Most available drugs for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) demonstrate greater efficacy than placebo, but data are too heterogenous to determine a reliable therapeutic hierarchy, shows a meta-analysis published in Gut.

Among agents available outside of clinical trials, the corticosteroid budesonide had the broadest evidence base for efficacy, while EoE-specific topical steroids typically outperformed adapted asthma formulations, wrote authors who were led by Edoardo Savarino, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery, oncology and gastroenterology at the University of Padua, Italy.

The AGA Institute and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters published clinical practice guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis in 2020. The group issued 12 recommendations with only 1, the topical use of glucocorticosteroids over no treatment, being a “strong recommendation.” Both the AGA/JTF guidelines and guidelines issued May 23, 2022 , by the British Society of Gastroenterology and British Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, recommend the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and topical glucocorticosteroids in certain cases. Neither set of guidelines addresses the use of dupilumab, which was approved in the United States on May 20, 2022, for adults and pediatric patients 12 years and older, and in January of this year by the European Commission for the same condition.

The current study is a meta-analysis that compared data from 1,813 subjects with active EoE who participated in 15 randomized controlled trials. All drugs tested in EoE were included, each compared against one another and placebo. Efficacy was characterized by induction of histological remission, symptomatic response, and endoscopic response. Topical steroids formulated for EoE were evaluated separately from off-label topical steroids for asthma.

This approach yielded a litany of efficacy findings.

Of note, budesonide orally disintegrating tablets ranked first for histological remission defined by no more than 15 eosinophils/high-powered field (HPF), while lirentelimab was best at achieving the lesser used histological remission threshold of 6 eosinophils/HPF. On the same topic of inducing histological remission, EoE-specific steroid formulations, along with dupilumab, showed greater efficacy than off-label topical steroids.

The investigators also highlighted that budesonide suspension and tablets were significantly better than placebo in terms of failure to achieve symptom improvement and failure to achieve endoscopic improvement according to EoE Endoscopic Reference Score.

Collectively, the analysis showed that most available drugs are significantly more effective than placebo for treating EoE, yet differences in study designs and population characteristics stand in the way of a clear road map to treatment selection.

“In summary, this network meta-analysis supports the efficacy of most available drugs over placebo for the treatment of EoE. All EoE-specific steroid formulations and dupilumab ranked higher than off-label topical steroids for the induction of histological remission in active EoE, and most EoE-specific steroid formulations and dupilumab ranked higher than esomeprazole, despite having comparable safety,” the authors wrote. “These results prompt further research to better understand the mechanisms underlying symptom generation in EoE, to target their cause and achieve better outcomes.”

Michigan Medicine

Joy Weiling Chang, MD, a gastroenterologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, offered a similar perspective.

“This study tells us that we still need more data to establish this clear hierarchy of medication treatments,” she said in an interview.

Still, Dr. Chang added, these findings are applicable to clinical practice. Because most EoE drugs demonstrate significant efficacy over placebo, and the best starting option remains unclear, then shared decision-making should focus on patient preferences, she said in an interview.

“As clinicians, we need to be working with our patients to consider which strategies work best for their lifestyles,” Dr. Chang said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biogen, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Chang reported consulting fees for Sanofi-Regeneron, the maker of Dupixent.
 

Most available drugs for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) demonstrate greater efficacy than placebo, but data are too heterogenous to determine a reliable therapeutic hierarchy, shows a meta-analysis published in Gut.

Among agents available outside of clinical trials, the corticosteroid budesonide had the broadest evidence base for efficacy, while EoE-specific topical steroids typically outperformed adapted asthma formulations, wrote authors who were led by Edoardo Savarino, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery, oncology and gastroenterology at the University of Padua, Italy.

The AGA Institute and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters published clinical practice guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis in 2020. The group issued 12 recommendations with only 1, the topical use of glucocorticosteroids over no treatment, being a “strong recommendation.” Both the AGA/JTF guidelines and guidelines issued May 23, 2022 , by the British Society of Gastroenterology and British Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, recommend the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and topical glucocorticosteroids in certain cases. Neither set of guidelines addresses the use of dupilumab, which was approved in the United States on May 20, 2022, for adults and pediatric patients 12 years and older, and in January of this year by the European Commission for the same condition.

The current study is a meta-analysis that compared data from 1,813 subjects with active EoE who participated in 15 randomized controlled trials. All drugs tested in EoE were included, each compared against one another and placebo. Efficacy was characterized by induction of histological remission, symptomatic response, and endoscopic response. Topical steroids formulated for EoE were evaluated separately from off-label topical steroids for asthma.

This approach yielded a litany of efficacy findings.

Of note, budesonide orally disintegrating tablets ranked first for histological remission defined by no more than 15 eosinophils/high-powered field (HPF), while lirentelimab was best at achieving the lesser used histological remission threshold of 6 eosinophils/HPF. On the same topic of inducing histological remission, EoE-specific steroid formulations, along with dupilumab, showed greater efficacy than off-label topical steroids.

The investigators also highlighted that budesonide suspension and tablets were significantly better than placebo in terms of failure to achieve symptom improvement and failure to achieve endoscopic improvement according to EoE Endoscopic Reference Score.

Collectively, the analysis showed that most available drugs are significantly more effective than placebo for treating EoE, yet differences in study designs and population characteristics stand in the way of a clear road map to treatment selection.

“In summary, this network meta-analysis supports the efficacy of most available drugs over placebo for the treatment of EoE. All EoE-specific steroid formulations and dupilumab ranked higher than off-label topical steroids for the induction of histological remission in active EoE, and most EoE-specific steroid formulations and dupilumab ranked higher than esomeprazole, despite having comparable safety,” the authors wrote. “These results prompt further research to better understand the mechanisms underlying symptom generation in EoE, to target their cause and achieve better outcomes.”

Michigan Medicine

Joy Weiling Chang, MD, a gastroenterologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, offered a similar perspective.

“This study tells us that we still need more data to establish this clear hierarchy of medication treatments,” she said in an interview.

Still, Dr. Chang added, these findings are applicable to clinical practice. Because most EoE drugs demonstrate significant efficacy over placebo, and the best starting option remains unclear, then shared decision-making should focus on patient preferences, she said in an interview.

“As clinicians, we need to be working with our patients to consider which strategies work best for their lifestyles,” Dr. Chang said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biogen, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Chang reported consulting fees for Sanofi-Regeneron, the maker of Dupixent.
 

Most available drugs for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) demonstrate greater efficacy than placebo, but data are too heterogenous to determine a reliable therapeutic hierarchy, shows a meta-analysis published in Gut.

Among agents available outside of clinical trials, the corticosteroid budesonide had the broadest evidence base for efficacy, while EoE-specific topical steroids typically outperformed adapted asthma formulations, wrote authors who were led by Edoardo Savarino, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery, oncology and gastroenterology at the University of Padua, Italy.

The AGA Institute and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters published clinical practice guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis in 2020. The group issued 12 recommendations with only 1, the topical use of glucocorticosteroids over no treatment, being a “strong recommendation.” Both the AGA/JTF guidelines and guidelines issued May 23, 2022 , by the British Society of Gastroenterology and British Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, recommend the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and topical glucocorticosteroids in certain cases. Neither set of guidelines addresses the use of dupilumab, which was approved in the United States on May 20, 2022, for adults and pediatric patients 12 years and older, and in January of this year by the European Commission for the same condition.

The current study is a meta-analysis that compared data from 1,813 subjects with active EoE who participated in 15 randomized controlled trials. All drugs tested in EoE were included, each compared against one another and placebo. Efficacy was characterized by induction of histological remission, symptomatic response, and endoscopic response. Topical steroids formulated for EoE were evaluated separately from off-label topical steroids for asthma.

This approach yielded a litany of efficacy findings.

Of note, budesonide orally disintegrating tablets ranked first for histological remission defined by no more than 15 eosinophils/high-powered field (HPF), while lirentelimab was best at achieving the lesser used histological remission threshold of 6 eosinophils/HPF. On the same topic of inducing histological remission, EoE-specific steroid formulations, along with dupilumab, showed greater efficacy than off-label topical steroids.

The investigators also highlighted that budesonide suspension and tablets were significantly better than placebo in terms of failure to achieve symptom improvement and failure to achieve endoscopic improvement according to EoE Endoscopic Reference Score.

Collectively, the analysis showed that most available drugs are significantly more effective than placebo for treating EoE, yet differences in study designs and population characteristics stand in the way of a clear road map to treatment selection.

“In summary, this network meta-analysis supports the efficacy of most available drugs over placebo for the treatment of EoE. All EoE-specific steroid formulations and dupilumab ranked higher than off-label topical steroids for the induction of histological remission in active EoE, and most EoE-specific steroid formulations and dupilumab ranked higher than esomeprazole, despite having comparable safety,” the authors wrote. “These results prompt further research to better understand the mechanisms underlying symptom generation in EoE, to target their cause and achieve better outcomes.”

Michigan Medicine

Joy Weiling Chang, MD, a gastroenterologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, offered a similar perspective.

“This study tells us that we still need more data to establish this clear hierarchy of medication treatments,” she said in an interview.

Still, Dr. Chang added, these findings are applicable to clinical practice. Because most EoE drugs demonstrate significant efficacy over placebo, and the best starting option remains unclear, then shared decision-making should focus on patient preferences, she said in an interview.

“As clinicians, we need to be working with our patients to consider which strategies work best for their lifestyles,” Dr. Chang said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biogen, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Chang reported consulting fees for Sanofi-Regeneron, the maker of Dupixent.
 

Except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy, common cancer screening tests do not extend life, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term randomized clinical trials involving 2.1 million individuals, found that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life. An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using CT. The study involved more than 1 decade of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality of people who had undergone mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer; CT screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.

AGA

The study received a fair amount of attention in the press, but the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) believes the premise of the study is flawed because cancer screening is not intended to increase longevity, but it can prevent premature death.

“Cancer prevention and earlier stage diagnoses through colorectal cancer screening provides significant morbidity and cost benefits, even if all-cause mortality is not reduced,” said Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, AGA vice president.

The authors of the study, who were led by Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, of the Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, are not suggesting that cancer screenings be abandoned. However, they do suggest that “organizations, institutions, and policy makers who promote cancer screening tests by their effect to save lives may find other ways of encouraging screening. It might be wise to reconsider priorities and dispassionately inform interested people about the absolute benefits, harms, and burden of screening tests that they consider undertaking.”

