Liam Davenport

For women who are overdue for cervical cancer screening, mailing self-sampling kits for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is a cost-effective means of increasing screening uptake, reveals an analysis of a large U.S. trial.

The finding comes from a randomized trial in almost 20,000 women, which compared women who received a mailed HPV testing kit with those who did not. The results show that mailing was most cost-effective in women aged 50-64 years and in those who were only recently overdue for cervical screening.

The study was published by JAMA Network Open.

“These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates in U.S. health care systems,” say the authors, led by Rachel L. Winer, PhD, MPH, department of epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle.

They note that their results are consistent with those from previous studies in other health care contexts, but their analysis “benefited from the randomized clinical trial design and a large sample size,” they write.

However, they point out that the trial was conducted “before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and it is “well established” that cancer screening rates “decreased substantially during the pandemic.”

They suggest that mailed HPV self-sampling kits could nevertheless be a “means of overcoming screening barriers among underscreened women,” which may have been exacerbated by the “societal consequences of the pandemic.”


 

Reducing barriers to screening

Cervical screening is associated with “substantial global reductions” in the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer, the authors point out. Because most cases of the disease are consequently preventable, it now occurs “predominantly in individuals who have never or rarely received screening.”

Home-based HPV-only testing reduces the need for office visits and reduces barriers to screening, such as discomfort, embarrassment, and difficulties with scheduling or attending appointments.

Previous studies have shown that the direct mailing of home-based HPV self-collection kits is associated with increased uptake of screening among underscreened women and is cost-effective, although the researchers point out that these previous studies were conducted in countries with “organized national screening programs.”

For their own study, they focused on home-based HPV screening among underscreened individuals in the United States. The team examined data from the Home-based Options to Make cervical cancer screening Easy trial, which has previously showed that mailing kits to women increased screening uptake, compared with usual care alone.

For the current analysis, they conducted an economic evaluation of data on 19,851 trial participants, who were randomized to receive home-based screening or usual care between February 2014 and August 2016 and were followed up to February 2018.

All of the women were aged 30-64 years and had been enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPW) for at least 3 years and 5 months. They were also required not have undergone a hysterectomy.

Participant-level economic data were collected between June 2019 and March 2021, with intervention delivery costs calculated from the perspective of both the KPW and Medicare health systems and based on the cost of either a wellness visit or Papanicolaou (Pap) test–only visit.

The mean age of the participants was 50.1 years, and the majority (76.7%) were White; 9.7% were Asian and 4.7% were Black or African American.

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the group assigned to usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc screening outreach, and those in the intervention group, who received usual care and a mailed HPV self-sampling kit.

The researchers report that 1,206 women in the intervention group sent back a mailed HPV kit, with 1,178 (97.7%) meeting the criteria for completed screening uptake.

Overall, screening uptake was higher in the intervention group than in control participants, at 26.3% vs. 17.4%, respectively (relative risk, 1.51).

Intervention participants were also more likely than controls to have a positive test result (relative risk, 1.49) and to receive treatment (relative risk, 1.70).

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost between the study groups divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening within 6 months, ranged from $85.84 per additional completed screening to $146.29, depending on the health system and test considered.

In terms of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for each additional completed screening, the team found that home-based screening achieved a 90% probability of cost-effectiveness, at a WTP of just $148 if the participant’s last Pap test was between 3.4 and 5.0 years before randomization.

A 90% probability of cost-effectiveness was also achieved at a WTP of $198 among participants aged 50-64 years, a threshold that was lower than that among other age groups.

At a WTP threshold of over $350, the intervention was considered to have 100% probability of being cost-effective in all age groups.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Winer reports a relationship with the National Cancer Institute outside of the submitted work, as do several other authors.

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

For women who are overdue for cervical cancer screening, mailing self-sampling kits for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is a cost-effective means of increasing screening uptake, reveals an analysis of a large U.S. trial.

The finding comes from a randomized trial in almost 20,000 women, which compared women who received a mailed HPV testing kit with those who did not. The results show that mailing was most cost-effective in women aged 50-64 years and in those who were only recently overdue for cervical screening.

The study was published by JAMA Network Open.

“These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates in U.S. health care systems,” say the authors, led by Rachel L. Winer, PhD, MPH, department of epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle.

They note that their results are consistent with those from previous studies in other health care contexts, but their analysis “benefited from the randomized clinical trial design and a large sample size,” they write.

However, they point out that the trial was conducted “before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and it is “well established” that cancer screening rates “decreased substantially during the pandemic.”

They suggest that mailed HPV self-sampling kits could nevertheless be a “means of overcoming screening barriers among underscreened women,” which may have been exacerbated by the “societal consequences of the pandemic.”


 

Reducing barriers to screening

Cervical screening is associated with “substantial global reductions” in the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer, the authors point out. Because most cases of the disease are consequently preventable, it now occurs “predominantly in individuals who have never or rarely received screening.”

Home-based HPV-only testing reduces the need for office visits and reduces barriers to screening, such as discomfort, embarrassment, and difficulties with scheduling or attending appointments.

Previous studies have shown that the direct mailing of home-based HPV self-collection kits is associated with increased uptake of screening among underscreened women and is cost-effective, although the researchers point out that these previous studies were conducted in countries with “organized national screening programs.”

For their own study, they focused on home-based HPV screening among underscreened individuals in the United States. The team examined data from the Home-based Options to Make cervical cancer screening Easy trial, which has previously showed that mailing kits to women increased screening uptake, compared with usual care alone.

For the current analysis, they conducted an economic evaluation of data on 19,851 trial participants, who were randomized to receive home-based screening or usual care between February 2014 and August 2016 and were followed up to February 2018.

All of the women were aged 30-64 years and had been enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPW) for at least 3 years and 5 months. They were also required not have undergone a hysterectomy.

Participant-level economic data were collected between June 2019 and March 2021, with intervention delivery costs calculated from the perspective of both the KPW and Medicare health systems and based on the cost of either a wellness visit or Papanicolaou (Pap) test–only visit.

The mean age of the participants was 50.1 years, and the majority (76.7%) were White; 9.7% were Asian and 4.7% were Black or African American.

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the group assigned to usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc screening outreach, and those in the intervention group, who received usual care and a mailed HPV self-sampling kit.

The researchers report that 1,206 women in the intervention group sent back a mailed HPV kit, with 1,178 (97.7%) meeting the criteria for completed screening uptake.

Overall, screening uptake was higher in the intervention group than in control participants, at 26.3% vs. 17.4%, respectively (relative risk, 1.51).

Intervention participants were also more likely than controls to have a positive test result (relative risk, 1.49) and to receive treatment (relative risk, 1.70).

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost between the study groups divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening within 6 months, ranged from $85.84 per additional completed screening to $146.29, depending on the health system and test considered.

In terms of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for each additional completed screening, the team found that home-based screening achieved a 90% probability of cost-effectiveness, at a WTP of just $148 if the participant’s last Pap test was between 3.4 and 5.0 years before randomization.

A 90% probability of cost-effectiveness was also achieved at a WTP of $198 among participants aged 50-64 years, a threshold that was lower than that among other age groups.

At a WTP threshold of over $350, the intervention was considered to have 100% probability of being cost-effective in all age groups.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Winer reports a relationship with the National Cancer Institute outside of the submitted work, as do several other authors.

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

For women who are overdue for cervical cancer screening, mailing self-sampling kits for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is a cost-effective means of increasing screening uptake, reveals an analysis of a large U.S. trial.

The finding comes from a randomized trial in almost 20,000 women, which compared women who received a mailed HPV testing kit with those who did not. The results show that mailing was most cost-effective in women aged 50-64 years and in those who were only recently overdue for cervical screening.

The study was published by JAMA Network Open.

“These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates in U.S. health care systems,” say the authors, led by Rachel L. Winer, PhD, MPH, department of epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle.

They note that their results are consistent with those from previous studies in other health care contexts, but their analysis “benefited from the randomized clinical trial design and a large sample size,” they write.

However, they point out that the trial was conducted “before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and it is “well established” that cancer screening rates “decreased substantially during the pandemic.”

They suggest that mailed HPV self-sampling kits could nevertheless be a “means of overcoming screening barriers among underscreened women,” which may have been exacerbated by the “societal consequences of the pandemic.”


 

Reducing barriers to screening

Cervical screening is associated with “substantial global reductions” in the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer, the authors point out. Because most cases of the disease are consequently preventable, it now occurs “predominantly in individuals who have never or rarely received screening.”

Home-based HPV-only testing reduces the need for office visits and reduces barriers to screening, such as discomfort, embarrassment, and difficulties with scheduling or attending appointments.

Previous studies have shown that the direct mailing of home-based HPV self-collection kits is associated with increased uptake of screening among underscreened women and is cost-effective, although the researchers point out that these previous studies were conducted in countries with “organized national screening programs.”

For their own study, they focused on home-based HPV screening among underscreened individuals in the United States. The team examined data from the Home-based Options to Make cervical cancer screening Easy trial, which has previously showed that mailing kits to women increased screening uptake, compared with usual care alone.

For the current analysis, they conducted an economic evaluation of data on 19,851 trial participants, who were randomized to receive home-based screening or usual care between February 2014 and August 2016 and were followed up to February 2018.

All of the women were aged 30-64 years and had been enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPW) for at least 3 years and 5 months. They were also required not have undergone a hysterectomy.

Participant-level economic data were collected between June 2019 and March 2021, with intervention delivery costs calculated from the perspective of both the KPW and Medicare health systems and based on the cost of either a wellness visit or Papanicolaou (Pap) test–only visit.

The mean age of the participants was 50.1 years, and the majority (76.7%) were White; 9.7% were Asian and 4.7% were Black or African American.

