Tara Haelle

It takes at least 10 years for one-third of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) to receive a diagnosis and a median of 4 years for patients overall to get their diagnosis – numbers that haven’t budged in 3 decades, according to a study published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

This delay has persisted despite more than 2,000 publications on the condition since 2014 and a variety of educational events about it, reported Fritz R. Murray, MD, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at University Hospital Zurich and his colleagues.

“Bearing in mind that eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic and progressive disease, that, if left untreated, leads to esophageal structuring ultimately causing food impaction, the results of our analysis are a cause for concern,” the authors wrote.

“Substantial efforts are warranted to increase awareness for eosinophilic esophagitis and its hallmark symptom, solid-food dysphagia, as an age-independent red-flag symptom … in order to lower risk of long-term complications,” they added.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from 1,152 patients in a Swiss database. The patients (74% male; median age, 38 years) had all been diagnosed with EoE according to established criteria. The authors calculated the diagnostic delay from 1989 to 2021 and at three key time points: 1993 – first description of the condition, 2007 – first consensus recommendations, and 2011 – updated consensus recommendations

The median diagnostic delay over the 3 decades studied was 4 years overall and was at least 10 years in nearly one-third (32%) of the population. Diagnostic delay did not significantly change throughout the study period, year by year, or at or after any of the milestones included in the analysis, retaining the minimum 10-year delay in about one-third of all patients.

The median age at symptom onset was 30 years, with 51% of patients first experiencing symptoms between 10 and 30 years of age.

“Age at diagnosis showed a normal distribution with its peak between 30 and 40 years with 25% of the study population being diagnosed with EoE during that period,” the authors reported.

Although diagnostic delay did not differ between sexes, the length of time before diagnosis did vary on the basis of the patient’s age at diagnosis, increasing from a median of 0 years for those aged 10 years or younger to 5 years for those aged 31-40 years.

“When examining variation in diagnostic delay based on age at symptom onset, we observed an inverse association of age at symptom onset and diagnostic delay, with longest diagnostic delay observed in children,” they wrote.

Diagnostic delay was longer in those who needed an endoscopic disimpaction – a median of 6 years – before being diagnosed, compared with those who did not require this procedure, who had a median delay of 3 years. Nearly one-third (31%) of participants had at least one food impaction requiring endoscopic removal before receiving their diagnosis.

Three in four participants (74%) had a confirmed atopic condition besides eosinophilic esophagitis, with 13% not having an atopic comorbidity and another 13% lacking information on whether they did or didn’t. Those with atopic conditions were younger (median age, 29 years) when symptoms began than were those without atopic conditions (median age, 34 years).

Similarly, those with atopic conditions were younger (median age, 38 years) than those without these conditions (median age, 41 years) at the time of diagnosis. Diagnostic delay was a median 2 years shorter – 3 years vs. 5 years – for patients with concomitant atopic conditions.

“Importantly, the length of diagnosis delay (untreated disease) directly correlates with the occurrence of esophageal strictures,” the authors wrote, citing previous research finding that the prevalence of strictures rose from 17% in patients with a delay of up to 2 years to 71% in patients with a delay of more than 20 years.

“Esophageal strictures were present in around 38% of patients with a delay between 8-11 years” in that study, “a delay that is prevalent in about one third of our study population,” the authors wrote. “However, even a median delay of 4 years resulted in strictures in around 31% of untreated patients.”

Other research has found that the risk for esophageal strictures increases an estimated 9% each year that eosinophilic esophagitis goes untreated.

The authors suggested that patients’ denying symptoms or attempting to address their symptoms with changes in diet or eating behavior may be one reason for the long diagnostic delay, given other findings showing that patient-dependent delay was 18 months, compared with 6 months for physician-dependent delay. Although the authors didn’t have the information in their dataset to assess patient- vs. physician-dependent delay, a subgroup analysis revealed that patients and nongastroenterologist doctors combined made up the largest proportion of diagnosis delay.

“This fact indicates that future efforts should target the general population, and potentially primary physicians, to strengthen the awareness for eosinophilic esophagitis as a potential underlying condition in patients with dysphagia,” the authors wrote.

“A change in eating behavior, especially in cases with prolonged chewing, slow swallowing or even the necessity of drinking fluids after swallowing of solid food, should raise suspicion also in the general population,” they added.

Dr. Murray received travel support from Janssen, and 9 of the other 11 authors reported consulting, speaking, research and/or travel fees from 23 various pharmaceutical and related companies.

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

It takes at least 10 years for one-third of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) to receive a diagnosis and a median of 4 years for patients overall to get their diagnosis – numbers that haven’t budged in 3 decades, according to a study published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

This delay has persisted despite more than 2,000 publications on the condition since 2014 and a variety of educational events about it, reported Fritz R. Murray, MD, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at University Hospital Zurich and his colleagues.

“Bearing in mind that eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic and progressive disease, that, if left untreated, leads to esophageal structuring ultimately causing food impaction, the results of our analysis are a cause for concern,” the authors wrote.

“Substantial efforts are warranted to increase awareness for eosinophilic esophagitis and its hallmark symptom, solid-food dysphagia, as an age-independent red-flag symptom … in order to lower risk of long-term complications,” they added.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from 1,152 patients in a Swiss database. The patients (74% male; median age, 38 years) had all been diagnosed with EoE according to established criteria. The authors calculated the diagnostic delay from 1989 to 2021 and at three key time points: 1993 – first description of the condition, 2007 – first consensus recommendations, and 2011 – updated consensus recommendations

The median diagnostic delay over the 3 decades studied was 4 years overall and was at least 10 years in nearly one-third (32%) of the population. Diagnostic delay did not significantly change throughout the study period, year by year, or at or after any of the milestones included in the analysis, retaining the minimum 10-year delay in about one-third of all patients.

The median age at symptom onset was 30 years, with 51% of patients first experiencing symptoms between 10 and 30 years of age.

“Age at diagnosis showed a normal distribution with its peak between 30 and 40 years with 25% of the study population being diagnosed with EoE during that period,” the authors reported.

Although diagnostic delay did not differ between sexes, the length of time before diagnosis did vary on the basis of the patient’s age at diagnosis, increasing from a median of 0 years for those aged 10 years or younger to 5 years for those aged 31-40 years.

“When examining variation in diagnostic delay based on age at symptom onset, we observed an inverse association of age at symptom onset and diagnostic delay, with longest diagnostic delay observed in children,” they wrote.

Diagnostic delay was longer in those who needed an endoscopic disimpaction – a median of 6 years – before being diagnosed, compared with those who did not require this procedure, who had a median delay of 3 years. Nearly one-third (31%) of participants had at least one food impaction requiring endoscopic removal before receiving their diagnosis.

Three in four participants (74%) had a confirmed atopic condition besides eosinophilic esophagitis, with 13% not having an atopic comorbidity and another 13% lacking information on whether they did or didn’t. Those with atopic conditions were younger (median age, 29 years) when symptoms began than were those without atopic conditions (median age, 34 years).

Similarly, those with atopic conditions were younger (median age, 38 years) than those without these conditions (median age, 41 years) at the time of diagnosis. Diagnostic delay was a median 2 years shorter – 3 years vs. 5 years – for patients with concomitant atopic conditions.

“Importantly, the length of diagnosis delay (untreated disease) directly correlates with the occurrence of esophageal strictures,” the authors wrote, citing previous research finding that the prevalence of strictures rose from 17% in patients with a delay of up to 2 years to 71% in patients with a delay of more than 20 years.

“Esophageal strictures were present in around 38% of patients with a delay between 8-11 years” in that study, “a delay that is prevalent in about one third of our study population,” the authors wrote. “However, even a median delay of 4 years resulted in strictures in around 31% of untreated patients.”

Other research has found that the risk for esophageal strictures increases an estimated 9% each year that eosinophilic esophagitis goes untreated.

The authors suggested that patients’ denying symptoms or attempting to address their symptoms with changes in diet or eating behavior may be one reason for the long diagnostic delay, given other findings showing that patient-dependent delay was 18 months, compared with 6 months for physician-dependent delay. Although the authors didn’t have the information in their dataset to assess patient- vs. physician-dependent delay, a subgroup analysis revealed that patients and nongastroenterologist doctors combined made up the largest proportion of diagnosis delay.

“This fact indicates that future efforts should target the general population, and potentially primary physicians, to strengthen the awareness for eosinophilic esophagitis as a potential underlying condition in patients with dysphagia,” the authors wrote.

“A change in eating behavior, especially in cases with prolonged chewing, slow swallowing or even the necessity of drinking fluids after swallowing of solid food, should raise suspicion also in the general population,” they added.

Dr. Murray received travel support from Janssen, and 9 of the other 11 authors reported consulting, speaking, research and/or travel fees from 23 various pharmaceutical and related companies.

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

It takes at least 10 years for one-third of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) to receive a diagnosis and a median of 4 years for patients overall to get their diagnosis – numbers that haven’t budged in 3 decades, according to a study published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

This delay has persisted despite more than 2,000 publications on the condition since 2014 and a variety of educational events about it, reported Fritz R. Murray, MD, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at University Hospital Zurich and his colleagues.

“Bearing in mind that eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic and progressive disease, that, if left untreated, leads to esophageal structuring ultimately causing food impaction, the results of our analysis are a cause for concern,” the authors wrote.

“Substantial efforts are warranted to increase awareness for eosinophilic esophagitis and its hallmark symptom, solid-food dysphagia, as an age-independent red-flag symptom … in order to lower risk of long-term complications,” they added.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from 1,152 patients in a Swiss database. The patients (74% male; median age, 38 years) had all been diagnosed with EoE according to established criteria. The authors calculated the diagnostic delay from 1989 to 2021 and at three key time points: 1993 – first description of the condition, 2007 – first consensus recommendations, and 2011 – updated consensus recommendations

The median diagnostic delay over the 3 decades studied was 4 years overall and was at least 10 years in nearly one-third (32%) of the population. Diagnostic delay did not significantly change throughout the study period, year by year, or at or after any of the milestones included in the analysis, retaining the minimum 10-year delay in about one-third of all patients.

The median age at symptom onset was 30 years, with 51% of patients first experiencing symptoms between 10 and 30 years of age.

“Age at diagnosis showed a normal distribution with its peak between 30 and 40 years with 25% of the study population being diagnosed with EoE during that period,” the authors reported.

Although diagnostic delay did not differ between sexes, the length of time before diagnosis did vary on the basis of the patient’s age at diagnosis, increasing from a median of 0 years for those aged 10 years or younger to 5 years for those aged 31-40 years.

“When examining variation in diagnostic delay based on age at symptom onset, we observed an inverse association of age at symptom onset and diagnostic delay, with longest diagnostic delay observed in children,” they wrote.

Diagnostic delay was longer in those who needed an endoscopic disimpaction – a median of 6 years – before being diagnosed, compared with those who did not require this procedure, who had a median delay of 3 years. Nearly one-third (31%) of participants had at least one food impaction requiring endoscopic removal before receiving their diagnosis.

Three in four participants (74%) had a confirmed atopic condition besides eosinophilic esophagitis, with 13% not having an atopic comorbidity and another 13% lacking information on whether they did or didn’t. Those with atopic conditions were younger (median age, 29 years) when symptoms began than were those without atopic conditions (median age, 34 years).

Similarly, those with atopic conditions were younger (median age, 38 years) than those without these conditions (median age, 41 years) at the time of diagnosis. Diagnostic delay was a median 2 years shorter – 3 years vs. 5 years – for patients with concomitant atopic conditions.

“Importantly, the length of diagnosis delay (untreated disease) directly correlates with the occurrence of esophageal strictures,” the authors wrote, citing previous research finding that the prevalence of strictures rose from 17% in patients with a delay of up to 2 years to 71% in patients with a delay of more than 20 years.

“Esophageal strictures were present in around 38% of patients with a delay between 8-11 years” in that study, “a delay that is prevalent in about one third of our study population,” the authors wrote. “However, even a median delay of 4 years resulted in strictures in around 31% of untreated patients.”

Other research has found that the risk for esophageal strictures increases an estimated 9% each year that eosinophilic esophagitis goes untreated.

The authors suggested that patients’ denying symptoms or attempting to address their symptoms with changes in diet or eating behavior may be one reason for the long diagnostic delay, given other findings showing that patient-dependent delay was 18 months, compared with 6 months for physician-dependent delay. Although the authors didn’t have the information in their dataset to assess patient- vs. physician-dependent delay, a subgroup analysis revealed that patients and nongastroenterologist doctors combined made up the largest proportion of diagnosis delay.

“This fact indicates that future efforts should target the general population, and potentially primary physicians, to strengthen the awareness for eosinophilic esophagitis as a potential underlying condition in patients with dysphagia,” the authors wrote.

“A change in eating behavior, especially in cases with prolonged chewing, slow swallowing or even the necessity of drinking fluids after swallowing of solid food, should raise suspicion also in the general population,” they added.

Dr. Murray received travel support from Janssen, and 9 of the other 11 authors reported consulting, speaking, research and/or travel fees from 23 various pharmaceutical and related companies.

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

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects an estimated 8%-13% of women, and yet “it has been quite a black box for many years,” as Margo Hudson, MD, an assistant professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Harvard Medical School, Boston, puts it. That black box encompasses not only uncertainty about the etiology and pathophysiology of the condition but even what constitutes a diagnosis.

Even the international guidelines on PCOS management endorsed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine – a document developed over 15 months with the input of 37 medical organizations covering 71 countries – notes that PCOS diagnosis is “controversial and assessment and management are inconsistent.” The result, the guidelines note, is that “the needs of women with PCOS are not being adequately met.”

One of the earliest diagnostic criteria, defined in 1990 by the National Institutes of Health, required only hyperandrogenism and irregular menstruation. Then the 2003 Rotterdam Criteria added presence of polycystic ovaries on ultrasound as a third criterion. Then the Androgen Excess Society determined that PCOS required presence of hyperandrogenism with either polycystic ovaries or oligo/amenorrhea anovulation. Yet the Endocrine Society notes that excess androgen levels are seen in 60%-80% of those with PCOS, suggesting it’s not an essential requirement for diagnosis, leaving most to diagnose it in people who have two of the three key criteria. The only real agreement on diagnosis is the need to eliminate other potential diagnoses first, making PCOS always a diagnosis of exclusion.

Further, though PCOS is known as the leading cause of infertility in women, it is more than a reproductive condition, with metabolic and psychological features as well. Then there is the range of comorbidities, none of which occur in all patients with PCOS but all of which occur in a majority and which are themselves interrelated. Insulin resistance is a common feature, occurring in 50%-70% of people with PCOS. Accordingly, metabolic syndrome occurs in at least a third of people with PCOS and type 2 diabetes prevalence is higher in those with PCOS as well.

Obesity occurs in an estimated 80% of women with PCOS in the United States, though it affects only about 50% of women with PCOS outside the United States, and those with PCOS have an increased risk of hypertension. Mood disorders, particularly anxiety and depression but also, to a lesser extent, bipolar disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, are more likely in people with PCOS. And given that these comorbidities are all cardiovascular risk factors, it’s unsurprising that recent studies are finding those with PCOS to be at greater risk for cardiometabolic disease and major cardiovascular events.

“The reality is that PCOS is a heterogenous entity. It’s not one thing – it’s a syndrome,” Lubna Pal, MBBS, a professor of ob.gyn. and director of the PCOS Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. A whole host of factors are likely playing a role in the causes of PCOS, and those factors interact differently within different people. “We’re looking at things like lipid metabolism, fetal origins, the gut microbiome, genetics, epigenetics, and then dietary and environmental factors,” Nichole Tyson, MD, division chief of pediatric and adolescent gynecology and a clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health, said in an interview. And most studies have identified associations that may or may not be causal. Take, for example, endocrine disruptors. BPA levels have been shown to be higher in women with PCOS than women without, but that correlation may or may not be related to the etiology of the condition.
 

The hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis

In trying to understand the pathophysiology of the condition, much of the latest research has zeroed in on potential mechanisms in the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. “A consistent feature of PCOS is disordered gonadotropin secretion with elevated mean LH [luteinizing hormone], low or low normal FSH [follicle-stimulating hormone], and a persistently rapid frequency of GnRH [gonadotropin-releasing hormone] pulse secretion,” wrote authors of a scientific statement on aspects of PCOS.

“I think the balance is heading more to central neurologic control of the reproductive system and that disturbances there impact the GnRH cells in the hypothalamus, which then go on to give us the findings that we can measure peripherally with the LH-FSH ratio,” Dr. Hudson said in an interview.

The increased LH levels are thought to be a major driver of increased androgen levels. Current thinking suggests that the primary driver of increased LH is GnRH pulsatility, supported not only by human studies but by animal models as well. This leads to the question of what drives GnRH dysregulation. One hypothesis posits that GABA neurons play a role here, given findings that GABA levels in cerebrospinal fluid were higher in women with PCOS than those with normal ovulation.

But the culprit garnering the most attention is kisspeptin, a protein encoded by the KISS1 gene that stimulates GnRH neurons and has been linked to regulation of LH and FSH secretion. Kisspeptin, along with neurokinin B and dynorphin, is part of the triumvirate that comprises KNDy neurons, also recently implicated in menopausal vasomotor symptoms. Multiple systematic reviewsand meta-analyses have found a correlation between higher kisspeptin levels in the blood and higher circulating LH levels, regardless of body mass index. While kisspeptin is expressed in several tissues, including liver, pancreas, gonad, and adipose, it’s neural kisspeptin signaling that appears most likely to play a role in activating GnRH hormones and disrupting normal function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis.

But as noted, in at least one systematic review of kisspeptin and PCOS, “findings from animal studies suggest that kisspeptin levels are not increased in all subtypes of PCOS.” And another review found “altered” levels of kisspeptin levels in non-PCOS patients who had obesity, potentially raising questions about any associations between kisspeptin and obesity or insulin resistance.
 

Remaining chicken-and-egg questions

A hallmark of PCOS has long been, and continues to be, the string of chicken-or-egg questions that plague understanding of it. One of these is how depression and anxiety fit into the etiology of PCOS. Exploring the role of specific neurons that may overstimulate GnRH pulsatility may hold clues to a common underlying mechanism for the involvement of depression and anxiety in patients with PCOS, Dr. Hudson speculated. While previous assumptions often attributed depression and anxiety in PCOS to the symptoms – such as thin scalp hair and increased facial hair, excess weight, acne, and irregular periods – Dr. Hudson pointed out that women can address many of these symptoms with laser hair removal, weight loss, acne treatment, and similar interventions, yet they still have a lot of underlying mental health issues.

It’s also unclear whether metabolic factors so common with PCOS, particularly insulin resistance and obesity, are a result of the condition or are contributors to it. Is insulin resistance contributing to dysregulation in the neurons that interferes with normal functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis? Is abnormal functioning along this axis contributing to insulin resistance? Or neither? Or both? Or does it depend? The authors of one paper wrote that “insulin may play both direct and indirect roles in the pathogenesis of androgen excess in PCOS,” since insulin can “stimulate ovarian androgen production” and “enhance ovarian growth and follicular cyst formation in rats.”

Dr. Pal noted that “obesity itself can evolve into a PCOS-like picture,” raising questions about whether obesity or insulin resistance might be part of the causal pathway to PCOS, or whether either can trigger its development in those genetically predisposed.

“Obesity does appear to exacerbate many aspects of the PCOS phenotype, particularly those risk factors related to metabolic syndrome,” wrote the authors of a scientific statement on aspects of PCOS, but they add that “it is currently debated whether obesity per se can cause PCOS.” While massive weight loss in those with PCOS and obesity has improved multiple reproductive and metabolic issues, it hasn’t resolved all of them, they write.

Dr. Hudson said she expects there’s “some degree of appetite dysregulation and metabolic dysregulation” that contributes, but then there are other women who don’t have much of an appetite or overeat and still struggle with their weight. Evidence has also found insulin resistance in women of normal weight with PCOS. “There may be some kind of metabolic dysregulation that they have at some level, and others are clearly bothered by overeating,” Dr. Hudson said.

Similarly, it’s not clear whether the recent discovery of increased cardiovascular risks in people with PCOS is a result of the comorbidities so common with PCOS, such as obesity, or whether an underlying mechanism links the cardiovascular risk and the dysregulation of hormones. Dr. Pal would argue that, again, it’s probably both, depending on the patient.

Then there is the key feature of hyperandrogenemia. “An outstanding debate is whether the elevated androgens in PCOS women are merely a downstream endocrine response to hyperactive GnRH and LH secretion driving the ovary, or do the elevated androgens themselves act in the brain (or pituitary) during development and/or adulthood to sculpt and maintain the hypersecretion of GnRH and LH?” wrote Eulalia A. Coutinho, PhD, and Alexander S. Kauffman, PhD, in a 2019 review of the brain’s role in PCOS.

These problems may be bidirectional or part of various feedback loops. Sleep apnea is more common in people with PCOS, Dr. Tyson noted, but sleep apnea is also linked to cardiovascular, metabolic, and depression risks, and depression can play a role in obesity, which increases the risk of obstructive sleep apnea. “So you’re in this vicious cycle,” Dr. Tyson said. That’s why she also believes it’s important to change the dialogue and perspective on PCOS, to reduce the stigma attached to it, and work with patients to empower them in treating its symptoms and reducing their risk of comorbidities.
 

