Diana Swift

More than one in five of new gastrointestinal (GI) cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal dietary intake, according to a recent study.

Writing in Gastroenterology, researchers led by Li Liu, PhD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, reported that excessive consumption of processed meats (the biggest culprit), insufficient fruit intake, and insufficient whole grain intake were the leading dietary risk factors. In addition, the number of diet-related cases doubled from 1990 to 2018.

 

“In regions with limited access to healthy foods, policy interventions like taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing nutritious options may help shift dietary patterns and reduce cancer risk,” Liu said in an interview.

The study examined meta-analyses from 184 countries in seven regions for the period 1990-2018 looking at rates of six major GI cancers: colorectal, liver, esophageal, pancreatic, and gallbladder/biliary tract. Among these, the age-standardized incidence of liver, pancreatic, and colorectal increased significantly over the past 3 decades.

The research team used a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the impact of diet on GI cancer independent of energy intake and adiposity. Although the principal dietary risk factors varied across individual cancers, suboptimal intake of the three aforementioned components was responsible for 66.51% of all diet-attributable GI cancers in 2018. The global mean processed meat consumption was 17 g/d in 2018, falling to a low in South Asia of 3 g/d.

The investigators also found diet-linked cancer incidence positively correlated with the Sociodemographic Index (SDI), an integrated measure of national development, income, and fertility. Incidence varied across world regions, with the highest proportion of cases in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and in high-income countries. The findings support the development of targeted diet-related public health interventions in various regions and nations to reduce GI cancer incidence, the authors wrote.

Among the study’s specific findings:

• In 2018, 21.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 19.1-24.5) of incident GI cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal diets, a relatively stable proportion since 1990 (22.4%; 95% UI, 19.7-25.6).
• Absolute diet-attributable cases doubled from 580,862 (95% UI, 510,658-664,076) in 1990 to 1,039,877 (95% UI, 923,482-1,187,244) in 2018.
• Excessive processed meat consumption (5.9%; 95% UI, 4.2%-7.9%), insufficient fruit intake (4.8%; 95% UI, 3.8%-5.9%), and insufficient whole grain intake (3.6%; 95% UI, 2.8%-5.1%) were the most significant dietary risk factors in 2018 — a shift from 1990 when the third major concern was insufficient non-starchy vegetable intake.

Given the well-established link between diet and GI cancers, the incidence findings came as no surprise. “However, the dramatic doubling of diet-attributable cases over the past few decades was truly unexpected,” Liu said. “This increase can likely be attributed to global population growth and aging. While aging is an irreversible process, we can still reduce the growing burden of diet-related GI cancers by focusing on modifiable behaviors, particularly through targeted dietary interventions.”

 

A Modifiable Risk Factor

Commenting on the analysis but not involved in it, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, noted that his own group’s studies also support the association of diet with an increased risk for GI cancers, particularly colorectal cancers.

“Although much work needs to be done to clarify the precise mechanisms underlying this association, there are substantial data that diet may cause changes in the gut microbiome, which in turn promotes cancer,” Chan said in an interview. “Going forward, we are working to develop strategies in which diet is modified to mitigate the risk of cancer associated with suboptimal diets.”

In other study findings, Liu’s group observed that two regional groups, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, as well as high-income countries, bore the top three diet-attributable burdens worldwide in 2018, all driven mostly by an upward-trending excess of processed meat.

By regions, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia experienced the highest attributable burden across regions in 1990 (31.6%; UI, 27.0%-37.4%) and 2018 (31.6%; UI, 27.3%-36.5%).

As for the impact of the SDI, the authors explained that diet-attributable GI cancer burden was higher among adults with higher education and living in urban areas than among those with lower education and rural residency. “Some dietary habits tended to be worse in higher-SDI countries, specifically, higher consumption of processed meats,” they wrote.

Although the proportional attributable GI incidence remains relatively stable, they added, the doubling of absolute cases from 1990 to 2018, along with the discrepancies between urbanicity and countries/regions, supports more targeted preventive measures.

And while the diet-GI cancer connection is clear, they agreed with Chan in that “the precise pathogenesis from suboptimal diets to these cancers remains unclear and requires further basic studies to clarify the mechanism.”

In the meantime, the findings “underscore the urgent need for proactive public health interventions. Diet, as a modifiable risk factor, still offers substantial potential for improvement,” Liu said.

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Chan disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one in five of new gastrointestinal (GI) cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal dietary intake, according to a recent study.

Writing in Gastroenterology, researchers led by Li Liu, PhD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, reported that excessive consumption of processed meats (the biggest culprit), insufficient fruit intake, and insufficient whole grain intake were the leading dietary risk factors. In addition, the number of diet-related cases doubled from 1990 to 2018.

 

“In regions with limited access to healthy foods, policy interventions like taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing nutritious options may help shift dietary patterns and reduce cancer risk,” Liu said in an interview.

The study examined meta-analyses from 184 countries in seven regions for the period 1990-2018 looking at rates of six major GI cancers: colorectal, liver, esophageal, pancreatic, and gallbladder/biliary tract. Among these, the age-standardized incidence of liver, pancreatic, and colorectal increased significantly over the past 3 decades.

The research team used a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the impact of diet on GI cancer independent of energy intake and adiposity. Although the principal dietary risk factors varied across individual cancers, suboptimal intake of the three aforementioned components was responsible for 66.51% of all diet-attributable GI cancers in 2018. The global mean processed meat consumption was 17 g/d in 2018, falling to a low in South Asia of 3 g/d.

The investigators also found diet-linked cancer incidence positively correlated with the Sociodemographic Index (SDI), an integrated measure of national development, income, and fertility. Incidence varied across world regions, with the highest proportion of cases in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and in high-income countries. The findings support the development of targeted diet-related public health interventions in various regions and nations to reduce GI cancer incidence, the authors wrote.

Among the study’s specific findings:

• In 2018, 21.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 19.1-24.5) of incident GI cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal diets, a relatively stable proportion since 1990 (22.4%; 95% UI, 19.7-25.6).
• Absolute diet-attributable cases doubled from 580,862 (95% UI, 510,658-664,076) in 1990 to 1,039,877 (95% UI, 923,482-1,187,244) in 2018.
• Excessive processed meat consumption (5.9%; 95% UI, 4.2%-7.9%), insufficient fruit intake (4.8%; 95% UI, 3.8%-5.9%), and insufficient whole grain intake (3.6%; 95% UI, 2.8%-5.1%) were the most significant dietary risk factors in 2018 — a shift from 1990 when the third major concern was insufficient non-starchy vegetable intake.

Given the well-established link between diet and GI cancers, the incidence findings came as no surprise. “However, the dramatic doubling of diet-attributable cases over the past few decades was truly unexpected,” Liu said. “This increase can likely be attributed to global population growth and aging. While aging is an irreversible process, we can still reduce the growing burden of diet-related GI cancers by focusing on modifiable behaviors, particularly through targeted dietary interventions.”