Except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy, common cancer screening tests do not extend life, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term randomized clinical trials involving 2.1 million individuals, found that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life. An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using CT. The study involved more than 1 decade of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality of people who had undergone mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer; CT screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.

AGA

The study received a fair amount of attention in the press, but the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) believes the premise of the study is flawed because cancer screening is not intended to increase longevity, but it can prevent premature death.

“Cancer prevention and earlier stage diagnoses through colorectal cancer screening provides significant morbidity and cost benefits, even if all-cause mortality is not reduced,” said Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, AGA vice president.

The authors of the study, who were led by Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, of the Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, are not suggesting that cancer screenings be abandoned. However, they do suggest that “organizations, institutions, and policy makers who promote cancer screening tests by their effect to save lives may find other ways of encouraging screening. It might be wise to reconsider priorities and dispassionately inform interested people about the absolute benefits, harms, and burden of screening tests that they consider undertaking.”

Except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy, common cancer screening tests do not extend life, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term randomized clinical trials involving 2.1 million individuals, found that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life. An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using CT. The study involved more than 1 decade of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality of people who had undergone mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer; CT screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.

AGA

The study received a fair amount of attention in the press, but the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) believes the premise of the study is flawed because cancer screening is not intended to increase longevity, but it can prevent premature death.

“Cancer prevention and earlier stage diagnoses through colorectal cancer screening provides significant morbidity and cost benefits, even if all-cause mortality is not reduced,” said Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, AGA vice president.

The authors of the study, who were led by Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, of the Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, are not suggesting that cancer screenings be abandoned. However, they do suggest that “organizations, institutions, and policy makers who promote cancer screening tests by their effect to save lives may find other ways of encouraging screening. It might be wise to reconsider priorities and dispassionately inform interested people about the absolute benefits, harms, and burden of screening tests that they consider undertaking.”

In a new statement, five professional gastroenterology organizations caution that there are currently no data to support stopping glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy

The medications, which include semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy), tirzepatide (Mounjaro), and liraglutide (Saxenda), among others, are used for the treatment of diabetes or for weight loss and may be associated with delayed gastric emptying.

Penn Medicine

Patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists for diabetes management “need to be cautious about withholding these medications because doing so can adversely impact blood glucose control,” said Octavia Pickett-Blakely, MD, a gastroenterologist with University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). “In patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, poorly controlled blood glucose could raise the risk of complications.”

In a commentary on Medscape, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, urges clinicians to learn about the topic and inform patients when prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists.

“These are new and changing issues. In our world as gastroenterologists, we should be considering – very strongly – mitigating strategies to protect the patients on this wonderful class of therapy,” he says. “Sometimes these drugs can have significant side effects that we need to at least be aware of. Nothing is perfect, but let us be better informed.”

“We really don’t know what the risks are yet. With endoscopy, they could be significant, but perhaps they’re not,” Jonathan Leighton, MD, a gastroenterologist with Mayo Clinic Arizona in Phoenix and president-elect of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), told this news organization. “There are a lot of factors that go into this, and we just want to proceed cautiously and carefully until we know more.”

The ACG, AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition released the statement on Aug. 11.

It was issued in response to recent guidance on the preoperative management of adults and children on GLP-1 receptor agonists put forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

In a separate statement, the AGA stated that there is little, or no data on complications from aspiration.

“While there is anecdotal experience that increased gastroparesis risk may be dose dependent or related to whether it is being used for diabetes control versus weight loss, we also acknowledge that there is little, or no data related to the relative risk of complications from aspiration. As a result, the impact associated with stopping these therapies prior to undergoing upper GI endoscopy (EGD) or other moderate to deep sedated procedures is unknown at this time. 

“As clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists, we are very familiar with safety issues regarding the performance of endoscopy in our patients suffering from gastroparesis as well as unexplained nausea, vomiting, and epigastric pain, particularly in emergency situations. As patient safety will always be paramount, and in the absence of actionable data, we encourage our members to exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients who are taking GLP-1 receptor agonists. More data are needed to understand if and when these medications should be held prior to elective endoscopy. Given the need for further data regarding the emerging use of these novel compounds, we encourage our anesthesiology, endocrinology, and industry partners to work collaboratively with our members to develop the necessary evidence to appropriately inform medication adjustments prior to elective endoscopy.”

ASA recommendations

The ASA Task Force on Preoperative Fasting reviewed the available literature on GLP-1 receptor agonists and associated gastrointestinal adverse effects, including the consequences of delayed gastric emptying.

The task force acknowledges that the evidence to provide guidance for preoperative management of these drugs to prevent regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is “sparse, limited only to several case reports.”

Nevertheless, given the concerns of GLP-1 receptor agonist–induced delayed gastric emptying and associated high risk for regurgitation and aspiration of gastric contents, the task force made these recommendations for elective procedures.

The day before the procedure

For patients on daily dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists on the day of the procedure/surgery. For patients on weekly dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists a week prior to the procedure/surgery.

This suggestion is irrespective of the indication (type 2 diabetes or weight loss), dose, or the type of procedure/surgery.

If GLP-1 agonists prescribed for diabetes are held for longer than the dosing schedule, consider consulting an endocrinologist for bridging the antidiabetic therapy to avoid hyperglycemia.

The day of the procedure

If GI symptoms such as severe nausea/vomiting/retching, abdominal bloating, or abdominal pain are present, consider delaying the elective procedure and discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

If the patient has no GI symptoms and the GLP-1 agonists have been held as advised, proceed as usual.

If the patient has no GI symptoms but the GLP-1 agonists were not held as advised, proceed with “full stomach” precautions or consider evaluating gastric volume by ultrasound, if possible and if proficient with the technique. If the stomach is empty, proceed as usual. If the stomach is full or if gastric ultrasound is inconclusive or not possible, consider delaying the procedure or treat the patient as “full stomach” and manage accordingly. Discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

There is no evidence to suggest the optimal duration of fasting for patients on GLP-1 agonists. Therefore, until we have adequate evidence, we suggest following the current ASA fasting guidelines.

For patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists who need urgent or emergent procedures, the ASA advises proceeding and treating the patient as “full stomach” and managing accordingly.

Dr. Leighton has financial relationships with Olympus and Pfizer. Dr. Pickett-Blakely has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Johnson is an adviser to ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

This story was adapted for GI&Hepatology News from Medscape.

In a new statement, five professional gastroenterology organizations caution that there are currently no data to support stopping glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy

The medications, which include semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy), tirzepatide (Mounjaro), and liraglutide (Saxenda), among others, are used for the treatment of diabetes or for weight loss and may be associated with delayed gastric emptying.

Penn Medicine

Patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists for diabetes management “need to be cautious about withholding these medications because doing so can adversely impact blood glucose control,” said Octavia Pickett-Blakely, MD, a gastroenterologist with University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). “In patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, poorly controlled blood glucose could raise the risk of complications.”

In a commentary on Medscape, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, urges clinicians to learn about the topic and inform patients when prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists.

“These are new and changing issues. In our world as gastroenterologists, we should be considering – very strongly – mitigating strategies to protect the patients on this wonderful class of therapy,” he says. “Sometimes these drugs can have significant side effects that we need to at least be aware of. Nothing is perfect, but let us be better informed.”

“We really don’t know what the risks are yet. With endoscopy, they could be significant, but perhaps they’re not,” Jonathan Leighton, MD, a gastroenterologist with Mayo Clinic Arizona in Phoenix and president-elect of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), told this news organization. “There are a lot of factors that go into this, and we just want to proceed cautiously and carefully until we know more.”

The ACG, AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition released the statement on Aug. 11.

It was issued in response to recent guidance on the preoperative management of adults and children on GLP-1 receptor agonists put forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

In a separate statement, the AGA stated that there is little, or no data on complications from aspiration.

“While there is anecdotal experience that increased gastroparesis risk may be dose dependent or related to whether it is being used for diabetes control versus weight loss, we also acknowledge that there is little, or no data related to the relative risk of complications from aspiration. As a result, the impact associated with stopping these therapies prior to undergoing upper GI endoscopy (EGD) or other moderate to deep sedated procedures is unknown at this time. 

“As clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists, we are very familiar with safety issues regarding the performance of endoscopy in our patients suffering from gastroparesis as well as unexplained nausea, vomiting, and epigastric pain, particularly in emergency situations. As patient safety will always be paramount, and in the absence of actionable data, we encourage our members to exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients who are taking GLP-1 receptor agonists. More data are needed to understand if and when these medications should be held prior to elective endoscopy. Given the need for further data regarding the emerging use of these novel compounds, we encourage our anesthesiology, endocrinology, and industry partners to work collaboratively with our members to develop the necessary evidence to appropriately inform medication adjustments prior to elective endoscopy.”

ASA recommendations

The ASA Task Force on Preoperative Fasting reviewed the available literature on GLP-1 receptor agonists and associated gastrointestinal adverse effects, including the consequences of delayed gastric emptying.

The task force acknowledges that the evidence to provide guidance for preoperative management of these drugs to prevent regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is “sparse, limited only to several case reports.”

Nevertheless, given the concerns of GLP-1 receptor agonist–induced delayed gastric emptying and associated high risk for regurgitation and aspiration of gastric contents, the task force made these recommendations for elective procedures.

The day before the procedure

For patients on daily dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists on the day of the procedure/surgery. For patients on weekly dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists a week prior to the procedure/surgery.

This suggestion is irrespective of the indication (type 2 diabetes or weight loss), dose, or the type of procedure/surgery.

If GLP-1 agonists prescribed for diabetes are held for longer than the dosing schedule, consider consulting an endocrinologist for bridging the antidiabetic therapy to avoid hyperglycemia.

The day of the procedure

If GI symptoms such as severe nausea/vomiting/retching, abdominal bloating, or abdominal pain are present, consider delaying the elective procedure and discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

If the patient has no GI symptoms and the GLP-1 agonists have been held as advised, proceed as usual.

If the patient has no GI symptoms but the GLP-1 agonists were not held as advised, proceed with “full stomach” precautions or consider evaluating gastric volume by ultrasound, if possible and if proficient with the technique. If the stomach is empty, proceed as usual. If the stomach is full or if gastric ultrasound is inconclusive or not possible, consider delaying the procedure or treat the patient as “full stomach” and manage accordingly. Discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

There is no evidence to suggest the optimal duration of fasting for patients on GLP-1 agonists. Therefore, until we have adequate evidence, we suggest following the current ASA fasting guidelines.

For patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists who need urgent or emergent procedures, the ASA advises proceeding and treating the patient as “full stomach” and managing accordingly.

