utility and reproducibility of microbiome-based diagnostics — “which still remain relatively meaningless clinically, although patients continue to buy direct-to-consumer tests, and a standard reference material will mean there’s a better way to ensure quality control and accuracy.” 

Though not a therapeutic, Human Fecal Material RM is expected to speed up gastrointestinal (GI) therapeutics since many microbiome-based drugs are inspired by fecal transplants with human stool as the developmental starting point. A standardized reference material will be an important resource as industry develops and tests new drugs. It can be purchased online at the NIST Store (shop.nist.gov).

The product consists of eight frozen vials of exhaustively studied human feces suspended in aqueous solution. Available are more than 25 pages of data identifying the key microbes and biomolecules in the material. Scientists, including those working at biopharmaceutical and biotech companies, can use this material to further their research and develop new drugs that target the microbiome, including treatments that contain living bacteria. 

 

Development

According to NIST, the stool material is “the most precisely measured, scientifically analyzed, and richly characterized human fecal standard ever produced. 

“The project ran for about 6 years from start to finish, the last 2 for manufacturing, characterization, and writing,” said NIST molecular geneticist Scott A. Jackson, PhD, who helped develop the product. “We hope our reference material will lay the foundation for gut microbiome research to thrive and reach its full potential.” 

As founder of NIST’s Complex Microbial Systems Group, Jackson is leading international efforts to improve microbiome and metagenomic measurements by organizing inter-lab studies and refining reference materials and methods. 

The project collected stool from two cohorts of donors, ie, vegetarians and omnivores, with each cohort comprising four to six donors. Material from each cohort was pooled and homogenized before being aliquoted into 5000 vials per cohort. About 300 tubes from each cohort were picked, and aliquots then underwent multiomic analyses. 

Offering his perspective on the new product, Sudhir K. Dutta, MBBS, associate professor in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said, “This tool will be 100% useful for microbiome research.”

And according to Lori Holtz, MD, MSPH, professor of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, the material will aid microbiome research by allowing interpretability and repeatability across studies. “Microbiome research is a relatively new field, and protocols differ from group to group and lab to lab, so it’s been difficult to compare results across studies,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “A standard stool product will allow for greater comparability in preclinical studies and later clinical trials testing interventions to alter the microbiome.”

The NIST developers are looking forward to reaction from the GI research community. “Over the last several years, we’ve released smaller pilot batches of material to smaller groups of stakeholders,” said Jackson. “We’ve used the feedback on these earlier batches to inform the manufacturing and characterization of the final batch that was released in March, but we don’t yet have any feedback yet on the current material.”

Jackson, Dutta, and Holtz disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed precisely measured human fecal material to foster a new era in gut microbiome research. 

According to AGA’s Center for Gut Microbiome Research & Education, this critical resource will help advance the utility and reproducibility of microbiome-based diagnostics — “which still remain relatively meaningless clinically, although patients continue to buy direct-to-consumer tests, and a standard reference material will mean there’s a better way to ensure quality control and accuracy.” 

Though not a therapeutic, Human Fecal Material RM is expected to speed up gastrointestinal (GI) therapeutics since many microbiome-based drugs are inspired by fecal transplants with human stool as the developmental starting point. A standardized reference material will be an important resource as industry develops and tests new drugs. It can be purchased online at the NIST Store (shop.nist.gov).

The product consists of eight frozen vials of exhaustively studied human feces suspended in aqueous solution. Available are more than 25 pages of data identifying the key microbes and biomolecules in the material. Scientists, including those working at biopharmaceutical and biotech companies, can use this material to further their research and develop new drugs that target the microbiome, including treatments that contain living bacteria. 

 

Development

According to NIST, the stool material is “the most precisely measured, scientifically analyzed, and richly characterized human fecal standard ever produced. 

“The project ran for about 6 years from start to finish, the last 2 for manufacturing, characterization, and writing,” said NIST molecular geneticist Scott A. Jackson, PhD, who helped develop the product. “We hope our reference material will lay the foundation for gut microbiome research to thrive and reach its full potential.” 

As founder of NIST’s Complex Microbial Systems Group, Jackson is leading international efforts to improve microbiome and metagenomic measurements by organizing inter-lab studies and refining reference materials and methods. 

The project collected stool from two cohorts of donors, ie, vegetarians and omnivores, with each cohort comprising four to six donors. Material from each cohort was pooled and homogenized before being aliquoted into 5000 vials per cohort. About 300 tubes from each cohort were picked, and aliquots then underwent multiomic analyses. 

Offering his perspective on the new product, Sudhir K. Dutta, MBBS, associate professor in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said, “This tool will be 100% useful for microbiome research.”

And according to Lori Holtz, MD, MSPH, professor of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, the material will aid microbiome research by allowing interpretability and repeatability across studies. “Microbiome research is a relatively new field, and protocols differ from group to group and lab to lab, so it’s been difficult to compare results across studies,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “A standard stool product will allow for greater comparability in preclinical studies and later clinical trials testing interventions to alter the microbiome.”

The NIST developers are looking forward to reaction from the GI research community. “Over the last several years, we’ve released smaller pilot batches of material to smaller groups of stakeholders,” said Jackson. “We’ve used the feedback on these earlier batches to inform the manufacturing and characterization of the final batch that was released in March, but we don’t yet have any feedback yet on the current material.”

Jackson, Dutta, and Holtz disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An AGA multidisciplinary panel has reached the conclusion that no recommendation can be made for or against the use of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cause of cancer mortality in the United States.

The systematic data review is a collaboration between AGA and The BMJ’s MAGIC Rapid Recommendations. The BMJ issued a separate recommendation against CADe shortly after the AGA guideline was published.

Led by Shahnaz S. Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and recently published in Gastroenterology, found only very low certainty of GRADE-based evidence for several critical long-term outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. These included the following: 11 fewer CRCs per 10,000 individuals and two fewer CRC deaths per 10,000 individuals, an increased burden of more intensive surveillance colonoscopies (635 more per 10,000 individuals), and cost and resource implications.

This technology did, however, yield an 8% (95% CI, 6-10) absolute increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and a 2% (95% CI, 0-4) increase in the detection rate of advanced adenomas and/or sessile serrated lesions. “How this translates into a reduction in CRC incidence or death is where we were uncertain,” Sultan said. “Our best effort at trying to translate the ADR and other endoscopy outcomes to CRC incidence and CRC death relied on the modeling study, which included a lot of assumptions, which also contributed to our overall lower certainty.”

The systematic and meta-analysis included 41 randomized controlled trials with more than 32,108 participants who underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy. This technology was associated with a higher polyp detection rate than standard colonoscopy: 56.1% vs 47.9% (relative risk [RR], 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.28). It also had a higher ADR: 44.8% vs 37.4% (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.29).

But although CADe-assisted colonoscopy may increase ADR, it carries a risk for overdiagnosis, as most polyps detected during colonoscopy are diminutive (< 5 mm) and of low malignant potential, the panel noted. Approximately 25% of lesions are missed at colonoscopy. More than 15 million colonoscopies are performed annually in the United States, but studies have demonstrated variable quality of colonoscopies across key quality indicators.