 

A Modifiable Risk Factor

Commenting on the analysis but not involved in it, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, noted that his own group’s studies also support the association of diet with an increased risk for GI cancers, particularly colorectal cancers.

“Although much work needs to be done to clarify the precise mechanisms underlying this association, there are substantial data that diet may cause changes in the gut microbiome, which in turn promotes cancer,” Chan said in an interview. “Going forward, we are working to develop strategies in which diet is modified to mitigate the risk of cancer associated with suboptimal diets.”

In other study findings, Liu’s group observed that two regional groups, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, as well as high-income countries, bore the top three diet-attributable burdens worldwide in 2018, all driven mostly by an upward-trending excess of processed meat.

By regions, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia experienced the highest attributable burden across regions in 1990 (31.6%; UI, 27.0%-37.4%) and 2018 (31.6%; UI, 27.3%-36.5%).

As for the impact of the SDI, the authors explained that diet-attributable GI cancer burden was higher among adults with higher education and living in urban areas than among those with lower education and rural residency. “Some dietary habits tended to be worse in higher-SDI countries, specifically, higher consumption of processed meats,” they wrote.

Although the proportional attributable GI incidence remains relatively stable, they added, the doubling of absolute cases from 1990 to 2018, along with the discrepancies between urbanicity and countries/regions, supports more targeted preventive measures.

And while the diet-GI cancer connection is clear, they agreed with Chan in that “the precise pathogenesis from suboptimal diets to these cancers remains unclear and requires further basic studies to clarify the mechanism.”

In the meantime, the findings “underscore the urgent need for proactive public health interventions. Diet, as a modifiable risk factor, still offers substantial potential for improvement,” Liu said.

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Chan disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one in five of new gastrointestinal (GI) cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal dietary intake, according to a recent study.

Writing in Gastroenterology, researchers led by Li Liu, PhD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, reported that excessive consumption of processed meats (the biggest culprit), insufficient fruit intake, and insufficient whole grain intake were the leading dietary risk factors. In addition, the number of diet-related cases doubled from 1990 to 2018.

 

“In regions with limited access to healthy foods, policy interventions like taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing nutritious options may help shift dietary patterns and reduce cancer risk,” Liu said in an interview.

The study examined meta-analyses from 184 countries in seven regions for the period 1990-2018 looking at rates of six major GI cancers: colorectal, liver, esophageal, pancreatic, and gallbladder/biliary tract. Among these, the age-standardized incidence of liver, pancreatic, and colorectal increased significantly over the past 3 decades.

The research team used a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the impact of diet on GI cancer independent of energy intake and adiposity. Although the principal dietary risk factors varied across individual cancers, suboptimal intake of the three aforementioned components was responsible for 66.51% of all diet-attributable GI cancers in 2018. The global mean processed meat consumption was 17 g/d in 2018, falling to a low in South Asia of 3 g/d.

The investigators also found diet-linked cancer incidence positively correlated with the Sociodemographic Index (SDI), an integrated measure of national development, income, and fertility. Incidence varied across world regions, with the highest proportion of cases in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and in high-income countries. The findings support the development of targeted diet-related public health interventions in various regions and nations to reduce GI cancer incidence, the authors wrote.

Among the study’s specific findings:

• In 2018, 21.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 19.1-24.5) of incident GI cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal diets, a relatively stable proportion since 1990 (22.4%; 95% UI, 19.7-25.6).
• Absolute diet-attributable cases doubled from 580,862 (95% UI, 510,658-664,076) in 1990 to 1,039,877 (95% UI, 923,482-1,187,244) in 2018.
• Excessive processed meat consumption (5.9%; 95% UI, 4.2%-7.9%), insufficient fruit intake (4.8%; 95% UI, 3.8%-5.9%), and insufficient whole grain intake (3.6%; 95% UI, 2.8%-5.1%) were the most significant dietary risk factors in 2018 — a shift from 1990 when the third major concern was insufficient non-starchy vegetable intake.

Given the well-established link between diet and GI cancers, the incidence findings came as no surprise. “However, the dramatic doubling of diet-attributable cases over the past few decades was truly unexpected,” Liu said. “This increase can likely be attributed to global population growth and aging. While aging is an irreversible process, we can still reduce the growing burden of diet-related GI cancers by focusing on modifiable behaviors, particularly through targeted dietary interventions.”

 

A Modifiable Risk Factor

Commenting on the analysis but not involved in it, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, noted that his own group’s studies also support the association of diet with an increased risk for GI cancers, particularly colorectal cancers.

“Although much work needs to be done to clarify the precise mechanisms underlying this association, there are substantial data that diet may cause changes in the gut microbiome, which in turn promotes cancer,” Chan said in an interview. “Going forward, we are working to develop strategies in which diet is modified to mitigate the risk of cancer associated with suboptimal diets.”

In other study findings, Liu’s group observed that two regional groups, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, as well as high-income countries, bore the top three diet-attributable burdens worldwide in 2018, all driven mostly by an upward-trending excess of processed meat.

By regions, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia experienced the highest attributable burden across regions in 1990 (31.6%; UI, 27.0%-37.4%) and 2018 (31.6%; UI, 27.3%-36.5%).

As for the impact of the SDI, the authors explained that diet-attributable GI cancer burden was higher among adults with higher education and living in urban areas than among those with lower education and rural residency. “Some dietary habits tended to be worse in higher-SDI countries, specifically, higher consumption of processed meats,” they wrote.

Although the proportional attributable GI incidence remains relatively stable, they added, the doubling of absolute cases from 1990 to 2018, along with the discrepancies between urbanicity and countries/regions, supports more targeted preventive measures.

And while the diet-GI cancer connection is clear, they agreed with Chan in that “the precise pathogenesis from suboptimal diets to these cancers remains unclear and requires further basic studies to clarify the mechanism.”

In the meantime, the findings “underscore the urgent need for proactive public health interventions. Diet, as a modifiable risk factor, still offers substantial potential for improvement,” Liu said.

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Chan disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found that despite their growing presence in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research, women investigators were inequitably represented at scientific presentations sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. The study was published in Gastroenterology  and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .

Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.

Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.

“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.

In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.

In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.

The Study

The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.

They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.

Among the study findings: 

• Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
• The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
• The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
• The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).

Why the Discordance?

This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”

Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.

“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”

Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”

Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”

This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found that despite their growing presence in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research, women investigators were inequitably represented at scientific presentations sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. The study was published in Gastroenterology  and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .

Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.

Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.

“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.

In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.

In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.

The Study

The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.

They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.

Among the study findings: 

• Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
• The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
• The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
• The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).

Why the Discordance?

This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”

Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.

“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”

Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”

Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”

This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found that despite their growing presence in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research, women investigators were inequitably represented at scientific presentations sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. The study was published in Gastroenterology  and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .

Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.

Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.

“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.

In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.

In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.

The Study

The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.

They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.

Among the study findings: 

• Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
• The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
• The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
• The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).

Why the Discordance?

This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”

Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.

“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”

Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”

Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”

This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

International researchers have uncovered potentially diagnostic gut microbiome signatures and metabolic pathways associated specifically with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD).

Targeted droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR)‒based quantification of bacterial species led to convenient inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) diagnostic assays that “are sufficiently robust, sensitive and cost-effective for clinical application,” the investigators wrote in a recent study published in Nature Medicine.

“Although traditional modalities used for diagnosis of IBD, including colonoscopy and cross-sectional imaging, are well established, the inconvenience of bowel preparation and radiation represents relevant concerns,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, a professor in the Department of Medicine and Therapeutics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in an interview. “Furthermore, existing serological and fecal markers indicate inflammation but lack specificity for IBD.”

Identifying reproducible bacterial biomarkers specific to CD and IBD should enable precise and personalized approaches to detection and management.

As a starting point, the researchers hypothesized that changes in the gut microbiome of IBD patients may reflect underlying functional associations, if not causes, of the disease, said Ng, who is also director of Hong Kong’s Microbiota I-Center (MagIC). “Unlike inflammation, which is a manifestation of the disease, the gut microbiome may serve as a more reliable biomarker less affected by the disease’s fluctuating cycle.”

The study findings showed that bacterial markers remain consistent even during the inactive disease phase. Additionally, the results are reproducible across different populations, suggesting that these markers are true indicators of IBD, she added. “With a better performance than the commonly used noninvasive test, fecal calprotectin, we believe the test will be a valuable addition to clinician’s toolbox and a strong option for first-line diagnostics.”

 

The Study

The group used metagenomic data from 5979 fecal samples from persons with and without IBD from different regions (including the United States) and of different ethnicities. Identifying several microbiota alterations in IBD, they selected bacterial species to construct diagnostic models for UC (n = 10) and CD (n = 9). Some species were deleted and some were enriched in IBD.

Metagenomic findings confirmed, for example, enrichments of Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis in the guts of CD patients, with adherent invasive E coli present in more than half of these. This pathogen has been linked to mucosal dysbiosis and functional alteration, and has been associated with disease activity and endoscopic recurrence following surgery. B fragilis may induce intestinal inflammation through toxin production.

The researchers also identified a new oral bacterium, Actinomyces species oral taxon 181, which was significantly enriched in stool samples with both CD and UC.

The diagnostic models achieved areas under the curve of >.90 for distinguishing IBD patients from controls in the discovery cohort and maintained satisfactory performance in transethnic validation cohorts from eight populations.

Ng’s group further developed a multiplex droplet digital PCR test targeting selected IBD-associated bacterial species. Models based on this test showed numerically higher performance than fecal calprotectin in discriminating UC and CD samples from controls. These universally IBD-associated bacteria suggest the potential applicability of a biomarker panel for noninvasive diagnosis.

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, called it “a very important study that highlights the potential role of a microbiome-based diagnostic for screening. It could have application in a wide variety of settings and is very promising.”

More work, however, is necessary to clarify such testing’s role. “The study’s validation in independent cohorts is an important strength, but the sizes of those cohorts are still quite small,” he said in an interview. “It’s important to understand its accuracy across a spectrum of IBD phenotypes and severity.”

Furthermore, endoscopic evaluation at diagnosis is important to establish severity and extent of disease. “It’s not clear this diagnostic biomarker can help supplant that role. But I see potential value to it for patients for whom we may not be considering endoscopy yet but who would like to risk-stratify.”

 

The Test’s Future

“We expect to see a real shift in clinical practice,” Ng said. “As a cost-effective test, it will help millions of people dealing with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms get the diagnoses they need.” Because the bacterial test can identify IBD at an inactive stage, it has the potential for early diagnosis. “This capability allows clinicians to initiate treatment sooner, helping to prevent progression from subclinical to clinical stages of the disease.”

The next research steps involve prospective studies with a larger and more diverse group of patients with various gastrointestinal symptoms. “This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of bacterial biomarkers in real-world populations,” she said. In vivo and in vitro experiments are expected to provide mechanistic insights into the causal role of these bacteria and metabolic dysregulations in the pathogenesis of IBD, as well as their future clinical utility in disease monitoring and predicting treatment response.

Her group plans to work with the biotech industry and regulatory agencies to transform these biomarkers into an approved test kit. “The rollout is likely to be gradual, but we’re optimistic that supportive international and national guidelines will be developed and will pave the way for widespread implementation.”

This study was supported by various academic, charitable, and governmental research-funding bodies, including the governments of Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China. Ng has served as an advisory board member or speaker for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, AbbVie, Tillotts, Menarini, and Takeda. She has received research grants through her institutions from Olympus, Ferring, and AbbVie and is a founding member and shareholder of GenieBiome. She receives patent royalties through her institutions, including MagIC, which holds patents on the therapeutic and diagnostic use of the microbiome in IBD. Several co-authors reported various relationships, including patent holding, with private-sector companies. Ananthakrishnan had no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

International researchers have uncovered potentially diagnostic gut microbiome signatures and metabolic pathways associated specifically with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD).

Targeted droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR)‒based quantification of bacterial species led to convenient inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) diagnostic assays that “are sufficiently robust, sensitive and cost-effective for clinical application,” the investigators wrote in a recent study published in Nature Medicine.

“Although traditional modalities used for diagnosis of IBD, including colonoscopy and cross-sectional imaging, are well established, the inconvenience of bowel preparation and radiation represents relevant concerns,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, a professor in the Department of Medicine and Therapeutics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in an interview. “Furthermore, existing serological and fecal markers indicate inflammation but lack specificity for IBD.”

Identifying reproducible bacterial biomarkers specific to CD and IBD should enable precise and personalized approaches to detection and management.

As a starting point, the researchers hypothesized that changes in the gut microbiome of IBD patients may reflect underlying functional associations, if not causes, of the disease, said Ng, who is also director of Hong Kong’s Microbiota I-Center (MagIC). “Unlike inflammation, which is a manifestation of the disease, the gut microbiome may serve as a more reliable biomarker less affected by the disease’s fluctuating cycle.”

The study findings showed that bacterial markers remain consistent even during the inactive disease phase. Additionally, the results are reproducible across different populations, suggesting that these markers are true indicators of IBD, she added. “With a better performance than the commonly used noninvasive test, fecal calprotectin, we believe the test will be a valuable addition to clinician’s toolbox and a strong option for first-line diagnostics.”

 

The Study

The group used metagenomic data from 5979 fecal samples from persons with and without IBD from different regions (including the United States) and of different ethnicities. Identifying several microbiota alterations in IBD, they selected bacterial species to construct diagnostic models for UC (n = 10) and CD (n = 9). Some species were deleted and some were enriched in IBD.