Recent and upcoming changes in treatment

Current treatment of PCOS already changes according to the symptoms posing the greatest problems at each stage of a person’s life, Dr. Hudson said. Younger women tend to be more bothered about the cosmetic effects of PCOS, including hair growth patterns and acne, but as they grow out of adolescence and into their 20s and 30s, infertility becomes a bigger concern for many. Then, as they start approaching menopause, metabolic and cardiovascular issues take the lead, with more of a focus on lipids, diabetes risk, and heart health.

In some ways, management of PCOS hasn’t changed much in the past several decades, except in an increased awareness of the metabolic and cardiovascular risks, which has led to more frequent screening to catch potential conditions earlier in life. What has changed, however, is improvements in the treatments used for symptoms, such as expanded bariatric surgery options and GLP-1 agonists for treating obesity. Other examples include better options for menstrual management, such as new progesterone IUDs, and optimized fertility treatments, Dr. Tyson said.

“I think with more of these large-scale studies about the pathophysiology of PCOS and how it may look in different people and the different outcomes, we may be able to tailor our treatments even further,” Dr. Tyson said. She emphasized the importance of identifying the condition early, particularly in adolescents, even if it’s identifying young people at risk for the condition rather than actually having it yet.

Early identification “gives us this chance to do a lot of preventative care and motivate older teens to have a great lifestyle, work on their diet and exercise, and manage cardiovascular” risk factors, Dr. Tyson said.

“What we do know and recognize is that there’s so many spokes to this PCOS wheel that there really should be a multidisciplinary approach to care,” Dr. Tyson said. “When I think about who would be the real doctors for patients with PCOS, these would be gynecologists, endocrinologists, dermatologists, nutritionists, psychologists, sleep specialists, and primary care at a minimum.”

Dr. Pal worries that the label of PCOS leaves it in the laps of ob.gyns. whereas, “if it was called something else, everybody would be involved in being vigilant and managing those patients.” She frequently reiterated that the label of PCOS is less important than ensuring clinicians treat the symptoms that most bother the patient.

And even if kisspeptin does play a causal role in PCOS for some patients, it’s only a subset of individuals with PCOS who would benefit from therapies developed to target it. Given the complexity of the syndrome and its many manifestations, a “galaxy of pathways” are involved in different potential subtypes of the condition. “You can’t treat PCOS as one entity,” Dr. Pal said.

Still, Dr. Hudson is optimistic that the research into potential neuroendocrine contributions to PCOS will yield therapies that go beyond just managing symptoms.

“There aren’t a lot of treatments available yet, but there may be some on the horizon,” Dr. Hudson said. “We’re still in this very primitive stage in terms of therapeutics, where we’re only addressing specific symptoms, and we haven’t been able to really address the underlying cause because we haven’t understood it as well and because we don’t have therapies that can target it,” Dr. Hudson said. “But once there are therapies developed that will target some of these central mechanisms, I think it will change completely the approach to treating PCOS for patients.”

This story was updated on Sept. 6, 2022.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects an estimated 8%-13% of women, and yet “it has been quite a black box for many years,” as Margo Hudson, MD, an assistant professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Harvard Medical School, Boston, puts it. That black box encompasses not only uncertainty about the etiology and pathophysiology of the condition but even what constitutes a diagnosis.

Even the international guidelines on PCOS management endorsed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine – a document developed over 15 months with the input of 37 medical organizations covering 71 countries – notes that PCOS diagnosis is “controversial and assessment and management are inconsistent.” The result, the guidelines note, is that “the needs of women with PCOS are not being adequately met.”

One of the earliest diagnostic criteria, defined in 1990 by the National Institutes of Health, required only hyperandrogenism and irregular menstruation. Then the 2003 Rotterdam Criteria added presence of polycystic ovaries on ultrasound as a third criterion. Then the Androgen Excess Society determined that PCOS required presence of hyperandrogenism with either polycystic ovaries or oligo/amenorrhea anovulation. Yet the Endocrine Society notes that excess androgen levels are seen in 60%-80% of those with PCOS, suggesting it’s not an essential requirement for diagnosis, leaving most to diagnose it in people who have two of the three key criteria. The only real agreement on diagnosis is the need to eliminate other potential diagnoses first, making PCOS always a diagnosis of exclusion.

Further, though PCOS is known as the leading cause of infertility in women, it is more than a reproductive condition, with metabolic and psychological features as well. Then there is the range of comorbidities, none of which occur in all patients with PCOS but all of which occur in a majority and which are themselves interrelated. Insulin resistance is a common feature, occurring in 50%-70% of people with PCOS. Accordingly, metabolic syndrome occurs in at least a third of people with PCOS and type 2 diabetes prevalence is higher in those with PCOS as well.

Obesity occurs in an estimated 80% of women with PCOS in the United States, though it affects only about 50% of women with PCOS outside the United States, and those with PCOS have an increased risk of hypertension. Mood disorders, particularly anxiety and depression but also, to a lesser extent, bipolar disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, are more likely in people with PCOS. And given that these comorbidities are all cardiovascular risk factors, it’s unsurprising that recent studies are finding those with PCOS to be at greater risk for cardiometabolic disease and major cardiovascular events.

“The reality is that PCOS is a heterogenous entity. It’s not one thing – it’s a syndrome,” Lubna Pal, MBBS, a professor of ob.gyn. and director of the PCOS Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. A whole host of factors are likely playing a role in the causes of PCOS, and those factors interact differently within different people. “We’re looking at things like lipid metabolism, fetal origins, the gut microbiome, genetics, epigenetics, and then dietary and environmental factors,” Nichole Tyson, MD, division chief of pediatric and adolescent gynecology and a clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health, said in an interview. And most studies have identified associations that may or may not be causal. Take, for example, endocrine disruptors. BPA levels have been shown to be higher in women with PCOS than women without, but that correlation may or may not be related to the etiology of the condition.
 

The hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis

In trying to understand the pathophysiology of the condition, much of the latest research has zeroed in on potential mechanisms in the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. “A consistent feature of PCOS is disordered gonadotropin secretion with elevated mean LH [luteinizing hormone], low or low normal FSH [follicle-stimulating hormone], and a persistently rapid frequency of GnRH [gonadotropin-releasing hormone] pulse secretion,” wrote authors of a scientific statement on aspects of PCOS.

“I think the balance is heading more to central neurologic control of the reproductive system and that disturbances there impact the GnRH cells in the hypothalamus, which then go on to give us the findings that we can measure peripherally with the LH-FSH ratio,” Dr. Hudson said in an interview.

The increased LH levels are thought to be a major driver of increased androgen levels. Current thinking suggests that the primary driver of increased LH is GnRH pulsatility, supported not only by human studies but by animal models as well. This leads to the question of what drives GnRH dysregulation. One hypothesis posits that GABA neurons play a role here, given findings that GABA levels in cerebrospinal fluid were higher in women with PCOS than those with normal ovulation.

But the culprit garnering the most attention is kisspeptin, a protein encoded by the KISS1 gene that stimulates GnRH neurons and has been linked to regulation of LH and FSH secretion. Kisspeptin, along with neurokinin B and dynorphin, is part of the triumvirate that comprises KNDy neurons, also recently implicated in menopausal vasomotor symptoms. Multiple systematic reviewsand meta-analyses have found a correlation between higher kisspeptin levels in the blood and higher circulating LH levels, regardless of body mass index. While kisspeptin is expressed in several tissues, including liver, pancreas, gonad, and adipose, it’s neural kisspeptin signaling that appears most likely to play a role in activating GnRH hormones and disrupting normal function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis.

But as noted, in at least one systematic review of kisspeptin and PCOS, “findings from animal studies suggest that kisspeptin levels are not increased in all subtypes of PCOS.” And another review found “altered” levels of kisspeptin levels in non-PCOS patients who had obesity, potentially raising questions about any associations between kisspeptin and obesity or insulin resistance.
 

Remaining chicken-and-egg questions

A hallmark of PCOS has long been, and continues to be, the string of chicken-or-egg questions that plague understanding of it. One of these is how depression and anxiety fit into the etiology of PCOS. Exploring the role of specific neurons that may overstimulate GnRH pulsatility may hold clues to a common underlying mechanism for the involvement of depression and anxiety in patients with PCOS, Dr. Hudson speculated. While previous assumptions often attributed depression and anxiety in PCOS to the symptoms – such as thin scalp hair and increased facial hair, excess weight, acne, and irregular periods – Dr. Hudson pointed out that women can address many of these symptoms with laser hair removal, weight loss, acne treatment, and similar interventions, yet they still have a lot of underlying mental health issues.

It’s also unclear whether metabolic factors so common with PCOS, particularly insulin resistance and obesity, are a result of the condition or are contributors to it. Is insulin resistance contributing to dysregulation in the neurons that interferes with normal functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis? Is abnormal functioning along this axis contributing to insulin resistance? Or neither? Or both? Or does it depend? The authors of one paper wrote that “insulin may play both direct and indirect roles in the pathogenesis of androgen excess in PCOS,” since insulin can “stimulate ovarian androgen production” and “enhance ovarian growth and follicular cyst formation in rats.”

Dr. Pal noted that “obesity itself can evolve into a PCOS-like picture,” raising questions about whether obesity or insulin resistance might be part of the causal pathway to PCOS, or whether either can trigger its development in those genetically predisposed.

“Obesity does appear to exacerbate many aspects of the PCOS phenotype, particularly those risk factors related to metabolic syndrome,” wrote the authors of a scientific statement on aspects of PCOS, but they add that “it is currently debated whether obesity per se can cause PCOS.” While massive weight loss in those with PCOS and obesity has improved multiple reproductive and metabolic issues, it hasn’t resolved all of them, they write.

Dr. Hudson said she expects there’s “some degree of appetite dysregulation and metabolic dysregulation” that contributes, but then there are other women who don’t have much of an appetite or overeat and still struggle with their weight. Evidence has also found insulin resistance in women of normal weight with PCOS. “There may be some kind of metabolic dysregulation that they have at some level, and others are clearly bothered by overeating,” Dr. Hudson said.

Similarly, it’s not clear whether the recent discovery of increased cardiovascular risks in people with PCOS is a result of the comorbidities so common with PCOS, such as obesity, or whether an underlying mechanism links the cardiovascular risk and the dysregulation of hormones. Dr. Pal would argue that, again, it’s probably both, depending on the patient.

Then there is the key feature of hyperandrogenemia. “An outstanding debate is whether the elevated androgens in PCOS women are merely a downstream endocrine response to hyperactive GnRH and LH secretion driving the ovary, or do the elevated androgens themselves act in the brain (or pituitary) during development and/or adulthood to sculpt and maintain the hypersecretion of GnRH and LH?” wrote Eulalia A. Coutinho, PhD, and Alexander S. Kauffman, PhD, in a 2019 review of the brain’s role in PCOS.

These problems may be bidirectional or part of various feedback loops. Sleep apnea is more common in people with PCOS, Dr. Tyson noted, but sleep apnea is also linked to cardiovascular, metabolic, and depression risks, and depression can play a role in obesity, which increases the risk of obstructive sleep apnea. “So you’re in this vicious cycle,” Dr. Tyson said. That’s why she also believes it’s important to change the dialogue and perspective on PCOS, to reduce the stigma attached to it, and work with patients to empower them in treating its symptoms and reducing their risk of comorbidities.
 

Recent and upcoming changes in treatment

Current treatment of PCOS already changes according to the symptoms posing the greatest problems at each stage of a person’s life, Dr. Hudson said. Younger women tend to be more bothered about the cosmetic effects of PCOS, including hair growth patterns and acne, but as they grow out of adolescence and into their 20s and 30s, infertility becomes a bigger concern for many. Then, as they start approaching menopause, metabolic and cardiovascular issues take the lead, with more of a focus on lipids, diabetes risk, and heart health.

In some ways, management of PCOS hasn’t changed much in the past several decades, except in an increased awareness of the metabolic and cardiovascular risks, which has led to more frequent screening to catch potential conditions earlier in life. What has changed, however, is improvements in the treatments used for symptoms, such as expanded bariatric surgery options and GLP-1 agonists for treating obesity. Other examples include better options for menstrual management, such as new progesterone IUDs, and optimized fertility treatments, Dr. Tyson said.

“I think with more of these large-scale studies about the pathophysiology of PCOS and how it may look in different people and the different outcomes, we may be able to tailor our treatments even further,” Dr. Tyson said. She emphasized the importance of identifying the condition early, particularly in adolescents, even if it’s identifying young people at risk for the condition rather than actually having it yet.

Early identification “gives us this chance to do a lot of preventative care and motivate older teens to have a great lifestyle, work on their diet and exercise, and manage cardiovascular” risk factors, Dr. Tyson said.

“What we do know and recognize is that there’s so many spokes to this PCOS wheel that there really should be a multidisciplinary approach to care,” Dr. Tyson said. “When I think about who would be the real doctors for patients with PCOS, these would be gynecologists, endocrinologists, dermatologists, nutritionists, psychologists, sleep specialists, and primary care at a minimum.”

Dr. Pal worries that the label of PCOS leaves it in the laps of ob.gyns. whereas, “if it was called something else, everybody would be involved in being vigilant and managing those patients.” She frequently reiterated that the label of PCOS is less important than ensuring clinicians treat the symptoms that most bother the patient.

And even if kisspeptin does play a causal role in PCOS for some patients, it’s only a subset of individuals with PCOS who would benefit from therapies developed to target it. Given the complexity of the syndrome and its many manifestations, a “galaxy of pathways” are involved in different potential subtypes of the condition. “You can’t treat PCOS as one entity,” Dr. Pal said.

Still, Dr. Hudson is optimistic that the research into potential neuroendocrine contributions to PCOS will yield therapies that go beyond just managing symptoms.

“There aren’t a lot of treatments available yet, but there may be some on the horizon,” Dr. Hudson said. “We’re still in this very primitive stage in terms of therapeutics, where we’re only addressing specific symptoms, and we haven’t been able to really address the underlying cause because we haven’t understood it as well and because we don’t have therapies that can target it,” Dr. Hudson said. “But once there are therapies developed that will target some of these central mechanisms, I think it will change completely the approach to treating PCOS for patients.”

This story was updated on Sept. 6, 2022.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects an estimated 8%-13% of women, and yet “it has been quite a black box for many years,” as Margo Hudson, MD, an assistant professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Harvard Medical School, Boston, puts it. That black box encompasses not only uncertainty about the etiology and pathophysiology of the condition but even what constitutes a diagnosis.

Even the international guidelines on PCOS management endorsed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine – a document developed over 15 months with the input of 37 medical organizations covering 71 countries – notes that PCOS diagnosis is “controversial and assessment and management are inconsistent.” The result, the guidelines note, is that “the needs of women with PCOS are not being adequately met.”

One of the earliest diagnostic criteria, defined in 1990 by the National Institutes of Health, required only hyperandrogenism and irregular menstruation. Then the 2003 Rotterdam Criteria added presence of polycystic ovaries on ultrasound as a third criterion. Then the Androgen Excess Society determined that PCOS required presence of hyperandrogenism with either polycystic ovaries or oligo/amenorrhea anovulation. Yet the Endocrine Society notes that excess androgen levels are seen in 60%-80% of those with PCOS, suggesting it’s not an essential requirement for diagnosis, leaving most to diagnose it in people who have two of the three key criteria. The only real agreement on diagnosis is the need to eliminate other potential diagnoses first, making PCOS always a diagnosis of exclusion.

Further, though PCOS is known as the leading cause of infertility in women, it is more than a reproductive condition, with metabolic and psychological features as well. Then there is the range of comorbidities, none of which occur in all patients with PCOS but all of which occur in a majority and which are themselves interrelated. Insulin resistance is a common feature, occurring in 50%-70% of people with PCOS. Accordingly, metabolic syndrome occurs in at least a third of people with PCOS and type 2 diabetes prevalence is higher in those with PCOS as well.

Obesity occurs in an estimated 80% of women with PCOS in the United States, though it affects only about 50% of women with PCOS outside the United States, and those with PCOS have an increased risk of hypertension. Mood disorders, particularly anxiety and depression but also, to a lesser extent, bipolar disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, are more likely in people with PCOS. And given that these comorbidities are all cardiovascular risk factors, it’s unsurprising that recent studies are finding those with PCOS to be at greater risk for cardiometabolic disease and major cardiovascular events.

“The reality is that PCOS is a heterogenous entity. It’s not one thing – it’s a syndrome,” Lubna Pal, MBBS, a professor of ob.gyn. and director of the PCOS Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. A whole host of factors are likely playing a role in the causes of PCOS, and those factors interact differently within different people. “We’re looking at things like lipid metabolism, fetal origins, the gut microbiome, genetics, epigenetics, and then dietary and environmental factors,” Nichole Tyson, MD, division chief of pediatric and adolescent gynecology and a clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health, said in an interview. And most studies have identified associations that may or may not be causal. Take, for example, endocrine disruptors. BPA levels have been shown to be higher in women with PCOS than women without, but that correlation may or may not be related to the etiology of the condition.
 

The hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis

In trying to understand the pathophysiology of the condition, much of the latest research has zeroed in on potential mechanisms in the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. “A consistent feature of PCOS is disordered gonadotropin secretion with elevated mean LH [luteinizing hormone], low or low normal FSH [follicle-stimulating hormone], and a persistently rapid frequency of GnRH [gonadotropin-releasing hormone] pulse secretion,” wrote authors of a scientific statement on aspects of PCOS.

“I think the balance is heading more to central neurologic control of the reproductive system and that disturbances there impact the GnRH cells in the hypothalamus, which then go on to give us the findings that we can measure peripherally with the LH-FSH ratio,” Dr. Hudson said in an interview.

The increased LH levels are thought to be a major driver of increased androgen levels. Current thinking suggests that the primary driver of increased LH is GnRH pulsatility, supported not only by human studies but by animal models as well. This leads to the question of what drives GnRH dysregulation. One hypothesis posits that GABA neurons play a role here, given findings that GABA levels in cerebrospinal fluid were higher in women with PCOS than those with normal ovulation.

But the culprit garnering the most attention is kisspeptin, a protein encoded by the KISS1 gene that stimulates GnRH neurons and has been linked to regulation of LH and FSH secretion. Kisspeptin, along with neurokinin B and dynorphin, is part of the triumvirate that comprises KNDy neurons, also recently implicated in menopausal vasomotor symptoms. Multiple systematic reviewsand meta-analyses have found a correlation between higher kisspeptin levels in the blood and higher circulating LH levels, regardless of body mass index. While kisspeptin is expressed in several tissues, including liver, pancreas, gonad, and adipose, it’s neural kisspeptin signaling that appears most likely to play a role in activating GnRH hormones and disrupting normal function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis.

But as noted, in at least one systematic review of kisspeptin and PCOS, “findings from animal studies suggest that kisspeptin levels are not increased in all subtypes of PCOS.” And another review found “altered” levels of kisspeptin levels in non-PCOS patients who had obesity, potentially raising questions about any associations between kisspeptin and obesity or insulin resistance.
 

Remaining chicken-and-egg questions

A hallmark of PCOS has long been, and continues to be, the string of chicken-or-egg questions that plague understanding of it. One of these is how depression and anxiety fit into the etiology of PCOS. Exploring the role of specific neurons that may overstimulate GnRH pulsatility may hold clues to a common underlying mechanism for the involvement of depression and anxiety in patients with PCOS, Dr. Hudson speculated. While previous assumptions often attributed depression and anxiety in PCOS to the symptoms – such as thin scalp hair and increased facial hair, excess weight, acne, and irregular periods – Dr. Hudson pointed out that women can address many of these symptoms with laser hair removal, weight loss, acne treatment, and similar interventions, yet they still have a lot of underlying mental health issues.

It’s also unclear whether metabolic factors so common with PCOS, particularly insulin resistance and obesity, are a result of the condition or are contributors to it. Is insulin resistance contributing to dysregulation in the neurons that interferes with normal functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis? Is abnormal functioning along this axis contributing to insulin resistance? Or neither? Or both? Or does it depend? The authors of one paper wrote that “insulin may play both direct and indirect roles in the pathogenesis of androgen excess in PCOS,” since insulin can “stimulate ovarian androgen production” and “enhance ovarian growth and follicular cyst formation in rats.”

Dr. Pal noted that “obesity itself can evolve into a PCOS-like picture,” raising questions about whether obesity or insulin resistance might be part of the causal pathway to PCOS, or whether either can trigger its development in those genetically predisposed.

“Obesity does appear to exacerbate many aspects of the PCOS phenotype, particularly those risk factors related to metabolic syndrome,” wrote the authors of a scientific statement on aspects of PCOS, but they add that “it is currently debated whether obesity per se can cause PCOS.” While massive weight loss in those with PCOS and obesity has improved multiple reproductive and metabolic issues, it hasn’t resolved all of them, they write.

Dr. Hudson said she expects there’s “some degree of appetite dysregulation and metabolic dysregulation” that contributes, but then there are other women who don’t have much of an appetite or overeat and still struggle with their weight. Evidence has also found insulin resistance in women of normal weight with PCOS. “There may be some kind of metabolic dysregulation that they have at some level, and others are clearly bothered by overeating,” Dr. Hudson said.