Dr. Leighton has financial relationships with Olympus and Pfizer. Dr. Pickett-Blakely has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Johnson is an adviser to ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

This story was adapted for GI&Hepatology News from Medscape.

In a new statement, five professional gastroenterology organizations caution that there are currently no data to support stopping glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to elective endoscopy

The medications, which include semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy), tirzepatide (Mounjaro), and liraglutide (Saxenda), among others, are used for the treatment of diabetes or for weight loss and may be associated with delayed gastric emptying.

Penn Medicine

Patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists for diabetes management “need to be cautious about withholding these medications because doing so can adversely impact blood glucose control,” said Octavia Pickett-Blakely, MD, a gastroenterologist with University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). “In patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, poorly controlled blood glucose could raise the risk of complications.”

In a commentary on Medscape, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, urges clinicians to learn about the topic and inform patients when prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists.

“These are new and changing issues. In our world as gastroenterologists, we should be considering – very strongly – mitigating strategies to protect the patients on this wonderful class of therapy,” he says. “Sometimes these drugs can have significant side effects that we need to at least be aware of. Nothing is perfect, but let us be better informed.”

“We really don’t know what the risks are yet. With endoscopy, they could be significant, but perhaps they’re not,” Jonathan Leighton, MD, a gastroenterologist with Mayo Clinic Arizona in Phoenix and president-elect of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), told this news organization. “There are a lot of factors that go into this, and we just want to proceed cautiously and carefully until we know more.”

The ACG, AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition released the statement on Aug. 11.

It was issued in response to recent guidance on the preoperative management of adults and children on GLP-1 receptor agonists put forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

In a separate statement, the AGA stated that there is little, or no data on complications from aspiration.

“While there is anecdotal experience that increased gastroparesis risk may be dose dependent or related to whether it is being used for diabetes control versus weight loss, we also acknowledge that there is little, or no data related to the relative risk of complications from aspiration. As a result, the impact associated with stopping these therapies prior to undergoing upper GI endoscopy (EGD) or other moderate to deep sedated procedures is unknown at this time. 

“As clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists, we are very familiar with safety issues regarding the performance of endoscopy in our patients suffering from gastroparesis as well as unexplained nausea, vomiting, and epigastric pain, particularly in emergency situations. As patient safety will always be paramount, and in the absence of actionable data, we encourage our members to exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients who are taking GLP-1 receptor agonists. More data are needed to understand if and when these medications should be held prior to elective endoscopy. Given the need for further data regarding the emerging use of these novel compounds, we encourage our anesthesiology, endocrinology, and industry partners to work collaboratively with our members to develop the necessary evidence to appropriately inform medication adjustments prior to elective endoscopy.”

ASA recommendations

The ASA Task Force on Preoperative Fasting reviewed the available literature on GLP-1 receptor agonists and associated gastrointestinal adverse effects, including the consequences of delayed gastric emptying.

The task force acknowledges that the evidence to provide guidance for preoperative management of these drugs to prevent regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is “sparse, limited only to several case reports.”

Nevertheless, given the concerns of GLP-1 receptor agonist–induced delayed gastric emptying and associated high risk for regurgitation and aspiration of gastric contents, the task force made these recommendations for elective procedures.

The day before the procedure

For patients on daily dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists on the day of the procedure/surgery. For patients on weekly dosing, consider holding GLP-1 agonists a week prior to the procedure/surgery.

This suggestion is irrespective of the indication (type 2 diabetes or weight loss), dose, or the type of procedure/surgery.

If GLP-1 agonists prescribed for diabetes are held for longer than the dosing schedule, consider consulting an endocrinologist for bridging the antidiabetic therapy to avoid hyperglycemia.

The day of the procedure

If GI symptoms such as severe nausea/vomiting/retching, abdominal bloating, or abdominal pain are present, consider delaying the elective procedure and discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

If the patient has no GI symptoms and the GLP-1 agonists have been held as advised, proceed as usual.

If the patient has no GI symptoms but the GLP-1 agonists were not held as advised, proceed with “full stomach” precautions or consider evaluating gastric volume by ultrasound, if possible and if proficient with the technique. If the stomach is empty, proceed as usual. If the stomach is full or if gastric ultrasound is inconclusive or not possible, consider delaying the procedure or treat the patient as “full stomach” and manage accordingly. Discuss the concerns of potential risk of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents with the proceduralist/surgeon and the patient.

There is no evidence to suggest the optimal duration of fasting for patients on GLP-1 agonists. Therefore, until we have adequate evidence, we suggest following the current ASA fasting guidelines.

For patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists who need urgent or emergent procedures, the ASA advises proceeding and treating the patient as “full stomach” and managing accordingly.

Dr. Leighton has financial relationships with Olympus and Pfizer. Dr. Pickett-Blakely has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Johnson is an adviser to ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

This story was adapted for GI&Hepatology News from Medscape.

A new Clinical Practice Update from the AGA on belching, abdominal bloating, and distention offers practical management strategies for a class of disorders that, while highly prevalent, can be confusing to clinicians because of their nonspecific and overlapping symptomatology and wide range of possible causes.

The expert review, published online in Gastroenterology, is dedicated to these specific disorders, which, when not caused by bacteria, food intolerance, or autoimmune disease, are increasingly viewed as stemming from dysregulation of the brain-gut axis, and therefore responsive to interventions such as biofeedback therapy and central nervous system modulators, including antidepressants referred to as neuromodulators due to their pain modulating effects in the gut.

Baharak Moshiree, MD, of Atrium Health, Wake Forest Medical University, Charlotte, N.C., the lead author, said the guidance is aimed at GI specialists as much as primary care physicians and other providers who treat patients with these disorders.
 

Atrium Health

Clinicians may not always know which diagnostic studies to order for a patient with bloating, distention, or belching, Dr. Moshiree said, and since large randomized controlled trials in these patient groups are not available, making evidence-based treatment recommendations is challenging. Because the disorders are ubiquitous, “there’s a lot of social media attention around them, and these include fad diets and drugs labeled as medical foods, like probiotics, that patients will often try.”

The guidance includes 15 best practice advice statements along with two diagnostic and treatment algorithms, one for belching and the other for bloating and distention.

For belching, the authors stress discerning between gastric and supragastric belching using clinical history and examination, and if needed, impedance Ph monitoring. For supragastric belching, or esophageal belching, treatment considerations may include cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback training, and neuromodulator (antidepressant) drugs either alone or combined with psychological therapies.

Abdominal bloating and distention should be diagnosed using the Rome IV criteria, and in patients with suspected carbohydrate enzyme deficiencies, dietary restriction of potentially problematic carbohydrates or breath testing may be used to rule out intolerance. In a subset of at-risk patients, “small bowel aspiration and glucose- or lactulose-based hydrogen breath testing may be used to evaluate for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth,” the guidance says. Blood testing may be used to rule out celiac disease, and, if positive, a definitive diagnosis should be confirmed with small bowel tissue biopsy obtained during an upper endoscopy, Dr. Moshiree and her colleagues wrote.

Endoscopy and imaging should be restricted to patients with alarm features such as vomiting or weight loss, rapid worsening of symptoms, or an abnormal physical exam. Tests such as gastric emptying transit studies should not be routinely ordered unless nausea and vomiting are present. Similarly, whole-gut motility studies should be ordered only if there are symptoms suggestive of motility disorders, with testing carried out at specialized centers.

When constipation occurs with bloating, clinicians should use anorectal physiology testing to rule out a pelvic-floor disorder, which, if present, can be treated with pelvic floor biofeedback training. Constipation in the context of bloating may also be treated with laxatives. Probiotics are not advised as treatment for bloating and distention in this guidance, given a lack of robust studies. However, neuromodulators may help reduce visceral or gut hypersensitivity and improve psychological comorbidities if these are present, the authors wrote.

Conditions treated with dietary modifications should be overseen by dietitians, and diaphragmatic breathing and neuromodulators can be used to treat a condition called abdominophrenic dyssynergia, the guidance says.

“We tried to make it clinically useful,” Dr. Moshiree said of the practice update, which was not the result of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of multicenter randomized controlled trials. The update contains no ratings on its recommendations and does not grade the evidence used. Rather, the three coauthors looked to results from published randomized trials and observational studies, along with their own expert opinion.

For example, the guidance’s best practice advice on abdominophrenic dyssynergia came from single center studies in Italy where bloating improved with use of biofeedback therapy for this condition. Although this was a single center study, experts have found that biofeedback therapy is helpful for relaxing the pelvic floor muscles which can help bloating and distension symptoms.

Dr. Moshiree also pointed to a 2021 narrative review by Brian E. Lacy, MD. and David Cangemi, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., that helped inform the framework for this clinical practice update.

Dr. Moshiree disclosed financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies including Salix, AbbVie, Medtronic, and Takeda. Her two coauthors, Douglas Drossman, MD, of the Rome Foundation and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Aasma Shaukat, MD, of New York University, also disclosed industry support.

A new Clinical Practice Update from the AGA on belching, abdominal bloating, and distention offers practical management strategies for a class of disorders that, while highly prevalent, can be confusing to clinicians because of their nonspecific and overlapping symptomatology and wide range of possible causes.

The expert review, published online in Gastroenterology, is dedicated to these specific disorders, which, when not caused by bacteria, food intolerance, or autoimmune disease, are increasingly viewed as stemming from dysregulation of the brain-gut axis, and therefore responsive to interventions such as biofeedback therapy and central nervous system modulators, including antidepressants referred to as neuromodulators due to their pain modulating effects in the gut.

Baharak Moshiree, MD, of Atrium Health, Wake Forest Medical University, Charlotte, N.C., the lead author, said the guidance is aimed at GI specialists as much as primary care physicians and other providers who treat patients with these disorders.
 

Atrium Health

Clinicians may not always know which diagnostic studies to order for a patient with bloating, distention, or belching, Dr. Moshiree said, and since large randomized controlled trials in these patient groups are not available, making evidence-based treatment recommendations is challenging. Because the disorders are ubiquitous, “there’s a lot of social media attention around them, and these include fad diets and drugs labeled as medical foods, like probiotics, that patients will often try.”

The guidance includes 15 best practice advice statements along with two diagnostic and treatment algorithms, one for belching and the other for bloating and distention.

For belching, the authors stress discerning between gastric and supragastric belching using clinical history and examination, and if needed, impedance Ph monitoring. For supragastric belching, or esophageal belching, treatment considerations may include cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback training, and neuromodulator (antidepressant) drugs either alone or combined with psychological therapies.