Metagenomic findings confirmed, for example, enrichments of Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis in the guts of CD patients, with adherent invasive E coli present in more than half of these. This pathogen has been linked to mucosal dysbiosis and functional alteration, and has been associated with disease activity and endoscopic recurrence following surgery. B fragilis may induce intestinal inflammation through toxin production.

The researchers also identified a new oral bacterium, Actinomyces species oral taxon 181, which was significantly enriched in stool samples with both CD and UC.

The diagnostic models achieved areas under the curve of >.90 for distinguishing IBD patients from controls in the discovery cohort and maintained satisfactory performance in transethnic validation cohorts from eight populations.

Ng’s group further developed a multiplex droplet digital PCR test targeting selected IBD-associated bacterial species. Models based on this test showed numerically higher performance than fecal calprotectin in discriminating UC and CD samples from controls. These universally IBD-associated bacteria suggest the potential applicability of a biomarker panel for noninvasive diagnosis.

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, called it “a very important study that highlights the potential role of a microbiome-based diagnostic for screening. It could have application in a wide variety of settings and is very promising.”

More work, however, is necessary to clarify such testing’s role. “The study’s validation in independent cohorts is an important strength, but the sizes of those cohorts are still quite small,” he said in an interview. “It’s important to understand its accuracy across a spectrum of IBD phenotypes and severity.”

Furthermore, endoscopic evaluation at diagnosis is important to establish severity and extent of disease. “It’s not clear this diagnostic biomarker can help supplant that role. But I see potential value to it for patients for whom we may not be considering endoscopy yet but who would like to risk-stratify.”

 

The Test’s Future

“We expect to see a real shift in clinical practice,” Ng said. “As a cost-effective test, it will help millions of people dealing with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms get the diagnoses they need.” Because the bacterial test can identify IBD at an inactive stage, it has the potential for early diagnosis. “This capability allows clinicians to initiate treatment sooner, helping to prevent progression from subclinical to clinical stages of the disease.”

The next research steps involve prospective studies with a larger and more diverse group of patients with various gastrointestinal symptoms. “This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of bacterial biomarkers in real-world populations,” she said. In vivo and in vitro experiments are expected to provide mechanistic insights into the causal role of these bacteria and metabolic dysregulations in the pathogenesis of IBD, as well as their future clinical utility in disease monitoring and predicting treatment response.

Her group plans to work with the biotech industry and regulatory agencies to transform these biomarkers into an approved test kit. “The rollout is likely to be gradual, but we’re optimistic that supportive international and national guidelines will be developed and will pave the way for widespread implementation.”

This study was supported by various academic, charitable, and governmental research-funding bodies, including the governments of Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China. Ng has served as an advisory board member or speaker for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, AbbVie, Tillotts, Menarini, and Takeda. She has received research grants through her institutions from Olympus, Ferring, and AbbVie and is a founding member and shareholder of GenieBiome. She receives patent royalties through her institutions, including MagIC, which holds patents on the therapeutic and diagnostic use of the microbiome in IBD. Several co-authors reported various relationships, including patent holding, with private-sector companies. Ananthakrishnan had no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

International researchers have uncovered potentially diagnostic gut microbiome signatures and metabolic pathways associated specifically with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD).

Targeted droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR)‒based quantification of bacterial species led to convenient inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) diagnostic assays that “are sufficiently robust, sensitive and cost-effective for clinical application,” the investigators wrote in a recent study published in Nature Medicine.

“Although traditional modalities used for diagnosis of IBD, including colonoscopy and cross-sectional imaging, are well established, the inconvenience of bowel preparation and radiation represents relevant concerns,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, a professor in the Department of Medicine and Therapeutics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in an interview. “Furthermore, existing serological and fecal markers indicate inflammation but lack specificity for IBD.”

Identifying reproducible bacterial biomarkers specific to CD and IBD should enable precise and personalized approaches to detection and management.

As a starting point, the researchers hypothesized that changes in the gut microbiome of IBD patients may reflect underlying functional associations, if not causes, of the disease, said Ng, who is also director of Hong Kong’s Microbiota I-Center (MagIC). “Unlike inflammation, which is a manifestation of the disease, the gut microbiome may serve as a more reliable biomarker less affected by the disease’s fluctuating cycle.”

The study findings showed that bacterial markers remain consistent even during the inactive disease phase. Additionally, the results are reproducible across different populations, suggesting that these markers are true indicators of IBD, she added. “With a better performance than the commonly used noninvasive test, fecal calprotectin, we believe the test will be a valuable addition to clinician’s toolbox and a strong option for first-line diagnostics.”

 

The Study

The group used metagenomic data from 5979 fecal samples from persons with and without IBD from different regions (including the United States) and of different ethnicities. Identifying several microbiota alterations in IBD, they selected bacterial species to construct diagnostic models for UC (n = 10) and CD (n = 9). Some species were deleted and some were enriched in IBD.

Metagenomic findings confirmed, for example, enrichments of Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis in the guts of CD patients, with adherent invasive E coli present in more than half of these. This pathogen has been linked to mucosal dysbiosis and functional alteration, and has been associated with disease activity and endoscopic recurrence following surgery. B fragilis may induce intestinal inflammation through toxin production.

The researchers also identified a new oral bacterium, Actinomyces species oral taxon 181, which was significantly enriched in stool samples with both CD and UC.

The diagnostic models achieved areas under the curve of >.90 for distinguishing IBD patients from controls in the discovery cohort and maintained satisfactory performance in transethnic validation cohorts from eight populations.

Ng’s group further developed a multiplex droplet digital PCR test targeting selected IBD-associated bacterial species. Models based on this test showed numerically higher performance than fecal calprotectin in discriminating UC and CD samples from controls. These universally IBD-associated bacteria suggest the potential applicability of a biomarker panel for noninvasive diagnosis.

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, called it “a very important study that highlights the potential role of a microbiome-based diagnostic for screening. It could have application in a wide variety of settings and is very promising.”

More work, however, is necessary to clarify such testing’s role. “The study’s validation in independent cohorts is an important strength, but the sizes of those cohorts are still quite small,” he said in an interview. “It’s important to understand its accuracy across a spectrum of IBD phenotypes and severity.”

Furthermore, endoscopic evaluation at diagnosis is important to establish severity and extent of disease. “It’s not clear this diagnostic biomarker can help supplant that role. But I see potential value to it for patients for whom we may not be considering endoscopy yet but who would like to risk-stratify.”

 

The Test’s Future

“We expect to see a real shift in clinical practice,” Ng said. “As a cost-effective test, it will help millions of people dealing with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms get the diagnoses they need.” Because the bacterial test can identify IBD at an inactive stage, it has the potential for early diagnosis. “This capability allows clinicians to initiate treatment sooner, helping to prevent progression from subclinical to clinical stages of the disease.”