Similarly, it’s not clear whether the recent discovery of increased cardiovascular risks in people with PCOS is a result of the comorbidities so common with PCOS, such as obesity, or whether an underlying mechanism links the cardiovascular risk and the dysregulation of hormones. Dr. Pal would argue that, again, it’s probably both, depending on the patient.

Then there is the key feature of hyperandrogenemia. “An outstanding debate is whether the elevated androgens in PCOS women are merely a downstream endocrine response to hyperactive GnRH and LH secretion driving the ovary, or do the elevated androgens themselves act in the brain (or pituitary) during development and/or adulthood to sculpt and maintain the hypersecretion of GnRH and LH?” wrote Eulalia A. Coutinho, PhD, and Alexander S. Kauffman, PhD, in a 2019 review of the brain’s role in PCOS.

These problems may be bidirectional or part of various feedback loops. Sleep apnea is more common in people with PCOS, Dr. Tyson noted, but sleep apnea is also linked to cardiovascular, metabolic, and depression risks, and depression can play a role in obesity, which increases the risk of obstructive sleep apnea. “So you’re in this vicious cycle,” Dr. Tyson said. That’s why she also believes it’s important to change the dialogue and perspective on PCOS, to reduce the stigma attached to it, and work with patients to empower them in treating its symptoms and reducing their risk of comorbidities.
 

Recent and upcoming changes in treatment

Current treatment of PCOS already changes according to the symptoms posing the greatest problems at each stage of a person’s life, Dr. Hudson said. Younger women tend to be more bothered about the cosmetic effects of PCOS, including hair growth patterns and acne, but as they grow out of adolescence and into their 20s and 30s, infertility becomes a bigger concern for many. Then, as they start approaching menopause, metabolic and cardiovascular issues take the lead, with more of a focus on lipids, diabetes risk, and heart health.

In some ways, management of PCOS hasn’t changed much in the past several decades, except in an increased awareness of the metabolic and cardiovascular risks, which has led to more frequent screening to catch potential conditions earlier in life. What has changed, however, is improvements in the treatments used for symptoms, such as expanded bariatric surgery options and GLP-1 agonists for treating obesity. Other examples include better options for menstrual management, such as new progesterone IUDs, and optimized fertility treatments, Dr. Tyson said.

“I think with more of these large-scale studies about the pathophysiology of PCOS and how it may look in different people and the different outcomes, we may be able to tailor our treatments even further,” Dr. Tyson said. She emphasized the importance of identifying the condition early, particularly in adolescents, even if it’s identifying young people at risk for the condition rather than actually having it yet.

Early identification “gives us this chance to do a lot of preventative care and motivate older teens to have a great lifestyle, work on their diet and exercise, and manage cardiovascular” risk factors, Dr. Tyson said.

“What we do know and recognize is that there’s so many spokes to this PCOS wheel that there really should be a multidisciplinary approach to care,” Dr. Tyson said. “When I think about who would be the real doctors for patients with PCOS, these would be gynecologists, endocrinologists, dermatologists, nutritionists, psychologists, sleep specialists, and primary care at a minimum.”

Dr. Pal worries that the label of PCOS leaves it in the laps of ob.gyns. whereas, “if it was called something else, everybody would be involved in being vigilant and managing those patients.” She frequently reiterated that the label of PCOS is less important than ensuring clinicians treat the symptoms that most bother the patient.

And even if kisspeptin does play a causal role in PCOS for some patients, it’s only a subset of individuals with PCOS who would benefit from therapies developed to target it. Given the complexity of the syndrome and its many manifestations, a “galaxy of pathways” are involved in different potential subtypes of the condition. “You can’t treat PCOS as one entity,” Dr. Pal said.

Still, Dr. Hudson is optimistic that the research into potential neuroendocrine contributions to PCOS will yield therapies that go beyond just managing symptoms.

“There aren’t a lot of treatments available yet, but there may be some on the horizon,” Dr. Hudson said. “We’re still in this very primitive stage in terms of therapeutics, where we’re only addressing specific symptoms, and we haven’t been able to really address the underlying cause because we haven’t understood it as well and because we don’t have therapies that can target it,” Dr. Hudson said. “But once there are therapies developed that will target some of these central mechanisms, I think it will change completely the approach to treating PCOS for patients.”

This story was updated on Sept. 6, 2022.

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

Just about every child hears it growing up: An ache in the leg? “Growing pains.” A dull pain in the side? “Growing pains.”

The catch-all phrase for random pains that children and teens have is so common that it even inspired the name of a 1980s sitcom. Yet when scientists dug into the evidence to find out what growing pains actually are, they found out that no one really knows. The definitions were as random and all over the place as the very pains that kids complain about, the researchers report in the journal Pediatrics.

Although some studies have suggested that up to a third of children have growing pains, the term has long seemed more like folk medicine than an actual medical diagnosis. Even so, parents, teachers, and doctors frequently use it when they have no other obvious answer to a particular pain a child or teen might describe.

A group of researchers at the University of Sydney in Australia wanted to find out if there was any research offering a more precise definition or criteria. They combed through eight databases for any papers that mentioned growing pains or growth pains in children or adolescents. They found 145 studies and set out to look for common ground: Where do growing pains occur? At what age do they start? Are there any patterns? Risk factors? Common clinical features? Relationships to particular activities?

What they found was that there is “no consensus whatsoever as to what growing pains really are, what they mean, how they’re defined, and how they should be diagnosed,” coauthor Steven J. Kamper, PhD, explained in a video about the findings. “The definitions were really variable, really vague, and sometimes downright contradictory,” he said. “Some studies would suggest growing pains happen in the arms, some in the lower limbs only. Some said it was about muscles, some about joints.”

The closest thing to consistency that they found was that exactly half the studies mentioned the pain being in the lower limbs. Nearly half (48%) described it as happening in the evening or nighttime, 42% said it was recurring, 35% reported it as occurring in youths with an otherwise normal physical exam, and 31% said the pain occurred on both sides of the body. Besides these, no other common feature was mentioned in more than 30% of the studies.

“Really curiously,” Dr. Kamper said, “more than 80% said nothing about the age at which these growing pains come on.” And 93% of the studies didn’t even mention growth as being related to the pain at all.

Several studies did acknowledge that the cause of growing pains is unknown, and several others considered it a diagnosis of exclusion – that is, it’s the diagnosis when everything else has been ruled out.

But that’s hardly a satisfactory explanation for kids and their families, so the researchers drew the only reasonable conclusion they could from what they found: “We think it’s important that the term is not used without some qualification or clarification, whether by researchers or clinicians,” Dr. Kamper said.

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

Just about every child hears it growing up: An ache in the leg? “Growing pains.” A dull pain in the side? “Growing pains.”

The catch-all phrase for random pains that children and teens have is so common that it even inspired the name of a 1980s sitcom. Yet when scientists dug into the evidence to find out what growing pains actually are, they found out that no one really knows. The definitions were as random and all over the place as the very pains that kids complain about, the researchers report in the journal Pediatrics.

Although some studies have suggested that up to a third of children have growing pains, the term has long seemed more like folk medicine than an actual medical diagnosis. Even so, parents, teachers, and doctors frequently use it when they have no other obvious answer to a particular pain a child or teen might describe.

A group of researchers at the University of Sydney in Australia wanted to find out if there was any research offering a more precise definition or criteria. They combed through eight databases for any papers that mentioned growing pains or growth pains in children or adolescents. They found 145 studies and set out to look for common ground: Where do growing pains occur? At what age do they start? Are there any patterns? Risk factors? Common clinical features? Relationships to particular activities?

What they found was that there is “no consensus whatsoever as to what growing pains really are, what they mean, how they’re defined, and how they should be diagnosed,” coauthor Steven J. Kamper, PhD, explained in a video about the findings. “The definitions were really variable, really vague, and sometimes downright contradictory,” he said. “Some studies would suggest growing pains happen in the arms, some in the lower limbs only. Some said it was about muscles, some about joints.”

The closest thing to consistency that they found was that exactly half the studies mentioned the pain being in the lower limbs. Nearly half (48%) described it as happening in the evening or nighttime, 42% said it was recurring, 35% reported it as occurring in youths with an otherwise normal physical exam, and 31% said the pain occurred on both sides of the body. Besides these, no other common feature was mentioned in more than 30% of the studies.

“Really curiously,” Dr. Kamper said, “more than 80% said nothing about the age at which these growing pains come on.” And 93% of the studies didn’t even mention growth as being related to the pain at all.

Several studies did acknowledge that the cause of growing pains is unknown, and several others considered it a diagnosis of exclusion – that is, it’s the diagnosis when everything else has been ruled out.

But that’s hardly a satisfactory explanation for kids and their families, so the researchers drew the only reasonable conclusion they could from what they found: “We think it’s important that the term is not used without some qualification or clarification, whether by researchers or clinicians,” Dr. Kamper said.

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

Just about every child hears it growing up: An ache in the leg? “Growing pains.” A dull pain in the side? “Growing pains.”

The catch-all phrase for random pains that children and teens have is so common that it even inspired the name of a 1980s sitcom. Yet when scientists dug into the evidence to find out what growing pains actually are, they found out that no one really knows. The definitions were as random and all over the place as the very pains that kids complain about, the researchers report in the journal Pediatrics.

Although some studies have suggested that up to a third of children have growing pains, the term has long seemed more like folk medicine than an actual medical diagnosis. Even so, parents, teachers, and doctors frequently use it when they have no other obvious answer to a particular pain a child or teen might describe.

A group of researchers at the University of Sydney in Australia wanted to find out if there was any research offering a more precise definition or criteria. They combed through eight databases for any papers that mentioned growing pains or growth pains in children or adolescents. They found 145 studies and set out to look for common ground: Where do growing pains occur? At what age do they start? Are there any patterns? Risk factors? Common clinical features? Relationships to particular activities?

What they found was that there is “no consensus whatsoever as to what growing pains really are, what they mean, how they’re defined, and how they should be diagnosed,” coauthor Steven J. Kamper, PhD, explained in a video about the findings. “The definitions were really variable, really vague, and sometimes downright contradictory,” he said. “Some studies would suggest growing pains happen in the arms, some in the lower limbs only. Some said it was about muscles, some about joints.”

The closest thing to consistency that they found was that exactly half the studies mentioned the pain being in the lower limbs. Nearly half (48%) described it as happening in the evening or nighttime, 42% said it was recurring, 35% reported it as occurring in youths with an otherwise normal physical exam, and 31% said the pain occurred on both sides of the body. Besides these, no other common feature was mentioned in more than 30% of the studies.

“Really curiously,” Dr. Kamper said, “more than 80% said nothing about the age at which these growing pains come on.” And 93% of the studies didn’t even mention growth as being related to the pain at all.

Several studies did acknowledge that the cause of growing pains is unknown, and several others considered it a diagnosis of exclusion – that is, it’s the diagnosis when everything else has been ruled out.

But that’s hardly a satisfactory explanation for kids and their families, so the researchers drew the only reasonable conclusion they could from what they found: “We think it’s important that the term is not used without some qualification or clarification, whether by researchers or clinicians,” Dr. Kamper said.

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

Most patients with drug-resistant epilepsy should receive a referral for a surgical evaluation as soon as it’s clear their disease is drug resistant, according to expert consensus recommendations from the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) published in the journal Epilepsia.

Comprehensive epilepsy care

Such a referral is not ”a commitment to undergo brain surgery,” wrote the authors of the new recommendations study, but surgical evaluations offer patients an opportunity to learn about the range of therapies available to them and to have their diagnosis verified, as well as learning about the cause and type of epilepsy they have, even if they ultimately do not pursue surgery.

”In fact, most patients with drug-resistant epilepsy do not end up undergoing surgery after referral, but still benefit from comprehensive epilepsy care improving quality of life and lowering mortality,” wrote lead author Lara Jehi, MD, professor of neurology and epilepsy specialist at Cleveland Clinic, and her colleagues. “A better characterization of the epilepsy can also help optimize medical therapy and address somatic, cognitive, behavioral, and psychiatric comorbidities.”
 

Is the diagnosis correct?

They noted that about one-third of patients referred to epilepsy centers with an apparent diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy actually have psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) – not epilepsy – and an early, accurate diagnosis of PNES can ensure they receive psychotherapy, stop taking antiseizure medications, and have better outcomes.

“These recommendations are necessary, as the delay to surgery and the overall underutilization of surgery have not improved much over the last 20 years,” said Selim R. Benbadis, MD, professor of neurology and director of the comprehensive epilepsy program at the University of South Florida and Tampa General Hospital. “Comprehensive epilepsy centers offer more than surgery, including correct and precise diagnosis, drug options, three [Food and Drug Administration]–approved neurostimulation options, and more,” said Dr. Benbadis, who was not involved in the development of these recommendations.
 

Consensus recommendations

On behalf of the the ILAE’s Surgical Therapies Commission, the authors used the Delphi consensus process to develop expert consensus recommendations on when to refer patients with epilepsy to surgery. They conducted three Delphi rounds on 51 clinical scenarios with 61 epileptologists (38% of participants), epilepsy neurosurgeons (34%), neurologists (23%), neuropsychiatrists (2%), and neuropsychologists (3%) from 28 countries. Most of clinicians focused on adults (39%) or adults and children (41%) while 20% focused only on pediatric epilepsy.

The physicians involved had a median 22 years of practice and represented all six ILAE regions: 30% from North America, 28% from Europe, 18% from Asia/Oceania, 13% from Latin America, 7% from the Eastern Mediterranean, and 4% from Africa.

The result of these rounds were three key recommendations arising from the consensus of experts consulted. First, every patient up to 70 years old who has drug-resistant epilepsy should be offered the option of a surgical evaluation as soon as it’s apparent that they have drug resistance. The option for surgical evaluation should be provided independent of their sex or socioeconomic status and regardless of how long they have had epilepsy, their seizure type, their epilepsy type, localization, and their comorbidities, ”including severe psychiatric comorbidity like psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) or substance abuse if patients are cooperative with management,” the authors wrote.

”Resective surgery can improve quality of life and cognitive outcomes and is the only treatment demonstrated to improve survival and reverse excess mortality attributed to drug-resistant epilepsy,” the authors wrote. Evidence supports that surgical evaluation is the most cost-effective approach to treating drug-resistant epilepsy, they added. Yet, it still takes about 20 years with epilepsy before an adult patient might be referred, ”and the neurology community remains ambivalent due to ongoing barriers and misconceptions about epilepsy surgery,” they wrote.

The second recommendation is to consider a surgical referral for older patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who have no surgical contraindication. Physicians can also consider a referral for patients of any age who are seizure free while taking one to two antiseizure drugs but who have a brain lesion in the noneloquent cortex.

The third recommendation is not to offer surgery if a patient has an active substance dependency and is not cooperative with management.

“Although there is some evidence that seizure outcomes are no different in individuals with active substance use disorder who have epilepsy surgery, the literature suggests increased perioperative surgical and anesthetic risk in this cohort,” the authors wrote. ”Patients with active substance abuse are more likely to be nonadherent with their seizure medications, and to leave the hospital against medical advice.”

One area where the participants did not reach consensus was regarding whether to refer patients who did not become seizure-free after trying just one “tolerated and appropriately chosen” antiseizure medication. Half (49%) said they would be unlikely to refer or would never refer that patient while 44% said they would likely or always refer them, and 7% weren’t sure.
 

The ‘next level’ of epilepsy care

“Similar recommendations have been published before, by the National Association of Epilepsy Centers, more than once, and have not changed the referral patterns,” Dr. Benbadis said. “They are not implemented by the average general neurologist.” While there are many reasons for this, one with a relativity simple fix is to adjust the language doctors use to when talking with patients about getting an evaluation, Dr. Benbadis said. ”The key is to rephrase: Instead of referrals ‘for surgery,’ which can be scary to many neurologists and patients, we should use more general terms, like referrals for the ‘next level of care by epilepsy specialists,’ ” said Dr. Benbadis, who advocated for this change in terminology in a 2019 editorial. Such language is less frightening and can ease patients’ concerns about going to an epilepsy center where they can learn about more options than just surgery.

Further, surgical options have expanded in recent years, including the development of laser interstitial thermal therapy and neuromodulation. “Identifying candidacy for any of these approaches starts with a surgical referral, so a timely evaluation is key,” the authors wrote.
 

Referral delays persist

Despite the strong evidence for timely referrals, delays have persisted for decades, said Dr. Benbadis, echoing what the authors describe. ”Despite the results of two randomized controlled trials showing that surgery for temporal lobe epilepsy in adults, and resective surgery in children, is superior to continued antiseizure medications both in terms of seizure freedom and improved quality of life, the mean epilepsy duration to temporal lobe resection has persisted at over 20 years,” the authors wrote. ”Although drug resistance is reached with a mean latency of 9 years in epilepsy surgery candidates, these patients have experienced a decade of unabating seizures with detrimental effects including cognitive and psychiatric comorbidities, poor psychosocial outcomes, potential injuries, and risk of death.”

Surgery is not a ‘dangerous last resort’

The authors point out a variety of likely reasons for these delays, including patients experiencing temporary remissions with a new drug, lack of adequate health care access, overestimating surgery risks, and underestimating the seriousness and risk of death from ongoing seizures.

Dr. Benbadis agreed, referring to a “combination of lack of knowledge and unrealistic views about surgery outcomes and complications.” Patients and their neurologists think surgery is a “dangerous last resort, fraught with complications, and they don’t know the outcome, so it’s mainly that they are not very well-educated about epilepsy surgery,” he said. Complacency about a patient’s infrequent seizures plays a role as well, he added. “Their patient is having one seizure every 2 months, and they might say, ‘well, that’s okay, that’s not that bad,’ but it is when we can cure it.”

Similar factors are barriers to epilepsy surgery: “lack of knowledge or misconceptions about surgical risks, negative behaviors, or cultural issues and access issues.”

Another major barrier, both within neurology and throughout medicine in general, is that large academic centers that accept referrals, including epilepsy centers, have poor communication, follow-up, and scheduling, Dr. Benbadis said.

The authors provided a table with suggestions on potential solutions to those barriers, including identifying online resources to help doctors identify possible surgery candidates, such as www.toolsforepilepsy.com, and a range of educational resources. Ways to improve access and cost include mobile clinics, telehealth, coordinating with an epilepsy organization, and employing a multidisciplinary team that includes a social worker to help with support such as transportation and health insurance.

Most patients with drug-resistant epilepsy should receive a referral for a surgical evaluation as soon as it’s clear their disease is drug resistant, according to expert consensus recommendations from the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) published in the journal Epilepsia.

Comprehensive epilepsy care

Such a referral is not ”a commitment to undergo brain surgery,” wrote the authors of the new recommendations study, but surgical evaluations offer patients an opportunity to learn about the range of therapies available to them and to have their diagnosis verified, as well as learning about the cause and type of epilepsy they have, even if they ultimately do not pursue surgery.

”In fact, most patients with drug-resistant epilepsy do not end up undergoing surgery after referral, but still benefit from comprehensive epilepsy care improving quality of life and lowering mortality,” wrote lead author Lara Jehi, MD, professor of neurology and epilepsy specialist at Cleveland Clinic, and her colleagues. “A better characterization of the epilepsy can also help optimize medical therapy and address somatic, cognitive, behavioral, and psychiatric comorbidities.”
 

Is the diagnosis correct?

They noted that about one-third of patients referred to epilepsy centers with an apparent diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy actually have psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) – not epilepsy – and an early, accurate diagnosis of PNES can ensure they receive psychotherapy, stop taking antiseizure medications, and have better outcomes.

“These recommendations are necessary, as the delay to surgery and the overall underutilization of surgery have not improved much over the last 20 years,” said Selim R. Benbadis, MD, professor of neurology and director of the comprehensive epilepsy program at the University of South Florida and Tampa General Hospital. “Comprehensive epilepsy centers offer more than surgery, including correct and precise diagnosis, drug options, three [Food and Drug Administration]–approved neurostimulation options, and more,” said Dr. Benbadis, who was not involved in the development of these recommendations.
 

Consensus recommendations

On behalf of the the ILAE’s Surgical Therapies Commission, the authors used the Delphi consensus process to develop expert consensus recommendations on when to refer patients with epilepsy to surgery. They conducted three Delphi rounds on 51 clinical scenarios with 61 epileptologists (38% of participants), epilepsy neurosurgeons (34%), neurologists (23%), neuropsychiatrists (2%), and neuropsychologists (3%) from 28 countries. Most of clinicians focused on adults (39%) or adults and children (41%) while 20% focused only on pediatric epilepsy.

The physicians involved had a median 22 years of practice and represented all six ILAE regions: 30% from North America, 28% from Europe, 18% from Asia/Oceania, 13% from Latin America, 7% from the Eastern Mediterranean, and 4% from Africa.

The result of these rounds were three key recommendations arising from the consensus of experts consulted. First, every patient up to 70 years old who has drug-resistant epilepsy should be offered the option of a surgical evaluation as soon as it’s apparent that they have drug resistance. The option for surgical evaluation should be provided independent of their sex or socioeconomic status and regardless of how long they have had epilepsy, their seizure type, their epilepsy type, localization, and their comorbidities, ”including severe psychiatric comorbidity like psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) or substance abuse if patients are cooperative with management,” the authors wrote.