Abdominal bloating and distention should be diagnosed using the Rome IV criteria, and in patients with suspected carbohydrate enzyme deficiencies, dietary restriction of potentially problematic carbohydrates or breath testing may be used to rule out intolerance. In a subset of at-risk patients, “small bowel aspiration and glucose- or lactulose-based hydrogen breath testing may be used to evaluate for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth,” the guidance says. Blood testing may be used to rule out celiac disease, and, if positive, a definitive diagnosis should be confirmed with small bowel tissue biopsy obtained during an upper endoscopy, Dr. Moshiree and her colleagues wrote.

Endoscopy and imaging should be restricted to patients with alarm features such as vomiting or weight loss, rapid worsening of symptoms, or an abnormal physical exam. Tests such as gastric emptying transit studies should not be routinely ordered unless nausea and vomiting are present. Similarly, whole-gut motility studies should be ordered only if there are symptoms suggestive of motility disorders, with testing carried out at specialized centers.

When constipation occurs with bloating, clinicians should use anorectal physiology testing to rule out a pelvic-floor disorder, which, if present, can be treated with pelvic floor biofeedback training. Constipation in the context of bloating may also be treated with laxatives. Probiotics are not advised as treatment for bloating and distention in this guidance, given a lack of robust studies. However, neuromodulators may help reduce visceral or gut hypersensitivity and improve psychological comorbidities if these are present, the authors wrote.

Conditions treated with dietary modifications should be overseen by dietitians, and diaphragmatic breathing and neuromodulators can be used to treat a condition called abdominophrenic dyssynergia, the guidance says.

“We tried to make it clinically useful,” Dr. Moshiree said of the practice update, which was not the result of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of multicenter randomized controlled trials. The update contains no ratings on its recommendations and does not grade the evidence used. Rather, the three coauthors looked to results from published randomized trials and observational studies, along with their own expert opinion.

For example, the guidance’s best practice advice on abdominophrenic dyssynergia came from single center studies in Italy where bloating improved with use of biofeedback therapy for this condition. Although this was a single center study, experts have found that biofeedback therapy is helpful for relaxing the pelvic floor muscles which can help bloating and distension symptoms.

Dr. Moshiree also pointed to a 2021 narrative review by Brian E. Lacy, MD. and David Cangemi, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., that helped inform the framework for this clinical practice update.

Dr. Moshiree disclosed financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies including Salix, AbbVie, Medtronic, and Takeda. Her two coauthors, Douglas Drossman, MD, of the Rome Foundation and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Aasma Shaukat, MD, of New York University, also disclosed industry support.

A new Clinical Practice Update from the AGA on belching, abdominal bloating, and distention offers practical management strategies for a class of disorders that, while highly prevalent, can be confusing to clinicians because of their nonspecific and overlapping symptomatology and wide range of possible causes.

The expert review, published online in Gastroenterology, is dedicated to these specific disorders, which, when not caused by bacteria, food intolerance, or autoimmune disease, are increasingly viewed as stemming from dysregulation of the brain-gut axis, and therefore responsive to interventions such as biofeedback therapy and central nervous system modulators, including antidepressants referred to as neuromodulators due to their pain modulating effects in the gut.

Baharak Moshiree, MD, of Atrium Health, Wake Forest Medical University, Charlotte, N.C., the lead author, said the guidance is aimed at GI specialists as much as primary care physicians and other providers who treat patients with these disorders.
 

Atrium Health

Clinicians may not always know which diagnostic studies to order for a patient with bloating, distention, or belching, Dr. Moshiree said, and since large randomized controlled trials in these patient groups are not available, making evidence-based treatment recommendations is challenging. Because the disorders are ubiquitous, “there’s a lot of social media attention around them, and these include fad diets and drugs labeled as medical foods, like probiotics, that patients will often try.”

The guidance includes 15 best practice advice statements along with two diagnostic and treatment algorithms, one for belching and the other for bloating and distention.

For belching, the authors stress discerning between gastric and supragastric belching using clinical history and examination, and if needed, impedance Ph monitoring. For supragastric belching, or esophageal belching, treatment considerations may include cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback training, and neuromodulator (antidepressant) drugs either alone or combined with psychological therapies.

Abdominal bloating and distention should be diagnosed using the Rome IV criteria, and in patients with suspected carbohydrate enzyme deficiencies, dietary restriction of potentially problematic carbohydrates or breath testing may be used to rule out intolerance. In a subset of at-risk patients, “small bowel aspiration and glucose- or lactulose-based hydrogen breath testing may be used to evaluate for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth,” the guidance says. Blood testing may be used to rule out celiac disease, and, if positive, a definitive diagnosis should be confirmed with small bowel tissue biopsy obtained during an upper endoscopy, Dr. Moshiree and her colleagues wrote.

Endoscopy and imaging should be restricted to patients with alarm features such as vomiting or weight loss, rapid worsening of symptoms, or an abnormal physical exam. Tests such as gastric emptying transit studies should not be routinely ordered unless nausea and vomiting are present. Similarly, whole-gut motility studies should be ordered only if there are symptoms suggestive of motility disorders, with testing carried out at specialized centers.

When constipation occurs with bloating, clinicians should use anorectal physiology testing to rule out a pelvic-floor disorder, which, if present, can be treated with pelvic floor biofeedback training. Constipation in the context of bloating may also be treated with laxatives. Probiotics are not advised as treatment for bloating and distention in this guidance, given a lack of robust studies. However, neuromodulators may help reduce visceral or gut hypersensitivity and improve psychological comorbidities if these are present, the authors wrote.

Conditions treated with dietary modifications should be overseen by dietitians, and diaphragmatic breathing and neuromodulators can be used to treat a condition called abdominophrenic dyssynergia, the guidance says.

“We tried to make it clinically useful,” Dr. Moshiree said of the practice update, which was not the result of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of multicenter randomized controlled trials. The update contains no ratings on its recommendations and does not grade the evidence used. Rather, the three coauthors looked to results from published randomized trials and observational studies, along with their own expert opinion.

For example, the guidance’s best practice advice on abdominophrenic dyssynergia came from single center studies in Italy where bloating improved with use of biofeedback therapy for this condition. Although this was a single center study, experts have found that biofeedback therapy is helpful for relaxing the pelvic floor muscles which can help bloating and distension symptoms.

Dr. Moshiree also pointed to a 2021 narrative review by Brian E. Lacy, MD. and David Cangemi, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., that helped inform the framework for this clinical practice update.

Dr. Moshiree disclosed financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies including Salix, AbbVie, Medtronic, and Takeda. Her two coauthors, Douglas Drossman, MD, of the Rome Foundation and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Aasma Shaukat, MD, of New York University, also disclosed industry support.

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who undergo subtotal colectomy and diverted rectum may face a ”markedly increased” risk of rectal cancer in the diverted rectum at 10 years post colectomy, shows a Danish population-based cohort study.

These findings suggest that more intensive long-term surveillance is needed for colectomized patients with IBD, wrote researchers who were led by Tine Jess, MD, DMSc, of the Center for Molecular Prediction of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Aalborg University, Copenhagen.

“Our nationwide population-based cohort study covering 4 decades shows that despite a relatively low absolute number of RC cases following colectomy for IBD, the risk of RC is markedly increased 10 years after the surgery. This calls for better long-term surveillance of colectomized IBD patients,” the authors wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.

Previous studies have suggested that patients with IBD have an increased risk of rectal cancer after colectomy, but these data “cannot stand alone,” and “need to be confirmed in other unselected patient cohorts,” investigators wrote.

The new study was based on an analysis of data from more than 9 million individuals in the Danish Civil Registration System between 1978 and 2018. The analyses were restricted to risk of rectal cancer in the population with diverted rectum.

The final dataset included 4,931 patients with IBD who had subtotal colectomy and diverted rectum, 49,251 matched patients with IBD who did not undergo colectomy, and 246,550 matched individuals without IBD to serve as a background population. Within these groups, rectal cancer occurred at a rate of 0.9%, 0.4%, and 0.4%, respectively, hinting at an increased risk of rectal cancer after colectomy among patients with IBD.

This signal was clarified by comparing rates of rectal cancer 10 years before and after colectomy. Rates 10 years before colectomy were not significantly different between groups.

Comparing colectomized IBD patients with the noncolectomized IBD patients at the 10-year postcolectomy mark revealed an eightfold increased risk of rectal cancer (hazard ratio, 7.56; 95% confidence interval, 5.21-10.86). Risk was slightly lower for patients with Crohn’s disease (HR, 5.10; 95% CI, 2.41-10.81) than for those with ulcerative colitis (HR, 9.42; 95% CI, 6.18-14.36).

A comparison at the same time point for colectomized IBD patients versus the background population showed an even higher relative risk for rectal cancer, up 10-fold (HR, 10.01; 95% CI, 7.20-13.94).

Despite variations in surgical methods, researchers concluded that the long-term risk of rectal cancer post colectomy increased among patients with IBD.

The findings should inform surveillance guidelines, they wrote.

“To reduce the risk of CRC in IBD, endoscopic surveillance guidelines have been developed both nationally and internationally. However, guidelines do not include clear recommendations for patients with a residual rectum, ileo-rectal anastomosis, or ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. The Danish guidelines, the Danish Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, mention a potential increased risk of rectal cancer post colectomy ... The European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization guideline consensus paper ‘European Evidence-based Consensus: Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Malignancies’ mentions that ‘the risk of rectal cancer is relatively high in IBD patients after subtotal colectomy’ [but] without further recommendation,” study authors wrote.

The study was supported by Laege Carl Emil Friis, Hustru Olga Doris Friis, and the Danish National Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who undergo subtotal colectomy and diverted rectum may face a ”markedly increased” risk of rectal cancer in the diverted rectum at 10 years post colectomy, shows a Danish population-based cohort study.

These findings suggest that more intensive long-term surveillance is needed for colectomized patients with IBD, wrote researchers who were led by Tine Jess, MD, DMSc, of the Center for Molecular Prediction of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Aalborg University, Copenhagen.

“Our nationwide population-based cohort study covering 4 decades shows that despite a relatively low absolute number of RC cases following colectomy for IBD, the risk of RC is markedly increased 10 years after the surgery. This calls for better long-term surveillance of colectomized IBD patients,” the authors wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.

Previous studies have suggested that patients with IBD have an increased risk of rectal cancer after colectomy, but these data “cannot stand alone,” and “need to be confirmed in other unselected patient cohorts,” investigators wrote.