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the group assigned to usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc screening outreach, and those in the intervention group, who received usual care and a mailed HPV self-sampling kit.

The researchers report that 1,206 women in the intervention group sent back a mailed HPV kit, with 1,178 (97.7%) meeting the criteria for completed screening uptake.

Overall, screening uptake was higher in the intervention group than in control participants, at 26.3% vs. 17.4%, respectively (relative risk, 1.51).

Intervention participants were also more likely than controls to have a positive test result (relative risk, 1.49) and to receive treatment (relative risk, 1.70).

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost between the study groups divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening within 6 months, ranged from $85.84 per additional completed screening to $146.29, depending on the health system and test considered.

In terms of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for each additional completed screening, the team found that home-based screening achieved a 90% probability of cost-effectiveness, at a WTP of just $148 if the participant’s last Pap test was between 3.4 and 5.0 years before randomization.

A 90% probability of cost-effectiveness was also achieved at a WTP of $198 among participants aged 50-64 years, a threshold that was lower than that among other age groups.

At a WTP threshold of over $350, the intervention was considered to have 100% probability of being cost-effective in all age groups.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Winer reports a relationship with the National Cancer Institute outside of the submitted work, as do several other authors.

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

High total intake of ultraprocessed food (UPF) is associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, suggests a large-scale analysis that nevertheless revealed that the risk applies only to certain such foods.

Courtesy National Cancer Institute

The research was recently published in Diabetes Care by Zhangling Chen, PhD, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Netherlands, and colleagues.

Examining almost 200,000 participants in three U.S. studies, yielding more than 5 million person-years of follow-up, the scientists found that high intake of UPF was associated with a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes, after statistical adjustments.

However, the increased risk was restricted to certain UPFs, including ready meals, refined breads, sweetened beverages, and sauces and condiments, with other foods considered UPFs, such as cereals, dark- and whole grain breads, and packaged sweet and savory snacks, among others, associated with a reduced risk of diabetes.

Senior author Jean-Philippe Drouin-Chartier, PhD, Nutrition Center, Laval University, Quebec City, told this news organization: “While whole grain breads can be considered as ultraprocessed foods, their consumption should not be discouraged. In our study, we observed that whole grain breads consumption is inversely associated with type 2 diabetes risk. This is supported by many studies linking dietary fiber consumption to better cardiometabolic health.”
 

Ultraprocessed food intake higher in the U.S. than in Europe

The researchers note that a handful of European studies have also reported an association between UPF consumption and increased type 2 diabetes risk, with the effect ranging from 15% to 53%, depending on the level of intake and the cohort of patients studied.

They note, however, that total UPF intake in the U.S. is “much higher than in Europe,” particularly in the case of ultraprocessed breads and cereals and artificially or sugar-sweetened beverages.

In the current study, they examined data on 71,781 women from the Nurses’ Health Study, 87,918 women from the NHS II, and 38,847 men from the Health Professional Follow-up Study, none of whom had cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes at baseline.

In all three studies, questionnaires were administered every 2 years to collect demographic, lifestyle, and medical information, and a validated food frequency questionnaire was used every 2-4 years to assess participants’ diets over 30 years of follow-up.

Using the NOVA Food Classification system, the items on the food frequency questionnaire were categorized into one of four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods; processed culinary ingredients; processed foods; or UPFs, which were subdivided into nine mutually exclusive subgroups.

Servings per day were then used to determine individual UPF intake.

Higher total UPF intake was associated with a greater total energy intake, body mass index, and prevalence of hypercholesterolemia and/or hypertension, as well as lower healthy eating scores and physical activity.

The researchers calculated that, over 5,187,678 person-years of follow-up, there were 19,503 cases of type 2 diabetes across the three study cohorts.

Multivariate analysis taking into consideration a range of potential risk factors, including BMI, revealed that, across the three study cohorts, the highest quintile of UPF intake was associated with a significantly increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

Compared with the lowest quintile of UPF intake, the hazard ratio for incident type 2 diabetes was 1.28 (P < .0001), with an increase in risk per additional serving per day of 3%.

The UPFs associated with a higher type 2 diabetes risk were as previously described and also included animal-based products and ready-to-eat mixed dishes.

In contrast, intake of UPFs including cereals, dark and whole grain breads, packaged sweet and savory snacks, fruit-based products, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes.

Then to further validate their findings, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of their own and four additional studies, comprising 415,554 participants and 21,932 events, with a follow-up of 3.4-32.0 years.

They determined that the pooled relative risk of type 2 diabetes with the highest versus lowest levels of UPF consumption was 1.40, with each 10% increase in total UPF intake associated with a 12% increase in diabetes risk.
 

Ideal is to have access to minimally processed foods

The NOVA food classification system states that UPFs are industrial formulations “made mostly or entirely with substances extracted from foods, often chemically modified, with additives and with little, if any, whole foods added.”

A recent study questioned the value of the NOVA classification after finding that it had “low consistency” when assigning foods.

Previous studies have nevertheless revealed that UPFs and their constituents negatively affect the gut microbiota and can cause systemic inflammation, insulin resistance, and increased body weight.

Dr. Drouin-Chartier concluded: “There is a need to facilitate ... access to minimally processed foods. This encompasses [appropriate] pricing and physical access [to such foods], that is, addressing the issue of food deserts.”

The NHS I and II and HPFS studies are supported by National Institutes of Health. Dr. Drouin-Chartier has reported a relationship with the Dairy Farmers of Canada. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

High total intake of ultraprocessed food (UPF) is associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, suggests a large-scale analysis that nevertheless revealed that the risk applies only to certain such foods.

Courtesy National Cancer Institute

The research was recently published in Diabetes Care by Zhangling Chen, PhD, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Netherlands, and colleagues.

Examining almost 200,000 participants in three U.S. studies, yielding more than 5 million person-years of follow-up, the scientists found that high intake of UPF was associated with a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes, after statistical adjustments.

However, the increased risk was restricted to certain UPFs, including ready meals, refined breads, sweetened beverages, and sauces and condiments, with other foods considered UPFs, such as cereals, dark- and whole grain breads, and packaged sweet and savory snacks, among others, associated with a reduced risk of diabetes.

Senior author Jean-Philippe Drouin-Chartier, PhD, Nutrition Center, Laval University, Quebec City, told this news organization: “While whole grain breads can be considered as ultraprocessed foods, their consumption should not be discouraged. In our study, we observed that whole grain breads consumption is inversely associated with type 2 diabetes risk. This is supported by many studies linking dietary fiber consumption to better cardiometabolic health.”
 

Ultraprocessed food intake higher in the U.S. than in Europe

The researchers note that a handful of European studies have also reported an association between UPF consumption and increased type 2 diabetes risk, with the effect ranging from 15% to 53%, depending on the level of intake and the cohort of patients studied.

They note, however, that total UPF intake in the U.S. is “much higher than in Europe,” particularly in the case of ultraprocessed breads and cereals and artificially or sugar-sweetened beverages.

In the current study, they examined data on 71,781 women from the Nurses’ Health Study, 87,918 women from the NHS II, and 38,847 men from the Health Professional Follow-up Study, none of whom had cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes at baseline.

In all three studies, questionnaires were administered every 2 years to collect demographic, lifestyle, and medical information, and a validated food frequency questionnaire was used every 2-4 years to assess participants’ diets over 30 years of follow-up.

Using the NOVA Food Classification system, the items on the food frequency questionnaire were categorized into one of four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods; processed culinary ingredients; processed foods; or UPFs, which were subdivided into nine mutually exclusive subgroups.

Servings per day were then used to determine individual UPF intake.

Higher total UPF intake was associated with a greater total energy intake, body mass index, and prevalence of hypercholesterolemia and/or hypertension, as well as lower healthy eating scores and physical activity.

The researchers calculated that, over 5,187,678 person-years of follow-up, there were 19,503 cases of type 2 diabetes across the three study cohorts.

Multivariate analysis taking into consideration a range of potential risk factors, including BMI, revealed that, across the three study cohorts, the highest quintile of UPF intake was associated with a significantly increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

Compared with the lowest quintile of UPF intake, the hazard ratio for incident type 2 diabetes was 1.28 (P < .0001), with an increase in risk per additional serving per day of 3%.

The UPFs associated with a higher type 2 diabetes risk were as previously described and also included animal-based products and ready-to-eat mixed dishes.

In contrast, intake of UPFs including cereals, dark and whole grain breads, packaged sweet and savory snacks, fruit-based products, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes.

Then to further validate their findings, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of their own and four additional studies, comprising 415,554 participants and 21,932 events, with a follow-up of 3.4-32.0 years.

They determined that the pooled relative risk of type 2 diabetes with the highest versus lowest levels of UPF consumption was 1.40, with each 10% increase in total UPF intake associated with a 12% increase in diabetes risk.
 

Ideal is to have access to minimally processed foods

The NOVA food classification system states that UPFs are industrial formulations “made mostly or entirely with substances extracted from foods, often chemically modified, with additives and with little, if any, whole foods added.”

A recent study questioned the value of the NOVA classification after finding that it had “low consistency” when assigning foods.

Previous studies have nevertheless revealed that UPFs and their constituents negatively affect the gut microbiota and can cause systemic inflammation, insulin resistance, and increased body weight.

Dr. Drouin-Chartier concluded: “There is a need to facilitate ... access to minimally processed foods. This encompasses [appropriate] pricing and physical access [to such foods], that is, addressing the issue of food deserts.”