The next research steps involve prospective studies with a larger and more diverse group of patients with various gastrointestinal symptoms. “This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of bacterial biomarkers in real-world populations,” she said. In vivo and in vitro experiments are expected to provide mechanistic insights into the causal role of these bacteria and metabolic dysregulations in the pathogenesis of IBD, as well as their future clinical utility in disease monitoring and predicting treatment response.

Her group plans to work with the biotech industry and regulatory agencies to transform these biomarkers into an approved test kit. “The rollout is likely to be gradual, but we’re optimistic that supportive international and national guidelines will be developed and will pave the way for widespread implementation.”

This study was supported by various academic, charitable, and governmental research-funding bodies, including the governments of Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China. Ng has served as an advisory board member or speaker for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, AbbVie, Tillotts, Menarini, and Takeda. She has received research grants through her institutions from Olympus, Ferring, and AbbVie and is a founding member and shareholder of GenieBiome. She receives patent royalties through her institutions, including MagIC, which holds patents on the therapeutic and diagnostic use of the microbiome in IBD. Several co-authors reported various relationships, including patent holding, with private-sector companies. Ananthakrishnan had no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued updated practice guidelines for the pharmacological management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) in adult outpatients.

“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.

 

Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.

“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

 

The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”

One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated. 

“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.

The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.

 

Specifics

Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.

The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.

The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.

Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:

• Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
• Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
• Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
• For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
• In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
• The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
• The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
• Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
• The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
• For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
• For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.

According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.

However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”

Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”

 

The Future

The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.

The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.

They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.

The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued updated practice guidelines for the pharmacological management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) in adult outpatients.

“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.

 

Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.

“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

 

The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”

One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated. 

“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.

The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.

 

Specifics

Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.

The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.

The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.

Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:

• Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
• Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
• Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
• For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
• In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
• The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
• The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
• Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
• The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
• For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
• For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.

According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.

However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”

Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”

 

The Future

The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.

The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.

They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.

The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued updated practice guidelines for the pharmacological management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) in adult outpatients.

“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.

 

Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.

“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

 

The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”

One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated. 

“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.

The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.

 

Specifics

Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.

The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.

The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.

Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:

• Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
• Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
• Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
• For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
• In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
• The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
• The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
• Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
• The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
• For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
• For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.

According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.

However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”

Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”

 

The Future

The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.

The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.

They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.

The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Although hysterectomy remains the most common procedure for treating fibroids and fibroids are the leading indication for hysterectomy, its long-term sequelae make less invasive alternatives the better choice for managing most of these myometrial masses, an invited clinical practice paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) asserts.

The practice summary also calls for earlier identification and treatment of fibroid disease and may raise awareness among general gynecologists and primary care physicians less familiar with newer treatments.

Based on a review of evidence and existing formal guidelines, the paper urges wider use of uterus-sparing approaches such as hormone therapy, uterine-artery embolization, focused ultrasound ablation, and radiofrequency ablation. Authored by ob.gyns. Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, and Shannon K. Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the document also features textbook-style diagrams illustrating procedures.

“To clarify, this is not a new guidance but an invited clinical practice paper,” Laughlin-Tommaso told this news organization. “I believe NEJM recognized the gap in knowledge among all providers, for early diagnosis of uterine fibroids, especially in young patients and those presenting with anemia.”

The less invasive treatments highlighted in the paper can help women recover faster and resume their normal activities more quickly, said Laughlin-Tommaso. “Additionally, many studies have now shown that there are health benefits to keeping the uterus and the ovaries.”

Despite multiple uterine-sparing options, however, a recent study in a commercially insured population found nearly 60% of fibroid patients undergoing hysterectomy had never received a prior conservative treatment.

Why hysterectomy for a benign condition? Hysterectomy, which is universally available in ob.gyn. practices, makes decision-making easier for medical providers and patients, Laughlin-Tommaso explained. “It’s the only treatment that is definitive in that patients will not have bleeding or fibroids in the future and providers don’t have to determine which fibroids to treat or remove.”

More common in Black women, fibroids affect up to 80% of persons with a uterus during their lifetime and up to 50% have symptoms such as heavy and prolonged menstrual bleeding, anemia-associated fatigue, pelvic pressure, and menstrual and nonmenstrual pain, the authors noted. These lesions can also compress nearby structures causing painful intercourse, constipation, and urinary frequency, urgency, or retention.

In 2021 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin on the management of symptomatic uterine leiomyomas, similarly endorsing individualized care that accounts for the desire to preserve fertility or the uterus, increase quality of life, and reduce symptoms. It, too, recommended medical management as first-line treatment for symptomatic fibroids.

“This paper will be helpful for clinicians by covering some of the newer options such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists introduced in the past 5 years and tailoring treatment to patients depending on whether they still want to conceive,” Sandra M. Hurtado, MD, an ob.gyn. and an assistant professor at UTHealth Houston Medical Center and McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas, said in an interview. “And the illustrations will be useful to doctors who are not gynecologists and will help to explain the interventional options to patients,” added Hurtado, who was not involved in the paper.

Offering another outside perspective on the paper, Charles J. Ascher-Walsh, MD, senior system vice chair for gynecology and division director of urogynecology in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science at Mount Sinai in New York City, called it a useful though not new summary. Reaching the wider audience of NEJM may raise awareness of newer fibroid therapies among general, nonspecialist ob.gyns., whose practices may concentrate largely on obstetrics, he added, “and the excellent illustrations clarify the treatment options.” In his view, broader awareness may increase much-needed funding for this neglected area of research.

Among the paper’s recommendations:

Diagnosis

Pelvic ultrasonography is the most cost-effective imaging method, providing information on size, location, and number of fibroids and ruling out adnexal masses. It is limited, however, by less-accurate resolution if the uterine volume is greater than 375 mL or if fibroids number more than four.

Medical Alternatives to Hysterectomy

Early diagnosis and first-line medical therapies are recommended.

Contraceptive hormones to control heavy menstrual bleeding are the first step in most algorithms for treating fibroid-related bleeding, despite low-quality evidence.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and tranexamic acid during menstruation also limit heavy menses but have more evidence of efficacy for idiopathic heavy menses.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in depot form are approved for short-term preoperative therapy. While they cause amenorrhea in nearly 90% of patients and reduce uterine volume by 30%-60%, they have a high incidence of hypogonadal symptoms, including bone loss and hot flushes. They also cause a “steroidal flare” when the stored gonadotropins are released and cause subsequent heavy menstrual bleeding with the rapid decrease in estrogen levels. 

Oral GnRH antagonist combinations are a major therapeutic advance, pairing a GnRH antagonist (such as elagolix or relugolix, which rapidly inhibit ovarian steroidogenesis) with estradiol and progestin at doses equivalent to systemic levels in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

In clinical trials these combinations decreased heavy menstrual bleeding by 50%-75%, pain by 40%-50%, and bulk-related symptoms through a 10% decrease in uterine volume. Side effects are few, with hot flushes, headaches, and nausea occurring in fewer than 20% of participants.
 