”Resective surgery can improve quality of life and cognitive outcomes and is the only treatment demonstrated to improve survival and reverse excess mortality attributed to drug-resistant epilepsy,” the authors wrote. Evidence supports that surgical evaluation is the most cost-effective approach to treating drug-resistant epilepsy, they added. Yet, it still takes about 20 years with epilepsy before an adult patient might be referred, ”and the neurology community remains ambivalent due to ongoing barriers and misconceptions about epilepsy surgery,” they wrote.

The second recommendation is to consider a surgical referral for older patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who have no surgical contraindication. Physicians can also consider a referral for patients of any age who are seizure free while taking one to two antiseizure drugs but who have a brain lesion in the noneloquent cortex.

The third recommendation is not to offer surgery if a patient has an active substance dependency and is not cooperative with management.

“Although there is some evidence that seizure outcomes are no different in individuals with active substance use disorder who have epilepsy surgery, the literature suggests increased perioperative surgical and anesthetic risk in this cohort,” the authors wrote. ”Patients with active substance abuse are more likely to be nonadherent with their seizure medications, and to leave the hospital against medical advice.”

One area where the participants did not reach consensus was regarding whether to refer patients who did not become seizure-free after trying just one “tolerated and appropriately chosen” antiseizure medication. Half (49%) said they would be unlikely to refer or would never refer that patient while 44% said they would likely or always refer them, and 7% weren’t sure.
 

The ‘next level’ of epilepsy care

“Similar recommendations have been published before, by the National Association of Epilepsy Centers, more than once, and have not changed the referral patterns,” Dr. Benbadis said. “They are not implemented by the average general neurologist.” While there are many reasons for this, one with a relativity simple fix is to adjust the language doctors use to when talking with patients about getting an evaluation, Dr. Benbadis said. ”The key is to rephrase: Instead of referrals ‘for surgery,’ which can be scary to many neurologists and patients, we should use more general terms, like referrals for the ‘next level of care by epilepsy specialists,’ ” said Dr. Benbadis, who advocated for this change in terminology in a 2019 editorial. Such language is less frightening and can ease patients’ concerns about going to an epilepsy center where they can learn about more options than just surgery.

Further, surgical options have expanded in recent years, including the development of laser interstitial thermal therapy and neuromodulation. “Identifying candidacy for any of these approaches starts with a surgical referral, so a timely evaluation is key,” the authors wrote.
 

Referral delays persist

Despite the strong evidence for timely referrals, delays have persisted for decades, said Dr. Benbadis, echoing what the authors describe. ”Despite the results of two randomized controlled trials showing that surgery for temporal lobe epilepsy in adults, and resective surgery in children, is superior to continued antiseizure medications both in terms of seizure freedom and improved quality of life, the mean epilepsy duration to temporal lobe resection has persisted at over 20 years,” the authors wrote. ”Although drug resistance is reached with a mean latency of 9 years in epilepsy surgery candidates, these patients have experienced a decade of unabating seizures with detrimental effects including cognitive and psychiatric comorbidities, poor psychosocial outcomes, potential injuries, and risk of death.”

Surgery is not a ‘dangerous last resort’

The authors point out a variety of likely reasons for these delays, including patients experiencing temporary remissions with a new drug, lack of adequate health care access, overestimating surgery risks, and underestimating the seriousness and risk of death from ongoing seizures.

Dr. Benbadis agreed, referring to a “combination of lack of knowledge and unrealistic views about surgery outcomes and complications.” Patients and their neurologists think surgery is a “dangerous last resort, fraught with complications, and they don’t know the outcome, so it’s mainly that they are not very well-educated about epilepsy surgery,” he said. Complacency about a patient’s infrequent seizures plays a role as well, he added. “Their patient is having one seizure every 2 months, and they might say, ‘well, that’s okay, that’s not that bad,’ but it is when we can cure it.”

Similar factors are barriers to epilepsy surgery: “lack of knowledge or misconceptions about surgical risks, negative behaviors, or cultural issues and access issues.”

Another major barrier, both within neurology and throughout medicine in general, is that large academic centers that accept referrals, including epilepsy centers, have poor communication, follow-up, and scheduling, Dr. Benbadis said.

The authors provided a table with suggestions on potential solutions to those barriers, including identifying online resources to help doctors identify possible surgery candidates, such as www.toolsforepilepsy.com, and a range of educational resources. Ways to improve access and cost include mobile clinics, telehealth, coordinating with an epilepsy organization, and employing a multidisciplinary team that includes a social worker to help with support such as transportation and health insurance.

Most patients with drug-resistant epilepsy should receive a referral for a surgical evaluation as soon as it’s clear their disease is drug resistant, according to expert consensus recommendations from the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) published in the journal Epilepsia.

Comprehensive epilepsy care

Such a referral is not ”a commitment to undergo brain surgery,” wrote the authors of the new recommendations study, but surgical evaluations offer patients an opportunity to learn about the range of therapies available to them and to have their diagnosis verified, as well as learning about the cause and type of epilepsy they have, even if they ultimately do not pursue surgery.

”In fact, most patients with drug-resistant epilepsy do not end up undergoing surgery after referral, but still benefit from comprehensive epilepsy care improving quality of life and lowering mortality,” wrote lead author Lara Jehi, MD, professor of neurology and epilepsy specialist at Cleveland Clinic, and her colleagues. “A better characterization of the epilepsy can also help optimize medical therapy and address somatic, cognitive, behavioral, and psychiatric comorbidities.”
 

Is the diagnosis correct?

They noted that about one-third of patients referred to epilepsy centers with an apparent diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy actually have psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) – not epilepsy – and an early, accurate diagnosis of PNES can ensure they receive psychotherapy, stop taking antiseizure medications, and have better outcomes.

“These recommendations are necessary, as the delay to surgery and the overall underutilization of surgery have not improved much over the last 20 years,” said Selim R. Benbadis, MD, professor of neurology and director of the comprehensive epilepsy program at the University of South Florida and Tampa General Hospital. “Comprehensive epilepsy centers offer more than surgery, including correct and precise diagnosis, drug options, three [Food and Drug Administration]–approved neurostimulation options, and more,” said Dr. Benbadis, who was not involved in the development of these recommendations.
 

Consensus recommendations

On behalf of the the ILAE’s Surgical Therapies Commission, the authors used the Delphi consensus process to develop expert consensus recommendations on when to refer patients with epilepsy to surgery. They conducted three Delphi rounds on 51 clinical scenarios with 61 epileptologists (38% of participants), epilepsy neurosurgeons (34%), neurologists (23%), neuropsychiatrists (2%), and neuropsychologists (3%) from 28 countries. Most of clinicians focused on adults (39%) or adults and children (41%) while 20% focused only on pediatric epilepsy.

The physicians involved had a median 22 years of practice and represented all six ILAE regions: 30% from North America, 28% from Europe, 18% from Asia/Oceania, 13% from Latin America, 7% from the Eastern Mediterranean, and 4% from Africa.

The result of these rounds were three key recommendations arising from the consensus of experts consulted. First, every patient up to 70 years old who has drug-resistant epilepsy should be offered the option of a surgical evaluation as soon as it’s apparent that they have drug resistance. The option for surgical evaluation should be provided independent of their sex or socioeconomic status and regardless of how long they have had epilepsy, their seizure type, their epilepsy type, localization, and their comorbidities, ”including severe psychiatric comorbidity like psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) or substance abuse if patients are cooperative with management,” the authors wrote.

”Resective surgery can improve quality of life and cognitive outcomes and is the only treatment demonstrated to improve survival and reverse excess mortality attributed to drug-resistant epilepsy,” the authors wrote. Evidence supports that surgical evaluation is the most cost-effective approach to treating drug-resistant epilepsy, they added. Yet, it still takes about 20 years with epilepsy before an adult patient might be referred, ”and the neurology community remains ambivalent due to ongoing barriers and misconceptions about epilepsy surgery,” they wrote.

The second recommendation is to consider a surgical referral for older patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who have no surgical contraindication. Physicians can also consider a referral for patients of any age who are seizure free while taking one to two antiseizure drugs but who have a brain lesion in the noneloquent cortex.

The third recommendation is not to offer surgery if a patient has an active substance dependency and is not cooperative with management.

“Although there is some evidence that seizure outcomes are no different in individuals with active substance use disorder who have epilepsy surgery, the literature suggests increased perioperative surgical and anesthetic risk in this cohort,” the authors wrote. ”Patients with active substance abuse are more likely to be nonadherent with their seizure medications, and to leave the hospital against medical advice.”

One area where the participants did not reach consensus was regarding whether to refer patients who did not become seizure-free after trying just one “tolerated and appropriately chosen” antiseizure medication. Half (49%) said they would be unlikely to refer or would never refer that patient while 44% said they would likely or always refer them, and 7% weren’t sure.
 

The ‘next level’ of epilepsy care

“Similar recommendations have been published before, by the National Association of Epilepsy Centers, more than once, and have not changed the referral patterns,” Dr. Benbadis said. “They are not implemented by the average general neurologist.” While there are many reasons for this, one with a relativity simple fix is to adjust the language doctors use to when talking with patients about getting an evaluation, Dr. Benbadis said. ”The key is to rephrase: Instead of referrals ‘for surgery,’ which can be scary to many neurologists and patients, we should use more general terms, like referrals for the ‘next level of care by epilepsy specialists,’ ” said Dr. Benbadis, who advocated for this change in terminology in a 2019 editorial. Such language is less frightening and can ease patients’ concerns about going to an epilepsy center where they can learn about more options than just surgery.

Further, surgical options have expanded in recent years, including the development of laser interstitial thermal therapy and neuromodulation. “Identifying candidacy for any of these approaches starts with a surgical referral, so a timely evaluation is key,” the authors wrote.
 

Referral delays persist

Despite the strong evidence for timely referrals, delays have persisted for decades, said Dr. Benbadis, echoing what the authors describe. ”Despite the results of two randomized controlled trials showing that surgery for temporal lobe epilepsy in adults, and resective surgery in children, is superior to continued antiseizure medications both in terms of seizure freedom and improved quality of life, the mean epilepsy duration to temporal lobe resection has persisted at over 20 years,” the authors wrote. ”Although drug resistance is reached with a mean latency of 9 years in epilepsy surgery candidates, these patients have experienced a decade of unabating seizures with detrimental effects including cognitive and psychiatric comorbidities, poor psychosocial outcomes, potential injuries, and risk of death.”

Surgery is not a ‘dangerous last resort’

The authors point out a variety of likely reasons for these delays, including patients experiencing temporary remissions with a new drug, lack of adequate health care access, overestimating surgery risks, and underestimating the seriousness and risk of death from ongoing seizures.

Dr. Benbadis agreed, referring to a “combination of lack of knowledge and unrealistic views about surgery outcomes and complications.” Patients and their neurologists think surgery is a “dangerous last resort, fraught with complications, and they don’t know the outcome, so it’s mainly that they are not very well-educated about epilepsy surgery,” he said. Complacency about a patient’s infrequent seizures plays a role as well, he added. “Their patient is having one seizure every 2 months, and they might say, ‘well, that’s okay, that’s not that bad,’ but it is when we can cure it.”

Similar factors are barriers to epilepsy surgery: “lack of knowledge or misconceptions about surgical risks, negative behaviors, or cultural issues and access issues.”

Another major barrier, both within neurology and throughout medicine in general, is that large academic centers that accept referrals, including epilepsy centers, have poor communication, follow-up, and scheduling, Dr. Benbadis said.

The authors provided a table with suggestions on potential solutions to those barriers, including identifying online resources to help doctors identify possible surgery candidates, such as www.toolsforepilepsy.com, and a range of educational resources. Ways to improve access and cost include mobile clinics, telehealth, coordinating with an epilepsy organization, and employing a multidisciplinary team that includes a social worker to help with support such as transportation and health insurance.

Patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases may need additional vaccines or different versions of vaccines they were not previously recommended to receive, according to updated guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on vaccinations for these patients. The new guidelines pertain to routine vaccinations for adults and children and are based on the most current evidence. They include recommendations on whether to hold certain medications before or after vaccination. They do not include recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

For guidance on COVID-19 vaccine timing and frequency, the ACR directs physicians to the CDC’s recommendations for people with mild or severe immunosuppression and the ACR’s previous clinical guidance summary on the topic, last revised in February 2022. The recommendations in the new guidance differ from ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccines on whether and when to hold immunosuppressive medications when patients receive nonlive vaccines. The new guidelines now align more closely with those of EULAR, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the CDC’s recommendations for human papillomavirus (HPV), pneumococcal, and shingles vaccines.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Vaccinations in this population are particularly important because “a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in those with rheumatic diseases is infections, due to the detrimental impact immunosuppression has on the ability for the patient to properly clear the pathogen,” Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization. While immunosuppressive medications are the most common reason patients with these conditions may have impaired immune function, “some of our patients with autoimmune disease also have a preexisting immunodeficiency that can inherently blunt immune responses to either infection or vaccination,” Dr. Kim explained.

“The authors of the guidelines have done a really nice job of making distinct recommendations based on the mechanism of action of various immunosuppressive medications,” Dr. Kim said. “This helps simplify the process of deciding the timing of vaccination for the health provider, especially for those on multiple immunosuppressives who represent an important proportion of our patients with rheumatic diseases.”

The main change to the guidelines for children, aside from those related to flu vaccination, is in regard to rotavirus vaccination for infants exposed to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors or rituximab in utero. Infants prenatally exposed to rituximab should not receive the rotavirus vaccine until they are older than 6 months. Those exposed prenatally to TNF inhibitors should receive the rotavirus vaccine on time, according to the CDC schedule for all infants.

The new rotavirus recommendations follow data showing that immune responses to rotavirus are blunted in those with infliximab exposure, according to Dr. Kim.

“Thus, this poses a serious theoretical risk in newborns with mothers on [a TNF inhibitor] of ineffective clearance of rotavirus infections,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “While rotavirus infections are quite common with typically self-limiting disease, sometimes requiring hydration to counteract diarrhea-induced dehydration, this can become severe in these newborns that have [a TNF inhibitor] in their system.”

For adults, the ACR issued the following expanded indications for four vaccines for patients currently taking immunosuppressive medication:

• Patients aged 18 and older should receive the recombinant zoster vaccine against shingles.
• For patients aged 27-44 who weren’t previously vaccinated against HPV, the HPV vaccine is “conditionally recommended.”
• Patients younger than 65 should receive the pneumococcal vaccine.
• Patients aged 19-64 are conditionally recommended to receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine rather than the regular-dose flu vaccine.

The guidelines also conditionally recommend that all patients aged 65 and older who have rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine, regardless of whether they are taking immunosuppressive medication. Another new conditional recommendation is to give multiple vaccinations to patients on the same day, rather than give individual vaccines on different days.

The guidelines make conditional recommendations regarding flu and nonlive attenuated vaccines for those taking methotrexate, rituximab, or glucocorticoids. Methotrexate should be held for 2 weeks after flu vaccination as long as disease activity allows it, but patients who are taking methotrexate should continue taking it for any other nonlive attenuated vaccinations.

“Non-rheumatology providers, such as general pediatricians and internists, are encouraged to give the influenza vaccination and then consult with the patient’s rheumatology provider about holding methotrexate to avoid a missed vaccination opportunity,” the guidelines state.

Patients taking rituximab should receive the flu vaccine on schedule and continue taking rituximab. However, for these patients, the guidelines recommend to “delay any subsequent rituximab dosing for at least two weeks after influenza vaccination if disease activity allows.”

“Because of the relatively short time period between the rollout of the influenza vaccine and its season, we can’t always wait to time the B-cell depletion dosage,” Dr. Kim said. “Also, it is not always easy to synchronize the patient’s B-cell depletion dosing schedule to the influenza vaccine rollout. Thus, we now just recommend getting the influenza vaccine regardless of the patient’s last B-cell depletion dosage despite its known strong attenuation of optimal immune responses.”

For other nonlive attenuated vaccines, providers should time vaccination for when the next rituximab dose is due and then hold the drug for at least 2 weeks thereafter, providing time for the B cells to mount a response before rituximab depletes B cells again.

Patients taking less than 20 mg of prednisone daily should still receive the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccines. Those taking 20 mg or more of prednisone each day should still receive the flu vaccine, but other vaccines should be deferred until their dose of glucocorticoids has been tapered down to less than 20 mg daily.

Patients taking all other immunosuppressive medications should continue taking them for the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, but it is conditionally recommended that live attenuated vaccines be deferred. For any patient with a rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease, regardless of disease activity, it is conditionally recommended that all routine nonlive attenuated vaccines be administered.

For live attenuated virus vaccines, the ACR provides a chart on which immunosuppressive medications to hold and for how long. Glucocorticoids, methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, and oral cyclophosphamide should all be held 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after administration of a live attenuated vaccine. For those taking JAK inhibitors, the medication should be halted 1 week before administration of a live vaccine and should continue to be withheld for 4 weeks after.

For most other biologics, the ACR recommends holding the medication for one dosing interval before the live vaccine and 4 weeks thereafter. The main exception is rituximab, which should be held for 6 months before a live vaccine and then for 4 more weeks thereafter.

For patients receiving intravenous immunoglobulin, the drug should be held for 8-11 months before they are administered a live attenuated vaccine, depending on the dosage, and then 4 weeks after vaccination, regardless of dosage.

To reassure people with rheumatic disease who may have anxiety or concerns about receiving immunizations, whether taking immunosuppressive medication or not, Dr. Kim said it’s important to provide lots of education to patients.

“Fear and emotion have replaced facts, and data as a leading factor in decision-making, as seen with COVID-19,” Dr. Kim said. “The reality is that a small minority of people will have any issues with most vaccines, which include disease flares, adverse events, or acquisition of an autoimmune disease. We are not saying there is zero risk, rather, that the risk is quite small. This is where shared decision-making between the health care provider and the patient must be done effectively to enable the patient to properly weigh risk versus benefit.”

Dr. Kim has relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Kypha, Pfizer, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Exagen Diagnostics, and Foghorn Therapeutics.

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

Patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases may need additional vaccines or different versions of vaccines they were not previously recommended to receive, according to updated guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on vaccinations for these patients. The new guidelines pertain to routine vaccinations for adults and children and are based on the most current evidence. They include recommendations on whether to hold certain medications before or after vaccination. They do not include recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

For guidance on COVID-19 vaccine timing and frequency, the ACR directs physicians to the CDC’s recommendations for people with mild or severe immunosuppression and the ACR’s previous clinical guidance summary on the topic, last revised in February 2022. The recommendations in the new guidance differ from ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccines on whether and when to hold immunosuppressive medications when patients receive nonlive vaccines. The new guidelines now align more closely with those of EULAR, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the CDC’s recommendations for human papillomavirus (HPV), pneumococcal, and shingles vaccines.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Vaccinations in this population are particularly important because “a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in those with rheumatic diseases is infections, due to the detrimental impact immunosuppression has on the ability for the patient to properly clear the pathogen,” Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization. While immunosuppressive medications are the most common reason patients with these conditions may have impaired immune function, “some of our patients with autoimmune disease also have a preexisting immunodeficiency that can inherently blunt immune responses to either infection or vaccination,” Dr. Kim explained.

“The authors of the guidelines have done a really nice job of making distinct recommendations based on the mechanism of action of various immunosuppressive medications,” Dr. Kim said. “This helps simplify the process of deciding the timing of vaccination for the health provider, especially for those on multiple immunosuppressives who represent an important proportion of our patients with rheumatic diseases.”

The main change to the guidelines for children, aside from those related to flu vaccination, is in regard to rotavirus vaccination for infants exposed to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors or rituximab in utero. Infants prenatally exposed to rituximab should not receive the rotavirus vaccine until they are older than 6 months. Those exposed prenatally to TNF inhibitors should receive the rotavirus vaccine on time, according to the CDC schedule for all infants.

The new rotavirus recommendations follow data showing that immune responses to rotavirus are blunted in those with infliximab exposure, according to Dr. Kim.

“Thus, this poses a serious theoretical risk in newborns with mothers on [a TNF inhibitor] of ineffective clearance of rotavirus infections,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “While rotavirus infections are quite common with typically self-limiting disease, sometimes requiring hydration to counteract diarrhea-induced dehydration, this can become severe in these newborns that have [a TNF inhibitor] in their system.”

For adults, the ACR issued the following expanded indications for four vaccines for patients currently taking immunosuppressive medication:

• Patients aged 18 and older should receive the recombinant zoster vaccine against shingles.
• For patients aged 27-44 who weren’t previously vaccinated against HPV, the HPV vaccine is “conditionally recommended.”
• Patients younger than 65 should receive the pneumococcal vaccine.
• Patients aged 19-64 are conditionally recommended to receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine rather than the regular-dose flu vaccine.

The guidelines also conditionally recommend that all patients aged 65 and older who have rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine, regardless of whether they are taking immunosuppressive medication. Another new conditional recommendation is to give multiple vaccinations to patients on the same day, rather than give individual vaccines on different days.

The guidelines make conditional recommendations regarding flu and nonlive attenuated vaccines for those taking methotrexate, rituximab, or glucocorticoids. Methotrexate should be held for 2 weeks after flu vaccination as long as disease activity allows it, but patients who are taking methotrexate should continue taking it for any other nonlive attenuated vaccinations.