“Artificial intelligence [AI] is revolutionizing medicine and healthcare in the field of GI [gastroenterology], and CADe in colonoscopy has been brought to commercialization,” Sultan told GI & Hepatology News. “Unlike many areas of endoscopic research where we often have a finite number of clinical trial data, CADe-assisted colonoscopy intervention has been studied in over 44 randomized controlled trials and numerous nonrandomized, real-world studies. The question of whether or not to adopt this intervention at a health system or practice level is an important question that was prioritized to be addressed as guidance was needed.”

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in its formulation, Larry S. Kim, MD, MBA, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology in Denver, Colorado, said his practice group has used the GI Genius AI system in its affiliated hospitals but has so far chosen not to implement the technology at its endoscopy centers. “At the hospital, our physicians have the ability to utilize the system for select patients or not at all,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

The fact that The BMJ reached a different conclusion based on the same data, evidence-grading system, and microsimulation, Kim added, “highlights the point that when evidence for benefit is uncertain, underlying values are critical.” In declining to make a recommendation, the AGA panel balanced the benefit of improved detection of potentially precancerous adenomas vs increased resource utilization in the face of unclear benefit. “With different priorities, other bodies could reasonably decide to recommend either for or against CADe.”

 

The Future

According to Sultan, gastroenterologists need a better understanding of patient values and preferences and the value placed on increased adenoma detection, which may also lead to more lifetime colonoscopies without reducing the risk for CRC. “We need better intermediate- and long-term data on the impact of adenoma detection on interval cancers and CRC incidence,” she said. “We need data on detection of polyps that are more clinically significant such as those 6-10 mm in size, as well as serrated sessile lesions. We also need to understand at the population or health system level what the impact is on resources, cost, and access.”

Ultimately, the living guideline underscores the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects and the limitations of current evidence to support a recommendation, but CADe has to improve as an iterative AI application with further validation and better training.

With the anticipated improvement in software accuracy as AI machine learning reads increasing numbers of images, Sultan added, “the next version of the software may perform better, especially for polyps that are more clinically significant or for flat sessile serrated polyps, which are harder to detect. We plan to revisit the question in the next year or two and potentially revise the guideline.”

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute with no funding from any outside agency or industry.

Sultan is supported by the US Food and Drug Administration. Co-authors Shazia Mehmood Siddique, Dennis L. Shung, and Benjamin Lebwohl are supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Theodore R. Levin is supported by the Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research Program. Cesare Hassan is a consultant for Fujifilm and Olympus. Peter S. Liang reported doing research work for Freenome and advisory board work for Guardant Health and Natera.

Kim is the AGA president-elect. He disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An AGA multidisciplinary panel has reached the conclusion that no recommendation can be made for or against the use of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cause of cancer mortality in the United States.

The systematic data review is a collaboration between AGA and The BMJ’s MAGIC Rapid Recommendations. The BMJ issued a separate recommendation against CADe shortly after the AGA guideline was published.

Led by Shahnaz S. Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and recently published in Gastroenterology, found only very low certainty of GRADE-based evidence for several critical long-term outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. These included the following: 11 fewer CRCs per 10,000 individuals and two fewer CRC deaths per 10,000 individuals, an increased burden of more intensive surveillance colonoscopies (635 more per 10,000 individuals), and cost and resource implications.

This technology did, however, yield an 8% (95% CI, 6-10) absolute increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and a 2% (95% CI, 0-4) increase in the detection rate of advanced adenomas and/or sessile serrated lesions. “How this translates into a reduction in CRC incidence or death is where we were uncertain,” Sultan said. “Our best effort at trying to translate the ADR and other endoscopy outcomes to CRC incidence and CRC death relied on the modeling study, which included a lot of assumptions, which also contributed to our overall lower certainty.”

The systematic and meta-analysis included 41 randomized controlled trials with more than 32,108 participants who underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy. This technology was associated with a higher polyp detection rate than standard colonoscopy: 56.1% vs 47.9% (relative risk [RR], 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.28). It also had a higher ADR: 44.8% vs 37.4% (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.29).

But although CADe-assisted colonoscopy may increase ADR, it carries a risk for overdiagnosis, as most polyps detected during colonoscopy are diminutive (< 5 mm) and of low malignant potential, the panel noted. Approximately 25% of lesions are missed at colonoscopy. More than 15 million colonoscopies are performed annually in the United States, but studies have demonstrated variable quality of colonoscopies across key quality indicators.

“Artificial intelligence [AI] is revolutionizing medicine and healthcare in the field of GI [gastroenterology], and CADe in colonoscopy has been brought to commercialization,” Sultan told GI & Hepatology News. “Unlike many areas of endoscopic research where we often have a finite number of clinical trial data, CADe-assisted colonoscopy intervention has been studied in over 44 randomized controlled trials and numerous nonrandomized, real-world studies. The question of whether or not to adopt this intervention at a health system or practice level is an important question that was prioritized to be addressed as guidance was needed.”

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in its formulation, Larry S. Kim, MD, MBA, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology in Denver, Colorado, said his practice group has used the GI Genius AI system in its affiliated hospitals but has so far chosen not to implement the technology at its endoscopy centers. “At the hospital, our physicians have the ability to utilize the system for select patients or not at all,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

The fact that The BMJ reached a different conclusion based on the same data, evidence-grading system, and microsimulation, Kim added, “highlights the point that when evidence for benefit is uncertain, underlying values are critical.” In declining to make a recommendation, the AGA panel balanced the benefit of improved detection of potentially precancerous adenomas vs increased resource utilization in the face of unclear benefit. “With different priorities, other bodies could reasonably decide to recommend either for or against CADe.”

 

The Future

According to Sultan, gastroenterologists need a better understanding of patient values and preferences and the value placed on increased adenoma detection, which may also lead to more lifetime colonoscopies without reducing the risk for CRC. “We need better intermediate- and long-term data on the impact of adenoma detection on interval cancers and CRC incidence,” she said. “We need data on detection of polyps that are more clinically significant such as those 6-10 mm in size, as well as serrated sessile lesions. We also need to understand at the population or health system level what the impact is on resources, cost, and access.”

Ultimately, the living guideline underscores the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects and the limitations of current evidence to support a recommendation, but CADe has to improve as an iterative AI application with further validation and better training.

With the anticipated improvement in software accuracy as AI machine learning reads increasing numbers of images, Sultan added, “the next version of the software may perform better, especially for polyps that are more clinically significant or for flat sessile serrated polyps, which are harder to detect. We plan to revisit the question in the next year or two and potentially revise the guideline.”

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute with no funding from any outside agency or industry.

Sultan is supported by the US Food and Drug Administration. Co-authors Shazia Mehmood Siddique, Dennis L. Shung, and Benjamin Lebwohl are supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Theodore R. Levin is supported by the Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research Program. Cesare Hassan is a consultant for Fujifilm and Olympus. Peter S. Liang reported doing research work for Freenome and advisory board work for Guardant Health and Natera.

Kim is the AGA president-elect. He disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An AGA multidisciplinary panel has reached the conclusion that no recommendation can be made for or against the use of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cause of cancer mortality in the United States.

The systematic data review is a collaboration between AGA and The BMJ’s MAGIC Rapid Recommendations. The BMJ issued a separate recommendation against CADe shortly after the AGA guideline was published.