Smaller fibroids in the submucosal to intramural spaces can be treated transcervically, while larger lesions of any type or smaller subserosa fibroids are treated abdominally.

Uterine-artery embolization uses minimally invasive radiologically guided catheterization to release embolic particles directly into both uterine arteries. This process causes ischemic infarction of the fibroids and decreases bleeding, pain, and bulk-related symptoms.

Other procedures shrink individual fibroids with energy that creates coagulative necrosis. These include focused ultrasound ablation (with MRI or ultrasound guidance) and radiofrequency ablation (with laparoscopic or transcervical ultrasound guidance).

Unlike uterine-artery embolization, which treats all fibroids concurrently, these therapies require individual targeting of fibroids.

Radiofrequency ablation can be done concurrently with other surgical therapies, such as laparoscopic excision of endometriosis or hysteroscopic myomectomy.

Myomectomy, or the surgical removal of fibroids, is most often used in persons actively seeking pregnancy or having very large fibroids in whom shrinkage would be inadequate. Most guidelines recommend surgical excision rather than shrinking procedures to optimize fertility. However, myomectomy often commits patients to future cesarean section, which increases pregnancy-related morbidity.

Although myomectomy is seen as superior to uterine-artery embolization for improving quality of life, both approaches provide substantial symptom relief.
 

Recurrence

Incidence of recurring fibroids is high, with, for example, new fibroids developing in approximately 50% of persons within 5 years of myomectomy.

Earlier this year, a large cohort study reported that myomectomy was best for avoiding reintervention after surgical leiomyoma management.

Reintervention rates vary according to procedure, patient age, disease extent, and symptoms and can be as high as 33% up to 5 years after treatment, with lower percentages seen among persons older than 45 years of age.
 

Hysterectomy

Minimally invasive hysterectomy is recommended. Drawbacks to hysterectomy include perioperative risk and concomitant oophorectomy, which was common until the early 2000s when large cohort studies showed elevated risks of death, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other illnesses compared with hysterectomy plus ovarian conservation. Oophorectomy but not hysterectomy rates have since decreased.

Still needing study, according to Laughlin-Tommaso are the underlying reasons for health disparities in fibroids, especially among Black and Latina individuals. “Some studies have found associations with vitamin D deficiency and with stress and racism,” she said.

Looking ahead, the authors stressed the need for a fibroid risk-prediction model, a staging system, and large randomized trials of treatment effectiveness. Also needed are methods for primary and secondary prevention. “Earlier screening and medical treatment in primary care settings could potentially minimize morbidity and the incidence of unnecessary hysterectomies, and primary care–based screening trials are warranted,” they wrote.
 

In addition to procedural illustrations the practice document includes a vignette of a 33-year-old never-pregnant Black woman (but desiring motherhood) with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal bloating, and non–iron deficiency anemia. Evaluation for thalassemia and sickle cell anemia is negative, but ultrasonography reveals an enlarged uterus with multiple fibroids and normal ovaries.

In line with the clinical review, the authors prescribe oral GnRH agonist combination therapy, plus iron and multivitamin supplementation, and recommend annual reassessment — earlier if pregnancy is desired or if symptoms escalate. Since the patient prioritizes fertility, hysterectomy would be appropriate only if she had biopsy-proven cancer. 

The authors received no external funding for this practice paper, but both have funding from the National Institutes of Health for fibroid research. Laughlin-Tommaso reported royalties from UpToDate. Stewart reported research support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and speaking, data-monitoring, and consulting fees for various private companies, including AbbVie, Anylam Pharmaceuticals, ASKA Pharma, and Myovant Sciences. She holds a patent on treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding and has been involved in CME for various medical educational agencies. Hurtado and Ascher-Walsh had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although hysterectomy remains the most common procedure for treating fibroids and fibroids are the leading indication for hysterectomy, its long-term sequelae make less invasive alternatives the better choice for managing most of these myometrial masses, an invited clinical practice paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) asserts.

The practice summary also calls for earlier identification and treatment of fibroid disease and may raise awareness among general gynecologists and primary care physicians less familiar with newer treatments.

Based on a review of evidence and existing formal guidelines, the paper urges wider use of uterus-sparing approaches such as hormone therapy, uterine-artery embolization, focused ultrasound ablation, and radiofrequency ablation. Authored by ob.gyns. Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, and Shannon K. Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the document also features textbook-style diagrams illustrating procedures.

“To clarify, this is not a new guidance but an invited clinical practice paper,” Laughlin-Tommaso told this news organization. “I believe NEJM recognized the gap in knowledge among all providers, for early diagnosis of uterine fibroids, especially in young patients and those presenting with anemia.”

The less invasive treatments highlighted in the paper can help women recover faster and resume their normal activities more quickly, said Laughlin-Tommaso. “Additionally, many studies have now shown that there are health benefits to keeping the uterus and the ovaries.”

Despite multiple uterine-sparing options, however, a recent study in a commercially insured population found nearly 60% of fibroid patients undergoing hysterectomy had never received a prior conservative treatment.

Why hysterectomy for a benign condition? Hysterectomy, which is universally available in ob.gyn. practices, makes decision-making easier for medical providers and patients, Laughlin-Tommaso explained. “It’s the only treatment that is definitive in that patients will not have bleeding or fibroids in the future and providers don’t have to determine which fibroids to treat or remove.”

More common in Black women, fibroids affect up to 80% of persons with a uterus during their lifetime and up to 50% have symptoms such as heavy and prolonged menstrual bleeding, anemia-associated fatigue, pelvic pressure, and menstrual and nonmenstrual pain, the authors noted. These lesions can also compress nearby structures causing painful intercourse, constipation, and urinary frequency, urgency, or retention.

In 2021 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin on the management of symptomatic uterine leiomyomas, similarly endorsing individualized care that accounts for the desire to preserve fertility or the uterus, increase quality of life, and reduce symptoms. It, too, recommended medical management as first-line treatment for symptomatic fibroids.

“This paper will be helpful for clinicians by covering some of the newer options such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists introduced in the past 5 years and tailoring treatment to patients depending on whether they still want to conceive,” Sandra M. Hurtado, MD, an ob.gyn. and an assistant professor at UTHealth Houston Medical Center and McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas, said in an interview. “And the illustrations will be useful to doctors who are not gynecologists and will help to explain the interventional options to patients,” added Hurtado, who was not involved in the paper.

Offering another outside perspective on the paper, Charles J. Ascher-Walsh, MD, senior system vice chair for gynecology and division director of urogynecology in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science at Mount Sinai in New York City, called it a useful though not new summary. Reaching the wider audience of NEJM may raise awareness of newer fibroid therapies among general, nonspecialist ob.gyns., whose practices may concentrate largely on obstetrics, he added, “and the excellent illustrations clarify the treatment options.” In his view, broader awareness may increase much-needed funding for this neglected area of research.