The new study was based on an analysis of data from more than 9 million individuals in the Danish Civil Registration System between 1978 and 2018. The analyses were restricted to risk of rectal cancer in the population with diverted rectum.

The final dataset included 4,931 patients with IBD who had subtotal colectomy and diverted rectum, 49,251 matched patients with IBD who did not undergo colectomy, and 246,550 matched individuals without IBD to serve as a background population. Within these groups, rectal cancer occurred at a rate of 0.9%, 0.4%, and 0.4%, respectively, hinting at an increased risk of rectal cancer after colectomy among patients with IBD.

This signal was clarified by comparing rates of rectal cancer 10 years before and after colectomy. Rates 10 years before colectomy were not significantly different between groups.

Comparing colectomized IBD patients with the noncolectomized IBD patients at the 10-year postcolectomy mark revealed an eightfold increased risk of rectal cancer (hazard ratio, 7.56; 95% confidence interval, 5.21-10.86). Risk was slightly lower for patients with Crohn’s disease (HR, 5.10; 95% CI, 2.41-10.81) than for those with ulcerative colitis (HR, 9.42; 95% CI, 6.18-14.36).

A comparison at the same time point for colectomized IBD patients versus the background population showed an even higher relative risk for rectal cancer, up 10-fold (HR, 10.01; 95% CI, 7.20-13.94).

Despite variations in surgical methods, researchers concluded that the long-term risk of rectal cancer post colectomy increased among patients with IBD.

The findings should inform surveillance guidelines, they wrote.

“To reduce the risk of CRC in IBD, endoscopic surveillance guidelines have been developed both nationally and internationally. However, guidelines do not include clear recommendations for patients with a residual rectum, ileo-rectal anastomosis, or ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. The Danish guidelines, the Danish Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, mention a potential increased risk of rectal cancer post colectomy ... The European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization guideline consensus paper ‘European Evidence-based Consensus: Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Malignancies’ mentions that ‘the risk of rectal cancer is relatively high in IBD patients after subtotal colectomy’ [but] without further recommendation,” study authors wrote.

The study was supported by Laege Carl Emil Friis, Hustru Olga Doris Friis, and the Danish National Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who undergo subtotal colectomy and diverted rectum may face a ”markedly increased” risk of rectal cancer in the diverted rectum at 10 years post colectomy, shows a Danish population-based cohort study.

These findings suggest that more intensive long-term surveillance is needed for colectomized patients with IBD, wrote researchers who were led by Tine Jess, MD, DMSc, of the Center for Molecular Prediction of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Aalborg University, Copenhagen.

“Our nationwide population-based cohort study covering 4 decades shows that despite a relatively low absolute number of RC cases following colectomy for IBD, the risk of RC is markedly increased 10 years after the surgery. This calls for better long-term surveillance of colectomized IBD patients,” the authors wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.

Previous studies have suggested that patients with IBD have an increased risk of rectal cancer after colectomy, but these data “cannot stand alone,” and “need to be confirmed in other unselected patient cohorts,” investigators wrote.

The new study was based on an analysis of data from more than 9 million individuals in the Danish Civil Registration System between 1978 and 2018. The analyses were restricted to risk of rectal cancer in the population with diverted rectum.

The final dataset included 4,931 patients with IBD who had subtotal colectomy and diverted rectum, 49,251 matched patients with IBD who did not undergo colectomy, and 246,550 matched individuals without IBD to serve as a background population. Within these groups, rectal cancer occurred at a rate of 0.9%, 0.4%, and 0.4%, respectively, hinting at an increased risk of rectal cancer after colectomy among patients with IBD.

This signal was clarified by comparing rates of rectal cancer 10 years before and after colectomy. Rates 10 years before colectomy were not significantly different between groups.

Comparing colectomized IBD patients with the noncolectomized IBD patients at the 10-year postcolectomy mark revealed an eightfold increased risk of rectal cancer (hazard ratio, 7.56; 95% confidence interval, 5.21-10.86). Risk was slightly lower for patients with Crohn’s disease (HR, 5.10; 95% CI, 2.41-10.81) than for those with ulcerative colitis (HR, 9.42; 95% CI, 6.18-14.36).

A comparison at the same time point for colectomized IBD patients versus the background population showed an even higher relative risk for rectal cancer, up 10-fold (HR, 10.01; 95% CI, 7.20-13.94).

Despite variations in surgical methods, researchers concluded that the long-term risk of rectal cancer post colectomy increased among patients with IBD.

The findings should inform surveillance guidelines, they wrote.

“To reduce the risk of CRC in IBD, endoscopic surveillance guidelines have been developed both nationally and internationally. However, guidelines do not include clear recommendations for patients with a residual rectum, ileo-rectal anastomosis, or ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. The Danish guidelines, the Danish Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, mention a potential increased risk of rectal cancer post colectomy ... The European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization guideline consensus paper ‘European Evidence-based Consensus: Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Malignancies’ mentions that ‘the risk of rectal cancer is relatively high in IBD patients after subtotal colectomy’ [but] without further recommendation,” study authors wrote.

The study was supported by Laege Carl Emil Friis, Hustru Olga Doris Friis, and the Danish National Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

The American Gastroenterological Association has published a new Clinical Practice Update for the management of enteral ostomies, which are common in the management of patients with colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticular disease, intestinal trauma, and intestinal perforation.

Approximately 750,000 people in the United States live with an ostomy, including colostomy, ileostomy, and continent ileostomy. Complications and challenges with self-care are common among patients with an enteral stoma, but most available guidance documents fail to offer management principles beyond the immediate perioperative period, wrote authors of the guidance which was led by Traci Hedrick, MD, of the University of Virginia Health, Charlottesville.

The update was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. It includes best practice updates for managing short- and long-term complications, and perioperative considerations.

Early high ostomy output, defined by ostomy output greater than fluid intake that occurs within 3 weeks of stoma formation, causing dehydration, is a short-term complication associated with ostomies. It is more common among patients with an ileostomy than a colostomy, and requires rapid evaluation for infection and other associated complications. The cornerstone of treatment is rehydration, usually intravenously during hospital stay. Additional treatments may include bulking agents, antimotility agents, antisecretory agents, anti-inflammatory agents, adaptation-promoting agents, and surgery to reverse the ostomy.

Other short-term complications include ostomy leakage, stomal retraction, and mucocutaneous separation.

Dermatological problems are the most common of long-term complications. These typically involve skin irritation due to leakage. Other dermatological complaints include folliculitis, fungal rash, and allergic reaction to the appliance. Each of these must be addressed based on the nature and underlying cause of the complication.

Other long-term complications include chronic high ostomy output, parastomal hernia, and stomal prolapse.

Clinicians should also be aware of the psychological impact on patients. They may fear having a leakage or emitting an odor. They may also have anxiety in disclosing having an ostomy to partners and fear travel. “Difficulty with self-care should be addressed through preoperative and postoperative education. Preoperative education and stoma site marking has been shown to improve quality of life and decrease peristomal skin and pouching complications,” the authors wrote.

Health care providers should discuss and manage expectations for life with an ostomy, including managing ostomy output, maintaining pouching appliances, and the regular passage of mucus from the native rectum.

“High-quality ostomy care begins at the preoperative visit with wound ostomy and continence consultation. Stoma education and counseling are essential to prevent complications and manage patient expectations for living with a stoma. The early diagnosis and management of both early and late ostomy complications require ongoing communication between patients and care teams. Multidisciplinary coordination is imperative to prevent hospital readmissions and to improve the quality of life for our patients living with ostomies,” the authors wrote.

This Clinical Practice Update was commissioned by the AGA Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie, BMS, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association has published a new Clinical Practice Update for the management of enteral ostomies, which are common in the management of patients with colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticular disease, intestinal trauma, and intestinal perforation.

Approximately 750,000 people in the United States live with an ostomy, including colostomy, ileostomy, and continent ileostomy. Complications and challenges with self-care are common among patients with an enteral stoma, but most available guidance documents fail to offer management principles beyond the immediate perioperative period, wrote authors of the guidance which was led by Traci Hedrick, MD, of the University of Virginia Health, Charlottesville.

The update was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. It includes best practice updates for managing short- and long-term complications, and perioperative considerations.

Early high ostomy output, defined by ostomy output greater than fluid intake that occurs within 3 weeks of stoma formation, causing dehydration, is a short-term complication associated with ostomies. It is more common among patients with an ileostomy than a colostomy, and requires rapid evaluation for infection and other associated complications. The cornerstone of treatment is rehydration, usually intravenously during hospital stay. Additional treatments may include bulking agents, antimotility agents, antisecretory agents, anti-inflammatory agents, adaptation-promoting agents, and surgery to reverse the ostomy.

Other short-term complications include ostomy leakage, stomal retraction, and mucocutaneous separation.

Dermatological problems are the most common of long-term complications. These typically involve skin irritation due to leakage. Other dermatological complaints include folliculitis, fungal rash, and allergic reaction to the appliance. Each of these must be addressed based on the nature and underlying cause of the complication.

Other long-term complications include chronic high ostomy output, parastomal hernia, and stomal prolapse.

Clinicians should also be aware of the psychological impact on patients. They may fear having a leakage or emitting an odor. They may also have anxiety in disclosing having an ostomy to partners and fear travel. “Difficulty with self-care should be addressed through preoperative and postoperative education. Preoperative education and stoma site marking has been shown to improve quality of life and decrease peristomal skin and pouching complications,” the authors wrote.

Health care providers should discuss and manage expectations for life with an ostomy, including managing ostomy output, maintaining pouching appliances, and the regular passage of mucus from the native rectum.

“High-quality ostomy care begins at the preoperative visit with wound ostomy and continence consultation. Stoma education and counseling are essential to prevent complications and manage patient expectations for living with a stoma. The early diagnosis and management of both early and late ostomy complications require ongoing communication between patients and care teams. Multidisciplinary coordination is imperative to prevent hospital readmissions and to improve the quality of life for our patients living with ostomies,” the authors wrote.

This Clinical Practice Update was commissioned by the AGA Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie, BMS, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association has published a new Clinical Practice Update for the management of enteral ostomies, which are common in the management of patients with colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticular disease, intestinal trauma, and intestinal perforation.

Approximately 750,000 people in the United States live with an ostomy, including colostomy, ileostomy, and continent ileostomy. Complications and challenges with self-care are common among patients with an enteral stoma, but most available guidance documents fail to offer management principles beyond the immediate perioperative period, wrote authors of the guidance which was led by Traci Hedrick, MD, of the University of Virginia Health, Charlottesville.