Led by Shahnaz S. Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and recently published in Gastroenterology, found only very low certainty of GRADE-based evidence for several critical long-term outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. These included the following: 11 fewer CRCs per 10,000 individuals and two fewer CRC deaths per 10,000 individuals, an increased burden of more intensive surveillance colonoscopies (635 more per 10,000 individuals), and cost and resource implications.

This technology did, however, yield an 8% (95% CI, 6-10) absolute increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and a 2% (95% CI, 0-4) increase in the detection rate of advanced adenomas and/or sessile serrated lesions. “How this translates into a reduction in CRC incidence or death is where we were uncertain,” Sultan said. “Our best effort at trying to translate the ADR and other endoscopy outcomes to CRC incidence and CRC death relied on the modeling study, which included a lot of assumptions, which also contributed to our overall lower certainty.”

The systematic and meta-analysis included 41 randomized controlled trials with more than 32,108 participants who underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy. This technology was associated with a higher polyp detection rate than standard colonoscopy: 56.1% vs 47.9% (relative risk [RR], 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.28). It also had a higher ADR: 44.8% vs 37.4% (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.29).

But although CADe-assisted colonoscopy may increase ADR, it carries a risk for overdiagnosis, as most polyps detected during colonoscopy are diminutive (< 5 mm) and of low malignant potential, the panel noted. Approximately 25% of lesions are missed at colonoscopy. More than 15 million colonoscopies are performed annually in the United States, but studies have demonstrated variable quality of colonoscopies across key quality indicators.

“Artificial intelligence [AI] is revolutionizing medicine and healthcare in the field of GI [gastroenterology], and CADe in colonoscopy has been brought to commercialization,” Sultan told GI & Hepatology News. “Unlike many areas of endoscopic research where we often have a finite number of clinical trial data, CADe-assisted colonoscopy intervention has been studied in over 44 randomized controlled trials and numerous nonrandomized, real-world studies. The question of whether or not to adopt this intervention at a health system or practice level is an important question that was prioritized to be addressed as guidance was needed.”

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in its formulation, Larry S. Kim, MD, MBA, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology in Denver, Colorado, said his practice group has used the GI Genius AI system in its affiliated hospitals but has so far chosen not to implement the technology at its endoscopy centers. “At the hospital, our physicians have the ability to utilize the system for select patients or not at all,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

The fact that The BMJ reached a different conclusion based on the same data, evidence-grading system, and microsimulation, Kim added, “highlights the point that when evidence for benefit is uncertain, underlying values are critical.” In declining to make a recommendation, the AGA panel balanced the benefit of improved detection of potentially precancerous adenomas vs increased resource utilization in the face of unclear benefit. “With different priorities, other bodies could reasonably decide to recommend either for or against CADe.”

 

The Future

According to Sultan, gastroenterologists need a better understanding of patient values and preferences and the value placed on increased adenoma detection, which may also lead to more lifetime colonoscopies without reducing the risk for CRC. “We need better intermediate- and long-term data on the impact of adenoma detection on interval cancers and CRC incidence,” she said. “We need data on detection of polyps that are more clinically significant such as those 6-10 mm in size, as well as serrated sessile lesions. We also need to understand at the population or health system level what the impact is on resources, cost, and access.”

Ultimately, the living guideline underscores the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects and the limitations of current evidence to support a recommendation, but CADe has to improve as an iterative AI application with further validation and better training.

With the anticipated improvement in software accuracy as AI machine learning reads increasing numbers of images, Sultan added, “the next version of the software may perform better, especially for polyps that are more clinically significant or for flat sessile serrated polyps, which are harder to detect. We plan to revisit the question in the next year or two and potentially revise the guideline.”

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute with no funding from any outside agency or industry.

Sultan is supported by the US Food and Drug Administration. Co-authors Shazia Mehmood Siddique, Dennis L. Shung, and Benjamin Lebwohl are supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Theodore R. Levin is supported by the Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research Program. Cesare Hassan is a consultant for Fujifilm and Olympus. Peter S. Liang reported doing research work for Freenome and advisory board work for Guardant Health and Natera.

Kim is the AGA president-elect. He disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent fasting (IMF) with behavioral support may be more effective and better tolerated by patients than standard daily caloric restriction (DCR) in weight-loss programs, a randomized study found.

A 4:3 IMF program produced modestly superior weight loss than DCR of 2.89 kg over 12 months in the context of a guidelines-based, high-intensity, comprehensive behavioral weight loss program, according to Danielle M. Ostendorf, PhD, MS, co–lead author and an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, study principal investigator, co–lead author, and an associate professor located at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that objectively measured percentage caloric restriction was greater in the 4:3 IMF group, whereas there was no between-group difference in change in total moderate to vigorous physical activity, suggesting that differences in weight loss may have been caused by greater adherence to 4:3 IMF. The 4:3 IMF program was well tolerated and attrition was lower in this group: 19% for IMF group vs 30% for DCR group.

The authors noted that alternative patterns for restricting dietary energy intake are gaining attention owing to the difficulty of adhering to a reduced-calorie diet daily, with most adults who lose weight through DCR showing significant weight regain a year later.

According to Ostendorf and Catenacci, fasting strategies “come in two different flavors and oftentimes get confused in the lay press and by patients and researchers. And there is a difference between IMF and time-restricted eating (TRE),” they said in an interview. “TRE involves limiting the daily window of food intake to 8-10 hours or less on most days of the week — for example, 16:8 or 14:10 strategies. TRE is done every day, consistently and involves eating in the predefined window, and fasting outside of that window.” 

IMF is a more periodic and significant fast and involves cycling between complete or near-complete (> 75%) energy restriction on fast days and ad libitum energy intake on nonfast days.

An appealing feature of IMF is that dieters do not have to focus on counting calories and restricting intake every day as they do with DCR, the authors wrote. Furthermore, the periodic nature of fasting is simpler and may mitigate the constant hunger associated with DCR.

Some said the diet was dreadful, but many said it was the easiest diet they had ever been on. “But it did take time for people to adjust to this strategy,” Catenacci said. “It was reassuring to see no evidence of increased binge-eating behaviors.”

Although objectively measured adherence to the targeted energy deficit (percentage caloric restriction from baseline) was below the target of 34.3% in both groups, the 4:3 IMF group showed greater percentage caloric restriction over 12 months. This suggests that, on average, the 4:3 IMF group may be more sustainable over a year than the DCR group. However, weight loss varied in both groups. Future studies should evaluate biological and behavioral predictors of response to both 4:3 IMF and DCR groups in order to personalize recommendations for weight loss.

 

Study Details

The investigators randomized 165 patients at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, with a mean age of 42 years (18-60), a mean baseline weight of 97.4 kg, and a mean baseline body mass index (BMI) of 34.1 to IMF (n = 84) or DCR (n = 81). Of these, 74% were women and 86% were White individuals, and 125 (76%) completed the trial.

The 4:3 IMF group restricted energy intake by 80% on 3 nonconsecutive fast days per week, with ad libitum intake on the other 4 days (4:3 IMF). The 80% calorie reduction fasting corresponded to about 400-600 kcals/d for women and 500-700 kcals/d for men.

“Participants were only required to count calories on their fast days, which is part of the appeal,” Ostendorf said. Although permitted to eat what they wanted on nonfast days, participants were encouraged to make healthy food choices and consume healthy portion sizes.