The NHS I and II and HPFS studies are supported by National Institutes of Health. Dr. Drouin-Chartier has reported a relationship with the Dairy Farmers of Canada. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

High total intake of ultraprocessed food (UPF) is associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, suggests a large-scale analysis that nevertheless revealed that the risk applies only to certain such foods.

Courtesy National Cancer Institute

The research was recently published in Diabetes Care by Zhangling Chen, PhD, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Netherlands, and colleagues.

Examining almost 200,000 participants in three U.S. studies, yielding more than 5 million person-years of follow-up, the scientists found that high intake of UPF was associated with a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes, after statistical adjustments.

However, the increased risk was restricted to certain UPFs, including ready meals, refined breads, sweetened beverages, and sauces and condiments, with other foods considered UPFs, such as cereals, dark- and whole grain breads, and packaged sweet and savory snacks, among others, associated with a reduced risk of diabetes.

Senior author Jean-Philippe Drouin-Chartier, PhD, Nutrition Center, Laval University, Quebec City, told this news organization: “While whole grain breads can be considered as ultraprocessed foods, their consumption should not be discouraged. In our study, we observed that whole grain breads consumption is inversely associated with type 2 diabetes risk. This is supported by many studies linking dietary fiber consumption to better cardiometabolic health.”
 

Ultraprocessed food intake higher in the U.S. than in Europe

The researchers note that a handful of European studies have also reported an association between UPF consumption and increased type 2 diabetes risk, with the effect ranging from 15% to 53%, depending on the level of intake and the cohort of patients studied.

They note, however, that total UPF intake in the U.S. is “much higher than in Europe,” particularly in the case of ultraprocessed breads and cereals and artificially or sugar-sweetened beverages.

In the current study, they examined data on 71,781 women from the Nurses’ Health Study, 87,918 women from the NHS II, and 38,847 men from the Health Professional Follow-up Study, none of whom had cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes at baseline.

In all three studies, questionnaires were administered every 2 years to collect demographic, lifestyle, and medical information, and a validated food frequency questionnaire was used every 2-4 years to assess participants’ diets over 30 years of follow-up.

Using the NOVA Food Classification system, the items on the food frequency questionnaire were categorized into one of four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods; processed culinary ingredients; processed foods; or UPFs, which were subdivided into nine mutually exclusive subgroups.

Servings per day were then used to determine individual UPF intake.

Higher total UPF intake was associated with a greater total energy intake, body mass index, and prevalence of hypercholesterolemia and/or hypertension, as well as lower healthy eating scores and physical activity.

The researchers calculated that, over 5,187,678 person-years of follow-up, there were 19,503 cases of type 2 diabetes across the three study cohorts.

Multivariate analysis taking into consideration a range of potential risk factors, including BMI, revealed that, across the three study cohorts, the highest quintile of UPF intake was associated with a significantly increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

Compared with the lowest quintile of UPF intake, the hazard ratio for incident type 2 diabetes was 1.28 (P < .0001), with an increase in risk per additional serving per day of 3%.

The UPFs associated with a higher type 2 diabetes risk were as previously described and also included animal-based products and ready-to-eat mixed dishes.

In contrast, intake of UPFs including cereals, dark and whole grain breads, packaged sweet and savory snacks, fruit-based products, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes.

Then to further validate their findings, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of their own and four additional studies, comprising 415,554 participants and 21,932 events, with a follow-up of 3.4-32.0 years.

They determined that the pooled relative risk of type 2 diabetes with the highest versus lowest levels of UPF consumption was 1.40, with each 10% increase in total UPF intake associated with a 12% increase in diabetes risk.
 

Ideal is to have access to minimally processed foods

The NOVA food classification system states that UPFs are industrial formulations “made mostly or entirely with substances extracted from foods, often chemically modified, with additives and with little, if any, whole foods added.”

A recent study questioned the value of the NOVA classification after finding that it had “low consistency” when assigning foods.

Previous studies have nevertheless revealed that UPFs and their constituents negatively affect the gut microbiota and can cause systemic inflammation, insulin resistance, and increased body weight.

Dr. Drouin-Chartier concluded: “There is a need to facilitate ... access to minimally processed foods. This encompasses [appropriate] pricing and physical access [to such foods], that is, addressing the issue of food deserts.”

The NHS I and II and HPFS studies are supported by National Institutes of Health. Dr. Drouin-Chartier has reported a relationship with the Dairy Farmers of Canada. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

Patients with celiac disease who have COVID-19 are twice as likely to be hospitalized as are individuals without the autoimmune condition, a single-center U.S. study shows.

Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.

“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.

Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.

The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Comparing outcomes

Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.

However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.

Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.

The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.

The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.

Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.

However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.

Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).

There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.

The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.

Vaccination’s importance

The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.

“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

AGA offers guidance on celiac disease to help patients maintain a gluten-free diet in the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/celiac .

Patients with celiac disease who have COVID-19 are twice as likely to be hospitalized as are individuals without the autoimmune condition, a single-center U.S. study shows.

Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.

“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.

Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.

The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Comparing outcomes

Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.

However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.

Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.

The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.

The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.

Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.

However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.

Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).

There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.

The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.

Vaccination’s importance

The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.

“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

AGA offers guidance on celiac disease to help patients maintain a gluten-free diet in the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/celiac .

Patients with celiac disease who have COVID-19 are twice as likely to be hospitalized as are individuals without the autoimmune condition, a single-center U.S. study shows.

Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.

“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.

Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.

The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Comparing outcomes

Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.

However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.

Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.

The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.

The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.

Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.

However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.

Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).

There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.

The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.

Vaccination’s importance

The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.

“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

AGA offers guidance on celiac disease to help patients maintain a gluten-free diet in the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/celiac .

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Giving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) both before and after surgery for advanced melanoma significantly improves event-free survival, show results from the phase 2 SWOG S1801 trial.

The trial involved 319 patients with operable stage IIIB to stage IV melanoma. The investigators found that patients who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) fared better than those who received the drug only after surgery: The 2-year event-free survival rates were 72% vs. 49%, respectively.

The research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but similar results had already been presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2022 annual Meeting.

“It’s not just what you give; it’s when you give it,” said lead author Sapna Patel, MD, in a press release issued by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, echoing comments she gave at ESMO 2022.

The study, she continued, “demonstrates the same treatment for resectable melanoma given before surgery can generate better outcomes.”

On the basis of their findings, Dr. Patel, who is associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that patients with high-risk melanoma “should start immunotherapy prior to surgery to generate an immune response while the bulk of the melanoma and the anti-tumor T cells are intact.”

The mechanism of action of PD-1 blockade “relies on the presence of preexisting anti-tumor T cells attempting to attack cancer cells,” with the immunotherapy allowing the anti-tumor cells to proliferate and mediate clinical responses.

Resection of the bulk of the tumor is therefore “likely to take away some or even most of the potential anti-tumor T cells that would proliferate after PD-1 blockade,” they write.
 

Likely to apply also to nivolumab

Approached for comment, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said that outside of trials, both pembrolizumab and ipilimumab (Yervoy)/nivolumab (Opdivo) are already being used neoadjuvantly.

He thinks that the findings for neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab could also apply to nivolumab because “the drugs are quite similar in efficacy.”

Dr. Weber told this news organization that, “even though the S1801 trial was not accepted as a registration trial by the FDA, I think that its results could very well change practice and confirm it for others who already use neoadjuvant therapy for palpable stage III melanoma.”

One question that is being addressed to an extent in the NADINA trial is whether adjuvant immunotherapy can be avoided all together and patients receive only neoadjuvant therapy, although Dr. Weber said, “I doubt that will be the case.”

Study details

In this study, patients were randomly assigned to either surgery followed by 18 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab, or to receive 3 doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by surgery and then 15 additional doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.

After a median duration of follow-up of 14.7 months, there were 38 events in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 67 in the adjuvant-only group.

“Events” were defined as disease progression, toxic effects, or complications that precluded surgery or the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, as well as the inability to fully resect the gross disease, melanoma recurrence, and death.

The team calculated that event-free survival was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (P = .004), with 2-year event-free survival at 72% vs. 49% in the adjuvant-only group.

“The benefit of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was seen across all subgroups of patients,” the investigators note.

At the data cut-off, there were 14 deaths in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group vs. 22 in the adjuvant-only group, which the researchers say is too few to allow “definitive comparison” in terms of overall survival.

Definitive surgery had been performed in 88% of neoadjuvant-adjuvant patients and in 95% of those assigned to adjuvant-only pembrolizumab. The most common reason for not undergoing surgery was disease progression.

Among the patients for whom safety data were available, 7% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to pembrolizumab, whereas 7% had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to surgery.

In the adjuvant-only arm, 4% of patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event related to surgery, with no grade 4 adverse events reported.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were similar in the two groups, at 12% in patients assigned to neoadjuvant-adjuvant therapy and 14% in those given adjuvant-only pembrolizumab.

“Future studies can explore deescalation strategies for both surgery and adjuvant therapy, as well as approaches for patients whose melanoma does not respond to neoadjuvant therapy,” the researchers commented.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Dr. Patel reports numerous relationships with industry, including with Merck, manufacturer of pembrolizumab; other coauthors also have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Weber is a regular columnist for this news organization and lists his disclosures in his Weber on Oncology column.

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

Giving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) both before and after surgery for advanced melanoma significantly improves event-free survival, show results from the phase 2 SWOG S1801 trial.

The trial involved 319 patients with operable stage IIIB to stage IV melanoma. The investigators found that patients who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) fared better than those who received the drug only after surgery: The 2-year event-free survival rates were 72% vs. 49%, respectively.

The research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but similar results had already been presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2022 annual Meeting.

“It’s not just what you give; it’s when you give it,” said lead author Sapna Patel, MD, in a press release issued by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, echoing comments she gave at ESMO 2022.