The update was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. It includes best practice updates for managing short- and long-term complications, and perioperative considerations.

Early high ostomy output, defined by ostomy output greater than fluid intake that occurs within 3 weeks of stoma formation, causing dehydration, is a short-term complication associated with ostomies. It is more common among patients with an ileostomy than a colostomy, and requires rapid evaluation for infection and other associated complications. The cornerstone of treatment is rehydration, usually intravenously during hospital stay. Additional treatments may include bulking agents, antimotility agents, antisecretory agents, anti-inflammatory agents, adaptation-promoting agents, and surgery to reverse the ostomy.

Other short-term complications include ostomy leakage, stomal retraction, and mucocutaneous separation.

Dermatological problems are the most common of long-term complications. These typically involve skin irritation due to leakage. Other dermatological complaints include folliculitis, fungal rash, and allergic reaction to the appliance. Each of these must be addressed based on the nature and underlying cause of the complication.

Other long-term complications include chronic high ostomy output, parastomal hernia, and stomal prolapse.

Clinicians should also be aware of the psychological impact on patients. They may fear having a leakage or emitting an odor. They may also have anxiety in disclosing having an ostomy to partners and fear travel. “Difficulty with self-care should be addressed through preoperative and postoperative education. Preoperative education and stoma site marking has been shown to improve quality of life and decrease peristomal skin and pouching complications,” the authors wrote.

Health care providers should discuss and manage expectations for life with an ostomy, including managing ostomy output, maintaining pouching appliances, and the regular passage of mucus from the native rectum.

“High-quality ostomy care begins at the preoperative visit with wound ostomy and continence consultation. Stoma education and counseling are essential to prevent complications and manage patient expectations for living with a stoma. The early diagnosis and management of both early and late ostomy complications require ongoing communication between patients and care teams. Multidisciplinary coordination is imperative to prevent hospital readmissions and to improve the quality of life for our patients living with ostomies,” the authors wrote.

This Clinical Practice Update was commissioned by the AGA Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie, BMS, and others.

Noninvasive testing allows for routine risk stratification and long-term monitoring of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), offering a safer, more practical approach than biopsy, according to a recent Clinical Practice Update Expert Review by the American Gastroenterological Association.

The update, published online in Gastroenterology, includes eight best practice advice statements.

“The health care burden of longitudinal management of patients with NAFLD is significant. The emergence and utilization of noninvasive testing (NIT) in gastroenterology practices has the potential to significantly enhance the care of patients with NAFLD by improving detection of patients with advanced fibrosis who are at increased risk for cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), thereby facilitating timely clinical management,” wrote authors who were led by Julia J. Wattacheril, MD, MPH, of the Columbia University–New York Presbyterian Hospital nonalcoholic fatty liver disease program and center for liver disease and transplantation.

“In this Expert Review, we have provided clinicians with best practice advice for optimal utilization of NITs in patients with NAFLD,” the authors wrote.

Consensus best practice for implementing NITs in practice are scarce, giving rise to the present clinical practice update. The expert panel reviewed available evidence for these tests during longitudinal care of patients with advanced fibrosis as a means of predicting liver-related outcomes and informing treatment decisions.

The first statement encourages use of NITs for risk stratification during the diagnosis of NAFLD, typically in the form of clinical calculators like fibrosis 4 index (FIB-4), vibration controlled transient elastography (VCTE), shear wave

elastography (SWE), or magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), all of which have been validated in NAFLD.

“Ultrasound-based 3-dimensional elastography (Velacur) and iron-corrected T1 magnetic resonance imaging, although used less frequently, are emerging technologies,” the panelists noted.

Second, the update suggests that patients with a FIB-4 less than 1.3 are unlikely to have advanced hepatic fibrosis, based on this threshold’s strong negative predictive value (NPV).

Still, clinicians should remember that this FIB-4 threshold may be less reliable among patients younger than 35 years or older than 65 years, making it necessary to also consider other clinical measurements, according to the update. The third best practice advice encourages use of two or more NITs among patients with a FIB-4 score greater than 1.3.

The fourth piece of best practice advice suggests that clinicians follow manufacturer’s specifications when implementing NITs, as misuse may lead to “discordant results and adverse events.”

Fifth, to increase the positive predictive value (PPV) for detecting advanced fibrosis, NITs are best interpreted in the context of relevant clinical data, such as physical exam and endoscopy findings.

Next, the document encourages use of liver biopsy when NIT findings are discordant or indeterminate, conflict with findings from other test modalities, or if alternative, non–NAFLD etiologies are suspected.

The penultimate best practice advice suggests use of NITs for serial longitudinal disease monitoring, with signs of progression or regression used to guide clinical decisions.

“Additional evidence for longitudinal prediction of fibrosis regression and progression and response to intervention (lifestyle and pharmacologic) is needed in trials and real-world clinical practice,” Dr. Wattacheril and colleagues noted.

Finally, the clinical practice update advises surveillance of liver complications, such as hepatocellular carcinoma, among patients with NIT results that suggest advanced fibrosis (F3) or cirrhosis (F4).

This clinical practice update was commissioned by the AGA Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS, Novo Nordisk, and others.
 

Noninvasive testing allows for routine risk stratification and long-term monitoring of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), offering a safer, more practical approach than biopsy, according to a recent Clinical Practice Update Expert Review by the American Gastroenterological Association.

The update, published online in Gastroenterology, includes eight best practice advice statements.

“The health care burden of longitudinal management of patients with NAFLD is significant. The emergence and utilization of noninvasive testing (NIT) in gastroenterology practices has the potential to significantly enhance the care of patients with NAFLD by improving detection of patients with advanced fibrosis who are at increased risk for cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), thereby facilitating timely clinical management,” wrote authors who were led by Julia J. Wattacheril, MD, MPH, of the Columbia University–New York Presbyterian Hospital nonalcoholic fatty liver disease program and center for liver disease and transplantation.

“In this Expert Review, we have provided clinicians with best practice advice for optimal utilization of NITs in patients with NAFLD,” the authors wrote.

Consensus best practice for implementing NITs in practice are scarce, giving rise to the present clinical practice update. The expert panel reviewed available evidence for these tests during longitudinal care of patients with advanced fibrosis as a means of predicting liver-related outcomes and informing treatment decisions.

The first statement encourages use of NITs for risk stratification during the diagnosis of NAFLD, typically in the form of clinical calculators like fibrosis 4 index (FIB-4), vibration controlled transient elastography (VCTE), shear wave

elastography (SWE), or magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), all of which have been validated in NAFLD.

“Ultrasound-based 3-dimensional elastography (Velacur) and iron-corrected T1 magnetic resonance imaging, although used less frequently, are emerging technologies,” the panelists noted.

Second, the update suggests that patients with a FIB-4 less than 1.3 are unlikely to have advanced hepatic fibrosis, based on this threshold’s strong negative predictive value (NPV).

Still, clinicians should remember that this FIB-4 threshold may be less reliable among patients younger than 35 years or older than 65 years, making it necessary to also consider other clinical measurements, according to the update. The third best practice advice encourages use of two or more NITs among patients with a FIB-4 score greater than 1.3.

The fourth piece of best practice advice suggests that clinicians follow manufacturer’s specifications when implementing NITs, as misuse may lead to “discordant results and adverse events.”

Fifth, to increase the positive predictive value (PPV) for detecting advanced fibrosis, NITs are best interpreted in the context of relevant clinical data, such as physical exam and endoscopy findings.

Next, the document encourages use of liver biopsy when NIT findings are discordant or indeterminate, conflict with findings from other test modalities, or if alternative, non–NAFLD etiologies are suspected.

The penultimate best practice advice suggests use of NITs for serial longitudinal disease monitoring, with signs of progression or regression used to guide clinical decisions.

“Additional evidence for longitudinal prediction of fibrosis regression and progression and response to intervention (lifestyle and pharmacologic) is needed in trials and real-world clinical practice,” Dr. Wattacheril and colleagues noted.

Finally, the clinical practice update advises surveillance of liver complications, such as hepatocellular carcinoma, among patients with NIT results that suggest advanced fibrosis (F3) or cirrhosis (F4).

This clinical practice update was commissioned by the AGA Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS, Novo Nordisk, and others.
 

Noninvasive testing allows for routine risk stratification and long-term monitoring of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), offering a safer, more practical approach than biopsy, according to a recent Clinical Practice Update Expert Review by the American Gastroenterological Association.

The update, published online in Gastroenterology, includes eight best practice advice statements.

“The health care burden of longitudinal management of patients with NAFLD is significant. The emergence and utilization of noninvasive testing (NIT) in gastroenterology practices has the potential to significantly enhance the care of patients with NAFLD by improving detection of patients with advanced fibrosis who are at increased risk for cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), thereby facilitating timely clinical management,” wrote authors who were led by Julia J. Wattacheril, MD, MPH, of the Columbia University–New York Presbyterian Hospital nonalcoholic fatty liver disease program and center for liver disease and transplantation.

“In this Expert Review, we have provided clinicians with best practice advice for optimal utilization of NITs in patients with NAFLD,” the authors wrote.

Consensus best practice for implementing NITs in practice are scarce, giving rise to the present clinical practice update. The expert panel reviewed available evidence for these tests during longitudinal care of patients with advanced fibrosis as a means of predicting liver-related outcomes and informing treatment decisions.

The first statement encourages use of NITs for risk stratification during the diagnosis of NAFLD, typically in the form of clinical calculators like fibrosis 4 index (FIB-4), vibration controlled transient elastography (VCTE), shear wave

elastography (SWE), or magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), all of which have been validated in NAFLD.

“Ultrasound-based 3-dimensional elastography (Velacur) and iron-corrected T1 magnetic resonance imaging, although used less frequently, are emerging technologies,” the panelists noted.

Second, the update suggests that patients with a FIB-4 less than 1.3 are unlikely to have advanced hepatic fibrosis, based on this threshold’s strong negative predictive value (NPV).

Still, clinicians should remember that this FIB-4 threshold may be less reliable among patients younger than 35 years or older than 65 years, making it necessary to also consider other clinical measurements, according to the update. The third best practice advice encourages use of two or more NITs among patients with a FIB-4 score greater than 1.3.

The fourth piece of best practice advice suggests that clinicians follow manufacturer’s specifications when implementing NITs, as misuse may lead to “discordant results and adverse events.”

Fifth, to increase the positive predictive value (PPV) for detecting advanced fibrosis, NITs are best interpreted in the context of relevant clinical data, such as physical exam and endoscopy findings.