For its part, the DCR group reduced daily energy intake by 34% to match the weekly energy deficit of 4:3 IMF.

Both groups participated in a high-intensity comprehensive weight loss program with group-based behavioral support and a recommended increase in moderate-intensity physical activity to 300 min/wk.

On the primary endpoint, the 4:3 IMF group showed a weight loss of 7.7 kg (95% CI, –9.6 to –5.9 kg) compared with 4.8 kg (95% CI, –6.8 to –2.8 kg, P =.040) in the DCR group at 12 months. The percentage change in body weight from baseline was –7.6% (95% CI, –9.5% to –5.7%) in the 4:3 IMF group and –5% (95% CI, –6.9% to –3.1%) in the DCR group.

At 12 months, 58% (n = 50) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 5% vs 47% (n = 27) of those in the DCR group. In addition, 38% (n = 26) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 10% at 12 months vs 16% (n = 9) of those in the DCR group. Changes in body composition, BMI, and waist circumference also tended to favor the 4:3 IMF group.

On other 12-month measures, point estimates of change in systolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglyceride level, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, fasting glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c level favored 4:3 IMF. Point estimates of change in diastolic blood pressure and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level favored DCR.

Currently lacking, the authors said, are data on safety in children and older adults, and adults affected by a long list of conditions: Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease (stage 4 or 5), cancer, and eating disorders. Also, people of normal weight or only mild overweight, and pregnant or lactating women. “There have been concerns about IMF causing eating disorders, so we did not include people with eating disorders in our study,” Ostendorf and Catenacci said.

Offering an outside perspective on the findings, James O. Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center and a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham believes IMF is a viable option for people trying to lose weight and has prescribed this approach for some in his practice. “But there is no one strategy that works for everyone,” he said in an interview. “I recommend IMF as a science-based strategy that can be effective for some people, and I think it should be on the list of science-based tools that people can consider using.” But as it won’t work for everyone, “we need to consider both metabolic success and behavioral success. In other words, would it be more effective if people could do it and how easy or hard is it for people to do?”

Audra Wilson, MS, RD, a bariatric dietitian at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, Illinois, who was not involved in the study, expressed more reservations. “We do not specifically recommend intermittent fasting at Northwestern Medicine. There is no set protocol for this diet, and it can vary in ways that can limit nutrition to the point where we are not meeting needs on a regular basis,” she said in an interview.

Moreover, this study did not specify exact nutritional recommendations for participants but merely reduced overall caloric intake. “Although intermittent fasting may be helpful to some, in my nearly 10 years of experience I have not seen it be effective for many and especially not long term,” Wilson added.

Concerningly, IMF can foster disordered eating patterns of restriction followed by binging. “Although a balanced diet is more difficult to achieve, guidance from professionals like dietitians can give patients the tools to achieve balance, meet all nutrient needs, achieve satiety, and maybe most importantly, have a better relationship with food,” she said.

As for the influence of metabolic factors that may be associated with better weight loss, Ostendorf said, “be on the lookout for future publications in this area. We are analyzing data around changes in energy expenditure and changes in hunger-related hormones, among others.” A colleague is collecting biological samples to study genetics in this context. “However, in general, it appeared that the difference in weight loss was due to a greater caloric deficit in the 4:3 IMF group.”

Ostendorf and Catenacci are currently conducting a pilot study testing 4:3 IMF in breast cancer survivors. “We think this is a promising strategy for weight loss in breast cancer survivors who struggle with overweight/obesity in addition to their cancer diagnosis,” Ostendorf said.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Ostendorf, Catenacci, Hill, and Wilson disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent fasting (IMF) with behavioral support may be more effective and better tolerated by patients than standard daily caloric restriction (DCR) in weight-loss programs, a randomized study found.

A 4:3 IMF program produced modestly superior weight loss than DCR of 2.89 kg over 12 months in the context of a guidelines-based, high-intensity, comprehensive behavioral weight loss program, according to Danielle M. Ostendorf, PhD, MS, co–lead author and an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, study principal investigator, co–lead author, and an associate professor located at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that objectively measured percentage caloric restriction was greater in the 4:3 IMF group, whereas there was no between-group difference in change in total moderate to vigorous physical activity, suggesting that differences in weight loss may have been caused by greater adherence to 4:3 IMF. The 4:3 IMF program was well tolerated and attrition was lower in this group: 19% for IMF group vs 30% for DCR group.

The authors noted that alternative patterns for restricting dietary energy intake are gaining attention owing to the difficulty of adhering to a reduced-calorie diet daily, with most adults who lose weight through DCR showing significant weight regain a year later.

According to Ostendorf and Catenacci, fasting strategies “come in two different flavors and oftentimes get confused in the lay press and by patients and researchers. And there is a difference between IMF and time-restricted eating (TRE),” they said in an interview. “TRE involves limiting the daily window of food intake to 8-10 hours or less on most days of the week — for example, 16:8 or 14:10 strategies. TRE is done every day, consistently and involves eating in the predefined window, and fasting outside of that window.” 

IMF is a more periodic and significant fast and involves cycling between complete or near-complete (> 75%) energy restriction on fast days and ad libitum energy intake on nonfast days.

An appealing feature of IMF is that dieters do not have to focus on counting calories and restricting intake every day as they do with DCR, the authors wrote. Furthermore, the periodic nature of fasting is simpler and may mitigate the constant hunger associated with DCR.

Some said the diet was dreadful, but many said it was the easiest diet they had ever been on. “But it did take time for people to adjust to this strategy,” Catenacci said. “It was reassuring to see no evidence of increased binge-eating behaviors.”

Although objectively measured adherence to the targeted energy deficit (percentage caloric restriction from baseline) was below the target of 34.3% in both groups, the 4:3 IMF group showed greater percentage caloric restriction over 12 months. This suggests that, on average, the 4:3 IMF group may be more sustainable over a year than the DCR group. However, weight loss varied in both groups. Future studies should evaluate biological and behavioral predictors of response to both 4:3 IMF and DCR groups in order to personalize recommendations for weight loss.

 

Study Details

The investigators randomized 165 patients at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, with a mean age of 42 years (18-60), a mean baseline weight of 97.4 kg, and a mean baseline body mass index (BMI) of 34.1 to IMF (n = 84) or DCR (n = 81). Of these, 74% were women and 86% were White individuals, and 125 (76%) completed the trial.

The 4:3 IMF group restricted energy intake by 80% on 3 nonconsecutive fast days per week, with ad libitum intake on the other 4 days (4:3 IMF). The 80% calorie reduction fasting corresponded to about 400-600 kcals/d for women and 500-700 kcals/d for men.

“Participants were only required to count calories on their fast days, which is part of the appeal,” Ostendorf said. Although permitted to eat what they wanted on nonfast days, participants were encouraged to make healthy food choices and consume healthy portion sizes.

For its part, the DCR group reduced daily energy intake by 34% to match the weekly energy deficit of 4:3 IMF.

Both groups participated in a high-intensity comprehensive weight loss program with group-based behavioral support and a recommended increase in moderate-intensity physical activity to 300 min/wk.