The study, she continued, “demonstrates the same treatment for resectable melanoma given before surgery can generate better outcomes.”

On the basis of their findings, Dr. Patel, who is associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that patients with high-risk melanoma “should start immunotherapy prior to surgery to generate an immune response while the bulk of the melanoma and the anti-tumor T cells are intact.”

The mechanism of action of PD-1 blockade “relies on the presence of preexisting anti-tumor T cells attempting to attack cancer cells,” with the immunotherapy allowing the anti-tumor cells to proliferate and mediate clinical responses.

Resection of the bulk of the tumor is therefore “likely to take away some or even most of the potential anti-tumor T cells that would proliferate after PD-1 blockade,” they write.
 

Likely to apply also to nivolumab

Approached for comment, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said that outside of trials, both pembrolizumab and ipilimumab (Yervoy)/nivolumab (Opdivo) are already being used neoadjuvantly.

He thinks that the findings for neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab could also apply to nivolumab because “the drugs are quite similar in efficacy.”

Dr. Weber told this news organization that, “even though the S1801 trial was not accepted as a registration trial by the FDA, I think that its results could very well change practice and confirm it for others who already use neoadjuvant therapy for palpable stage III melanoma.”

One question that is being addressed to an extent in the NADINA trial is whether adjuvant immunotherapy can be avoided all together and patients receive only neoadjuvant therapy, although Dr. Weber said, “I doubt that will be the case.”

Study details

In this study, patients were randomly assigned to either surgery followed by 18 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab, or to receive 3 doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by surgery and then 15 additional doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.

After a median duration of follow-up of 14.7 months, there were 38 events in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 67 in the adjuvant-only group.

“Events” were defined as disease progression, toxic effects, or complications that precluded surgery or the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, as well as the inability to fully resect the gross disease, melanoma recurrence, and death.

The team calculated that event-free survival was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (P = .004), with 2-year event-free survival at 72% vs. 49% in the adjuvant-only group.

“The benefit of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was seen across all subgroups of patients,” the investigators note.

At the data cut-off, there were 14 deaths in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group vs. 22 in the adjuvant-only group, which the researchers say is too few to allow “definitive comparison” in terms of overall survival.

Definitive surgery had been performed in 88% of neoadjuvant-adjuvant patients and in 95% of those assigned to adjuvant-only pembrolizumab. The most common reason for not undergoing surgery was disease progression.

Among the patients for whom safety data were available, 7% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to pembrolizumab, whereas 7% had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to surgery.

In the adjuvant-only arm, 4% of patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event related to surgery, with no grade 4 adverse events reported.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were similar in the two groups, at 12% in patients assigned to neoadjuvant-adjuvant therapy and 14% in those given adjuvant-only pembrolizumab.

“Future studies can explore deescalation strategies for both surgery and adjuvant therapy, as well as approaches for patients whose melanoma does not respond to neoadjuvant therapy,” the researchers commented.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Dr. Patel reports numerous relationships with industry, including with Merck, manufacturer of pembrolizumab; other coauthors also have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Weber is a regular columnist for this news organization and lists his disclosures in his Weber on Oncology column.

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

Giving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) both before and after surgery for advanced melanoma significantly improves event-free survival, show results from the phase 2 SWOG S1801 trial.

The trial involved 319 patients with operable stage IIIB to stage IV melanoma. The investigators found that patients who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) fared better than those who received the drug only after surgery: The 2-year event-free survival rates were 72% vs. 49%, respectively.

The research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but similar results had already been presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2022 annual Meeting.

“It’s not just what you give; it’s when you give it,” said lead author Sapna Patel, MD, in a press release issued by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, echoing comments she gave at ESMO 2022.

The study, she continued, “demonstrates the same treatment for resectable melanoma given before surgery can generate better outcomes.”

On the basis of their findings, Dr. Patel, who is associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that patients with high-risk melanoma “should start immunotherapy prior to surgery to generate an immune response while the bulk of the melanoma and the anti-tumor T cells are intact.”

The mechanism of action of PD-1 blockade “relies on the presence of preexisting anti-tumor T cells attempting to attack cancer cells,” with the immunotherapy allowing the anti-tumor cells to proliferate and mediate clinical responses.

Resection of the bulk of the tumor is therefore “likely to take away some or even most of the potential anti-tumor T cells that would proliferate after PD-1 blockade,” they write.
 

Likely to apply also to nivolumab

Approached for comment, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said that outside of trials, both pembrolizumab and ipilimumab (Yervoy)/nivolumab (Opdivo) are already being used neoadjuvantly.

He thinks that the findings for neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab could also apply to nivolumab because “the drugs are quite similar in efficacy.”

Dr. Weber told this news organization that, “even though the S1801 trial was not accepted as a registration trial by the FDA, I think that its results could very well change practice and confirm it for others who already use neoadjuvant therapy for palpable stage III melanoma.”

One question that is being addressed to an extent in the NADINA trial is whether adjuvant immunotherapy can be avoided all together and patients receive only neoadjuvant therapy, although Dr. Weber said, “I doubt that will be the case.”

Study details

In this study, patients were randomly assigned to either surgery followed by 18 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab, or to receive 3 doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by surgery and then 15 additional doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.

After a median duration of follow-up of 14.7 months, there were 38 events in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 67 in the adjuvant-only group.

“Events” were defined as disease progression, toxic effects, or complications that precluded surgery or the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, as well as the inability to fully resect the gross disease, melanoma recurrence, and death.

The team calculated that event-free survival was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (P = .004), with 2-year event-free survival at 72% vs. 49% in the adjuvant-only group.

“The benefit of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was seen across all subgroups of patients,” the investigators note.

At the data cut-off, there were 14 deaths in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group vs. 22 in the adjuvant-only group, which the researchers say is too few to allow “definitive comparison” in terms of overall survival.

Definitive surgery had been performed in 88% of neoadjuvant-adjuvant patients and in 95% of those assigned to adjuvant-only pembrolizumab. The most common reason for not undergoing surgery was disease progression.

Among the patients for whom safety data were available, 7% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to pembrolizumab, whereas 7% had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to surgery.

In the adjuvant-only arm, 4% of patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event related to surgery, with no grade 4 adverse events reported.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were similar in the two groups, at 12% in patients assigned to neoadjuvant-adjuvant therapy and 14% in those given adjuvant-only pembrolizumab.

“Future studies can explore deescalation strategies for both surgery and adjuvant therapy, as well as approaches for patients whose melanoma does not respond to neoadjuvant therapy,” the researchers commented.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Dr. Patel reports numerous relationships with industry, including with Merck, manufacturer of pembrolizumab; other coauthors also have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Weber is a regular columnist for this news organization and lists his disclosures in his Weber on Oncology column.

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

Patients with celiac disease who have COVID-19 are twice as likely to be hospitalized as are individuals without the autoimmune condition, a single-center U.S. study shows.

Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.

“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.

Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.

The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Comparing outcomes

Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.

However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.

Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.

The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.

The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.

Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.

However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.

Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).

There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.

The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.
 

Vaccination’s importance

The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.

“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with celiac disease who have COVID-19 are twice as likely to be hospitalized as are individuals without the autoimmune condition, a single-center U.S. study shows.

Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.

“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.

Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.

The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Comparing outcomes

Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.

However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.

Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.

The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.

The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.

Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.

However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.

Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).

There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.

The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.
 

Vaccination’s importance

The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.

“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with celiac disease who have COVID-19 are twice as likely to be hospitalized as are individuals without the autoimmune condition, a single-center U.S. study shows.

Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.

“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.

Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.

The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Comparing outcomes

Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.

However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.

Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.

The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.

The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.

Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.

However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.

Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).

There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.

The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.
 

Vaccination’s importance

The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.

“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

People at high risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), such as those with type 2 diabetes or medically complicated obesity, should be screened for advanced fibrosis, says new guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The guidance, published online in Hepatology, also reflects recent advances in the diagnosis and management of NAFLD, particularly noninvasive testing, lead author Mary E. Rinella, MD, University of Chicago, told this news organization.

The “biggest change” from the previous guidance, published 5 years ago, is “that we are explicitly recommending that people in high-risk categories get screened in primary care,” she said.

NAFLD is “a silent disease ... you could easily have somebody develop cirrhosis,” Dr. Rinella said. By identifying patients earlier, physicians would be able to “prevent or reduce the number of people turning up decompensated or at an advanced stage,” she added.

The other message that Dr. Rinella wants clinicians to take away from the guidance is that “something can be done” for patients with NAFLD. “It’s very common, and the often-cited reason why patients aren’t referred to specialty care is that there’s ‘nothing that can be done.’ ”

Although there is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for NAFLD, clinicians can still support their patients and suggest lifestyle changes, she added.

The guidelines also are designed to prepare the groundwork for novel drugs in the pipeline, as well as discuss those that are already available for conditions such as obesity and diabetes and that benefit people with liver disease, Dr. Rinella said.
 

Screening and evaluation

The guidance covers all aspects of NAFLD, including the latest developments in understanding of the epidemiology and natural history of the disease, and its molecular and cellular pathogenesis.

The guidance continues to recommend against population-based screening for NAFLD. In addition to the aforementioned screening for advanced fibrosis in high-risk individuals, it calls for a primary risk assessment with FIB-4 to be performed every 1-2 years in patients with pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, two or more metabolic risk factors, or imaging evidence of hepatic steatosis.

Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis require routine monitoring, as they are at the highest risk for liver-related outcomes, the guidance adds. Those with suspected NASH should be referred for evaluation by a specialist.

In assessments of liver fibrosis in patients, findings such as highly elevated liver stiffness, FIB-4, and enhanced liver fibrosis scores can predict an increased risk for hepatic decompensation and mortality, the authors write.
 