Next, the document encourages use of liver biopsy when NIT findings are discordant or indeterminate, conflict with findings from other test modalities, or if alternative, non–NAFLD etiologies are suspected.

The penultimate best practice advice suggests use of NITs for serial longitudinal disease monitoring, with signs of progression or regression used to guide clinical decisions.

“Additional evidence for longitudinal prediction of fibrosis regression and progression and response to intervention (lifestyle and pharmacologic) is needed in trials and real-world clinical practice,” Dr. Wattacheril and colleagues noted.

Finally, the clinical practice update advises surveillance of liver complications, such as hepatocellular carcinoma, among patients with NIT results that suggest advanced fibrosis (F3) or cirrhosis (F4).

This clinical practice update was commissioned by the AGA Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS, Novo Nordisk, and others.
 

Changes in proteins and antibodies suggesting immune dysregulation may be detectable in serum years before clinical manifestation of complicated Crohn’s disease, shows a study recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

These preclinical signatures could one day play a role in screening for complicated Crohn’s disease (CD) and in mapping underlying disease pathways, potentially opening doors to new preventive approaches, wrote study authors who were led by Joseph A. Murray, MD, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Mounting evidence suggests that the diagnosis of CD is preceded by a lengthy asymptomatic preclinical period,” investigators wrote. “Gaining insight into this phase may allow a better understanding of the primary events that lead to its development and offer potential strategies to predict and prevent the disease including its complications.”

The study, which was a nested case-control study based on the PREDICTS study, included 201 patients with CD who had serum samples archived 2, 4, and 6 years prior to diagnosis, as well as 201 healthy controls who provided serum samples for comparison. Serum samples were analyzed with a comprehensive panel of 1,129 proteomic markers and antimicrobial antibodies.

At time of diagnosis, 47 of the patients with CD (24%) had a complicated phenotype, including stricturing behavior, penetrating behavior, or need for early surgery.

“The unique availability of preclinical samples collected at multiple time points allowed us to examine the sequence of immunological changes and protein biomarkers that occurred before diagnosis,” the investigators wrote. “We also evaluated a wide array of protein biomarkers, utilizing a novel proteomic platform, and applied novel rigorous statistical approaches, which allowed us to discover the potential biomarkers and biologic pathways for the complicated phenotypes even before diagnosis.”

As early as 6 years before diagnosis, patients with complicated CD had significantly higher levels of antimicrobial antibodies than patients with noncomplicated CD, as well as elevations in 22 protein biomarkers indicating immune dysregulation.

Specifically, complicated CD was preceded by elevated anti–Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies (ASCA) IgA/IgG, anti-Flagellin antibodies, and other proteins linked with fibrosis, adaptive immunity, and innate immunity. Simultaneously, the same patients had reduced levels of protein biomarkers linked with protection against fibrosis and tissue damage. Network analysis added weight to these findings by demonstrating a significant correlation between ASCA IgA/IgG and protein biomarkers tied to innate immunity and lack of factors for tissue protection.

“Altogether, the hypothesis can be proposed that the combination of increasing levels of inflammatory cytokines, loss of anti-inflammatory proteins, and production of antimicrobial antibodies could accelerate and magnify tissue destruction and fibrosis driving complications at diagnosis in CD,” the investigators wrote. “These data support the concept that complicated CD may not always be the result of the progression of an uncontrolled inflammatory disease but may also be the consequence of a unique pathophysiological process.”

The findings deserve further investigation as they could lead to new clinical tools for screening and intervention. “The serological signature that we identified could help to further select subjects at risk of developing complicated CD who could be preferential candidates for preventative strategies,” investigators wrote.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Galapagos, and others.

Changes in proteins and antibodies suggesting immune dysregulation may be detectable in serum years before clinical manifestation of complicated Crohn’s disease, shows a study recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

These preclinical signatures could one day play a role in screening for complicated Crohn’s disease (CD) and in mapping underlying disease pathways, potentially opening doors to new preventive approaches, wrote study authors who were led by Joseph A. Murray, MD, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Mounting evidence suggests that the diagnosis of CD is preceded by a lengthy asymptomatic preclinical period,” investigators wrote. “Gaining insight into this phase may allow a better understanding of the primary events that lead to its development and offer potential strategies to predict and prevent the disease including its complications.”

The study, which was a nested case-control study based on the PREDICTS study, included 201 patients with CD who had serum samples archived 2, 4, and 6 years prior to diagnosis, as well as 201 healthy controls who provided serum samples for comparison. Serum samples were analyzed with a comprehensive panel of 1,129 proteomic markers and antimicrobial antibodies.

At time of diagnosis, 47 of the patients with CD (24%) had a complicated phenotype, including stricturing behavior, penetrating behavior, or need for early surgery.

“The unique availability of preclinical samples collected at multiple time points allowed us to examine the sequence of immunological changes and protein biomarkers that occurred before diagnosis,” the investigators wrote. “We also evaluated a wide array of protein biomarkers, utilizing a novel proteomic platform, and applied novel rigorous statistical approaches, which allowed us to discover the potential biomarkers and biologic pathways for the complicated phenotypes even before diagnosis.”

As early as 6 years before diagnosis, patients with complicated CD had significantly higher levels of antimicrobial antibodies than patients with noncomplicated CD, as well as elevations in 22 protein biomarkers indicating immune dysregulation.

Specifically, complicated CD was preceded by elevated anti–Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies (ASCA) IgA/IgG, anti-Flagellin antibodies, and other proteins linked with fibrosis, adaptive immunity, and innate immunity. Simultaneously, the same patients had reduced levels of protein biomarkers linked with protection against fibrosis and tissue damage. Network analysis added weight to these findings by demonstrating a significant correlation between ASCA IgA/IgG and protein biomarkers tied to innate immunity and lack of factors for tissue protection.

“Altogether, the hypothesis can be proposed that the combination of increasing levels of inflammatory cytokines, loss of anti-inflammatory proteins, and production of antimicrobial antibodies could accelerate and magnify tissue destruction and fibrosis driving complications at diagnosis in CD,” the investigators wrote. “These data support the concept that complicated CD may not always be the result of the progression of an uncontrolled inflammatory disease but may also be the consequence of a unique pathophysiological process.”

The findings deserve further investigation as they could lead to new clinical tools for screening and intervention. “The serological signature that we identified could help to further select subjects at risk of developing complicated CD who could be preferential candidates for preventative strategies,” investigators wrote.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Galapagos, and others.

Changes in proteins and antibodies suggesting immune dysregulation may be detectable in serum years before clinical manifestation of complicated Crohn’s disease, shows a study recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

These preclinical signatures could one day play a role in screening for complicated Crohn’s disease (CD) and in mapping underlying disease pathways, potentially opening doors to new preventive approaches, wrote study authors who were led by Joseph A. Murray, MD, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Mounting evidence suggests that the diagnosis of CD is preceded by a lengthy asymptomatic preclinical period,” investigators wrote. “Gaining insight into this phase may allow a better understanding of the primary events that lead to its development and offer potential strategies to predict and prevent the disease including its complications.”

The study, which was a nested case-control study based on the PREDICTS study, included 201 patients with CD who had serum samples archived 2, 4, and 6 years prior to diagnosis, as well as 201 healthy controls who provided serum samples for comparison. Serum samples were analyzed with a comprehensive panel of 1,129 proteomic markers and antimicrobial antibodies.

At time of diagnosis, 47 of the patients with CD (24%) had a complicated phenotype, including stricturing behavior, penetrating behavior, or need for early surgery.

“The unique availability of preclinical samples collected at multiple time points allowed us to examine the sequence of immunological changes and protein biomarkers that occurred before diagnosis,” the investigators wrote. “We also evaluated a wide array of protein biomarkers, utilizing a novel proteomic platform, and applied novel rigorous statistical approaches, which allowed us to discover the potential biomarkers and biologic pathways for the complicated phenotypes even before diagnosis.”

As early as 6 years before diagnosis, patients with complicated CD had significantly higher levels of antimicrobial antibodies than patients with noncomplicated CD, as well as elevations in 22 protein biomarkers indicating immune dysregulation.

Specifically, complicated CD was preceded by elevated anti–Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies (ASCA) IgA/IgG, anti-Flagellin antibodies, and other proteins linked with fibrosis, adaptive immunity, and innate immunity. Simultaneously, the same patients had reduced levels of protein biomarkers linked with protection against fibrosis and tissue damage. Network analysis added weight to these findings by demonstrating a significant correlation between ASCA IgA/IgG and protein biomarkers tied to innate immunity and lack of factors for tissue protection.

“Altogether, the hypothesis can be proposed that the combination of increasing levels of inflammatory cytokines, loss of anti-inflammatory proteins, and production of antimicrobial antibodies could accelerate and magnify tissue destruction and fibrosis driving complications at diagnosis in CD,” the investigators wrote. “These data support the concept that complicated CD may not always be the result of the progression of an uncontrolled inflammatory disease but may also be the consequence of a unique pathophysiological process.”

The findings deserve further investigation as they could lead to new clinical tools for screening and intervention. “The serological signature that we identified could help to further select subjects at risk of developing complicated CD who could be preferential candidates for preventative strategies,” investigators wrote.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Galapagos, and others.

The risk of developing breast cancer in individuals with pathogenic cancer syndrome variants may be less elevated in those without a first-degree family history, according to findings from a large population-based cohort study.

Similar results were seen for patients with Lynch syndrome.

The findings suggest that a first-degree family history confers much of the risk that is associated with pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancers. Furthermore, to avoid overtreatment in those without a first-degree family history who undergo genetic testing, that history should be considered when discussing potential follow-up care, the investigators argue.

“This difference in penetrance in carrier individuals, if replicated in larger studies, could be sufficient to justify stratifying just individuals with a family history into high-risk groups currently eligible for specialist clinical care,” Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter College of Medicine and Health, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, England, and his colleagues noted.

To assess how population penetrance of familial cancer syndromes varies based on family history, researchers analyzed exome sequences and clinical data collected between March 2006 and June 25, 2021, from 454,712 UK Biobank participants with either breast or colorectal cancer, a self-reported family history of breast or colorectal cancer, and a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in the major genes associated with hereditary breast cancer or Lynch syndrome.

After researchers controlled for sex, death, recruitment center, screening, and prophylactic surgery, those with a pathogenic BRCA1 (n = 230) or BRCA2 (n = 611) variant had an increased risk of breast cancer, and the risk was higher in those with a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 10.3 and 7.8, respectively), than in those without a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 7.2 and 4.7), the investigators reported.