On the primary endpoint, the 4:3 IMF group showed a weight loss of 7.7 kg (95% CI, –9.6 to –5.9 kg) compared with 4.8 kg (95% CI, –6.8 to –2.8 kg, P =.040) in the DCR group at 12 months. The percentage change in body weight from baseline was –7.6% (95% CI, –9.5% to –5.7%) in the 4:3 IMF group and –5% (95% CI, –6.9% to –3.1%) in the DCR group.

At 12 months, 58% (n = 50) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 5% vs 47% (n = 27) of those in the DCR group. In addition, 38% (n = 26) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 10% at 12 months vs 16% (n = 9) of those in the DCR group. Changes in body composition, BMI, and waist circumference also tended to favor the 4:3 IMF group.

On other 12-month measures, point estimates of change in systolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglyceride level, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, fasting glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c level favored 4:3 IMF. Point estimates of change in diastolic blood pressure and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level favored DCR.

Currently lacking, the authors said, are data on safety in children and older adults, and adults affected by a long list of conditions: Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease (stage 4 or 5), cancer, and eating disorders. Also, people of normal weight or only mild overweight, and pregnant or lactating women. “There have been concerns about IMF causing eating disorders, so we did not include people with eating disorders in our study,” Ostendorf and Catenacci said.

Offering an outside perspective on the findings, James O. Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center and a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham believes IMF is a viable option for people trying to lose weight and has prescribed this approach for some in his practice. “But there is no one strategy that works for everyone,” he said in an interview. “I recommend IMF as a science-based strategy that can be effective for some people, and I think it should be on the list of science-based tools that people can consider using.” But as it won’t work for everyone, “we need to consider both metabolic success and behavioral success. In other words, would it be more effective if people could do it and how easy or hard is it for people to do?”

Audra Wilson, MS, RD, a bariatric dietitian at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, Illinois, who was not involved in the study, expressed more reservations. “We do not specifically recommend intermittent fasting at Northwestern Medicine. There is no set protocol for this diet, and it can vary in ways that can limit nutrition to the point where we are not meeting needs on a regular basis,” she said in an interview.

Moreover, this study did not specify exact nutritional recommendations for participants but merely reduced overall caloric intake. “Although intermittent fasting may be helpful to some, in my nearly 10 years of experience I have not seen it be effective for many and especially not long term,” Wilson added.

Concerningly, IMF can foster disordered eating patterns of restriction followed by binging. “Although a balanced diet is more difficult to achieve, guidance from professionals like dietitians can give patients the tools to achieve balance, meet all nutrient needs, achieve satiety, and maybe most importantly, have a better relationship with food,” she said.

As for the influence of metabolic factors that may be associated with better weight loss, Ostendorf said, “be on the lookout for future publications in this area. We are analyzing data around changes in energy expenditure and changes in hunger-related hormones, among others.” A colleague is collecting biological samples to study genetics in this context. “However, in general, it appeared that the difference in weight loss was due to a greater caloric deficit in the 4:3 IMF group.”

Ostendorf and Catenacci are currently conducting a pilot study testing 4:3 IMF in breast cancer survivors. “We think this is a promising strategy for weight loss in breast cancer survivors who struggle with overweight/obesity in addition to their cancer diagnosis,” Ostendorf said.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Ostendorf, Catenacci, Hill, and Wilson disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent fasting (IMF) with behavioral support may be more effective and better tolerated by patients than standard daily caloric restriction (DCR) in weight-loss programs, a randomized study found.

A 4:3 IMF program produced modestly superior weight loss than DCR of 2.89 kg over 12 months in the context of a guidelines-based, high-intensity, comprehensive behavioral weight loss program, according to Danielle M. Ostendorf, PhD, MS, co–lead author and an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, study principal investigator, co–lead author, and an associate professor located at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that objectively measured percentage caloric restriction was greater in the 4:3 IMF group, whereas there was no between-group difference in change in total moderate to vigorous physical activity, suggesting that differences in weight loss may have been caused by greater adherence to 4:3 IMF. The 4:3 IMF program was well tolerated and attrition was lower in this group: 19% for IMF group vs 30% for DCR group.

The authors noted that alternative patterns for restricting dietary energy intake are gaining attention owing to the difficulty of adhering to a reduced-calorie diet daily, with most adults who lose weight through DCR showing significant weight regain a year later.

According to Ostendorf and Catenacci, fasting strategies “come in two different flavors and oftentimes get confused in the lay press and by patients and researchers. And there is a difference between IMF and time-restricted eating (TRE),” they said in an interview. “TRE involves limiting the daily window of food intake to 8-10 hours or less on most days of the week — for example, 16:8 or 14:10 strategies. TRE is done every day, consistently and involves eating in the predefined window, and fasting outside of that window.” 

IMF is a more periodic and significant fast and involves cycling between complete or near-complete (> 75%) energy restriction on fast days and ad libitum energy intake on nonfast days.

An appealing feature of IMF is that dieters do not have to focus on counting calories and restricting intake every day as they do with DCR, the authors wrote. Furthermore, the periodic nature of fasting is simpler and may mitigate the constant hunger associated with DCR.

Some said the diet was dreadful, but many said it was the easiest diet they had ever been on. “But it did take time for people to adjust to this strategy,” Catenacci said. “It was reassuring to see no evidence of increased binge-eating behaviors.”

Although objectively measured adherence to the targeted energy deficit (percentage caloric restriction from baseline) was below the target of 34.3% in both groups, the 4:3 IMF group showed greater percentage caloric restriction over 12 months. This suggests that, on average, the 4:3 IMF group may be more sustainable over a year than the DCR group. However, weight loss varied in both groups. Future studies should evaluate biological and behavioral predictors of response to both 4:3 IMF and DCR groups in order to personalize recommendations for weight loss.

 

Study Details

The investigators randomized 165 patients at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, with a mean age of 42 years (18-60), a mean baseline weight of 97.4 kg, and a mean baseline body mass index (BMI) of 34.1 to IMF (n = 84) or DCR (n = 81). Of these, 74% were women and 86% were White individuals, and 125 (76%) completed the trial.

The 4:3 IMF group restricted energy intake by 80% on 3 nonconsecutive fast days per week, with ad libitum intake on the other 4 days (4:3 IMF). The 80% calorie reduction fasting corresponded to about 400-600 kcals/d for women and 500-700 kcals/d for men.

“Participants were only required to count calories on their fast days, which is part of the appeal,” Ostendorf said. Although permitted to eat what they wanted on nonfast days, participants were encouraged to make healthy food choices and consume healthy portion sizes.

For its part, the DCR group reduced daily energy intake by 34% to match the weekly energy deficit of 4:3 IMF.

Both groups participated in a high-intensity comprehensive weight loss program with group-based behavioral support and a recommended increase in moderate-intensity physical activity to 300 min/wk.

On the primary endpoint, the 4:3 IMF group showed a weight loss of 7.7 kg (95% CI, –9.6 to –5.9 kg) compared with 4.8 kg (95% CI, –6.8 to –2.8 kg, P =.040) in the DCR group at 12 months. The percentage change in body weight from baseline was –7.6% (95% CI, –9.5% to –5.7%) in the 4:3 IMF group and –5% (95% CI, –6.9% to –3.1%) in the DCR group.

At 12 months, 58% (n = 50) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 5% vs 47% (n = 27) of those in the DCR group. In addition, 38% (n = 26) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 10% at 12 months vs 16% (n = 9) of those in the DCR group. Changes in body composition, BMI, and waist circumference also tended to favor the 4:3 IMF group.