“Non-rheumatology providers, such as general pediatricians and internists, are encouraged to give the influenza vaccination and then consult with the patient’s rheumatology provider about holding methotrexate to avoid a missed vaccination opportunity,” the guidelines state.

Patients taking rituximab should receive the flu vaccine on schedule and continue taking rituximab. However, for these patients, the guidelines recommend to “delay any subsequent rituximab dosing for at least two weeks after influenza vaccination if disease activity allows.”

“Because of the relatively short time period between the rollout of the influenza vaccine and its season, we can’t always wait to time the B-cell depletion dosage,” Dr. Kim said. “Also, it is not always easy to synchronize the patient’s B-cell depletion dosing schedule to the influenza vaccine rollout. Thus, we now just recommend getting the influenza vaccine regardless of the patient’s last B-cell depletion dosage despite its known strong attenuation of optimal immune responses.”

For other nonlive attenuated vaccines, providers should time vaccination for when the next rituximab dose is due and then hold the drug for at least 2 weeks thereafter, providing time for the B cells to mount a response before rituximab depletes B cells again.

Patients taking less than 20 mg of prednisone daily should still receive the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccines. Those taking 20 mg or more of prednisone each day should still receive the flu vaccine, but other vaccines should be deferred until their dose of glucocorticoids has been tapered down to less than 20 mg daily.

Patients taking all other immunosuppressive medications should continue taking them for the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, but it is conditionally recommended that live attenuated vaccines be deferred. For any patient with a rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease, regardless of disease activity, it is conditionally recommended that all routine nonlive attenuated vaccines be administered.

For live attenuated virus vaccines, the ACR provides a chart on which immunosuppressive medications to hold and for how long. Glucocorticoids, methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, and oral cyclophosphamide should all be held 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after administration of a live attenuated vaccine. For those taking JAK inhibitors, the medication should be halted 1 week before administration of a live vaccine and should continue to be withheld for 4 weeks after.

For most other biologics, the ACR recommends holding the medication for one dosing interval before the live vaccine and 4 weeks thereafter. The main exception is rituximab, which should be held for 6 months before a live vaccine and then for 4 more weeks thereafter.

For patients receiving intravenous immunoglobulin, the drug should be held for 8-11 months before they are administered a live attenuated vaccine, depending on the dosage, and then 4 weeks after vaccination, regardless of dosage.

To reassure people with rheumatic disease who may have anxiety or concerns about receiving immunizations, whether taking immunosuppressive medication or not, Dr. Kim said it’s important to provide lots of education to patients.

“Fear and emotion have replaced facts, and data as a leading factor in decision-making, as seen with COVID-19,” Dr. Kim said. “The reality is that a small minority of people will have any issues with most vaccines, which include disease flares, adverse events, or acquisition of an autoimmune disease. We are not saying there is zero risk, rather, that the risk is quite small. This is where shared decision-making between the health care provider and the patient must be done effectively to enable the patient to properly weigh risk versus benefit.”

Dr. Kim has relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Kypha, Pfizer, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Exagen Diagnostics, and Foghorn Therapeutics.

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

Patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases may need additional vaccines or different versions of vaccines they were not previously recommended to receive, according to updated guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on vaccinations for these patients. The new guidelines pertain to routine vaccinations for adults and children and are based on the most current evidence. They include recommendations on whether to hold certain medications before or after vaccination. They do not include recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

For guidance on COVID-19 vaccine timing and frequency, the ACR directs physicians to the CDC’s recommendations for people with mild or severe immunosuppression and the ACR’s previous clinical guidance summary on the topic, last revised in February 2022. The recommendations in the new guidance differ from ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccines on whether and when to hold immunosuppressive medications when patients receive nonlive vaccines. The new guidelines now align more closely with those of EULAR, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the CDC’s recommendations for human papillomavirus (HPV), pneumococcal, and shingles vaccines.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Vaccinations in this population are particularly important because “a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in those with rheumatic diseases is infections, due to the detrimental impact immunosuppression has on the ability for the patient to properly clear the pathogen,” Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization. While immunosuppressive medications are the most common reason patients with these conditions may have impaired immune function, “some of our patients with autoimmune disease also have a preexisting immunodeficiency that can inherently blunt immune responses to either infection or vaccination,” Dr. Kim explained.

“The authors of the guidelines have done a really nice job of making distinct recommendations based on the mechanism of action of various immunosuppressive medications,” Dr. Kim said. “This helps simplify the process of deciding the timing of vaccination for the health provider, especially for those on multiple immunosuppressives who represent an important proportion of our patients with rheumatic diseases.”

The main change to the guidelines for children, aside from those related to flu vaccination, is in regard to rotavirus vaccination for infants exposed to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors or rituximab in utero. Infants prenatally exposed to rituximab should not receive the rotavirus vaccine until they are older than 6 months. Those exposed prenatally to TNF inhibitors should receive the rotavirus vaccine on time, according to the CDC schedule for all infants.

The new rotavirus recommendations follow data showing that immune responses to rotavirus are blunted in those with infliximab exposure, according to Dr. Kim.

“Thus, this poses a serious theoretical risk in newborns with mothers on [a TNF inhibitor] of ineffective clearance of rotavirus infections,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “While rotavirus infections are quite common with typically self-limiting disease, sometimes requiring hydration to counteract diarrhea-induced dehydration, this can become severe in these newborns that have [a TNF inhibitor] in their system.”

For adults, the ACR issued the following expanded indications for four vaccines for patients currently taking immunosuppressive medication:

• Patients aged 18 and older should receive the recombinant zoster vaccine against shingles.
• For patients aged 27-44 who weren’t previously vaccinated against HPV, the HPV vaccine is “conditionally recommended.”
• Patients younger than 65 should receive the pneumococcal vaccine.
• Patients aged 19-64 are conditionally recommended to receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine rather than the regular-dose flu vaccine.

The guidelines also conditionally recommend that all patients aged 65 and older who have rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine, regardless of whether they are taking immunosuppressive medication. Another new conditional recommendation is to give multiple vaccinations to patients on the same day, rather than give individual vaccines on different days.

The guidelines make conditional recommendations regarding flu and nonlive attenuated vaccines for those taking methotrexate, rituximab, or glucocorticoids. Methotrexate should be held for 2 weeks after flu vaccination as long as disease activity allows it, but patients who are taking methotrexate should continue taking it for any other nonlive attenuated vaccinations.

“Non-rheumatology providers, such as general pediatricians and internists, are encouraged to give the influenza vaccination and then consult with the patient’s rheumatology provider about holding methotrexate to avoid a missed vaccination opportunity,” the guidelines state.

Patients taking rituximab should receive the flu vaccine on schedule and continue taking rituximab. However, for these patients, the guidelines recommend to “delay any subsequent rituximab dosing for at least two weeks after influenza vaccination if disease activity allows.”

“Because of the relatively short time period between the rollout of the influenza vaccine and its season, we can’t always wait to time the B-cell depletion dosage,” Dr. Kim said. “Also, it is not always easy to synchronize the patient’s B-cell depletion dosing schedule to the influenza vaccine rollout. Thus, we now just recommend getting the influenza vaccine regardless of the patient’s last B-cell depletion dosage despite its known strong attenuation of optimal immune responses.”

For other nonlive attenuated vaccines, providers should time vaccination for when the next rituximab dose is due and then hold the drug for at least 2 weeks thereafter, providing time for the B cells to mount a response before rituximab depletes B cells again.

Patients taking less than 20 mg of prednisone daily should still receive the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccines. Those taking 20 mg or more of prednisone each day should still receive the flu vaccine, but other vaccines should be deferred until their dose of glucocorticoids has been tapered down to less than 20 mg daily.

Patients taking all other immunosuppressive medications should continue taking them for the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, but it is conditionally recommended that live attenuated vaccines be deferred. For any patient with a rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease, regardless of disease activity, it is conditionally recommended that all routine nonlive attenuated vaccines be administered.

For live attenuated virus vaccines, the ACR provides a chart on which immunosuppressive medications to hold and for how long. Glucocorticoids, methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, and oral cyclophosphamide should all be held 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after administration of a live attenuated vaccine. For those taking JAK inhibitors, the medication should be halted 1 week before administration of a live vaccine and should continue to be withheld for 4 weeks after.

For most other biologics, the ACR recommends holding the medication for one dosing interval before the live vaccine and 4 weeks thereafter. The main exception is rituximab, which should be held for 6 months before a live vaccine and then for 4 more weeks thereafter.

For patients receiving intravenous immunoglobulin, the drug should be held for 8-11 months before they are administered a live attenuated vaccine, depending on the dosage, and then 4 weeks after vaccination, regardless of dosage.

To reassure people with rheumatic disease who may have anxiety or concerns about receiving immunizations, whether taking immunosuppressive medication or not, Dr. Kim said it’s important to provide lots of education to patients.

“Fear and emotion have replaced facts, and data as a leading factor in decision-making, as seen with COVID-19,” Dr. Kim said. “The reality is that a small minority of people will have any issues with most vaccines, which include disease flares, adverse events, or acquisition of an autoimmune disease. We are not saying there is zero risk, rather, that the risk is quite small. This is where shared decision-making between the health care provider and the patient must be done effectively to enable the patient to properly weigh risk versus benefit.”

Dr. Kim has relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Kypha, Pfizer, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Exagen Diagnostics, and Foghorn Therapeutics.

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

Industry payments to U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists increased from 2014 to 2016 before beginning to steadily decrease after 2016, but they're largely concentrated among a small few, according to new research published in Gastroenterology.

South_agency/Getty Images

The study aimed to identify trends in these specialties in the years after the Sunshine Act, enacted in 2010, and the federal program Open Payments, established in 2013.

“Although Open Payments launched in September of 2014, all the joinpoints in our study occurred more than a year later in 2016, suggesting a delay in observable changes in behavior on industry physician relationships,” wrote Xiaohan Ying, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and colleagues. “Since 2016, we have seen a sustained reduction in general industry payments to physicians while research payments remained stable, which is likely the desired outcome of this program.”

That’s also the conclusion of Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association, who was not involved in the study.

“Most all of us are aware of the Sunshine Act and have reacted accordingly, so I am not surprised that reimbursement per physician has declined over the time period,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “Many physicians are very sensitive to their reporting and have decreased their exposures,” said Dr. Kosinski, founder of SonarMD and a member of the Health & Human Services Advisory Committee on Value-Based Payment. “What does surprise me is the marked disparity in payments with a very small number of physicians receiving tremendous reimbursement from speaking engagements and promotions.”

The researchers retrospectively analyzed industry payments to 26,981 practicing pediatric and adults gastroenterologists and hepatologists using the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System and data from Open Payments between January 2014 and December 2020. The researchers excluded education payments and focused on general payments, which “include charitable contribution, speaker fees, consulting fees, ownership and investments, education, entertainment, food and beverages, gift, honoraria, royalty and license, and travel and lodging,” they reported.
 

Who gets paid, and how much?

While $27.5 million was going to research and grants, most of the payments ($403.3 million) were general payments; out of the total payments to specialists, $30 million went to hepatology, and $400.8 million went to gastroenterology. Nearly all of the general payments ($398.1 million) were for noneducation purposes; 90.5% of general payments went to men and 9.5% went to women, at an average of $17,167 per person. Nearly half the payments (43.8%) were for speaker fees, totaling $174.3 million, followed by 18.4% going to consulting ($73.1 million) and 12.9% going to food and beverages ($51.5 million).

Most of the physicians accepting payments (86.6%) received less than $10,000, but this made up only 8.3% of all payments. Meanwhile, 74% of all the payments, $294.6 million, went to just 3.1% of the physicians, all of whom received more than $100,000.

That breakdown is what most caught Dr. Kosinki’s attention.

“It’s one thing for a speaker to declare that they are receiving funds from pharma, but they never let us know how much,” Dr. Kosinski said. “Some of these speakers are realizing a very significant payment, which could change the opinions of those listening to their presentations.”

The authors reported that a group of 50 top earners (0.2%) received more than $1 million between 2014 and 2020. Their payments totaled $94.8 million and accounted for nearly a quarter (23.8%) of all the payments. All but one of these physicians were men, and one physician has received more than $1 million every year since 2014.
 

Payments for guideline authors explored

The authors examined payments to practicing U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists who helped write clinical guidelines for the following organizations:

• American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
• American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
• American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD).
• North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN).
• American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

The 186 guidelines published between 2014 and 2020 had 632 physician authors, 415 of whom were practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists in the United States. Most of these physicians (85.8%) received at least one industry payment, with payments to guideline authors totaling $43.6 million.

Similar to the lopsided breakdown for total payments across all physicians, the majority of the payments (87.4%, or $38.1 million) went to one-quarter of the authors, who each received more than $100,000 per person. Meanwhile, 38.2% of the guideline authors received less than $10,000.

“However, these numbers are likely to decrease in the future as professional societies, such as AASLD, require a majority of the guideline authors to be free of conflict of interest relevant to the subject matter,” the authors wrote. They added that members selected as part of the AGA’s guideline development group (GDG) must report all conflicts of interest, including indirect and intellectual ones, and are recused or excluded when appropriate. These guideline development group participants must also forgo speaking and consulting arrangements until one year after the guideline’s publication.
 

Trends have been shifting

Total industry payments initially grew at a rate of 11.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing at a rate of 5.8% per year after 2016 (P = .03). Though a similar trend occurred at the individual level, it did not reach significance.

However, the trend differed slightly between men and women: Payments to men increased 10.4% annually until 2016 then decreased 6.8% per year thereafter, but women’s payments increased 11.3% per year until 2019. Between 2014 and 2019, the amount per person payment dropped 3.5% annually to physicians overall, but payments to women initially increased 35.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing.

Although not statistically significant, trends for types of payments showed that speaker and food/beverage fees have been declining since 2016 while consulting fees have been declining since 2014.

“The reduction in industry payments could be due to the Hawthorne effect, where physicians alter their behavior after becoming aware that their payments were being monitored,” the authors wrote. “Although many physicians see themselves as less vulnerable to be biased by industry compensation, studies have shown that even small payments can affect behavior such as prescription pattern. Additionally, studies have found that patients are less likely to trust physicians who have received industry payments.”

The authors acknowledged the role of industry payments in funding clinical trials but noted that pharmaceutical companies themselves have been taking on more design and execution of trials in recent decades. Further, only 6% of all payments went to research and grant funding, a little more than half the payments for food and beverages.

“While industry research funding is undeniably crucial, it simply plays a very small role in total industry compensation for physicians,” the authors wrote. “While speaker events could be beneficial and educational for physicians and other audiences, these events could also be utilized as means to promote specific products. While it is beneficial to seek input from experienced gastroenterologists for novel therapies and devices, actions should be taken to place limitations on industry payments to physicians, especially for the top earners.”

One author reported speaker fees from W.L. Gore & Associates and Cook Medical. The other two others had no disclosures. No external funding was noted. Dr. Kosinski reported having no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 9, 2022.

Industry payments to U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists increased from 2014 to 2016 before beginning to steadily decrease after 2016, but they're largely concentrated among a small few, according to new research published in Gastroenterology.

South_agency/Getty Images

The study aimed to identify trends in these specialties in the years after the Sunshine Act, enacted in 2010, and the federal program Open Payments, established in 2013.

“Although Open Payments launched in September of 2014, all the joinpoints in our study occurred more than a year later in 2016, suggesting a delay in observable changes in behavior on industry physician relationships,” wrote Xiaohan Ying, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and colleagues. “Since 2016, we have seen a sustained reduction in general industry payments to physicians while research payments remained stable, which is likely the desired outcome of this program.”

That’s also the conclusion of Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association, who was not involved in the study.

“Most all of us are aware of the Sunshine Act and have reacted accordingly, so I am not surprised that reimbursement per physician has declined over the time period,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “Many physicians are very sensitive to their reporting and have decreased their exposures,” said Dr. Kosinski, founder of SonarMD and a member of the Health & Human Services Advisory Committee on Value-Based Payment. “What does surprise me is the marked disparity in payments with a very small number of physicians receiving tremendous reimbursement from speaking engagements and promotions.”

The researchers retrospectively analyzed industry payments to 26,981 practicing pediatric and adults gastroenterologists and hepatologists using the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System and data from Open Payments between January 2014 and December 2020. The researchers excluded education payments and focused on general payments, which “include charitable contribution, speaker fees, consulting fees, ownership and investments, education, entertainment, food and beverages, gift, honoraria, royalty and license, and travel and lodging,” they reported.
 

Who gets paid, and how much?

While $27.5 million was going to research and grants, most of the payments ($403.3 million) were general payments; out of the total payments to specialists, $30 million went to hepatology, and $400.8 million went to gastroenterology. Nearly all of the general payments ($398.1 million) were for noneducation purposes; 90.5% of general payments went to men and 9.5% went to women, at an average of $17,167 per person. Nearly half the payments (43.8%) were for speaker fees, totaling $174.3 million, followed by 18.4% going to consulting ($73.1 million) and 12.9% going to food and beverages ($51.5 million).

Most of the physicians accepting payments (86.6%) received less than $10,000, but this made up only 8.3% of all payments. Meanwhile, 74% of all the payments, $294.6 million, went to just 3.1% of the physicians, all of whom received more than $100,000.

That breakdown is what most caught Dr. Kosinki’s attention.

“It’s one thing for a speaker to declare that they are receiving funds from pharma, but they never let us know how much,” Dr. Kosinski said. “Some of these speakers are realizing a very significant payment, which could change the opinions of those listening to their presentations.”

The authors reported that a group of 50 top earners (0.2%) received more than $1 million between 2014 and 2020. Their payments totaled $94.8 million and accounted for nearly a quarter (23.8%) of all the payments. All but one of these physicians were men, and one physician has received more than $1 million every year since 2014.
 

Payments for guideline authors explored

The authors examined payments to practicing U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists who helped write clinical guidelines for the following organizations:

• American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
• American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
• American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD).
• North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN).
• American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

The 186 guidelines published between 2014 and 2020 had 632 physician authors, 415 of whom were practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists in the United States. Most of these physicians (85.8%) received at least one industry payment, with payments to guideline authors totaling $43.6 million.

Similar to the lopsided breakdown for total payments across all physicians, the majority of the payments (87.4%, or $38.1 million) went to one-quarter of the authors, who each received more than $100,000 per person. Meanwhile, 38.2% of the guideline authors received less than $10,000.

“However, these numbers are likely to decrease in the future as professional societies, such as AASLD, require a majority of the guideline authors to be free of conflict of interest relevant to the subject matter,” the authors wrote. They added that members selected as part of the AGA’s guideline development group (GDG) must report all conflicts of interest, including indirect and intellectual ones, and are recused or excluded when appropriate. These guideline development group participants must also forgo speaking and consulting arrangements until one year after the guideline’s publication.
 

Trends have been shifting

Total industry payments initially grew at a rate of 11.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing at a rate of 5.8% per year after 2016 (P = .03). Though a similar trend occurred at the individual level, it did not reach significance.

However, the trend differed slightly between men and women: Payments to men increased 10.4% annually until 2016 then decreased 6.8% per year thereafter, but women’s payments increased 11.3% per year until 2019. Between 2014 and 2019, the amount per person payment dropped 3.5% annually to physicians overall, but payments to women initially increased 35.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing.

Although not statistically significant, trends for types of payments showed that speaker and food/beverage fees have been declining since 2016 while consulting fees have been declining since 2014.

“The reduction in industry payments could be due to the Hawthorne effect, where physicians alter their behavior after becoming aware that their payments were being monitored,” the authors wrote. “Although many physicians see themselves as less vulnerable to be biased by industry compensation, studies have shown that even small payments can affect behavior such as prescription pattern. Additionally, studies have found that patients are less likely to trust physicians who have received industry payments.”

The authors acknowledged the role of industry payments in funding clinical trials but noted that pharmaceutical companies themselves have been taking on more design and execution of trials in recent decades. Further, only 6% of all payments went to research and grant funding, a little more than half the payments for food and beverages.

“While industry research funding is undeniably crucial, it simply plays a very small role in total industry compensation for physicians,” the authors wrote. “While speaker events could be beneficial and educational for physicians and other audiences, these events could also be utilized as means to promote specific products. While it is beneficial to seek input from experienced gastroenterologists for novel therapies and devices, actions should be taken to place limitations on industry payments to physicians, especially for the top earners.”

One author reported speaker fees from W.L. Gore & Associates and Cook Medical. The other two others had no disclosures. No external funding was noted. Dr. Kosinski reported having no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 9, 2022.

Industry payments to U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists increased from 2014 to 2016 before beginning to steadily decrease after 2016, but they're largely concentrated among a small few, according to new research published in Gastroenterology.

South_agency/Getty Images

The study aimed to identify trends in these specialties in the years after the Sunshine Act, enacted in 2010, and the federal program Open Payments, established in 2013.

“Although Open Payments launched in September of 2014, all the joinpoints in our study occurred more than a year later in 2016, suggesting a delay in observable changes in behavior on industry physician relationships,” wrote Xiaohan Ying, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and colleagues. “Since 2016, we have seen a sustained reduction in general industry payments to physicians while research payments remained stable, which is likely the desired outcome of this program.”

That’s also the conclusion of Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association, who was not involved in the study.