Intervention guidance

Patients with NAFLD who are overweight or obese should be prescribed a reduced calorie diet in a multidisciplinary setting because weight loss “improves hepatic steatosis, NASH, and hepatic fibrosis in a dose-dependent manner,” the guidance states.

Bariatric surgery should be considered in appropriate patients because of its effectiveness in resolving NAFLD and NASH in most patients without cirrhosis, the guidance says. However, in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis, the type, safety, and efficacy of bariatric surgery is not established, so a “careful benefit-risk assessment by a multidisciplinary team of experts that includes a hepatologist” is needed, the authors note.

The guidance discusses alcohol consumption’s role in the progression of fatty liver disease and recommends that intake be assessed on a regular basis in patients with NAFLD. Patients with clinically significant hepatic fibrosis should abstain completely, it adds. Abstinence, particularly for patients with moderate to heavy alcohol intake, may lower the risk of fibrosis progression and hepatic and extrahepatic malignancies, the authors note.

Additionally, drinking at least three cups of coffee, caffeinated or not, per day is “associated with less-advanced liver disease,” they write.

The guidance also sets out key considerations for people with comorbid conditions. It states that patients with NAFLD should be screened for type 2 diabetes and that statins can be safely used for cardiovascular risk reduction “across the disease spectrum, including compensated cirrhosis.”

While noting the lack of approved medications for NAFLD, the guidance states that some drugs prescribed for comorbidities also benefit patients with NASH. These are glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist semaglutide, pioglitazone, and vitamin E supplementation in select patients.

Available data on these same drugs, however, do not show an antifibrotic benefit and haven’t been studied in patients with cirrhosis, the guidance states.

Additionally, metformin, ursodeoxycholic acid, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, silymarin, and statins do not offer meaningful histologic benefit and shouldn’t be used as a treatment for NASH.
 

Help against an ‘evolving epidemic’

The guidance is “timely and long awaited,” Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, director of the fatty liver disease program at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. NAFLD is an “evolving epidemic,” she added.

Numerous recent studies have “led to new modalities for diagnosis and therapy, and a better understanding” of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of NAFLD, she said. “More specifically, advancements in noninvasive testing, risk stratifications, and therapeutic modalities are now available and worth disseminating.”

NAFLD’s complexity and the lack of an FDA-approved therapy specifically targeting the liver means that managing the disease “requires expertise in multiple disciplines and knowledge of the latest developments,” Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted.

“This guidance describes preventive and treatment strategies for the metabolic conditions associated with NAFLD and is very useful for physicians in different specialties who treat individuals with these conditions,” she said.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rinella and Dr. Wakim-Fleming have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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


The AGA’s Clinical Practice Update on the Diagnosis and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Lean Individuals is available online.

People at high risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), such as those with type 2 diabetes or medically complicated obesity, should be screened for advanced fibrosis, says new guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The guidance, published online in Hepatology, also reflects recent advances in the diagnosis and management of NAFLD, particularly noninvasive testing, lead author Mary E. Rinella, MD, University of Chicago, told this news organization.

The “biggest change” from the previous guidance, published 5 years ago, is “that we are explicitly recommending that people in high-risk categories get screened in primary care,” she said.

NAFLD is “a silent disease ... you could easily have somebody develop cirrhosis,” Dr. Rinella said. By identifying patients earlier, physicians would be able to “prevent or reduce the number of people turning up decompensated or at an advanced stage,” she added.

The other message that Dr. Rinella wants clinicians to take away from the guidance is that “something can be done” for patients with NAFLD. “It’s very common, and the often-cited reason why patients aren’t referred to specialty care is that there’s ‘nothing that can be done.’ ”

Although there is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for NAFLD, clinicians can still support their patients and suggest lifestyle changes, she added.

The guidelines also are designed to prepare the groundwork for novel drugs in the pipeline, as well as discuss those that are already available for conditions such as obesity and diabetes and that benefit people with liver disease, Dr. Rinella said.
 

Screening and evaluation

The guidance covers all aspects of NAFLD, including the latest developments in understanding of the epidemiology and natural history of the disease, and its molecular and cellular pathogenesis.

The guidance continues to recommend against population-based screening for NAFLD. In addition to the aforementioned screening for advanced fibrosis in high-risk individuals, it calls for a primary risk assessment with FIB-4 to be performed every 1-2 years in patients with pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, two or more metabolic risk factors, or imaging evidence of hepatic steatosis.

Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis require routine monitoring, as they are at the highest risk for liver-related outcomes, the guidance adds. Those with suspected NASH should be referred for evaluation by a specialist.

In assessments of liver fibrosis in patients, findings such as highly elevated liver stiffness, FIB-4, and enhanced liver fibrosis scores can predict an increased risk for hepatic decompensation and mortality, the authors write.
 

Intervention guidance

Patients with NAFLD who are overweight or obese should be prescribed a reduced calorie diet in a multidisciplinary setting because weight loss “improves hepatic steatosis, NASH, and hepatic fibrosis in a dose-dependent manner,” the guidance states.

Bariatric surgery should be considered in appropriate patients because of its effectiveness in resolving NAFLD and NASH in most patients without cirrhosis, the guidance says. However, in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis, the type, safety, and efficacy of bariatric surgery is not established, so a “careful benefit-risk assessment by a multidisciplinary team of experts that includes a hepatologist” is needed, the authors note.

The guidance discusses alcohol consumption’s role in the progression of fatty liver disease and recommends that intake be assessed on a regular basis in patients with NAFLD. Patients with clinically significant hepatic fibrosis should abstain completely, it adds. Abstinence, particularly for patients with moderate to heavy alcohol intake, may lower the risk of fibrosis progression and hepatic and extrahepatic malignancies, the authors note.

Additionally, drinking at least three cups of coffee, caffeinated or not, per day is “associated with less-advanced liver disease,” they write.

The guidance also sets out key considerations for people with comorbid conditions. It states that patients with NAFLD should be screened for type 2 diabetes and that statins can be safely used for cardiovascular risk reduction “across the disease spectrum, including compensated cirrhosis.”

While noting the lack of approved medications for NAFLD, the guidance states that some drugs prescribed for comorbidities also benefit patients with NASH. These are glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist semaglutide, pioglitazone, and vitamin E supplementation in select patients.

Available data on these same drugs, however, do not show an antifibrotic benefit and haven’t been studied in patients with cirrhosis, the guidance states.

Additionally, metformin, ursodeoxycholic acid, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, silymarin, and statins do not offer meaningful histologic benefit and shouldn’t be used as a treatment for NASH.
 

Help against an ‘evolving epidemic’

The guidance is “timely and long awaited,” Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, director of the fatty liver disease program at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. NAFLD is an “evolving epidemic,” she added.

Numerous recent studies have “led to new modalities for diagnosis and therapy, and a better understanding” of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of NAFLD, she said. “More specifically, advancements in noninvasive testing, risk stratifications, and therapeutic modalities are now available and worth disseminating.”

NAFLD’s complexity and the lack of an FDA-approved therapy specifically targeting the liver means that managing the disease “requires expertise in multiple disciplines and knowledge of the latest developments,” Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted.

“This guidance describes preventive and treatment strategies for the metabolic conditions associated with NAFLD and is very useful for physicians in different specialties who treat individuals with these conditions,” she said.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rinella and Dr. Wakim-Fleming have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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


The AGA’s Clinical Practice Update on the Diagnosis and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Lean Individuals is available online.

People at high risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), such as those with type 2 diabetes or medically complicated obesity, should be screened for advanced fibrosis, says new guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The guidance, published online in Hepatology, also reflects recent advances in the diagnosis and management of NAFLD, particularly noninvasive testing, lead author Mary E. Rinella, MD, University of Chicago, told this news organization.

The “biggest change” from the previous guidance, published 5 years ago, is “that we are explicitly recommending that people in high-risk categories get screened in primary care,” she said.

NAFLD is “a silent disease ... you could easily have somebody develop cirrhosis,” Dr. Rinella said. By identifying patients earlier, physicians would be able to “prevent or reduce the number of people turning up decompensated or at an advanced stage,” she added.

The other message that Dr. Rinella wants clinicians to take away from the guidance is that “something can be done” for patients with NAFLD. “It’s very common, and the often-cited reason why patients aren’t referred to specialty care is that there’s ‘nothing that can be done.’ ”

Although there is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for NAFLD, clinicians can still support their patients and suggest lifestyle changes, she added.

The guidelines also are designed to prepare the groundwork for novel drugs in the pipeline, as well as discuss those that are already available for conditions such as obesity and diabetes and that benefit people with liver disease, Dr. Rinella said.
 

Screening and evaluation

The guidance covers all aspects of NAFLD, including the latest developments in understanding of the epidemiology and natural history of the disease, and its molecular and cellular pathogenesis.

The guidance continues to recommend against population-based screening for NAFLD. In addition to the aforementioned screening for advanced fibrosis in high-risk individuals, it calls for a primary risk assessment with FIB-4 to be performed every 1-2 years in patients with pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, two or more metabolic risk factors, or imaging evidence of hepatic steatosis.

Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis require routine monitoring, as they are at the highest risk for liver-related outcomes, the guidance adds. Those with suspected NASH should be referred for evaluation by a specialist.

In assessments of liver fibrosis in patients, findings such as highly elevated liver stiffness, FIB-4, and enhanced liver fibrosis scores can predict an increased risk for hepatic decompensation and mortality, the authors write.
 

Intervention guidance

Patients with NAFLD who are overweight or obese should be prescribed a reduced calorie diet in a multidisciplinary setting because weight loss “improves hepatic steatosis, NASH, and hepatic fibrosis in a dose-dependent manner,” the guidance states.