Among the paper’s recommendations:

Diagnosis

Pelvic ultrasonography is the most cost-effective imaging method, providing information on size, location, and number of fibroids and ruling out adnexal masses. It is limited, however, by less-accurate resolution if the uterine volume is greater than 375 mL or if fibroids number more than four.

Medical Alternatives to Hysterectomy

Early diagnosis and first-line medical therapies are recommended.

Contraceptive hormones to control heavy menstrual bleeding are the first step in most algorithms for treating fibroid-related bleeding, despite low-quality evidence.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and tranexamic acid during menstruation also limit heavy menses but have more evidence of efficacy for idiopathic heavy menses.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in depot form are approved for short-term preoperative therapy. While they cause amenorrhea in nearly 90% of patients and reduce uterine volume by 30%-60%, they have a high incidence of hypogonadal symptoms, including bone loss and hot flushes. They also cause a “steroidal flare” when the stored gonadotropins are released and cause subsequent heavy menstrual bleeding with the rapid decrease in estrogen levels. 

Oral GnRH antagonist combinations are a major therapeutic advance, pairing a GnRH antagonist (such as elagolix or relugolix, which rapidly inhibit ovarian steroidogenesis) with estradiol and progestin at doses equivalent to systemic levels in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

In clinical trials these combinations decreased heavy menstrual bleeding by 50%-75%, pain by 40%-50%, and bulk-related symptoms through a 10% decrease in uterine volume. Side effects are few, with hot flushes, headaches, and nausea occurring in fewer than 20% of participants.
 

Smaller fibroids in the submucosal to intramural spaces can be treated transcervically, while larger lesions of any type or smaller subserosa fibroids are treated abdominally.

Uterine-artery embolization uses minimally invasive radiologically guided catheterization to release embolic particles directly into both uterine arteries. This process causes ischemic infarction of the fibroids and decreases bleeding, pain, and bulk-related symptoms.

Other procedures shrink individual fibroids with energy that creates coagulative necrosis. These include focused ultrasound ablation (with MRI or ultrasound guidance) and radiofrequency ablation (with laparoscopic or transcervical ultrasound guidance).

Unlike uterine-artery embolization, which treats all fibroids concurrently, these therapies require individual targeting of fibroids.

Radiofrequency ablation can be done concurrently with other surgical therapies, such as laparoscopic excision of endometriosis or hysteroscopic myomectomy.

Myomectomy, or the surgical removal of fibroids, is most often used in persons actively seeking pregnancy or having very large fibroids in whom shrinkage would be inadequate. Most guidelines recommend surgical excision rather than shrinking procedures to optimize fertility. However, myomectomy often commits patients to future cesarean section, which increases pregnancy-related morbidity.

Although myomectomy is seen as superior to uterine-artery embolization for improving quality of life, both approaches provide substantial symptom relief.
 

Recurrence

Incidence of recurring fibroids is high, with, for example, new fibroids developing in approximately 50% of persons within 5 years of myomectomy.

Earlier this year, a large cohort study reported that myomectomy was best for avoiding reintervention after surgical leiomyoma management.

Reintervention rates vary according to procedure, patient age, disease extent, and symptoms and can be as high as 33% up to 5 years after treatment, with lower percentages seen among persons older than 45 years of age.
 

Hysterectomy

Minimally invasive hysterectomy is recommended. Drawbacks to hysterectomy include perioperative risk and concomitant oophorectomy, which was common until the early 2000s when large cohort studies showed elevated risks of death, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other illnesses compared with hysterectomy plus ovarian conservation. Oophorectomy but not hysterectomy rates have since decreased.

Still needing study, according to Laughlin-Tommaso are the underlying reasons for health disparities in fibroids, especially among Black and Latina individuals. “Some studies have found associations with vitamin D deficiency and with stress and racism,” she said.

Looking ahead, the authors stressed the need for a fibroid risk-prediction model, a staging system, and large randomized trials of treatment effectiveness. Also needed are methods for primary and secondary prevention. “Earlier screening and medical treatment in primary care settings could potentially minimize morbidity and the incidence of unnecessary hysterectomies, and primary care–based screening trials are warranted,” they wrote.
 

In addition to procedural illustrations the practice document includes a vignette of a 33-year-old never-pregnant Black woman (but desiring motherhood) with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal bloating, and non–iron deficiency anemia. Evaluation for thalassemia and sickle cell anemia is negative, but ultrasonography reveals an enlarged uterus with multiple fibroids and normal ovaries.

In line with the clinical review, the authors prescribe oral GnRH agonist combination therapy, plus iron and multivitamin supplementation, and recommend annual reassessment — earlier if pregnancy is desired or if symptoms escalate. Since the patient prioritizes fertility, hysterectomy would be appropriate only if she had biopsy-proven cancer. 

The authors received no external funding for this practice paper, but both have funding from the National Institutes of Health for fibroid research. Laughlin-Tommaso reported royalties from UpToDate. Stewart reported research support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and speaking, data-monitoring, and consulting fees for various private companies, including AbbVie, Anylam Pharmaceuticals, ASKA Pharma, and Myovant Sciences. She holds a patent on treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding and has been involved in CME for various medical educational agencies. Hurtado and Ascher-Walsh had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although hysterectomy remains the most common procedure for treating fibroids and fibroids are the leading indication for hysterectomy, its long-term sequelae make less invasive alternatives the better choice for managing most of these myometrial masses, an invited clinical practice paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) asserts.

The practice summary also calls for earlier identification and treatment of fibroid disease and may raise awareness among general gynecologists and primary care physicians less familiar with newer treatments.

Based on a review of evidence and existing formal guidelines, the paper urges wider use of uterus-sparing approaches such as hormone therapy, uterine-artery embolization, focused ultrasound ablation, and radiofrequency ablation. Authored by ob.gyns. Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, and Shannon K. Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the document also features textbook-style diagrams illustrating procedures.

“To clarify, this is not a new guidance but an invited clinical practice paper,” Laughlin-Tommaso told this news organization. “I believe NEJM recognized the gap in knowledge among all providers, for early diagnosis of uterine fibroids, especially in young patients and those presenting with anemia.”

The less invasive treatments highlighted in the paper can help women recover faster and resume their normal activities more quickly, said Laughlin-Tommaso. “Additionally, many studies have now shown that there are health benefits to keeping the uterus and the ovaries.”

Despite multiple uterine-sparing options, however, a recent study in a commercially insured population found nearly 60% of fibroid patients undergoing hysterectomy had never received a prior conservative treatment.

Why hysterectomy for a benign condition? Hysterectomy, which is universally available in ob.gyn. practices, makes decision-making easier for medical providers and patients, Laughlin-Tommaso explained. “It’s the only treatment that is definitive in that patients will not have bleeding or fibroids in the future and providers don’t have to determine which fibroids to treat or remove.”