Penetrance to age 60 years was also higher in those with vs. without a first-degree family history (44.7% and 24.1% vs 22.8% and 17.9%, respectively).

Similarly, patients with Lynch syndrome and a pathogenic MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 variant (n = 89, 71, and 421, respectively) had an increased risk of colorectal cancer, and that risk was higher in those with vs. without a family history (relative hazard, 35.6, 48.0, and 9.9 vs. 13.0, 15.4, and 7.2). Penetrance to age 60 was higher for those with a pathogenic MLH1 and MSH2 variant with vs. without a family history (30.9% and 38% vs. 20.5% and 8.3%).

The study results were published online in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

“The findings of this study suggest that any universal policy of returning pathogenic cancer predisposing genetic variants found incidentally or through direct-to-consumer genetic testing of asymptomatic individuals should consider family history and other factors when counseling patients on the risks and benefits of follow-up care,” the investigators recommended. “It will be very difficult to counsel individuals as to their particular risk profile without further pedigree construction or investigations.

“If penetrance estimates from affected families are used, there is a danger of overmanagement of asymptomatic individuals with no family history of disease. These ‘patients-in-waiting’ may be exposed to unnecessary surveillance or more invasive prophylactic procedures,” they added.

This study was supported by an MRC grant. The authors reported having no competing interests.

The risk of developing breast cancer in individuals with pathogenic cancer syndrome variants may be less elevated in those without a first-degree family history, according to findings from a large population-based cohort study.

Similar results were seen for patients with Lynch syndrome.

The findings suggest that a first-degree family history confers much of the risk that is associated with pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancers. Furthermore, to avoid overtreatment in those without a first-degree family history who undergo genetic testing, that history should be considered when discussing potential follow-up care, the investigators argue.

“This difference in penetrance in carrier individuals, if replicated in larger studies, could be sufficient to justify stratifying just individuals with a family history into high-risk groups currently eligible for specialist clinical care,” Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter College of Medicine and Health, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, England, and his colleagues noted.

To assess how population penetrance of familial cancer syndromes varies based on family history, researchers analyzed exome sequences and clinical data collected between March 2006 and June 25, 2021, from 454,712 UK Biobank participants with either breast or colorectal cancer, a self-reported family history of breast or colorectal cancer, and a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in the major genes associated with hereditary breast cancer or Lynch syndrome.

After researchers controlled for sex, death, recruitment center, screening, and prophylactic surgery, those with a pathogenic BRCA1 (n = 230) or BRCA2 (n = 611) variant had an increased risk of breast cancer, and the risk was higher in those with a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 10.3 and 7.8, respectively), than in those without a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 7.2 and 4.7), the investigators reported.

Penetrance to age 60 years was also higher in those with vs. without a first-degree family history (44.7% and 24.1% vs 22.8% and 17.9%, respectively).

Similarly, patients with Lynch syndrome and a pathogenic MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 variant (n = 89, 71, and 421, respectively) had an increased risk of colorectal cancer, and that risk was higher in those with vs. without a family history (relative hazard, 35.6, 48.0, and 9.9 vs. 13.0, 15.4, and 7.2). Penetrance to age 60 was higher for those with a pathogenic MLH1 and MSH2 variant with vs. without a family history (30.9% and 38% vs. 20.5% and 8.3%).

The study results were published online in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

“The findings of this study suggest that any universal policy of returning pathogenic cancer predisposing genetic variants found incidentally or through direct-to-consumer genetic testing of asymptomatic individuals should consider family history and other factors when counseling patients on the risks and benefits of follow-up care,” the investigators recommended. “It will be very difficult to counsel individuals as to their particular risk profile without further pedigree construction or investigations.

“If penetrance estimates from affected families are used, there is a danger of overmanagement of asymptomatic individuals with no family history of disease. These ‘patients-in-waiting’ may be exposed to unnecessary surveillance or more invasive prophylactic procedures,” they added.

This study was supported by an MRC grant. The authors reported having no competing interests.

The risk of developing breast cancer in individuals with pathogenic cancer syndrome variants may be less elevated in those without a first-degree family history, according to findings from a large population-based cohort study.

Similar results were seen for patients with Lynch syndrome.

The findings suggest that a first-degree family history confers much of the risk that is associated with pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancers. Furthermore, to avoid overtreatment in those without a first-degree family history who undergo genetic testing, that history should be considered when discussing potential follow-up care, the investigators argue.

“This difference in penetrance in carrier individuals, if replicated in larger studies, could be sufficient to justify stratifying just individuals with a family history into high-risk groups currently eligible for specialist clinical care,” Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter College of Medicine and Health, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, England, and his colleagues noted.

To assess how population penetrance of familial cancer syndromes varies based on family history, researchers analyzed exome sequences and clinical data collected between March 2006 and June 25, 2021, from 454,712 UK Biobank participants with either breast or colorectal cancer, a self-reported family history of breast or colorectal cancer, and a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in the major genes associated with hereditary breast cancer or Lynch syndrome.

After researchers controlled for sex, death, recruitment center, screening, and prophylactic surgery, those with a pathogenic BRCA1 (n = 230) or BRCA2 (n = 611) variant had an increased risk of breast cancer, and the risk was higher in those with a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 10.3 and 7.8, respectively), than in those without a first-degree family history (relative hazard, 7.2 and 4.7), the investigators reported.

Penetrance to age 60 years was also higher in those with vs. without a first-degree family history (44.7% and 24.1% vs 22.8% and 17.9%, respectively).

Similarly, patients with Lynch syndrome and a pathogenic MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 variant (n = 89, 71, and 421, respectively) had an increased risk of colorectal cancer, and that risk was higher in those with vs. without a family history (relative hazard, 35.6, 48.0, and 9.9 vs. 13.0, 15.4, and 7.2). Penetrance to age 60 was higher for those with a pathogenic MLH1 and MSH2 variant with vs. without a family history (30.9% and 38% vs. 20.5% and 8.3%).

The study results were published online in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

“The findings of this study suggest that any universal policy of returning pathogenic cancer predisposing genetic variants found incidentally or through direct-to-consumer genetic testing of asymptomatic individuals should consider family history and other factors when counseling patients on the risks and benefits of follow-up care,” the investigators recommended. “It will be very difficult to counsel individuals as to their particular risk profile without further pedigree construction or investigations.

“If penetrance estimates from affected families are used, there is a danger of overmanagement of asymptomatic individuals with no family history of disease. These ‘patients-in-waiting’ may be exposed to unnecessary surveillance or more invasive prophylactic procedures,” they added.

This study was supported by an MRC grant. The authors reported having no competing interests.

The European Commission has authorized the marketing of ritlecitinib to treat adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with severe alopecia areata. This makes ritlecitinib the first medicine authorized by the EC to treat individuals with severe alopecia areata as young as 12 years of age.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3. In June of 2023, the drug received FDA approval for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older in the United States.

According to a press release from Pfizer, which developed the drug, EC approval was based on the pivotal ALLEGRO clinical trial program, which included the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 study that evaluated ritlecitinib in patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata with 50% or more scalp hair loss, including patients with alopecia totalis (total scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (total body hair loss). Results from this study showed that 13.4% of adults and adolescents achieved 90% or more scalp hair coverage (Severity of Alopecia Tool score of 10 or less) after 24 weeks of treatment with ritlecitinib 50 mg, compared with 1.5% of those on placebo.

The study also measured Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C). At week 24, 49.2% of participants treated with ritlecitinib reported a PGI-C response of “moderate” to “great” improvement in their alopecia areata, compared with 9.2% with placebo.

According to results from an ongoing, long-term phase 3 study of ritlecitinib known as ALLEGRO-LT, the most common adverse reactions reported from use of the drug included diarrhea (9.2%), acne (6.2%), upper respiratory tract infections (6.2%), urticaria (4.6%), rash (3.8%), folliculitis (3.1%), and dizziness (2.3%), the company press release said.





 

The European Commission has authorized the marketing of ritlecitinib to treat adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with severe alopecia areata. This makes ritlecitinib the first medicine authorized by the EC to treat individuals with severe alopecia areata as young as 12 years of age.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3. In June of 2023, the drug received FDA approval for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older in the United States.

According to a press release from Pfizer, which developed the drug, EC approval was based on the pivotal ALLEGRO clinical trial program, which included the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 study that evaluated ritlecitinib in patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata with 50% or more scalp hair loss, including patients with alopecia totalis (total scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (total body hair loss). Results from this study showed that 13.4% of adults and adolescents achieved 90% or more scalp hair coverage (Severity of Alopecia Tool score of 10 or less) after 24 weeks of treatment with ritlecitinib 50 mg, compared with 1.5% of those on placebo.

The study also measured Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C). At week 24, 49.2% of participants treated with ritlecitinib reported a PGI-C response of “moderate” to “great” improvement in their alopecia areata, compared with 9.2% with placebo.

According to results from an ongoing, long-term phase 3 study of ritlecitinib known as ALLEGRO-LT, the most common adverse reactions reported from use of the drug included diarrhea (9.2%), acne (6.2%), upper respiratory tract infections (6.2%), urticaria (4.6%), rash (3.8%), folliculitis (3.1%), and dizziness (2.3%), the company press release said.





 

The European Commission has authorized the marketing of ritlecitinib to treat adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with severe alopecia areata. This makes ritlecitinib the first medicine authorized by the EC to treat individuals with severe alopecia areata as young as 12 years of age.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3. In June of 2023, the drug received FDA approval for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older in the United States.

According to a press release from Pfizer, which developed the drug, EC approval was based on the pivotal ALLEGRO clinical trial program, which included the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 study that evaluated ritlecitinib in patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata with 50% or more scalp hair loss, including patients with alopecia totalis (total scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (total body hair loss). Results from this study showed that 13.4% of adults and adolescents achieved 90% or more scalp hair coverage (Severity of Alopecia Tool score of 10 or less) after 24 weeks of treatment with ritlecitinib 50 mg, compared with 1.5% of those on placebo.

The study also measured Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C). At week 24, 49.2% of participants treated with ritlecitinib reported a PGI-C response of “moderate” to “great” improvement in their alopecia areata, compared with 9.2% with placebo.

According to results from an ongoing, long-term phase 3 study of ritlecitinib known as ALLEGRO-LT, the most common adverse reactions reported from use of the drug included diarrhea (9.2%), acne (6.2%), upper respiratory tract infections (6.2%), urticaria (4.6%), rash (3.8%), folliculitis (3.1%), and dizziness (2.3%), the company press release said.