“Most all of us are aware of the Sunshine Act and have reacted accordingly, so I am not surprised that reimbursement per physician has declined over the time period,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “Many physicians are very sensitive to their reporting and have decreased their exposures,” said Dr. Kosinski, founder of SonarMD and a member of the Health & Human Services Advisory Committee on Value-Based Payment. “What does surprise me is the marked disparity in payments with a very small number of physicians receiving tremendous reimbursement from speaking engagements and promotions.”

The researchers retrospectively analyzed industry payments to 26,981 practicing pediatric and adults gastroenterologists and hepatologists using the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System and data from Open Payments between January 2014 and December 2020. The researchers excluded education payments and focused on general payments, which “include charitable contribution, speaker fees, consulting fees, ownership and investments, education, entertainment, food and beverages, gift, honoraria, royalty and license, and travel and lodging,” they reported.
 

Who gets paid, and how much?

While $27.5 million was going to research and grants, most of the payments ($403.3 million) were general payments; out of the total payments to specialists, $30 million went to hepatology, and $400.8 million went to gastroenterology. Nearly all of the general payments ($398.1 million) were for noneducation purposes; 90.5% of general payments went to men and 9.5% went to women, at an average of $17,167 per person. Nearly half the payments (43.8%) were for speaker fees, totaling $174.3 million, followed by 18.4% going to consulting ($73.1 million) and 12.9% going to food and beverages ($51.5 million).

Most of the physicians accepting payments (86.6%) received less than $10,000, but this made up only 8.3% of all payments. Meanwhile, 74% of all the payments, $294.6 million, went to just 3.1% of the physicians, all of whom received more than $100,000.

That breakdown is what most caught Dr. Kosinki’s attention.

“It’s one thing for a speaker to declare that they are receiving funds from pharma, but they never let us know how much,” Dr. Kosinski said. “Some of these speakers are realizing a very significant payment, which could change the opinions of those listening to their presentations.”

The authors reported that a group of 50 top earners (0.2%) received more than $1 million between 2014 and 2020. Their payments totaled $94.8 million and accounted for nearly a quarter (23.8%) of all the payments. All but one of these physicians were men, and one physician has received more than $1 million every year since 2014.
 

Payments for guideline authors explored

The authors examined payments to practicing U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists who helped write clinical guidelines for the following organizations:

• American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
• American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
• American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD).
• North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN).
• American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

The 186 guidelines published between 2014 and 2020 had 632 physician authors, 415 of whom were practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists in the United States. Most of these physicians (85.8%) received at least one industry payment, with payments to guideline authors totaling $43.6 million.

Similar to the lopsided breakdown for total payments across all physicians, the majority of the payments (87.4%, or $38.1 million) went to one-quarter of the authors, who each received more than $100,000 per person. Meanwhile, 38.2% of the guideline authors received less than $10,000.

“However, these numbers are likely to decrease in the future as professional societies, such as AASLD, require a majority of the guideline authors to be free of conflict of interest relevant to the subject matter,” the authors wrote. They added that members selected as part of the AGA’s guideline development group (GDG) must report all conflicts of interest, including indirect and intellectual ones, and are recused or excluded when appropriate. These guideline development group participants must also forgo speaking and consulting arrangements until one year after the guideline’s publication.
 

Trends have been shifting

Total industry payments initially grew at a rate of 11.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing at a rate of 5.8% per year after 2016 (P = .03). Though a similar trend occurred at the individual level, it did not reach significance.

However, the trend differed slightly between men and women: Payments to men increased 10.4% annually until 2016 then decreased 6.8% per year thereafter, but women’s payments increased 11.3% per year until 2019. Between 2014 and 2019, the amount per person payment dropped 3.5% annually to physicians overall, but payments to women initially increased 35.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing.

Although not statistically significant, trends for types of payments showed that speaker and food/beverage fees have been declining since 2016 while consulting fees have been declining since 2014.

“The reduction in industry payments could be due to the Hawthorne effect, where physicians alter their behavior after becoming aware that their payments were being monitored,” the authors wrote. “Although many physicians see themselves as less vulnerable to be biased by industry compensation, studies have shown that even small payments can affect behavior such as prescription pattern. Additionally, studies have found that patients are less likely to trust physicians who have received industry payments.”

The authors acknowledged the role of industry payments in funding clinical trials but noted that pharmaceutical companies themselves have been taking on more design and execution of trials in recent decades. Further, only 6% of all payments went to research and grant funding, a little more than half the payments for food and beverages.

“While industry research funding is undeniably crucial, it simply plays a very small role in total industry compensation for physicians,” the authors wrote. “While speaker events could be beneficial and educational for physicians and other audiences, these events could also be utilized as means to promote specific products. While it is beneficial to seek input from experienced gastroenterologists for novel therapies and devices, actions should be taken to place limitations on industry payments to physicians, especially for the top earners.”

One author reported speaker fees from W.L. Gore & Associates and Cook Medical. The other two others had no disclosures. No external funding was noted. Dr. Kosinski reported having no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 9, 2022.

A simple blood test that looks for a combination of specific RNA snippets may become a novel way to screen for early-onset colorectal cancer, suggests a new study published online in Gastroenterology.

Researchers identified four microRNAs that together comprise a signature biomarker that can be used to detect and diagnose the presence of colorectal cancer from a liquid biopsy in a younger population.

MicroRNAs, or miRNAs, are small RNA molecules that do not encode proteins but are used instead to regulate gene expression. The study authors developed and validated a panel that detects four miRNAs occurring at higher levels in plasma samples from patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, with high sensitivity and specificity.

“The point would be to use this test as a routine part of annual healthcare, or for people in high-risk families every 6 months,” study senior author Ajay Goel, PhD, MS, chair of the department of molecular diagnostics and experimental therapeutics at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

“It’s affordable, it can be done easily from a small tube of blood, and as long as that test stays negative, you’re good,” Dr. Goel said, because even if patients miss a test, the next one, whether it’s 6 months or a year later, will catch any potential cancer.

“Colon cancer is not going to kill somebody overnight, so this should be used as a precursor to colonoscopy. As long as that test is negative, you can postpone a colonoscopy,” he said.

Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview that the findings are exciting.

“It would be really value-added to have a blood-based screening test,” Dr. Chan said, adding that researchers have pursued multiple different avenues in pursuit of one. “It’s very nice to see that area progress and to actually have some evidence that microRNAs could be a potential biomarker for colorectal cancer.”
 

Screening now insufficient for early-onset disease

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently lowered the recommended age to 45 years to begin screening for colorectal cancer. Part of the rationale for the change came from the rising rates of early-onset colorectal cancer, a distinct clinical and molecular entity that tends to have poorer survival than late-onset disease, the authors noted.

Early-onset disease, occurring primarily in people under 50 without a family or genetic history of colorectal cancer, now makes up about 10%-15% of all new cases and continues to rise, they write.

“Early-onset colorectal cancer patients are more likely to exhibit an advanced stage tumor at initial presentation, distal tumor localization, signet ring histology, and a disease presentation with concurrent metastasis,” the authors wrote. “This raises the logistical clinical concern that, since the tumors in early-onset colorectal cancer patients are often more aggressive than those with late-onset colorectal cancer, a delayed diagnosis could have a significant adverse impact and can lead to early death.”

Yet current screening strategies are insufficient for detecting enough early-onset cases, the authors assert.

Colonoscopies are invasive, carry a risk for complications, and are cost- and time-prohibitive for people at average risk. Meanwhile, existing fecal and blood tests “lack adequate diagnostic performance for the early detection of colorectal cancer, especially early-onset colorectal cancer, as these assays have yet to be explored or developed in this population,” they wrote.

The ideal “diagnostic modality should preferably be acceptable to healthy individuals, inexpensive, rapid, and preferably noninvasive,” they note.
 

Finding and validating miRNA

The researchers therefore turned to the concept of a liquid biopsy, focusing on identifying miRNAs associated with colorectal cancer, because their expression tends to be stable in tissues, blood, stool, and other body fluids.

They first analyzed an miRNA expression profiling dataset from 1,061 individuals to look for miRNAs whose expression was higher in colorectal cancer patients. The dataset included 42 patients with stage 1-2 early-onset colorectal cancer, 370 patients with stage 1-2 late-onset colorectal cancer, 62 patients younger than 50 years without cancer, and 587 patients aged 50 years or older without cancer.

The researchers found 28 miRNAs that were significantly unregulated in early-onset colorectal cancer tissue samples, compared with cancer-free samples and 11 miRNAs unregulated specifically in only the early-onset colorectal cancer samples. Four of these 11 miRNAs were adequately distinct from one another and were detectable in the plasma samples that the researchers would use to train and validate them as a combination biomarker.

The researchers used 117 plasma samples from Japan, including 72 from people with early-onset colorectal cancer and 45 from healthy donors, to develop and train an assay detecting the four miRNAs. They then validated the assay using 142 plasma samples from Spain, including 77 with early-onset colorectal cancer and 65 healthy donors.

In the Japan cohort, the four-miRNA assay had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 80%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 88% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 84%. In the Spain cohort used for validation, the assay performed with a sensitivity of 82%, a specificity of 86%, a PPV of 88%, and an NPV of 80%.

“Taken together, the genome-wide transcriptomic profiling approach was indeed robust, as it identified the biomarkers that were successfully trained and validated in plasma specimens from independent cohorts of patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, hence highlighting their translational potential in the clinic for the detection of this malignancy in early stages,” the authors wrote.

By disease stage, the four-miRNA panel identified both early-stage (stage 1-2; sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%) and late-stage (stage 3-4; sensitivity, 79%; specificity, 86%) early-onset colorectal cancer in the validation cohort.
 

Clinical benefit of blood test

The researchers also assessed the benefit-harm trade-off of this liquid biopsy assay compared with other screening modalities, taking into consideration the risk for false positives and false negatives.

A decision curve analysis “revealed that the miRNA panel achieved a higher net benefit regardless of threshold probability in comparison to intervention for all patients or none of the patients,” the researchers reported. “These findings suggest that this miRNA panel might offer more clinical benefit with regards to the avoidance of physical harm and misdiagnosis.”

They also found that expression levels of these four miRNAs significantly decreased after surgical removal of the colorectal cancer, strongly suggesting that the miRNAs do originate with the tumor.

“To have a relatively inexpensive and noninvasive means of screening a younger population is a very important unmet need,” said Dr. Chan.

It’s not feasible to recommend colonoscopies in people younger than 45 years because of resource constraints, he said, so “this is a wonderful new development to actually have the possibility of a blood-based screening test for younger individuals, especially given that rising incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

Dr. Goel pointed out that only half of those recommended to get screened for colorectal cancer actually undergo screening, and a large reason for that is the desire to avoid colonoscopy, a concern echoed in the findings of a recent study by Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, and colleagues.

Dr. Goel expects that this strategy would increase compliance with screening because it’s less invasive and more affordable, particularly for younger patients. He estimates that a commercial assay using this panel, if approved by the Food and Drug Administration, should cost less than $100.

Dr. Almario, an assistant professor of medicine at the Cedars-Sinai Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Los Angeles, agreed that an FDA-approved blood-based screening test would be a “game-changer,” as long as it’s accurate and effective.

Though Dr. Almario did not review the data in Goel’s study, he said in an interview that a blood test for colorectal cancer screening would be “the holy grail, so to speak, in terms of really moving the needle on screening uptake.”
 

Next steps

Dr. Chan noted that one caveat to consider with this study is that it was done in a relatively small population of individuals, even though the test was validated in a second set of plasma samples.

“Additional validation needs to be done in larger numbers of patients to really understand the performance characteristics because it is possible that some of these signatures may, when they’re using a broader group of individuals, not perform as well,” Dr. Chan said.

Dr. Goel said he is working with several companies right now to develop and further test a commercial product. He anticipates it may be shelf-ready in 2-5 years.

“The take-home message is that clinicians need to be more cognizant of the fact that incidence of this disease is rising, and we need to do something about it,” Dr. Goel said, particularly for those younger than 45 years who currently don’t have a screening option.

“Now we have at least a sliver of hope for those who might be suffering from this disease, for those for whom we have zero screening or diagnostic tests,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Fundación MAPFRE Guanarteme. Dr. Goel, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Almario reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A simple blood test that looks for a combination of specific RNA snippets may become a novel way to screen for early-onset colorectal cancer, suggests a new study published online in Gastroenterology.

Researchers identified four microRNAs that together comprise a signature biomarker that can be used to detect and diagnose the presence of colorectal cancer from a liquid biopsy in a younger population.

MicroRNAs, or miRNAs, are small RNA molecules that do not encode proteins but are used instead to regulate gene expression. The study authors developed and validated a panel that detects four miRNAs occurring at higher levels in plasma samples from patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, with high sensitivity and specificity.

“The point would be to use this test as a routine part of annual healthcare, or for people in high-risk families every 6 months,” study senior author Ajay Goel, PhD, MS, chair of the department of molecular diagnostics and experimental therapeutics at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

“It’s affordable, it can be done easily from a small tube of blood, and as long as that test stays negative, you’re good,” Dr. Goel said, because even if patients miss a test, the next one, whether it’s 6 months or a year later, will catch any potential cancer.

“Colon cancer is not going to kill somebody overnight, so this should be used as a precursor to colonoscopy. As long as that test is negative, you can postpone a colonoscopy,” he said.

Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview that the findings are exciting.

“It would be really value-added to have a blood-based screening test,” Dr. Chan said, adding that researchers have pursued multiple different avenues in pursuit of one. “It’s very nice to see that area progress and to actually have some evidence that microRNAs could be a potential biomarker for colorectal cancer.”
 

Screening now insufficient for early-onset disease

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently lowered the recommended age to 45 years to begin screening for colorectal cancer. Part of the rationale for the change came from the rising rates of early-onset colorectal cancer, a distinct clinical and molecular entity that tends to have poorer survival than late-onset disease, the authors noted.

Early-onset disease, occurring primarily in people under 50 without a family or genetic history of colorectal cancer, now makes up about 10%-15% of all new cases and continues to rise, they write.

“Early-onset colorectal cancer patients are more likely to exhibit an advanced stage tumor at initial presentation, distal tumor localization, signet ring histology, and a disease presentation with concurrent metastasis,” the authors wrote. “This raises the logistical clinical concern that, since the tumors in early-onset colorectal cancer patients are often more aggressive than those with late-onset colorectal cancer, a delayed diagnosis could have a significant adverse impact and can lead to early death.”

Yet current screening strategies are insufficient for detecting enough early-onset cases, the authors assert.

Colonoscopies are invasive, carry a risk for complications, and are cost- and time-prohibitive for people at average risk. Meanwhile, existing fecal and blood tests “lack adequate diagnostic performance for the early detection of colorectal cancer, especially early-onset colorectal cancer, as these assays have yet to be explored or developed in this population,” they wrote.

The ideal “diagnostic modality should preferably be acceptable to healthy individuals, inexpensive, rapid, and preferably noninvasive,” they note.
 

Finding and validating miRNA

The researchers therefore turned to the concept of a liquid biopsy, focusing on identifying miRNAs associated with colorectal cancer, because their expression tends to be stable in tissues, blood, stool, and other body fluids.

They first analyzed an miRNA expression profiling dataset from 1,061 individuals to look for miRNAs whose expression was higher in colorectal cancer patients. The dataset included 42 patients with stage 1-2 early-onset colorectal cancer, 370 patients with stage 1-2 late-onset colorectal cancer, 62 patients younger than 50 years without cancer, and 587 patients aged 50 years or older without cancer.

The researchers found 28 miRNAs that were significantly unregulated in early-onset colorectal cancer tissue samples, compared with cancer-free samples and 11 miRNAs unregulated specifically in only the early-onset colorectal cancer samples. Four of these 11 miRNAs were adequately distinct from one another and were detectable in the plasma samples that the researchers would use to train and validate them as a combination biomarker.

The researchers used 117 plasma samples from Japan, including 72 from people with early-onset colorectal cancer and 45 from healthy donors, to develop and train an assay detecting the four miRNAs. They then validated the assay using 142 plasma samples from Spain, including 77 with early-onset colorectal cancer and 65 healthy donors.

In the Japan cohort, the four-miRNA assay had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 80%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 88% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 84%. In the Spain cohort used for validation, the assay performed with a sensitivity of 82%, a specificity of 86%, a PPV of 88%, and an NPV of 80%.

“Taken together, the genome-wide transcriptomic profiling approach was indeed robust, as it identified the biomarkers that were successfully trained and validated in plasma specimens from independent cohorts of patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, hence highlighting their translational potential in the clinic for the detection of this malignancy in early stages,” the authors wrote.

By disease stage, the four-miRNA panel identified both early-stage (stage 1-2; sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%) and late-stage (stage 3-4; sensitivity, 79%; specificity, 86%) early-onset colorectal cancer in the validation cohort.
 

Clinical benefit of blood test

The researchers also assessed the benefit-harm trade-off of this liquid biopsy assay compared with other screening modalities, taking into consideration the risk for false positives and false negatives.

A decision curve analysis “revealed that the miRNA panel achieved a higher net benefit regardless of threshold probability in comparison to intervention for all patients or none of the patients,” the researchers reported. “These findings suggest that this miRNA panel might offer more clinical benefit with regards to the avoidance of physical harm and misdiagnosis.”

They also found that expression levels of these four miRNAs significantly decreased after surgical removal of the colorectal cancer, strongly suggesting that the miRNAs do originate with the tumor.

“To have a relatively inexpensive and noninvasive means of screening a younger population is a very important unmet need,” said Dr. Chan.

It’s not feasible to recommend colonoscopies in people younger than 45 years because of resource constraints, he said, so “this is a wonderful new development to actually have the possibility of a blood-based screening test for younger individuals, especially given that rising incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

Dr. Goel pointed out that only half of those recommended to get screened for colorectal cancer actually undergo screening, and a large reason for that is the desire to avoid colonoscopy, a concern echoed in the findings of a recent study by Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, and colleagues.

Dr. Goel expects that this strategy would increase compliance with screening because it’s less invasive and more affordable, particularly for younger patients. He estimates that a commercial assay using this panel, if approved by the Food and Drug Administration, should cost less than $100.

Dr. Almario, an assistant professor of medicine at the Cedars-Sinai Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Los Angeles, agreed that an FDA-approved blood-based screening test would be a “game-changer,” as long as it’s accurate and effective.

Though Dr. Almario did not review the data in Goel’s study, he said in an interview that a blood test for colorectal cancer screening would be “the holy grail, so to speak, in terms of really moving the needle on screening uptake.”
 

Next steps

Dr. Chan noted that one caveat to consider with this study is that it was done in a relatively small population of individuals, even though the test was validated in a second set of plasma samples.

“Additional validation needs to be done in larger numbers of patients to really understand the performance characteristics because it is possible that some of these signatures may, when they’re using a broader group of individuals, not perform as well,” Dr. Chan said.

Dr. Goel said he is working with several companies right now to develop and further test a commercial product. He anticipates it may be shelf-ready in 2-5 years.

“The take-home message is that clinicians need to be more cognizant of the fact that incidence of this disease is rising, and we need to do something about it,” Dr. Goel said, particularly for those younger than 45 years who currently don’t have a screening option.

“Now we have at least a sliver of hope for those who might be suffering from this disease, for those for whom we have zero screening or diagnostic tests,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Fundación MAPFRE Guanarteme. Dr. Goel, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Almario reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A simple blood test that looks for a combination of specific RNA snippets may become a novel way to screen for early-onset colorectal cancer, suggests a new study published online in Gastroenterology.

Researchers identified four microRNAs that together comprise a signature biomarker that can be used to detect and diagnose the presence of colorectal cancer from a liquid biopsy in a younger population.

MicroRNAs, or miRNAs, are small RNA molecules that do not encode proteins but are used instead to regulate gene expression. The study authors developed and validated a panel that detects four miRNAs occurring at higher levels in plasma samples from patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, with high sensitivity and specificity.

“The point would be to use this test as a routine part of annual healthcare, or for people in high-risk families every 6 months,” study senior author Ajay Goel, PhD, MS, chair of the department of molecular diagnostics and experimental therapeutics at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

“It’s affordable, it can be done easily from a small tube of blood, and as long as that test stays negative, you’re good,” Dr. Goel said, because even if patients miss a test, the next one, whether it’s 6 months or a year later, will catch any potential cancer.

“Colon cancer is not going to kill somebody overnight, so this should be used as a precursor to colonoscopy. As long as that test is negative, you can postpone a colonoscopy,” he said.

Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview that the findings are exciting.

“It would be really value-added to have a blood-based screening test,” Dr. Chan said, adding that researchers have pursued multiple different avenues in pursuit of one. “It’s very nice to see that area progress and to actually have some evidence that microRNAs could be a potential biomarker for colorectal cancer.”
 

Screening now insufficient for early-onset disease

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently lowered the recommended age to 45 years to begin screening for colorectal cancer. Part of the rationale for the change came from the rising rates of early-onset colorectal cancer, a distinct clinical and molecular entity that tends to have poorer survival than late-onset disease, the authors noted.

Early-onset disease, occurring primarily in people under 50 without a family or genetic history of colorectal cancer, now makes up about 10%-15% of all new cases and continues to rise, they write.