Bariatric surgery should be considered in appropriate patients because of its effectiveness in resolving NAFLD and NASH in most patients without cirrhosis, the guidance says. However, in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis, the type, safety, and efficacy of bariatric surgery is not established, so a “careful benefit-risk assessment by a multidisciplinary team of experts that includes a hepatologist” is needed, the authors note.

The guidance discusses alcohol consumption’s role in the progression of fatty liver disease and recommends that intake be assessed on a regular basis in patients with NAFLD. Patients with clinically significant hepatic fibrosis should abstain completely, it adds. Abstinence, particularly for patients with moderate to heavy alcohol intake, may lower the risk of fibrosis progression and hepatic and extrahepatic malignancies, the authors note.

Additionally, drinking at least three cups of coffee, caffeinated or not, per day is “associated with less-advanced liver disease,” they write.

The guidance also sets out key considerations for people with comorbid conditions. It states that patients with NAFLD should be screened for type 2 diabetes and that statins can be safely used for cardiovascular risk reduction “across the disease spectrum, including compensated cirrhosis.”

While noting the lack of approved medications for NAFLD, the guidance states that some drugs prescribed for comorbidities also benefit patients with NASH. These are glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist semaglutide, pioglitazone, and vitamin E supplementation in select patients.

Available data on these same drugs, however, do not show an antifibrotic benefit and haven’t been studied in patients with cirrhosis, the guidance states.

Additionally, metformin, ursodeoxycholic acid, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, silymarin, and statins do not offer meaningful histologic benefit and shouldn’t be used as a treatment for NASH.
 

Help against an ‘evolving epidemic’

The guidance is “timely and long awaited,” Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, director of the fatty liver disease program at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. NAFLD is an “evolving epidemic,” she added.

Numerous recent studies have “led to new modalities for diagnosis and therapy, and a better understanding” of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of NAFLD, she said. “More specifically, advancements in noninvasive testing, risk stratifications, and therapeutic modalities are now available and worth disseminating.”

NAFLD’s complexity and the lack of an FDA-approved therapy specifically targeting the liver means that managing the disease “requires expertise in multiple disciplines and knowledge of the latest developments,” Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted.

“This guidance describes preventive and treatment strategies for the metabolic conditions associated with NAFLD and is very useful for physicians in different specialties who treat individuals with these conditions,” she said.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rinella and Dr. Wakim-Fleming have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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


The AGA’s Clinical Practice Update on the Diagnosis and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Lean Individuals is available online.

Children born to mothers who had urinary or genital tract infections during pregnancy appear to have an increased risk for childhood leukemia, said researchers reporting a Danish registry analysis that may point to preventive strategies for the disease.

The research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The team studied more than 2.2 million children born in Denmark over more than 3 decades, linking their records across multiple national registries to examine both later cancer risk and maternal infection rates.

They found that, overall, at least one maternal infection during pregnancy was associated with a 35% increased risk for leukemia in the children, rising to 65% for urinary tract infections, and 142% for genital infections.

“The findings of this large population-based cohort study suggest that maternal urinary and genital tract infections during pregnancy are associated with a higher risk of childhood leukemia in offspring,” said lead author Jian-Rong He, DPhil, division of birth cohort study, Guangzhou (China) Women and Children’s Medical Center.

However, he added, “the associated absolute risk remained small given the rarity” of the disease. In absolute terms, the risk difference between exposed and unexposed children was 1.8 cases per 100,000 person-years for any infection, 3.4 cases per 100,000 person-years for urinary traction infection, and 7.1 cases per 100,000 person-years for genital tract infection.

Maternal infections during pregnancy may be associated with chromosomal and immunologic alterations in the fetus, the authors speculated.

“Given that little is known about the etiology of childhood leukemia,” these results “suggest an important direction for research on the etiology of childhood leukemia as well as development of potential preventive measures,” they wrote.

In many countries, pregnant women are tested for urinary tract infection and bacterial vaginosis, and treated with antibiotics in antenatal care, as these infections are linked to adverse perinatal outcomes, they pointed out.
 

Study details

The team conducted a large population-based study that included all live births in Denmark between 1978 and 2015.

After exclusions, they gathered information on 2,222,797 children, linking data from several national registries, including the Danish Medical Birth Register, the Danish National Patient Registry, and the Danish National Cancer Registry, to identify cases of childhood cancers and maternal infection during pregnancy.

The results were then validated by comparing them with those in 2.6 million live births in Sweden between 1988 and 2014, for whom similar data were available through linkage with several Swedish registries.

The Danish cohort was followed up for a mean of 12 years per person, yielding a total of 27 million person-years. Just over half (51.3%) were boys.

Cancer was diagnosed in 4,362 children before 15 years of age, of whom 1,307 had leukemia (1,050 had acute lymphocytic leukemia), 1,267 had a brain tumor, 224 had lymphoma, and 1,564 had other cancers.

At least one infection during pregnancy was diagnosed in 81,717 mothers (3.7%). Urinary tract infections were the most common (in 1.7% of women), followed by genital tract infection (in 0.7%), digestive system infection (in 0.5%), and respiratory tract infection (in 0.3%).

Women with any infection during pregnancy were more likely to be younger and primiparous than were women who did not have infections, and they were also more likely to have fewer years of education, higher prepregnancy BMI, diabetes, and to smoke during early pregnancy.

Preterm delivery and low-birth-weight infants were also more common in women with infections during pregnancy.

Cox proportional hazards regression models revealed that, after adjustment for confounders, any maternal infection was associated with a hazard ratio of childhood leukemia of 1.35.

Further analysis revealed that the association was driven by genital tract infection, at a hazard ratio for childhood leukemia of 2.42, and urinary tract infection, at a hazard ratio 1.65.

Moreover, children born to women who had a sexually transmitted infection during pregnancy had a hazard ratio for developing leukemia of 3.13 compared with unexposed children.

There were no associations between other maternal infections and childhood leukemia.

The patterns of association between maternal infections and childhood leukemia were similar when looking at disease subtypes, as well as in the Swedish validation cohort, they added.

When interpreting the results, the researchers caution that, as data on maternal infection were drawn from hospital data, “milder infections and those not diagnosed or treated in specialized health care facilities were not captured.”

“Also, some infections could be captured because the mother sought care for other, more serious conditions, which might bias the association of maternal infections and childhood leukemia.”

The study was supported by grants from the China Scholarship Council–University of Oxford; National Natural Science Foundation of China; Danish Council for Independent Research; Nordic Cancer Union; Novo Nordisk Fonden; and the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research. Dr He reported receiving a PhD scholarship from the China Scholarship Council during the conduct of the study. Several other coauthors have disclosures; the full list can be found with the original article.

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

Children born to mothers who had urinary or genital tract infections during pregnancy appear to have an increased risk for childhood leukemia, said researchers reporting a Danish registry analysis that may point to preventive strategies for the disease.

The research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The team studied more than 2.2 million children born in Denmark over more than 3 decades, linking their records across multiple national registries to examine both later cancer risk and maternal infection rates.

They found that, overall, at least one maternal infection during pregnancy was associated with a 35% increased risk for leukemia in the children, rising to 65% for urinary tract infections, and 142% for genital infections.

“The findings of this large population-based cohort study suggest that maternal urinary and genital tract infections during pregnancy are associated with a higher risk of childhood leukemia in offspring,” said lead author Jian-Rong He, DPhil, division of birth cohort study, Guangzhou (China) Women and Children’s Medical Center.

However, he added, “the associated absolute risk remained small given the rarity” of the disease. In absolute terms, the risk difference between exposed and unexposed children was 1.8 cases per 100,000 person-years for any infection, 3.4 cases per 100,000 person-years for urinary traction infection, and 7.1 cases per 100,000 person-years for genital tract infection.

Maternal infections during pregnancy may be associated with chromosomal and immunologic alterations in the fetus, the authors speculated.

“Given that little is known about the etiology of childhood leukemia,” these results “suggest an important direction for research on the etiology of childhood leukemia as well as development of potential preventive measures,” they wrote.

In many countries, pregnant women are tested for urinary tract infection and bacterial vaginosis, and treated with antibiotics in antenatal care, as these infections are linked to adverse perinatal outcomes, they pointed out.
 

Study details

The team conducted a large population-based study that included all live births in Denmark between 1978 and 2015.

After exclusions, they gathered information on 2,222,797 children, linking data from several national registries, including the Danish Medical Birth Register, the Danish National Patient Registry, and the Danish National Cancer Registry, to identify cases of childhood cancers and maternal infection during pregnancy.

The results were then validated by comparing them with those in 2.6 million live births in Sweden between 1988 and 2014, for whom similar data were available through linkage with several Swedish registries.

The Danish cohort was followed up for a mean of 12 years per person, yielding a total of 27 million person-years. Just over half (51.3%) were boys.

Cancer was diagnosed in 4,362 children before 15 years of age, of whom 1,307 had leukemia (1,050 had acute lymphocytic leukemia), 1,267 had a brain tumor, 224 had lymphoma, and 1,564 had other cancers.

At least one infection during pregnancy was diagnosed in 81,717 mothers (3.7%). Urinary tract infections were the most common (in 1.7% of women), followed by genital tract infection (in 0.7%), digestive system infection (in 0.5%), and respiratory tract infection (in 0.3%).

Women with any infection during pregnancy were more likely to be younger and primiparous than were women who did not have infections, and they were also more likely to have fewer years of education, higher prepregnancy BMI, diabetes, and to smoke during early pregnancy.

Preterm delivery and low-birth-weight infants were also more common in women with infections during pregnancy.