On other 12-month measures, point estimates of change in systolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglyceride level, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, fasting glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c level favored 4:3 IMF. Point estimates of change in diastolic blood pressure and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level favored DCR.

Currently lacking, the authors said, are data on safety in children and older adults, and adults affected by a long list of conditions: Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease (stage 4 or 5), cancer, and eating disorders. Also, people of normal weight or only mild overweight, and pregnant or lactating women. “There have been concerns about IMF causing eating disorders, so we did not include people with eating disorders in our study,” Ostendorf and Catenacci said.

Offering an outside perspective on the findings, James O. Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center and a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham believes IMF is a viable option for people trying to lose weight and has prescribed this approach for some in his practice. “But there is no one strategy that works for everyone,” he said in an interview. “I recommend IMF as a science-based strategy that can be effective for some people, and I think it should be on the list of science-based tools that people can consider using.” But as it won’t work for everyone, “we need to consider both metabolic success and behavioral success. In other words, would it be more effective if people could do it and how easy or hard is it for people to do?”

Audra Wilson, MS, RD, a bariatric dietitian at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, Illinois, who was not involved in the study, expressed more reservations. “We do not specifically recommend intermittent fasting at Northwestern Medicine. There is no set protocol for this diet, and it can vary in ways that can limit nutrition to the point where we are not meeting needs on a regular basis,” she said in an interview.

Moreover, this study did not specify exact nutritional recommendations for participants but merely reduced overall caloric intake. “Although intermittent fasting may be helpful to some, in my nearly 10 years of experience I have not seen it be effective for many and especially not long term,” Wilson added.

Concerningly, IMF can foster disordered eating patterns of restriction followed by binging. “Although a balanced diet is more difficult to achieve, guidance from professionals like dietitians can give patients the tools to achieve balance, meet all nutrient needs, achieve satiety, and maybe most importantly, have a better relationship with food,” she said.

As for the influence of metabolic factors that may be associated with better weight loss, Ostendorf said, “be on the lookout for future publications in this area. We are analyzing data around changes in energy expenditure and changes in hunger-related hormones, among others.” A colleague is collecting biological samples to study genetics in this context. “However, in general, it appeared that the difference in weight loss was due to a greater caloric deficit in the 4:3 IMF group.”

Ostendorf and Catenacci are currently conducting a pilot study testing 4:3 IMF in breast cancer survivors. “We think this is a promising strategy for weight loss in breast cancer survivors who struggle with overweight/obesity in addition to their cancer diagnosis,” Ostendorf said.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Ostendorf, Catenacci, Hill, and Wilson disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released an updated clinical practice guideline on the prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in at-risk persons. The document was published in Gastroenterology and replaces a previous guideline on prophylaxis for immunosuppressed patients issued in 2014.

Since then, many novel classes of immunosuppressives have been approved for various conditions, and potentially immunosuppressive therapies such as transcatheter arterial chemoembolization have been recognized as relevant to potential HBVr.

With reactivation a risk after immune-modulating exposures, such as to multiple drug classes and disease states, the update provides frontline clinicians with evidence-based advice for the management of HBVr in vulnerable individuals. And while antiviral prophylaxis is recommended for many, in select cases careful clinical monitoring may suffice for risk management.

 

“The risk of HBV reactivation depends on patient-, drug-, and disease-specific factors — and so it can range from very rare to more frequent,” said guideline coauthor Tracey G. Simon, MD, MPH, a hepatologist in the division of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Not every at-risk individual needs pharmacologic treatment, but some certainly do, and this guideline was designed to try to better identify who needs treatment, based on those important drug- and virus-specific factors.”

Simon stressed the importance of creating this guideline to include many new therapies that carry varying degrees of reactivation risk. As to the strength of the evidence, she added, “for some of the questions, the panel was satisfied with the level of certainty. However, for other questions, the data are still very sparse, and so we have tried to ensure that these areas of uncertainty are highlighted clearly for providers and patients.”

 

Main Recommendations

AGA based its clinical recommendations on balancing desirable and undesirable effects, patient values and preferences, costs, and health equity considerations. It also provided a clinical decision support tool for making pharmacologic management decisions.

The panelists reviewed data on multiple immunosuppressive therapies from older agents such as anthracycline derivatives, corticosteroids, and anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs to chimeric antigen receptor T cells and recent biologics and inhibitors.

1. For individuals at high risk for HBVr, AGA recommended antiviral prophylaxis over monitoring alone. Strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: Use antivirals with a high barrier to resistance. Prophylaxis should be started before initiating medications that carry a risk for HBVr and should be continued for at least 6 months after discontinuation of risk-imposing therapy (at least 12 months for B cell–depleting agents).

2. For individuals at moderate risk for HBVr, antiviral prophylaxis was recommended over monitoring alone. Conditional recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: Use antivirals with a high barrier to resistance. Patients who place a higher value on avoiding long-term antiviral therapy and its associated cost and place a lower value on avoiding the small risk of reactivation (particularly those who are hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg]–negative) may reasonably select active monitoring over antiviral prophylaxis.

Careful consideration should be given to the feasibility and likelihood of adherence to long-term monitoring performed at 1- to 3-month intervals and including assessment of hepatitis B viral load and alanine aminotransferase.

3. For low-risk individuals, the AGA said monitoring alone may be used. Conditional recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: This recommendation assumes regular and sufficient follow-up with continued monitoring. Patients who place a higher value on avoiding the small risk of reactivation (particularly those on more than one low-risk immunosuppressive) and a lower value on the burden and cost of antiviral therapy may reasonably select antiviral therapy.

4. For individuals at risk for HBVr, the guideline recommended testing for hepatitis B. Strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: Given the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s universal screening guidance on hepatitis B for everyone aged 18 years or older by testing for HBsAg, anti-HBs, and total anti-hepatitis B core (HBc), the guideline said that stratifying screening practices by magnitude of HBVr risk is no longer needed.

It is reasonable to test initially for serologic markers alone (at minimum for HBsAg or anti-HBc) followed by viral load testing (HBV-DNA) if HBsAg and/or anti-HBc is positive.

 

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Coinfection With Direct-Acting Antiviral (DAA) Treatment

The panel identified 11 studies that provided data for the computation of baseline risk for HBVr in the HCV coinfection cohort undergoing DAA therapy.

In patients who were HBsAg-positive, the pooled baseline risk for HBVr was 240 per 1000, categorizing them to be at high risk for HBVr. The panel stated it is therefore reasonable to extend antiviral prophylaxis beyond the 12-24 weeks of DAA therapy to 6-12 months after cessation of DAA therapy, tailored by clinician judgment and patient preference.

 

A ‘Useful Clinical Tool’

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in it, Saikiran Kilaru, MD, a hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said the update is “absolutely a useful clinical tool. Since the prior guidance was published, there has been a deluge of new medications and medication classes. Prior to the guidance, I was making recommendations based on the limited data available for hepatitis B reactivation risk for these new medications, using the 1%-10% moderate-risk category as guidance.”

In addition, Kilaru said, this guidance is driven by a higher level of evidence certainty than the mostly retrospective evidence that was previously available.