“Early-onset colorectal cancer patients are more likely to exhibit an advanced stage tumor at initial presentation, distal tumor localization, signet ring histology, and a disease presentation with concurrent metastasis,” the authors wrote. “This raises the logistical clinical concern that, since the tumors in early-onset colorectal cancer patients are often more aggressive than those with late-onset colorectal cancer, a delayed diagnosis could have a significant adverse impact and can lead to early death.”

Yet current screening strategies are insufficient for detecting enough early-onset cases, the authors assert.

Colonoscopies are invasive, carry a risk for complications, and are cost- and time-prohibitive for people at average risk. Meanwhile, existing fecal and blood tests “lack adequate diagnostic performance for the early detection of colorectal cancer, especially early-onset colorectal cancer, as these assays have yet to be explored or developed in this population,” they wrote.

The ideal “diagnostic modality should preferably be acceptable to healthy individuals, inexpensive, rapid, and preferably noninvasive,” they note.
 

Finding and validating miRNA

The researchers therefore turned to the concept of a liquid biopsy, focusing on identifying miRNAs associated with colorectal cancer, because their expression tends to be stable in tissues, blood, stool, and other body fluids.

They first analyzed an miRNA expression profiling dataset from 1,061 individuals to look for miRNAs whose expression was higher in colorectal cancer patients. The dataset included 42 patients with stage 1-2 early-onset colorectal cancer, 370 patients with stage 1-2 late-onset colorectal cancer, 62 patients younger than 50 years without cancer, and 587 patients aged 50 years or older without cancer.

The researchers found 28 miRNAs that were significantly unregulated in early-onset colorectal cancer tissue samples, compared with cancer-free samples and 11 miRNAs unregulated specifically in only the early-onset colorectal cancer samples. Four of these 11 miRNAs were adequately distinct from one another and were detectable in the plasma samples that the researchers would use to train and validate them as a combination biomarker.

The researchers used 117 plasma samples from Japan, including 72 from people with early-onset colorectal cancer and 45 from healthy donors, to develop and train an assay detecting the four miRNAs. They then validated the assay using 142 plasma samples from Spain, including 77 with early-onset colorectal cancer and 65 healthy donors.

In the Japan cohort, the four-miRNA assay had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 80%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 88% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 84%. In the Spain cohort used for validation, the assay performed with a sensitivity of 82%, a specificity of 86%, a PPV of 88%, and an NPV of 80%.

“Taken together, the genome-wide transcriptomic profiling approach was indeed robust, as it identified the biomarkers that were successfully trained and validated in plasma specimens from independent cohorts of patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, hence highlighting their translational potential in the clinic for the detection of this malignancy in early stages,” the authors wrote.

By disease stage, the four-miRNA panel identified both early-stage (stage 1-2; sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%) and late-stage (stage 3-4; sensitivity, 79%; specificity, 86%) early-onset colorectal cancer in the validation cohort.
 

Clinical benefit of blood test

The researchers also assessed the benefit-harm trade-off of this liquid biopsy assay compared with other screening modalities, taking into consideration the risk for false positives and false negatives.

A decision curve analysis “revealed that the miRNA panel achieved a higher net benefit regardless of threshold probability in comparison to intervention for all patients or none of the patients,” the researchers reported. “These findings suggest that this miRNA panel might offer more clinical benefit with regards to the avoidance of physical harm and misdiagnosis.”

They also found that expression levels of these four miRNAs significantly decreased after surgical removal of the colorectal cancer, strongly suggesting that the miRNAs do originate with the tumor.

“To have a relatively inexpensive and noninvasive means of screening a younger population is a very important unmet need,” said Dr. Chan.

It’s not feasible to recommend colonoscopies in people younger than 45 years because of resource constraints, he said, so “this is a wonderful new development to actually have the possibility of a blood-based screening test for younger individuals, especially given that rising incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

Dr. Goel pointed out that only half of those recommended to get screened for colorectal cancer actually undergo screening, and a large reason for that is the desire to avoid colonoscopy, a concern echoed in the findings of a recent study by Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, and colleagues.

Dr. Goel expects that this strategy would increase compliance with screening because it’s less invasive and more affordable, particularly for younger patients. He estimates that a commercial assay using this panel, if approved by the Food and Drug Administration, should cost less than $100.

Dr. Almario, an assistant professor of medicine at the Cedars-Sinai Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Los Angeles, agreed that an FDA-approved blood-based screening test would be a “game-changer,” as long as it’s accurate and effective.

Though Dr. Almario did not review the data in Goel’s study, he said in an interview that a blood test for colorectal cancer screening would be “the holy grail, so to speak, in terms of really moving the needle on screening uptake.”
 

Next steps

Dr. Chan noted that one caveat to consider with this study is that it was done in a relatively small population of individuals, even though the test was validated in a second set of plasma samples.

“Additional validation needs to be done in larger numbers of patients to really understand the performance characteristics because it is possible that some of these signatures may, when they’re using a broader group of individuals, not perform as well,” Dr. Chan said.

Dr. Goel said he is working with several companies right now to develop and further test a commercial product. He anticipates it may be shelf-ready in 2-5 years.

“The take-home message is that clinicians need to be more cognizant of the fact that incidence of this disease is rising, and we need to do something about it,” Dr. Goel said, particularly for those younger than 45 years who currently don’t have a screening option.

“Now we have at least a sliver of hope for those who might be suffering from this disease, for those for whom we have zero screening or diagnostic tests,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Fundación MAPFRE Guanarteme. Dr. Goel, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Almario reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Patients said they’d prefer fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–fecal DNA tests over any of the other colorectal cancer screening (CRC) modalities currently recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force, according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Just over a third of American adults aged 40 and older who hadn’t yet been screened for CRC preferred the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, whereas just one in seven respondents preferred a colonoscopy – considered the gold standard in colorectal cancer screening – every 10 years.

"When you talk to patients and to your friends and family members, people tend to think colonoscopy is synonymous with colon cancer screening, but we have lots of different tests,” senior author Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, of the department of medicine at the Karsh division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Most people in general tend to prefer noninvasive stool tests, and when we try to predict who would prefer what, we actually couldn’t, so this is a very personal decision,” Dr. Almario said. “It’s important for clinicians to offer multiple choices to their patients, not to mention just colonoscopy. We have data from observing clinician-patient interactions showing that, a lot of times, colonoscopy is the only test that’s offered, despite there being multiple options.”

At the very least, Dr. Almario said, providers should offer patients a colonoscopy along with a noninvasive test, particularly a stool test, and discuss the two options, getting the patient’s input in terms of what they prefer. “The best test is the test that actually gets done,” he said.
 

Offering patients options

Reid M. Ness, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, was not involved with the study but wasn’t surprised at the findings since “most people wisely prefer to avoid invasive procedures,” he said in an interview. He agreed that many patients aren’t necessarily informed of all their options for screening.

“Many people who are now being offered colonoscopy as their only screening option may prefer a noninvasive option, such as FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing,” Dr. Ness said. “Also, people now refusing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening may instead accept FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing. It is difficult to know how many people now refusing colorectal cancer screening may have accepted screening if it had been offered differently.”

That’s precisely what Dr. Almario and his colleagues wanted to find out. They surveyed 1,000 people aged 40 and older who were at average risk for colorectal cancer to find out their preferences for different screening modalities and what features of different screening types they most valued. The researchers asked about the following screening tests recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force:

• FIT every year.
• FIT–fecal DNA every 3 years.
• Colon video capsule every 5 years.
• CT colonography every 5 years.
• Colonoscopy every 10 years.

The respondents who completed the online survey were recruited from a sample of more than 20 million people across the United States who have agreed to receive survey invitations. Respondents were excluded if they had a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer, had already undergone colorectal cancer screening or had been diagnosed with colon polyps, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis.

The respondents were split into those aged 40-49 (61% of the sample) who had not yet discussed colorectal cancer screening with their providers and those aged 50 and older, who might have already discussed it and declined. Eighty percent of the respondents were White, 6% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, 4% were Asian, and 3% reported another race/ethnicity. Just over half (52%) had at least two comorbidities. A quarter (25%) reported one comorbidity, and 22% reported none.



In thinking about the decision to get screened, respondents ranked the test type as the most important consideration, followed by the reduction in their chance of developing colorectal cancer and then frequency of the test. Lower priority on the list of considerations were their chances of a complication, bowel prep before the test, and required diet changes before the test.

The test preferred by the highest proportion of respondents was the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, preferred by 35% of respondents, followed by the colon capsule video test every 5 years (28%). About one in seven respondents (14%) preferred a colonoscopy every 10 years, followed by the annual FIT (12%) and CT colonography every 5 years (11%). When limited only to the two tier 1–option tests – the annual FIT or a colonoscopy every 10 years – a substantial majority of the younger (69%) and older (77%) groups preferred the annual FIT.

”This finding is discordant with current CRC screening utilization in the United States where colonoscopy is the most commonly performed test, and this may partially explain our suboptimal screening rates,” the authors wrote. “Our findings suggest that screening programs should strongly consider a sequential-based strategy where FIT is offered first, and if declined then colonoscopy.”
 

Underlying factors

Dr. Ness said that many primary care providers might prefer to offer colonoscopies instead of annual FIT tests because it’s easier to track a test given every 10 years instead of every year or every 3 years.

“Providers across most of the U.S. are incentivized to recommend colonoscopy as the primary screening modality because the burden of follow-up on them is less,” Dr. Ness said. “They are able to justify this choice given colonoscopy remains the most accurate screening modality.”

Dr. Ness pointed to the programmatic screening program at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California health care system as a model for a program that utilizes FIT tests more often.

“The only way to accomplish an efficient and equitable colorectal cancer screening program is within the context of a national health service or plan,” Dr. Ness added. “Otherwise, the uninsured and underinsured will remain excluded from the benefits of colorectal cancer screening.”

Preferences did not differ a great deal between the age groups, with 35% of the younger group and 37% of the older group both preferring the FIT–fecal DNA tests every 3 years. Slightly more people in the 50+ age group preferred an annual fit (19% vs. 12%) as opposed to the colon capsule video every 5 years (28% of younger group vs. 23%) or colon CT scan every 5 years (11% of younger group vs. 8%), but the differences were statistically significant (P = .019).

In fact, “sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were not predictive of selecting FIT or colonoscopy,” the authors found. ”This demonstrates the individualized nature of decision making on colorectal cancer screening tests. Moreover, as most individuals preferred FIT, it again emphasizes the importance of sequential or choice-based strategies for colorectal cancer screening.”

However, one of the study’s notable limitations was its high proportion of White patients relative to other racial/ethnic groups, so additional research may illuminate whether different sociodemographic groups do have slight preferences for one test over another, Dr. Almario said. The advantage to colonoscopies, he noted, is that they only occur every 10 years and if polyps are discovered, they can be taken care of right away.

”You don’t have to think about it for a decade, which is certainly a pro for the colonoscopy,” Dr. Almario said. “The FIT test is obviously less invasive, but you have to do it every year for it to be an effective screening test.” He noted that some data have shown a drop-off in compliance over multiple years. “We certainly need more systems in place to remind patients and providers to do it annually so that we can see the ultimate screening benefit from doing that test specifically.”

“The most important point from the clinical perspective is, when we’re talking to patients about colon cancer screening, make sure to give them a choice,” Dr. Almario said. “We just can’t look at someone’s chart, their clinical characteristics or demographics, and predict what tests they would prefer. We need to ask them. We need to present them with the options, go over the pros and cons of colonoscopy, the pros and cons of the stool test, and ask the patient what they would prefer to do.”

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. One author served on an advisory panel with Exact Sciences. The other authors and Dr. Ness had no disclosures.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC.

This article was updated on Aug. 18, 2022.

Patients said they’d prefer fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–fecal DNA tests over any of the other colorectal cancer screening (CRC) modalities currently recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force, according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Just over a third of American adults aged 40 and older who hadn’t yet been screened for CRC preferred the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, whereas just one in seven respondents preferred a colonoscopy – considered the gold standard in colorectal cancer screening – every 10 years.

"When you talk to patients and to your friends and family members, people tend to think colonoscopy is synonymous with colon cancer screening, but we have lots of different tests,” senior author Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, of the department of medicine at the Karsh division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Most people in general tend to prefer noninvasive stool tests, and when we try to predict who would prefer what, we actually couldn’t, so this is a very personal decision,” Dr. Almario said. “It’s important for clinicians to offer multiple choices to their patients, not to mention just colonoscopy. We have data from observing clinician-patient interactions showing that, a lot of times, colonoscopy is the only test that’s offered, despite there being multiple options.”

At the very least, Dr. Almario said, providers should offer patients a colonoscopy along with a noninvasive test, particularly a stool test, and discuss the two options, getting the patient’s input in terms of what they prefer. “The best test is the test that actually gets done,” he said.
 

Offering patients options

Reid M. Ness, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, was not involved with the study but wasn’t surprised at the findings since “most people wisely prefer to avoid invasive procedures,” he said in an interview. He agreed that many patients aren’t necessarily informed of all their options for screening.

“Many people who are now being offered colonoscopy as their only screening option may prefer a noninvasive option, such as FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing,” Dr. Ness said. “Also, people now refusing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening may instead accept FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing. It is difficult to know how many people now refusing colorectal cancer screening may have accepted screening if it had been offered differently.”

That’s precisely what Dr. Almario and his colleagues wanted to find out. They surveyed 1,000 people aged 40 and older who were at average risk for colorectal cancer to find out their preferences for different screening modalities and what features of different screening types they most valued. The researchers asked about the following screening tests recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force:

• FIT every year.
• FIT–fecal DNA every 3 years.
• Colon video capsule every 5 years.
• CT colonography every 5 years.
• Colonoscopy every 10 years.

The respondents who completed the online survey were recruited from a sample of more than 20 million people across the United States who have agreed to receive survey invitations. Respondents were excluded if they had a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer, had already undergone colorectal cancer screening or had been diagnosed with colon polyps, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis.

The respondents were split into those aged 40-49 (61% of the sample) who had not yet discussed colorectal cancer screening with their providers and those aged 50 and older, who might have already discussed it and declined. Eighty percent of the respondents were White, 6% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, 4% were Asian, and 3% reported another race/ethnicity. Just over half (52%) had at least two comorbidities. A quarter (25%) reported one comorbidity, and 22% reported none.



In thinking about the decision to get screened, respondents ranked the test type as the most important consideration, followed by the reduction in their chance of developing colorectal cancer and then frequency of the test. Lower priority on the list of considerations were their chances of a complication, bowel prep before the test, and required diet changes before the test.

The test preferred by the highest proportion of respondents was the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, preferred by 35% of respondents, followed by the colon capsule video test every 5 years (28%). About one in seven respondents (14%) preferred a colonoscopy every 10 years, followed by the annual FIT (12%) and CT colonography every 5 years (11%). When limited only to the two tier 1–option tests – the annual FIT or a colonoscopy every 10 years – a substantial majority of the younger (69%) and older (77%) groups preferred the annual FIT.

”This finding is discordant with current CRC screening utilization in the United States where colonoscopy is the most commonly performed test, and this may partially explain our suboptimal screening rates,” the authors wrote. “Our findings suggest that screening programs should strongly consider a sequential-based strategy where FIT is offered first, and if declined then colonoscopy.”
 

Underlying factors

Dr. Ness said that many primary care providers might prefer to offer colonoscopies instead of annual FIT tests because it’s easier to track a test given every 10 years instead of every year or every 3 years.

“Providers across most of the U.S. are incentivized to recommend colonoscopy as the primary screening modality because the burden of follow-up on them is less,” Dr. Ness said. “They are able to justify this choice given colonoscopy remains the most accurate screening modality.”

Dr. Ness pointed to the programmatic screening program at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California health care system as a model for a program that utilizes FIT tests more often.

“The only way to accomplish an efficient and equitable colorectal cancer screening program is within the context of a national health service or plan,” Dr. Ness added. “Otherwise, the uninsured and underinsured will remain excluded from the benefits of colorectal cancer screening.”

Preferences did not differ a great deal between the age groups, with 35% of the younger group and 37% of the older group both preferring the FIT–fecal DNA tests every 3 years. Slightly more people in the 50+ age group preferred an annual fit (19% vs. 12%) as opposed to the colon capsule video every 5 years (28% of younger group vs. 23%) or colon CT scan every 5 years (11% of younger group vs. 8%), but the differences were statistically significant (P = .019).

In fact, “sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were not predictive of selecting FIT or colonoscopy,” the authors found. ”This demonstrates the individualized nature of decision making on colorectal cancer screening tests. Moreover, as most individuals preferred FIT, it again emphasizes the importance of sequential or choice-based strategies for colorectal cancer screening.”

However, one of the study’s notable limitations was its high proportion of White patients relative to other racial/ethnic groups, so additional research may illuminate whether different sociodemographic groups do have slight preferences for one test over another, Dr. Almario said. The advantage to colonoscopies, he noted, is that they only occur every 10 years and if polyps are discovered, they can be taken care of right away.

”You don’t have to think about it for a decade, which is certainly a pro for the colonoscopy,” Dr. Almario said. “The FIT test is obviously less invasive, but you have to do it every year for it to be an effective screening test.” He noted that some data have shown a drop-off in compliance over multiple years. “We certainly need more systems in place to remind patients and providers to do it annually so that we can see the ultimate screening benefit from doing that test specifically.”

“The most important point from the clinical perspective is, when we’re talking to patients about colon cancer screening, make sure to give them a choice,” Dr. Almario said. “We just can’t look at someone’s chart, their clinical characteristics or demographics, and predict what tests they would prefer. We need to ask them. We need to present them with the options, go over the pros and cons of colonoscopy, the pros and cons of the stool test, and ask the patient what they would prefer to do.”

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. One author served on an advisory panel with Exact Sciences. The other authors and Dr. Ness had no disclosures.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC.

This article was updated on Aug. 18, 2022.

Patients said they’d prefer fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–fecal DNA tests over any of the other colorectal cancer screening (CRC) modalities currently recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force, according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Just over a third of American adults aged 40 and older who hadn’t yet been screened for CRC preferred the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, whereas just one in seven respondents preferred a colonoscopy – considered the gold standard in colorectal cancer screening – every 10 years.

"When you talk to patients and to your friends and family members, people tend to think colonoscopy is synonymous with colon cancer screening, but we have lots of different tests,” senior author Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, of the department of medicine at the Karsh division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Most people in general tend to prefer noninvasive stool tests, and when we try to predict who would prefer what, we actually couldn’t, so this is a very personal decision,” Dr. Almario said. “It’s important for clinicians to offer multiple choices to their patients, not to mention just colonoscopy. We have data from observing clinician-patient interactions showing that, a lot of times, colonoscopy is the only test that’s offered, despite there being multiple options.”

At the very least, Dr. Almario said, providers should offer patients a colonoscopy along with a noninvasive test, particularly a stool test, and discuss the two options, getting the patient’s input in terms of what they prefer. “The best test is the test that actually gets done,” he said.
 

Offering patients options

Reid M. Ness, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, was not involved with the study but wasn’t surprised at the findings since “most people wisely prefer to avoid invasive procedures,” he said in an interview. He agreed that many patients aren’t necessarily informed of all their options for screening.

“Many people who are now being offered colonoscopy as their only screening option may prefer a noninvasive option, such as FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing,” Dr. Ness said. “Also, people now refusing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening may instead accept FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing. It is difficult to know how many people now refusing colorectal cancer screening may have accepted screening if it had been offered differently.”

That’s precisely what Dr. Almario and his colleagues wanted to find out. They surveyed 1,000 people aged 40 and older who were at average risk for colorectal cancer to find out their preferences for different screening modalities and what features of different screening types they most valued. The researchers asked about the following screening tests recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force:

• FIT every year.
• FIT–fecal DNA every 3 years.
• Colon video capsule every 5 years.
• CT colonography every 5 years.
• Colonoscopy every 10 years.

The respondents who completed the online survey were recruited from a sample of more than 20 million people across the United States who have agreed to receive survey invitations. Respondents were excluded if they had a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer, had already undergone colorectal cancer screening or had been diagnosed with colon polyps, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis.

The respondents were split into those aged 40-49 (61% of the sample) who had not yet discussed colorectal cancer screening with their providers and those aged 50 and older, who might have already discussed it and declined. Eighty percent of the respondents were White, 6% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, 4% were Asian, and 3% reported another race/ethnicity. Just over half (52%) had at least two comorbidities. A quarter (25%) reported one comorbidity, and 22% reported none.



In thinking about the decision to get screened, respondents ranked the test type as the most important consideration, followed by the reduction in their chance of developing colorectal cancer and then frequency of the test. Lower priority on the list of considerations were their chances of a complication, bowel prep before the test, and required diet changes before the test.

The test preferred by the highest proportion of respondents was the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, preferred by 35% of respondents, followed by the colon capsule video test every 5 years (28%). About one in seven respondents (14%) preferred a colonoscopy every 10 years, followed by the annual FIT (12%) and CT colonography every 5 years (11%). When limited only to the two tier 1–option tests – the annual FIT or a colonoscopy every 10 years – a substantial majority of the younger (69%) and older (77%) groups preferred the annual FIT.

”This finding is discordant with current CRC screening utilization in the United States where colonoscopy is the most commonly performed test, and this may partially explain our suboptimal screening rates,” the authors wrote. “Our findings suggest that screening programs should strongly consider a sequential-based strategy where FIT is offered first, and if declined then colonoscopy.”
 