Cox proportional hazards regression models revealed that, after adjustment for confounders, any maternal infection was associated with a hazard ratio of childhood leukemia of 1.35.

Further analysis revealed that the association was driven by genital tract infection, at a hazard ratio for childhood leukemia of 2.42, and urinary tract infection, at a hazard ratio 1.65.

Moreover, children born to women who had a sexually transmitted infection during pregnancy had a hazard ratio for developing leukemia of 3.13 compared with unexposed children.

There were no associations between other maternal infections and childhood leukemia.

The patterns of association between maternal infections and childhood leukemia were similar when looking at disease subtypes, as well as in the Swedish validation cohort, they added.

When interpreting the results, the researchers caution that, as data on maternal infection were drawn from hospital data, “milder infections and those not diagnosed or treated in specialized health care facilities were not captured.”

“Also, some infections could be captured because the mother sought care for other, more serious conditions, which might bias the association of maternal infections and childhood leukemia.”

The study was supported by grants from the China Scholarship Council–University of Oxford; National Natural Science Foundation of China; Danish Council for Independent Research; Nordic Cancer Union; Novo Nordisk Fonden; and the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research. Dr He reported receiving a PhD scholarship from the China Scholarship Council during the conduct of the study. Several other coauthors have disclosures; the full list can be found with the original article.

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

Children born to mothers who had urinary or genital tract infections during pregnancy appear to have an increased risk for childhood leukemia, said researchers reporting a Danish registry analysis that may point to preventive strategies for the disease.

The research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The team studied more than 2.2 million children born in Denmark over more than 3 decades, linking their records across multiple national registries to examine both later cancer risk and maternal infection rates.

They found that, overall, at least one maternal infection during pregnancy was associated with a 35% increased risk for leukemia in the children, rising to 65% for urinary tract infections, and 142% for genital infections.

“The findings of this large population-based cohort study suggest that maternal urinary and genital tract infections during pregnancy are associated with a higher risk of childhood leukemia in offspring,” said lead author Jian-Rong He, DPhil, division of birth cohort study, Guangzhou (China) Women and Children’s Medical Center.

However, he added, “the associated absolute risk remained small given the rarity” of the disease. In absolute terms, the risk difference between exposed and unexposed children was 1.8 cases per 100,000 person-years for any infection, 3.4 cases per 100,000 person-years for urinary traction infection, and 7.1 cases per 100,000 person-years for genital tract infection.

Maternal infections during pregnancy may be associated with chromosomal and immunologic alterations in the fetus, the authors speculated.

“Given that little is known about the etiology of childhood leukemia,” these results “suggest an important direction for research on the etiology of childhood leukemia as well as development of potential preventive measures,” they wrote.

In many countries, pregnant women are tested for urinary tract infection and bacterial vaginosis, and treated with antibiotics in antenatal care, as these infections are linked to adverse perinatal outcomes, they pointed out.
 

Study details

The team conducted a large population-based study that included all live births in Denmark between 1978 and 2015.

After exclusions, they gathered information on 2,222,797 children, linking data from several national registries, including the Danish Medical Birth Register, the Danish National Patient Registry, and the Danish National Cancer Registry, to identify cases of childhood cancers and maternal infection during pregnancy.

The results were then validated by comparing them with those in 2.6 million live births in Sweden between 1988 and 2014, for whom similar data were available through linkage with several Swedish registries.

The Danish cohort was followed up for a mean of 12 years per person, yielding a total of 27 million person-years. Just over half (51.3%) were boys.

Cancer was diagnosed in 4,362 children before 15 years of age, of whom 1,307 had leukemia (1,050 had acute lymphocytic leukemia), 1,267 had a brain tumor, 224 had lymphoma, and 1,564 had other cancers.

At least one infection during pregnancy was diagnosed in 81,717 mothers (3.7%). Urinary tract infections were the most common (in 1.7% of women), followed by genital tract infection (in 0.7%), digestive system infection (in 0.5%), and respiratory tract infection (in 0.3%).

Women with any infection during pregnancy were more likely to be younger and primiparous than were women who did not have infections, and they were also more likely to have fewer years of education, higher prepregnancy BMI, diabetes, and to smoke during early pregnancy.

Preterm delivery and low-birth-weight infants were also more common in women with infections during pregnancy.

Cox proportional hazards regression models revealed that, after adjustment for confounders, any maternal infection was associated with a hazard ratio of childhood leukemia of 1.35.

Further analysis revealed that the association was driven by genital tract infection, at a hazard ratio for childhood leukemia of 2.42, and urinary tract infection, at a hazard ratio 1.65.

Moreover, children born to women who had a sexually transmitted infection during pregnancy had a hazard ratio for developing leukemia of 3.13 compared with unexposed children.

There were no associations between other maternal infections and childhood leukemia.

The patterns of association between maternal infections and childhood leukemia were similar when looking at disease subtypes, as well as in the Swedish validation cohort, they added.

When interpreting the results, the researchers caution that, as data on maternal infection were drawn from hospital data, “milder infections and those not diagnosed or treated in specialized health care facilities were not captured.”

“Also, some infections could be captured because the mother sought care for other, more serious conditions, which might bias the association of maternal infections and childhood leukemia.”

The study was supported by grants from the China Scholarship Council–University of Oxford; National Natural Science Foundation of China; Danish Council for Independent Research; Nordic Cancer Union; Novo Nordisk Fonden; and the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research. Dr He reported receiving a PhD scholarship from the China Scholarship Council during the conduct of the study. Several other coauthors have disclosures; the full list can be found with the original article.

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

People at high risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), such as those with type 2 diabetes or medically complicated obesity, should be screened for advanced fibrosis, says new guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The guidance, published online in Hepatology, also reflects recent advances in the diagnosis and management of NAFLD, particularly noninvasive testing, lead author Mary E. Rinella, MD, University of Chicago, told this news organization.

The “biggest change” from the previous guidance, published 5 years ago, is “that we are explicitly recommending that people in high-risk categories get screened in primary care,” she said.

NAFLD is “a silent disease ... you could easily have somebody develop cirrhosis,” Dr. Rinella said. By identifying patients earlier, physicians would be able to “prevent or reduce the number of people turning up decompensated or at an advanced stage,” she added.

The other message that Dr. Rinella wants clinicians to take away from the guidance is that “something can be done” for patients with NAFLD. “It’s very common, and the often-cited reason why patients aren’t referred to specialty care is that there’s ‘nothing that can be done.’ ”

Although there is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for NAFLD, clinicians can still support their patients and suggest lifestyle changes, she added.

The guidelines also are designed to prepare the groundwork for novel drugs in the pipeline, as well as discuss those that are already available for conditions such as obesity and diabetes and that benefit people with liver disease, Dr. Rinella said.
 

Screening and evaluation

The guidance covers all aspects of NAFLD, including the latest developments in understanding of the epidemiology and natural history of the disease, and its molecular and cellular pathogenesis.

The guidance continues to recommend against population-based screening for NAFLD. In addition to the aforementioned screening for advanced fibrosis in high-risk individuals, it calls for a primary risk assessment with FIB-4 to be performed every 1-2 years in patients with pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, two or more metabolic risk factors, or imaging evidence of hepatic steatosis.

Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis require routine monitoring, as they are at the highest risk for liver-related outcomes, the guidance adds. Those with suspected NASH should be referred for evaluation by a specialist.

In assessments of liver fibrosis in patients, findings such as highly elevated liver stiffness, FIB-4, and enhanced liver fibrosis scores can predict an increased risk for hepatic decompensation and mortality, the authors write.
 

Intervention guidance

Patients with NAFLD who are overweight or obese should be prescribed a reduced calorie diet in a multidisciplinary setting because weight loss “improves hepatic steatosis, NASH, and hepatic fibrosis in a dose-dependent manner,” the guidance states.

Bariatric surgery should be considered in appropriate patients because of its effectiveness in resolving NAFLD and NASH in most patients without cirrhosis, the guidance says. However, in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis, the type, safety, and efficacy of bariatric surgery is not established, so a “careful benefit-risk assessment by a multidisciplinary team of experts that includes a hepatologist” is needed, the authors note.

The guidance discusses alcohol consumption’s role in the progression of fatty liver disease and recommends that intake be assessed on a regular basis in patients with NAFLD. Patients with clinically significant hepatic fibrosis should abstain completely, it adds. Abstinence, particularly for patients with moderate to heavy alcohol intake, may lower the risk of fibrosis progression and hepatic and extrahepatic malignancies, the authors note.

Additionally, drinking at least three cups of coffee, caffeinated or not, per day is “associated with less-advanced liver disease,” they write.

The guidance also sets out key considerations for people with comorbid conditions. It states that patients with NAFLD should be screened for type 2 diabetes and that statins can be safely used for cardiovascular risk reduction “across the disease spectrum, including compensated cirrhosis.”

While noting the lack of approved medications for NAFLD, the guidance states that some drugs prescribed for comorbidities also benefit patients with NASH. These are glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic), pioglitazone (Actos), and vitamin E supplementation in select patients.

Available data on these same drugs, however, do not show an antifibrotic benefit and haven’t been studied in patients with cirrhosis, the guidance states.

Additionally, metformin, ursodeoxycholic acid, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, silymarin, and statins do not offer meaningful histologic benefit and shouldn’t be used as a treatment for NASH.
 

Help against an ‘evolving epidemic’

The guidance is “timely and long awaited,” Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, director of the fatty liver disease program at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. NAFLD is an “evolving epidemic,” she added.

Numerous recent studies have “led to new modalities for diagnosis and therapy, and a better understanding” of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of NAFLD, she said. “More specifically, advancements in noninvasive testing, risk stratifications, and therapeutic modalities are now available and worth disseminating.”