She cautioned that few downgraded risk categories are likely to cause consternation among physicians who have been operating without the benefit of larger meta-analyses of HBVr in new medication categories. “For example, the prior guidance had put anti-TNF as of moderate risk for hepatitis B core–positive-only patients and is now downgraded to low risk.” And other medications such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, which seemed to pose at least moderate risk based on smaller, retrospective studies are now considered to be in the low-risk category.

“It may take some time for these recommendations to be adopted, especially for physicians in the community who have seen fatal or severe reactivations in the past few years,” Kilaru said.

Kilaru pointed out that the guidance update does not clearly cover some standard immunosuppressive therapies used in autoimmune, rheumatologic, and posttransplant regimens, such as mycophenolate, tacrolimus, and cyclosporine. Nor does it address HBVr risk in some liver cancer treatments such as yttrium-90, which have been associated with reports of HBV reactivation.

 

The Future

According to Simon, more data are needed to better estimate HBVr risk in several important settings, including treatment with the most recently approved immunosuppressive drugs for which data are still limited, as well as combination treatments.

Kilaru noted that guideline updates such as this become increasingly relevant as cancer diagnoses rise and hepatitis B exposure and detection increase as well.

The AGA panel acknowledged that uncertainty remains in some patient risk categorizations. “As the armamentarium of immunotherapeutics evolves, it will be crucial to search for, use, and maintain studies that provide baseline HBV serologies; include a clear definition of HBVr; and enroll a large, nonselective cohort that can guide categorization of risk of HBVr,” the panelists wrote.

AGA provided all financial support for the development of this guideline. No funding from industry was offered or accepted to support the writing effort.

The authors reported no relevant competing interests, but one coauthor is an adviser for Gilead Sciences, and other authors disclosed various relationships with multiple private sector companies. Kilaru had no competing interests to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released an updated clinical practice guideline on the prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in at-risk persons. The document was published in Gastroenterology and replaces a previous guideline on prophylaxis for immunosuppressed patients issued in 2014.

Since then, many novel classes of immunosuppressives have been approved for various conditions, and potentially immunosuppressive therapies such as transcatheter arterial chemoembolization have been recognized as relevant to potential HBVr.

With reactivation a risk after immune-modulating exposures, such as to multiple drug classes and disease states, the update provides frontline clinicians with evidence-based advice for the management of HBVr in vulnerable individuals. And while antiviral prophylaxis is recommended for many, in select cases careful clinical monitoring may suffice for risk management.

 

“The risk of HBV reactivation depends on patient-, drug-, and disease-specific factors — and so it can range from very rare to more frequent,” said guideline coauthor Tracey G. Simon, MD, MPH, a hepatologist in the division of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Not every at-risk individual needs pharmacologic treatment, but some certainly do, and this guideline was designed to try to better identify who needs treatment, based on those important drug- and virus-specific factors.”

Simon stressed the importance of creating this guideline to include many new therapies that carry varying degrees of reactivation risk. As to the strength of the evidence, she added, “for some of the questions, the panel was satisfied with the level of certainty. However, for other questions, the data are still very sparse, and so we have tried to ensure that these areas of uncertainty are highlighted clearly for providers and patients.”

 

Main Recommendations

AGA based its clinical recommendations on balancing desirable and undesirable effects, patient values and preferences, costs, and health equity considerations. It also provided a clinical decision support tool for making pharmacologic management decisions.

The panelists reviewed data on multiple immunosuppressive therapies from older agents such as anthracycline derivatives, corticosteroids, and anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs to chimeric antigen receptor T cells and recent biologics and inhibitors.

1. For individuals at high risk for HBVr, AGA recommended antiviral prophylaxis over monitoring alone. Strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: Use antivirals with a high barrier to resistance. Prophylaxis should be started before initiating medications that carry a risk for HBVr and should be continued for at least 6 months after discontinuation of risk-imposing therapy (at least 12 months for B cell–depleting agents).

2. For individuals at moderate risk for HBVr, antiviral prophylaxis was recommended over monitoring alone. Conditional recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: Use antivirals with a high barrier to resistance. Patients who place a higher value on avoiding long-term antiviral therapy and its associated cost and place a lower value on avoiding the small risk of reactivation (particularly those who are hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg]–negative) may reasonably select active monitoring over antiviral prophylaxis.

Careful consideration should be given to the feasibility and likelihood of adherence to long-term monitoring performed at 1- to 3-month intervals and including assessment of hepatitis B viral load and alanine aminotransferase.

3. For low-risk individuals, the AGA said monitoring alone may be used. Conditional recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: This recommendation assumes regular and sufficient follow-up with continued monitoring. Patients who place a higher value on avoiding the small risk of reactivation (particularly those on more than one low-risk immunosuppressive) and a lower value on the burden and cost of antiviral therapy may reasonably select antiviral therapy.

4. For individuals at risk for HBVr, the guideline recommended testing for hepatitis B. Strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: Given the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s universal screening guidance on hepatitis B for everyone aged 18 years or older by testing for HBsAg, anti-HBs, and total anti-hepatitis B core (HBc), the guideline said that stratifying screening practices by magnitude of HBVr risk is no longer needed.

It is reasonable to test initially for serologic markers alone (at minimum for HBsAg or anti-HBc) followed by viral load testing (HBV-DNA) if HBsAg and/or anti-HBc is positive.

 

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Coinfection With Direct-Acting Antiviral (DAA) Treatment

The panel identified 11 studies that provided data for the computation of baseline risk for HBVr in the HCV coinfection cohort undergoing DAA therapy.

In patients who were HBsAg-positive, the pooled baseline risk for HBVr was 240 per 1000, categorizing them to be at high risk for HBVr. The panel stated it is therefore reasonable to extend antiviral prophylaxis beyond the 12-24 weeks of DAA therapy to 6-12 months after cessation of DAA therapy, tailored by clinician judgment and patient preference.

 

A ‘Useful Clinical Tool’

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in it, Saikiran Kilaru, MD, a hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said the update is “absolutely a useful clinical tool. Since the prior guidance was published, there has been a deluge of new medications and medication classes. Prior to the guidance, I was making recommendations based on the limited data available for hepatitis B reactivation risk for these new medications, using the 1%-10% moderate-risk category as guidance.”

In addition, Kilaru said, this guidance is driven by a higher level of evidence certainty than the mostly retrospective evidence that was previously available.

She cautioned that few downgraded risk categories are likely to cause consternation among physicians who have been operating without the benefit of larger meta-analyses of HBVr in new medication categories. “For example, the prior guidance had put anti-TNF as of moderate risk for hepatitis B core–positive-only patients and is now downgraded to low risk.” And other medications such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, which seemed to pose at least moderate risk based on smaller, retrospective studies are now considered to be in the low-risk category.

“It may take some time for these recommendations to be adopted, especially for physicians in the community who have seen fatal or severe reactivations in the past few years,” Kilaru said.

Kilaru pointed out that the guidance update does not clearly cover some standard immunosuppressive therapies used in autoimmune, rheumatologic, and posttransplant regimens, such as mycophenolate, tacrolimus, and cyclosporine. Nor does it address HBVr risk in some liver cancer treatments such as yttrium-90, which have been associated with reports of HBV reactivation.