More common in Black women, fibroids affect up to 80% of persons with a uterus during their lifetime and up to 50% have symptoms such as heavy and prolonged menstrual bleeding, anemia-associated fatigue, pelvic pressure, and menstrual and nonmenstrual pain, the authors noted. These lesions can also compress nearby structures causing painful intercourse, constipation, and urinary frequency, urgency, or retention.

In 2021 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin on the management of symptomatic uterine leiomyomas, similarly endorsing individualized care that accounts for the desire to preserve fertility or the uterus, increase quality of life, and reduce symptoms. It, too, recommended medical management as first-line treatment for symptomatic fibroids.

“This paper will be helpful for clinicians by covering some of the newer options such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists introduced in the past 5 years and tailoring treatment to patients depending on whether they still want to conceive,” Sandra M. Hurtado, MD, an ob.gyn. and an assistant professor at UTHealth Houston Medical Center and McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas, said in an interview. “And the illustrations will be useful to doctors who are not gynecologists and will help to explain the interventional options to patients,” added Hurtado, who was not involved in the paper.

Offering another outside perspective on the paper, Charles J. Ascher-Walsh, MD, senior system vice chair for gynecology and division director of urogynecology in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science at Mount Sinai in New York City, called it a useful though not new summary. Reaching the wider audience of NEJM may raise awareness of newer fibroid therapies among general, nonspecialist ob.gyns., whose practices may concentrate largely on obstetrics, he added, “and the excellent illustrations clarify the treatment options.” In his view, broader awareness may increase much-needed funding for this neglected area of research.

Among the paper’s recommendations:

Diagnosis

Pelvic ultrasonography is the most cost-effective imaging method, providing information on size, location, and number of fibroids and ruling out adnexal masses. It is limited, however, by less-accurate resolution if the uterine volume is greater than 375 mL or if fibroids number more than four.

Medical Alternatives to Hysterectomy

Early diagnosis and first-line medical therapies are recommended.

Contraceptive hormones to control heavy menstrual bleeding are the first step in most algorithms for treating fibroid-related bleeding, despite low-quality evidence.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and tranexamic acid during menstruation also limit heavy menses but have more evidence of efficacy for idiopathic heavy menses.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in depot form are approved for short-term preoperative therapy. While they cause amenorrhea in nearly 90% of patients and reduce uterine volume by 30%-60%, they have a high incidence of hypogonadal symptoms, including bone loss and hot flushes. They also cause a “steroidal flare” when the stored gonadotropins are released and cause subsequent heavy menstrual bleeding with the rapid decrease in estrogen levels. 

Oral GnRH antagonist combinations are a major therapeutic advance, pairing a GnRH antagonist (such as elagolix or relugolix, which rapidly inhibit ovarian steroidogenesis) with estradiol and progestin at doses equivalent to systemic levels in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

In clinical trials these combinations decreased heavy menstrual bleeding by 50%-75%, pain by 40%-50%, and bulk-related symptoms through a 10% decrease in uterine volume. Side effects are few, with hot flushes, headaches, and nausea occurring in fewer than 20% of participants.
 

Smaller fibroids in the submucosal to intramural spaces can be treated transcervically, while larger lesions of any type or smaller subserosa fibroids are treated abdominally.

Uterine-artery embolization uses minimally invasive radiologically guided catheterization to release embolic particles directly into both uterine arteries. This process causes ischemic infarction of the fibroids and decreases bleeding, pain, and bulk-related symptoms.

Other procedures shrink individual fibroids with energy that creates coagulative necrosis. These include focused ultrasound ablation (with MRI or ultrasound guidance) and radiofrequency ablation (with laparoscopic or transcervical ultrasound guidance).

Unlike uterine-artery embolization, which treats all fibroids concurrently, these therapies require individual targeting of fibroids.

Radiofrequency ablation can be done concurrently with other surgical therapies, such as laparoscopic excision of endometriosis or hysteroscopic myomectomy.

Myomectomy, or the surgical removal of fibroids, is most often used in persons actively seeking pregnancy or having very large fibroids in whom shrinkage would be inadequate. Most guidelines recommend surgical excision rather than shrinking procedures to optimize fertility. However, myomectomy often commits patients to future cesarean section, which increases pregnancy-related morbidity.

Although myomectomy is seen as superior to uterine-artery embolization for improving quality of life, both approaches provide substantial symptom relief.
 

Recurrence

Incidence of recurring fibroids is high, with, for example, new fibroids developing in approximately 50% of persons within 5 years of myomectomy.

Earlier this year, a large cohort study reported that myomectomy was best for avoiding reintervention after surgical leiomyoma management.

Reintervention rates vary according to procedure, patient age, disease extent, and symptoms and can be as high as 33% up to 5 years after treatment, with lower percentages seen among persons older than 45 years of age.
 

Hysterectomy

Minimally invasive hysterectomy is recommended. Drawbacks to hysterectomy include perioperative risk and concomitant oophorectomy, which was common until the early 2000s when large cohort studies showed elevated risks of death, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other illnesses compared with hysterectomy plus ovarian conservation. Oophorectomy but not hysterectomy rates have since decreased.

Still needing study, according to Laughlin-Tommaso are the underlying reasons for health disparities in fibroids, especially among Black and Latina individuals. “Some studies have found associations with vitamin D deficiency and with stress and racism,” she said.

Looking ahead, the authors stressed the need for a fibroid risk-prediction model, a staging system, and large randomized trials of treatment effectiveness. Also needed are methods for primary and secondary prevention. “Earlier screening and medical treatment in primary care settings could potentially minimize morbidity and the incidence of unnecessary hysterectomies, and primary care–based screening trials are warranted,” they wrote.
 

In addition to procedural illustrations the practice document includes a vignette of a 33-year-old never-pregnant Black woman (but desiring motherhood) with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal bloating, and non–iron deficiency anemia. Evaluation for thalassemia and sickle cell anemia is negative, but ultrasonography reveals an enlarged uterus with multiple fibroids and normal ovaries.

In line with the clinical review, the authors prescribe oral GnRH agonist combination therapy, plus iron and multivitamin supplementation, and recommend annual reassessment — earlier if pregnancy is desired or if symptoms escalate. Since the patient prioritizes fertility, hysterectomy would be appropriate only if she had biopsy-proven cancer. 

The authors received no external funding for this practice paper, but both have funding from the National Institutes of Health for fibroid research. Laughlin-Tommaso reported royalties from UpToDate. Stewart reported research support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and speaking, data-monitoring, and consulting fees for various private companies, including AbbVie, Anylam Pharmaceuticals, ASKA Pharma, and Myovant Sciences. She holds a patent on treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding and has been involved in CME for various medical educational agencies. Hurtado and Ascher-Walsh had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.