NAFLD’s complexity and the lack of an FDA-approved therapy specifically targeting the liver means that managing the disease “requires expertise in multiple disciplines and knowledge of the latest developments,” Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted.

“This guidance describes preventive and treatment strategies for the metabolic conditions associated with NAFLD and is very useful for physicians in different specialties who treat individuals with these conditions,” she said.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rinella and Dr. Wakim-Fleming have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People at high risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), such as those with type 2 diabetes or medically complicated obesity, should be screened for advanced fibrosis, says new guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The guidance, published online in Hepatology, also reflects recent advances in the diagnosis and management of NAFLD, particularly noninvasive testing, lead author Mary E. Rinella, MD, University of Chicago, told this news organization.

The “biggest change” from the previous guidance, published 5 years ago, is “that we are explicitly recommending that people in high-risk categories get screened in primary care,” she said.

NAFLD is “a silent disease ... you could easily have somebody develop cirrhosis,” Dr. Rinella said. By identifying patients earlier, physicians would be able to “prevent or reduce the number of people turning up decompensated or at an advanced stage,” she added.

The other message that Dr. Rinella wants clinicians to take away from the guidance is that “something can be done” for patients with NAFLD. “It’s very common, and the often-cited reason why patients aren’t referred to specialty care is that there’s ‘nothing that can be done.’ ”

Although there is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for NAFLD, clinicians can still support their patients and suggest lifestyle changes, she added.

The guidelines also are designed to prepare the groundwork for novel drugs in the pipeline, as well as discuss those that are already available for conditions such as obesity and diabetes and that benefit people with liver disease, Dr. Rinella said.
 

Screening and evaluation

The guidance covers all aspects of NAFLD, including the latest developments in understanding of the epidemiology and natural history of the disease, and its molecular and cellular pathogenesis.

The guidance continues to recommend against population-based screening for NAFLD. In addition to the aforementioned screening for advanced fibrosis in high-risk individuals, it calls for a primary risk assessment with FIB-4 to be performed every 1-2 years in patients with pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, two or more metabolic risk factors, or imaging evidence of hepatic steatosis.

Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis require routine monitoring, as they are at the highest risk for liver-related outcomes, the guidance adds. Those with suspected NASH should be referred for evaluation by a specialist.

In assessments of liver fibrosis in patients, findings such as highly elevated liver stiffness, FIB-4, and enhanced liver fibrosis scores can predict an increased risk for hepatic decompensation and mortality, the authors write.
 

Intervention guidance

Patients with NAFLD who are overweight or obese should be prescribed a reduced calorie diet in a multidisciplinary setting because weight loss “improves hepatic steatosis, NASH, and hepatic fibrosis in a dose-dependent manner,” the guidance states.

Bariatric surgery should be considered in appropriate patients because of its effectiveness in resolving NAFLD and NASH in most patients without cirrhosis, the guidance says. However, in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis, the type, safety, and efficacy of bariatric surgery is not established, so a “careful benefit-risk assessment by a multidisciplinary team of experts that includes a hepatologist” is needed, the authors note.

The guidance discusses alcohol consumption’s role in the progression of fatty liver disease and recommends that intake be assessed on a regular basis in patients with NAFLD. Patients with clinically significant hepatic fibrosis should abstain completely, it adds. Abstinence, particularly for patients with moderate to heavy alcohol intake, may lower the risk of fibrosis progression and hepatic and extrahepatic malignancies, the authors note.

Additionally, drinking at least three cups of coffee, caffeinated or not, per day is “associated with less-advanced liver disease,” they write.

The guidance also sets out key considerations for people with comorbid conditions. It states that patients with NAFLD should be screened for type 2 diabetes and that statins can be safely used for cardiovascular risk reduction “across the disease spectrum, including compensated cirrhosis.”

While noting the lack of approved medications for NAFLD, the guidance states that some drugs prescribed for comorbidities also benefit patients with NASH. These are glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic), pioglitazone (Actos), and vitamin E supplementation in select patients.

Available data on these same drugs, however, do not show an antifibrotic benefit and haven’t been studied in patients with cirrhosis, the guidance states.

Additionally, metformin, ursodeoxycholic acid, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, silymarin, and statins do not offer meaningful histologic benefit and shouldn’t be used as a treatment for NASH.
 

Help against an ‘evolving epidemic’

The guidance is “timely and long awaited,” Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, director of the fatty liver disease program at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. NAFLD is an “evolving epidemic,” she added.

Numerous recent studies have “led to new modalities for diagnosis and therapy, and a better understanding” of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of NAFLD, she said. “More specifically, advancements in noninvasive testing, risk stratifications, and therapeutic modalities are now available and worth disseminating.”

NAFLD’s complexity and the lack of an FDA-approved therapy specifically targeting the liver means that managing the disease “requires expertise in multiple disciplines and knowledge of the latest developments,” Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted.

“This guidance describes preventive and treatment strategies for the metabolic conditions associated with NAFLD and is very useful for physicians in different specialties who treat individuals with these conditions,” she said.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rinella and Dr. Wakim-Fleming have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People at high risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), such as those with type 2 diabetes or medically complicated obesity, should be screened for advanced fibrosis, says new guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The guidance, published online in Hepatology, also reflects recent advances in the diagnosis and management of NAFLD, particularly noninvasive testing, lead author Mary E. Rinella, MD, University of Chicago, told this news organization.

The “biggest change” from the previous guidance, published 5 years ago, is “that we are explicitly recommending that people in high-risk categories get screened in primary care,” she said.

NAFLD is “a silent disease ... you could easily have somebody develop cirrhosis,” Dr. Rinella said. By identifying patients earlier, physicians would be able to “prevent or reduce the number of people turning up decompensated or at an advanced stage,” she added.

The other message that Dr. Rinella wants clinicians to take away from the guidance is that “something can be done” for patients with NAFLD. “It’s very common, and the often-cited reason why patients aren’t referred to specialty care is that there’s ‘nothing that can be done.’ ”

Although there is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for NAFLD, clinicians can still support their patients and suggest lifestyle changes, she added.

The guidelines also are designed to prepare the groundwork for novel drugs in the pipeline, as well as discuss those that are already available for conditions such as obesity and diabetes and that benefit people with liver disease, Dr. Rinella said.
 

Screening and evaluation

The guidance covers all aspects of NAFLD, including the latest developments in understanding of the epidemiology and natural history of the disease, and its molecular and cellular pathogenesis.

The guidance continues to recommend against population-based screening for NAFLD. In addition to the aforementioned screening for advanced fibrosis in high-risk individuals, it calls for a primary risk assessment with FIB-4 to be performed every 1-2 years in patients with pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, two or more metabolic risk factors, or imaging evidence of hepatic steatosis.

Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis require routine monitoring, as they are at the highest risk for liver-related outcomes, the guidance adds. Those with suspected NASH should be referred for evaluation by a specialist.

In assessments of liver fibrosis in patients, findings such as highly elevated liver stiffness, FIB-4, and enhanced liver fibrosis scores can predict an increased risk for hepatic decompensation and mortality, the authors write.
 

Intervention guidance

Patients with NAFLD who are overweight or obese should be prescribed a reduced calorie diet in a multidisciplinary setting because weight loss “improves hepatic steatosis, NASH, and hepatic fibrosis in a dose-dependent manner,” the guidance states.

Bariatric surgery should be considered in appropriate patients because of its effectiveness in resolving NAFLD and NASH in most patients without cirrhosis, the guidance says. However, in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis, the type, safety, and efficacy of bariatric surgery is not established, so a “careful benefit-risk assessment by a multidisciplinary team of experts that includes a hepatologist” is needed, the authors note.

The guidance discusses alcohol consumption’s role in the progression of fatty liver disease and recommends that intake be assessed on a regular basis in patients with NAFLD. Patients with clinically significant hepatic fibrosis should abstain completely, it adds. Abstinence, particularly for patients with moderate to heavy alcohol intake, may lower the risk of fibrosis progression and hepatic and extrahepatic malignancies, the authors note.

Additionally, drinking at least three cups of coffee, caffeinated or not, per day is “associated with less-advanced liver disease,” they write.

The guidance also sets out key considerations for people with comorbid conditions. It states that patients with NAFLD should be screened for type 2 diabetes and that statins can be safely used for cardiovascular risk reduction “across the disease spectrum, including compensated cirrhosis.”

While noting the lack of approved medications for NAFLD, the guidance states that some drugs prescribed for comorbidities also benefit patients with NASH. These are glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic), pioglitazone (Actos), and vitamin E supplementation in select patients.

Available data on these same drugs, however, do not show an antifibrotic benefit and haven’t been studied in patients with cirrhosis, the guidance states.

Additionally, metformin, ursodeoxycholic acid, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, silymarin, and statins do not offer meaningful histologic benefit and shouldn’t be used as a treatment for NASH.
 

Help against an ‘evolving epidemic’

The guidance is “timely and long awaited,” Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, director of the fatty liver disease program at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. NAFLD is an “evolving epidemic,” she added.

Numerous recent studies have “led to new modalities for diagnosis and therapy, and a better understanding” of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of NAFLD, she said. “More specifically, advancements in noninvasive testing, risk stratifications, and therapeutic modalities are now available and worth disseminating.”

NAFLD’s complexity and the lack of an FDA-approved therapy specifically targeting the liver means that managing the disease “requires expertise in multiple disciplines and knowledge of the latest developments,” Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted.

“This guidance describes preventive and treatment strategies for the metabolic conditions associated with NAFLD and is very useful for physicians in different specialties who treat individuals with these conditions,” she said.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rinella and Dr. Wakim-Fleming have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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