Underlying factors

Dr. Ness said that many primary care providers might prefer to offer colonoscopies instead of annual FIT tests because it’s easier to track a test given every 10 years instead of every year or every 3 years.

“Providers across most of the U.S. are incentivized to recommend colonoscopy as the primary screening modality because the burden of follow-up on them is less,” Dr. Ness said. “They are able to justify this choice given colonoscopy remains the most accurate screening modality.”

Dr. Ness pointed to the programmatic screening program at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California health care system as a model for a program that utilizes FIT tests more often.

“The only way to accomplish an efficient and equitable colorectal cancer screening program is within the context of a national health service or plan,” Dr. Ness added. “Otherwise, the uninsured and underinsured will remain excluded from the benefits of colorectal cancer screening.”

Preferences did not differ a great deal between the age groups, with 35% of the younger group and 37% of the older group both preferring the FIT–fecal DNA tests every 3 years. Slightly more people in the 50+ age group preferred an annual fit (19% vs. 12%) as opposed to the colon capsule video every 5 years (28% of younger group vs. 23%) or colon CT scan every 5 years (11% of younger group vs. 8%), but the differences were statistically significant (P = .019).

In fact, “sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were not predictive of selecting FIT or colonoscopy,” the authors found. ”This demonstrates the individualized nature of decision making on colorectal cancer screening tests. Moreover, as most individuals preferred FIT, it again emphasizes the importance of sequential or choice-based strategies for colorectal cancer screening.”

However, one of the study’s notable limitations was its high proportion of White patients relative to other racial/ethnic groups, so additional research may illuminate whether different sociodemographic groups do have slight preferences for one test over another, Dr. Almario said. The advantage to colonoscopies, he noted, is that they only occur every 10 years and if polyps are discovered, they can be taken care of right away.

”You don’t have to think about it for a decade, which is certainly a pro for the colonoscopy,” Dr. Almario said. “The FIT test is obviously less invasive, but you have to do it every year for it to be an effective screening test.” He noted that some data have shown a drop-off in compliance over multiple years. “We certainly need more systems in place to remind patients and providers to do it annually so that we can see the ultimate screening benefit from doing that test specifically.”

“The most important point from the clinical perspective is, when we’re talking to patients about colon cancer screening, make sure to give them a choice,” Dr. Almario said. “We just can’t look at someone’s chart, their clinical characteristics or demographics, and predict what tests they would prefer. We need to ask them. We need to present them with the options, go over the pros and cons of colonoscopy, the pros and cons of the stool test, and ask the patient what they would prefer to do.”

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. One author served on an advisory panel with Exact Sciences. The other authors and Dr. Ness had no disclosures.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC.

This article was updated on Aug. 18, 2022.

Patients said they’d prefer fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–fecal DNA tests over any of the other colorectal cancer screening (CRC) modalities currently recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force, according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Just over a third of American adults aged 40 and older who hadn’t yet been screened for CRC preferred the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, whereas just one in seven respondents preferred a colonoscopy – considered the gold standard in colorectal cancer screening – every 10 years.

”When you talk to patients and to your friends and family members, people tend to think colonoscopy is synonymous with colon cancer screening, but we have lots of different tests,” senior author Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, of the department of medicine at the Karsh division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Most people in general tend to prefer noninvasive stool tests, and when we try to predict who would prefer what, we actually couldn’t, so this is a very personal decision,” Dr. Almario said. “It’s important for clinicians to offer multiple choices to their patients, not to mention just colonoscopy. We have data from observing clinician-patient interactions showing that, a lot of times, colonoscopy is the only test that’s offered, despite there being multiple options.”

At the very least, Dr. Almario said, providers should offer patients a colonoscopy along with a noninvasive test, particularly a stool test, and discuss the two options, getting the patient’s input in terms of what they prefer. “The best test is the test that actually gets done,” he said.
 

Offering patients options

Reid M. Ness, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, was not involved with the study but wasn’t surprised at the findings since “most people wisely prefer to avoid invasive procedures,” he said in an interview. He agreed that many patients aren’t necessarily informed of all their options for screening.

“Many people who are now being offered colonoscopy as their only screening option may prefer a noninvasive option, such as FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing,” Dr. Ness said. “Also, people now refusing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening may instead accept FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing. It is difficult to know how many people now refusing colorectal cancer screening may have accepted screening if it had been offered differently.”

That’s precisely what Dr. Almario and his colleagues wanted to find out. They surveyed 1,000 people aged 40 and older who were at average risk for colorectal cancer to find out their preferences for different screening modalities and what features of different screening types they most valued. The researchers asked about the following screening tests recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force:

• FIT every year.
• FIT–fecal DNA every 3 years.
• Colon video capsule every 5 years.
• CT colonography every 5 years.
• Colonoscopy every 10 years.

The respondents who completed the online survey were recruited from a sample of more than 20 million people across the United States who have agreed to receive survey invitations. Respondents were excluded if they had a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer, had already undergone colorectal cancer screening or had been diagnosed with colon polyps, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis.

The respondents were split into those aged 40-49 (61% of the sample) who had not yet discussed colorectal cancer screening with their providers and those aged 50 and older, who might have already discussed it and declined. Eighty percent of the respondents were White, 6% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, 4% were Asian, and 3% reported another race/ethnicity. Just over half (52%) had at least two comorbidities. A quarter (25%) reported one comorbidity, and 22% reported none.



In thinking about the decision to get screened, respondents ranked the test type as the most important consideration, followed by the reduction in their chance of developing colorectal cancer and then frequency of the test. Lower priority on the list of considerations were their chances of a complication, bowel prep before the test, and required diet changes before the test.

The test preferred by the highest proportion of respondents was the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, preferred by 35% of respondents, followed by the colon capsule video test every 5 years (28%). About one in seven respondents (14%) preferred a colonoscopy every 10 years, followed by the annual FIT (12%) and CT colonography every 5 years (11%). When limited only to the two tier 1–option tests – the annual FIT or a colonoscopy every 10 years – a substantial majority of the younger (69%) and older (77%) groups preferred the annual FIT.

”This finding is discordant with current CRC screening utilization in the United States where colonoscopy is the most commonly performed test, and this may partially explain our suboptimal screening rates,” the authors wrote. “Our findings suggest that screening programs should strongly consider a sequential-based strategy where FIT is offered first, and if declined then colonoscopy.”
 

Underlying factors

Dr. Ness said that many primary care providers might prefer to offer colonoscopies instead of annual FIT tests because it’s easier to track a test given every 10 years instead of every year or every 3 years.

“Providers across most of the U.S. are incentivized to recommend colonoscopy as the primary screening modality because the burden of follow-up on them is less,” Dr. Ness said. “They are able to justify this choice given colonoscopy remains the most accurate screening modality.”

Dr. Ness pointed to the programmatic screening program at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California health care system as a model for a program that utilizes FIT tests more often.

“The only way to accomplish an efficient and equitable colorectal cancer screening program is within the context of a national health service or plan,” Dr. Ness added. “Otherwise, the uninsured and underinsured will remain excluded from the benefits of colorectal cancer screening.”

Preferences did not differ a great deal between the age groups, with 35% of the younger group and 37% of the older group both preferring the FIT–fecal DNA tests every 3 years. Slightly more people in the 50+ age group preferred an annual fit (19% vs. 12%) as opposed to the colon capsule video every 5 years (28% of younger group vs. 23%) or colon CT scan every 5 years (11% of younger group vs. 8%), but the differences were statistically significant (P = .019).

In fact, “sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were not predictive of selecting FIT or colonoscopy,” the authors found. ”This demonstrates the individualized nature of decision making on colorectal cancer screening tests. Moreover, as most individuals preferred FIT, it again emphasizes the importance of sequential or choice-based strategies for colorectal cancer screening.”

However, one of the study’s notable limitations was its high proportion of White patients relative to other racial/ethnic groups, so additional research may illuminate whether different sociodemographic groups do have slight preferences for one test over another, Dr. Almario said. The advantage to colonoscopies, he noted, is that they only occur every 10 years and if polyps are discovered, they can be taken care of right away.

”You don’t have to think about it for a decade, which is certainly a pro for the colonoscopy,” Dr. Almario said. “The FIT test is obviously less invasive, but you have to do it every year for it to be an effective screening test.” He noted that some data have shown a drop-off in compliance over multiple years. “We certainly need more systems in place to remind patients and providers to do it annually so that we can see the ultimate screening benefit from doing that test specifically.”

“The most important point from the clinical perspective is, when we’re talking to patients about colon cancer screening, make sure to give them a choice,” Dr. Almario said. “We just can’t look at someone’s chart, their clinical characteristics or demographics, and predict what tests they would prefer. We need to ask them. We need to present them with the options, go over the pros and cons of colonoscopy, the pros and cons of the stool test, and ask the patient what they would prefer to do.”

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. One author served on an advisory board with Exact Sciences. The other authors and Dr. Ness had no disclosures.

Patients said they’d prefer fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–fecal DNA tests over any of the other colorectal cancer screening (CRC) modalities currently recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force, according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Just over a third of American adults aged 40 and older who hadn’t yet been screened for CRC preferred the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, whereas just one in seven respondents preferred a colonoscopy – considered the gold standard in colorectal cancer screening – every 10 years.

”When you talk to patients and to your friends and family members, people tend to think colonoscopy is synonymous with colon cancer screening, but we have lots of different tests,” senior author Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, of the department of medicine at the Karsh division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Most people in general tend to prefer noninvasive stool tests, and when we try to predict who would prefer what, we actually couldn’t, so this is a very personal decision,” Dr. Almario said. “It’s important for clinicians to offer multiple choices to their patients, not to mention just colonoscopy. We have data from observing clinician-patient interactions showing that, a lot of times, colonoscopy is the only test that’s offered, despite there being multiple options.”

At the very least, Dr. Almario said, providers should offer patients a colonoscopy along with a noninvasive test, particularly a stool test, and discuss the two options, getting the patient’s input in terms of what they prefer. “The best test is the test that actually gets done,” he said.
 

Offering patients options

Reid M. Ness, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, was not involved with the study but wasn’t surprised at the findings since “most people wisely prefer to avoid invasive procedures,” he said in an interview. He agreed that many patients aren’t necessarily informed of all their options for screening.

“Many people who are now being offered colonoscopy as their only screening option may prefer a noninvasive option, such as FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing,” Dr. Ness said. “Also, people now refusing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening may instead accept FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing. It is difficult to know how many people now refusing colorectal cancer screening may have accepted screening if it had been offered differently.”

That’s precisely what Dr. Almario and his colleagues wanted to find out. They surveyed 1,000 people aged 40 and older who were at average risk for colorectal cancer to find out their preferences for different screening modalities and what features of different screening types they most valued. The researchers asked about the following screening tests recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force:

• FIT every year.
• FIT–fecal DNA every 3 years.
• Colon video capsule every 5 years.
• CT colonography every 5 years.
• Colonoscopy every 10 years.

The respondents who completed the online survey were recruited from a sample of more than 20 million people across the United States who have agreed to receive survey invitations. Respondents were excluded if they had a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer, had already undergone colorectal cancer screening or had been diagnosed with colon polyps, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis.

The respondents were split into those aged 40-49 (61% of the sample) who had not yet discussed colorectal cancer screening with their providers and those aged 50 and older, who might have already discussed it and declined. Eighty percent of the respondents were White, 6% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, 4% were Asian, and 3% reported another race/ethnicity. Just over half (52%) had at least two comorbidities. A quarter (25%) reported one comorbidity, and 22% reported none.



In thinking about the decision to get screened, respondents ranked the test type as the most important consideration, followed by the reduction in their chance of developing colorectal cancer and then frequency of the test. Lower priority on the list of considerations were their chances of a complication, bowel prep before the test, and required diet changes before the test.

The test preferred by the highest proportion of respondents was the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, preferred by 35% of respondents, followed by the colon capsule video test every 5 years (28%). About one in seven respondents (14%) preferred a colonoscopy every 10 years, followed by the annual FIT (12%) and CT colonography every 5 years (11%). When limited only to the two tier 1–option tests – the annual FIT or a colonoscopy every 10 years – a substantial majority of the younger (69%) and older (77%) groups preferred the annual FIT.

”This finding is discordant with current CRC screening utilization in the United States where colonoscopy is the most commonly performed test, and this may partially explain our suboptimal screening rates,” the authors wrote. “Our findings suggest that screening programs should strongly consider a sequential-based strategy where FIT is offered first, and if declined then colonoscopy.”
 

Underlying factors

Dr. Ness said that many primary care providers might prefer to offer colonoscopies instead of annual FIT tests because it’s easier to track a test given every 10 years instead of every year or every 3 years.

“Providers across most of the U.S. are incentivized to recommend colonoscopy as the primary screening modality because the burden of follow-up on them is less,” Dr. Ness said. “They are able to justify this choice given colonoscopy remains the most accurate screening modality.”

Dr. Ness pointed to the programmatic screening program at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California health care system as a model for a program that utilizes FIT tests more often.

“The only way to accomplish an efficient and equitable colorectal cancer screening program is within the context of a national health service or plan,” Dr. Ness added. “Otherwise, the uninsured and underinsured will remain excluded from the benefits of colorectal cancer screening.”

Preferences did not differ a great deal between the age groups, with 35% of the younger group and 37% of the older group both preferring the FIT–fecal DNA tests every 3 years. Slightly more people in the 50+ age group preferred an annual fit (19% vs. 12%) as opposed to the colon capsule video every 5 years (28% of younger group vs. 23%) or colon CT scan every 5 years (11% of younger group vs. 8%), but the differences were statistically significant (P = .019).

In fact, “sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were not predictive of selecting FIT or colonoscopy,” the authors found. ”This demonstrates the individualized nature of decision making on colorectal cancer screening tests. Moreover, as most individuals preferred FIT, it again emphasizes the importance of sequential or choice-based strategies for colorectal cancer screening.”

However, one of the study’s notable limitations was its high proportion of White patients relative to other racial/ethnic groups, so additional research may illuminate whether different sociodemographic groups do have slight preferences for one test over another, Dr. Almario said. The advantage to colonoscopies, he noted, is that they only occur every 10 years and if polyps are discovered, they can be taken care of right away.

”You don’t have to think about it for a decade, which is certainly a pro for the colonoscopy,” Dr. Almario said. “The FIT test is obviously less invasive, but you have to do it every year for it to be an effective screening test.” He noted that some data have shown a drop-off in compliance over multiple years. “We certainly need more systems in place to remind patients and providers to do it annually so that we can see the ultimate screening benefit from doing that test specifically.”

“The most important point from the clinical perspective is, when we’re talking to patients about colon cancer screening, make sure to give them a choice,” Dr. Almario said. “We just can’t look at someone’s chart, their clinical characteristics or demographics, and predict what tests they would prefer. We need to ask them. We need to present them with the options, go over the pros and cons of colonoscopy, the pros and cons of the stool test, and ask the patient what they would prefer to do.”

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. One author served on an advisory board with Exact Sciences. The other authors and Dr. Ness had no disclosures.

Patients said they’d prefer fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–fecal DNA tests over any of the other colorectal cancer screening (CRC) modalities currently recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force, according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Just over a third of American adults aged 40 and older who hadn’t yet been screened for CRC preferred the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, whereas just one in seven respondents preferred a colonoscopy – considered the gold standard in colorectal cancer screening – every 10 years.

”When you talk to patients and to your friends and family members, people tend to think colonoscopy is synonymous with colon cancer screening, but we have lots of different tests,” senior author Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, of the department of medicine at the Karsh division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Most people in general tend to prefer noninvasive stool tests, and when we try to predict who would prefer what, we actually couldn’t, so this is a very personal decision,” Dr. Almario said. “It’s important for clinicians to offer multiple choices to their patients, not to mention just colonoscopy. We have data from observing clinician-patient interactions showing that, a lot of times, colonoscopy is the only test that’s offered, despite there being multiple options.”

At the very least, Dr. Almario said, providers should offer patients a colonoscopy along with a noninvasive test, particularly a stool test, and discuss the two options, getting the patient’s input in terms of what they prefer. “The best test is the test that actually gets done,” he said.
 

Offering patients options

Reid M. Ness, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, was not involved with the study but wasn’t surprised at the findings since “most people wisely prefer to avoid invasive procedures,” he said in an interview. He agreed that many patients aren’t necessarily informed of all their options for screening.

“Many people who are now being offered colonoscopy as their only screening option may prefer a noninvasive option, such as FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing,” Dr. Ness said. “Also, people now refusing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening may instead accept FIT or multitarget stool DNA testing. It is difficult to know how many people now refusing colorectal cancer screening may have accepted screening if it had been offered differently.”

That’s precisely what Dr. Almario and his colleagues wanted to find out. They surveyed 1,000 people aged 40 and older who were at average risk for colorectal cancer to find out their preferences for different screening modalities and what features of different screening types they most valued. The researchers asked about the following screening tests recommended by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force:

• FIT every year.
• FIT–fecal DNA every 3 years.
• Colon video capsule every 5 years.
• CT colonography every 5 years.
• Colonoscopy every 10 years.

The respondents who completed the online survey were recruited from a sample of more than 20 million people across the United States who have agreed to receive survey invitations. Respondents were excluded if they had a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer, had already undergone colorectal cancer screening or had been diagnosed with colon polyps, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis.

The respondents were split into those aged 40-49 (61% of the sample) who had not yet discussed colorectal cancer screening with their providers and those aged 50 and older, who might have already discussed it and declined. Eighty percent of the respondents were White, 6% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, 4% were Asian, and 3% reported another race/ethnicity. Just over half (52%) had at least two comorbidities. A quarter (25%) reported one comorbidity, and 22% reported none.



In thinking about the decision to get screened, respondents ranked the test type as the most important consideration, followed by the reduction in their chance of developing colorectal cancer and then frequency of the test. Lower priority on the list of considerations were their chances of a complication, bowel prep before the test, and required diet changes before the test.

The test preferred by the highest proportion of respondents was the FIT–fecal DNA test every 3 years, preferred by 35% of respondents, followed by the colon capsule video test every 5 years (28%). About one in seven respondents (14%) preferred a colonoscopy every 10 years, followed by the annual FIT (12%) and CT colonography every 5 years (11%). When limited only to the two tier 1–option tests – the annual FIT or a colonoscopy every 10 years – a substantial majority of the younger (69%) and older (77%) groups preferred the annual FIT.

”This finding is discordant with current CRC screening utilization in the United States where colonoscopy is the most commonly performed test, and this may partially explain our suboptimal screening rates,” the authors wrote. “Our findings suggest that screening programs should strongly consider a sequential-based strategy where FIT is offered first, and if declined then colonoscopy.”
 

Underlying factors

Dr. Ness said that many primary care providers might prefer to offer colonoscopies instead of annual FIT tests because it’s easier to track a test given every 10 years instead of every year or every 3 years.

“Providers across most of the U.S. are incentivized to recommend colonoscopy as the primary screening modality because the burden of follow-up on them is less,” Dr. Ness said. “They are able to justify this choice given colonoscopy remains the most accurate screening modality.”

Dr. Ness pointed to the programmatic screening program at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California health care system as a model for a program that utilizes FIT tests more often.

“The only way to accomplish an efficient and equitable colorectal cancer screening program is within the context of a national health service or plan,” Dr. Ness added. “Otherwise, the uninsured and underinsured will remain excluded from the benefits of colorectal cancer screening.”

Preferences did not differ a great deal between the age groups, with 35% of the younger group and 37% of the older group both preferring the FIT–fecal DNA tests every 3 years. Slightly more people in the 50+ age group preferred an annual fit (19% vs. 12%) as opposed to the colon capsule video every 5 years (28% of younger group vs. 23%) or colon CT scan every 5 years (11% of younger group vs. 8%), but the differences were statistically significant (P = .019).

In fact, “sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were not predictive of selecting FIT or colonoscopy,” the authors found. ”This demonstrates the individualized nature of decision making on colorectal cancer screening tests. Moreover, as most individuals preferred FIT, it again emphasizes the importance of sequential or choice-based strategies for colorectal cancer screening.”

However, one of the study’s notable limitations was its high proportion of White patients relative to other racial/ethnic groups, so additional research may illuminate whether different sociodemographic groups do have slight preferences for one test over another, Dr. Almario said. The advantage to colonoscopies, he noted, is that they only occur every 10 years and if polyps are discovered, they can be taken care of right away.

”You don’t have to think about it for a decade, which is certainly a pro for the colonoscopy,” Dr. Almario said. “The FIT test is obviously less invasive, but you have to do it every year for it to be an effective screening test.” He noted that some data have shown a drop-off in compliance over multiple years. “We certainly need more systems in place to remind patients and providers to do it annually so that we can see the ultimate screening benefit from doing that test specifically.”

“The most important point from the clinical perspective is, when we’re talking to patients about colon cancer screening, make sure to give them a choice,” Dr. Almario said. “We just can’t look at someone’s chart, their clinical characteristics or demographics, and predict what tests they would prefer. We need to ask them. We need to present them with the options, go over the pros and cons of colonoscopy, the pros and cons of the stool test, and ask the patient what they would prefer to do.”

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. One author served on an advisory board with Exact Sciences. The other authors and Dr. Ness had no disclosures.