 

The Future

According to Simon, more data are needed to better estimate HBVr risk in several important settings, including treatment with the most recently approved immunosuppressive drugs for which data are still limited, as well as combination treatments.

Kilaru noted that guideline updates such as this become increasingly relevant as cancer diagnoses rise and hepatitis B exposure and detection increase as well.

The AGA panel acknowledged that uncertainty remains in some patient risk categorizations. “As the armamentarium of immunotherapeutics evolves, it will be crucial to search for, use, and maintain studies that provide baseline HBV serologies; include a clear definition of HBVr; and enroll a large, nonselective cohort that can guide categorization of risk of HBVr,” the panelists wrote.

AGA provided all financial support for the development of this guideline. No funding from industry was offered or accepted to support the writing effort.

The authors reported no relevant competing interests, but one coauthor is an adviser for Gilead Sciences, and other authors disclosed various relationships with multiple private sector companies. Kilaru had no competing interests to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released an updated clinical practice guideline on the prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in at-risk persons. The document was published in Gastroenterology and replaces a previous guideline on prophylaxis for immunosuppressed patients issued in 2014.

Since then, many novel classes of immunosuppressives have been approved for various conditions, and potentially immunosuppressive therapies such as transcatheter arterial chemoembolization have been recognized as relevant to potential HBVr.

With reactivation a risk after immune-modulating exposures, such as to multiple drug classes and disease states, the update provides frontline clinicians with evidence-based advice for the management of HBVr in vulnerable individuals. And while antiviral prophylaxis is recommended for many, in select cases careful clinical monitoring may suffice for risk management.

 

“The risk of HBV reactivation depends on patient-, drug-, and disease-specific factors — and so it can range from very rare to more frequent,” said guideline coauthor Tracey G. Simon, MD, MPH, a hepatologist in the division of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Not every at-risk individual needs pharmacologic treatment, but some certainly do, and this guideline was designed to try to better identify who needs treatment, based on those important drug- and virus-specific factors.”

Simon stressed the importance of creating this guideline to include many new therapies that carry varying degrees of reactivation risk. As to the strength of the evidence, she added, “for some of the questions, the panel was satisfied with the level of certainty. However, for other questions, the data are still very sparse, and so we have tried to ensure that these areas of uncertainty are highlighted clearly for providers and patients.”

 

Main Recommendations

AGA based its clinical recommendations on balancing desirable and undesirable effects, patient values and preferences, costs, and health equity considerations. It also provided a clinical decision support tool for making pharmacologic management decisions.

The panelists reviewed data on multiple immunosuppressive therapies from older agents such as anthracycline derivatives, corticosteroids, and anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs to chimeric antigen receptor T cells and recent biologics and inhibitors.

1. For individuals at high risk for HBVr, AGA recommended antiviral prophylaxis over monitoring alone. Strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: Use antivirals with a high barrier to resistance. Prophylaxis should be started before initiating medications that carry a risk for HBVr and should be continued for at least 6 months after discontinuation of risk-imposing therapy (at least 12 months for B cell–depleting agents).

2. For individuals at moderate risk for HBVr, antiviral prophylaxis was recommended over monitoring alone. Conditional recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: Use antivirals with a high barrier to resistance. Patients who place a higher value on avoiding long-term antiviral therapy and its associated cost and place a lower value on avoiding the small risk of reactivation (particularly those who are hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg]–negative) may reasonably select active monitoring over antiviral prophylaxis.

Careful consideration should be given to the feasibility and likelihood of adherence to long-term monitoring performed at 1- to 3-month intervals and including assessment of hepatitis B viral load and alanine aminotransferase.

3. For low-risk individuals, the AGA said monitoring alone may be used. Conditional recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: This recommendation assumes regular and sufficient follow-up with continued monitoring. Patients who place a higher value on avoiding the small risk of reactivation (particularly those on more than one low-risk immunosuppressive) and a lower value on the burden and cost of antiviral therapy may reasonably select antiviral therapy.

4. For individuals at risk for HBVr, the guideline recommended testing for hepatitis B. Strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence.

Implementation considerations: Given the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s universal screening guidance on hepatitis B for everyone aged 18 years or older by testing for HBsAg, anti-HBs, and total anti-hepatitis B core (HBc), the guideline said that stratifying screening practices by magnitude of HBVr risk is no longer needed.

It is reasonable to test initially for serologic markers alone (at minimum for HBsAg or anti-HBc) followed by viral load testing (HBV-DNA) if HBsAg and/or anti-HBc is positive.

 

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Coinfection With Direct-Acting Antiviral (DAA) Treatment

The panel identified 11 studies that provided data for the computation of baseline risk for HBVr in the HCV coinfection cohort undergoing DAA therapy.

In patients who were HBsAg-positive, the pooled baseline risk for HBVr was 240 per 1000, categorizing them to be at high risk for HBVr. The panel stated it is therefore reasonable to extend antiviral prophylaxis beyond the 12-24 weeks of DAA therapy to 6-12 months after cessation of DAA therapy, tailored by clinician judgment and patient preference.

 

A ‘Useful Clinical Tool’

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in it, Saikiran Kilaru, MD, a hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said the update is “absolutely a useful clinical tool. Since the prior guidance was published, there has been a deluge of new medications and medication classes. Prior to the guidance, I was making recommendations based on the limited data available for hepatitis B reactivation risk for these new medications, using the 1%-10% moderate-risk category as guidance.”

In addition, Kilaru said, this guidance is driven by a higher level of evidence certainty than the mostly retrospective evidence that was previously available.

She cautioned that few downgraded risk categories are likely to cause consternation among physicians who have been operating without the benefit of larger meta-analyses of HBVr in new medication categories. “For example, the prior guidance had put anti-TNF as of moderate risk for hepatitis B core–positive-only patients and is now downgraded to low risk.” And other medications such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, which seemed to pose at least moderate risk based on smaller, retrospective studies are now considered to be in the low-risk category.

“It may take some time for these recommendations to be adopted, especially for physicians in the community who have seen fatal or severe reactivations in the past few years,” Kilaru said.

Kilaru pointed out that the guidance update does not clearly cover some standard immunosuppressive therapies used in autoimmune, rheumatologic, and posttransplant regimens, such as mycophenolate, tacrolimus, and cyclosporine. Nor does it address HBVr risk in some liver cancer treatments such as yttrium-90, which have been associated with reports of HBV reactivation.

 

The Future

According to Simon, more data are needed to better estimate HBVr risk in several important settings, including treatment with the most recently approved immunosuppressive drugs for which data are still limited, as well as combination treatments.

Kilaru noted that guideline updates such as this become increasingly relevant as cancer diagnoses rise and hepatitis B exposure and detection increase as well.

The AGA panel acknowledged that uncertainty remains in some patient risk categorizations. “As the armamentarium of immunotherapeutics evolves, it will be crucial to search for, use, and maintain studies that provide baseline HBV serologies; include a clear definition of HBVr; and enroll a large, nonselective cohort that can guide categorization of risk of HBVr,” the panelists wrote.

AGA provided all financial support for the development of this guideline. No funding from industry was offered or accepted to support the writing effort.

The authors reported no relevant competing interests, but one coauthor is an adviser for Gilead Sciences, and other authors disclosed various relationships with multiple private sector companies. Kilaru had no competing interests to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.