Gastroenterology

The FDA approved the TNF-alpha inhibitor golimumab (Simponi, Johnson & Johnson) to treat children with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) weighing at least 15 kg. 

Of the more than 1 million people in the US living with UC, roughly 20% are children, Johnson & Johnson noted in a statement announcing approval. 

The pediatric indication for golimumab in UC was supported by the open-label PURSUIT 2 phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of subcutaneously administered golimumab in children aged 2 years and older with moderately to severely active UC. 

In the trial, the primary endpoint of clinical remission at week 6 was achieved by 32% of children. Clinical remission was defined as a Mayo score ≤ 2 points, with no individual subscore > 1.

The secondary endpoints of clinical response at week 6 was achieved by 58%, and endoscopic improvement at week 6 was achieved by 40% of patients receiving golimumab. 

Clinical response was defined as a decrease from baseline in the Mayo score by > 30% and > 3 points, with either a decrease from baseline in the rectal bleeding subscore of > 1 or a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1. Endoscopic remission was defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 based on local endoscopy.

Among children treated with golimumab who were in clinical remission at 6 weeks, 57% maintained clinical remission of symptoms at week 54. Safety results in children were consistent with clinical trials of golimumab in adults with UC, the company said. 

The recommended dose of golimumab for pediatric patients weighing at least 40 kg is 200 mg at week 0, followed by 100 mg at weeks 2, 6, and every 4 weeks thereafter; for those weighing at least 15 kg to less than 40 kg, golimumab is administered at 100 mg at week 0, followed by 50 mg at weeks 2, 6, and every 4 weeks thereafter.

Golimumab is administered as a prefilled syringe; children aged 12 and older can self-administer it after proper training by a healthcare provider.

This is the first pediatric approval for golimumab, which is already approved for four indications, including adults living with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, and moderately to severely active UC. 

Full prescribing information and medication guide is available online.

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

The FDA approved the TNF-alpha inhibitor golimumab (Simponi, Johnson & Johnson) to treat children with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) weighing at least 15 kg. 

Of the more than 1 million people in the US living with UC, roughly 20% are children, Johnson & Johnson noted in a statement announcing approval. 

The pediatric indication for golimumab in UC was supported by the open-label PURSUIT 2 phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of subcutaneously administered golimumab in children aged 2 years and older with moderately to severely active UC. 

In the trial, the primary endpoint of clinical remission at week 6 was achieved by 32% of children. Clinical remission was defined as a Mayo score ≤ 2 points, with no individual subscore > 1.

The secondary endpoints of clinical response at week 6 was achieved by 58%, and endoscopic improvement at week 6 was achieved by 40% of patients receiving golimumab. 

Clinical response was defined as a decrease from baseline in the Mayo score by > 30% and > 3 points, with either a decrease from baseline in the rectal bleeding subscore of > 1 or a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1. Endoscopic remission was defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 based on local endoscopy.

Among children treated with golimumab who were in clinical remission at 6 weeks, 57% maintained clinical remission of symptoms at week 54. Safety results in children were consistent with clinical trials of golimumab in adults with UC, the company said. 

The recommended dose of golimumab for pediatric patients weighing at least 40 kg is 200 mg at week 0, followed by 100 mg at weeks 2, 6, and every 4 weeks thereafter; for those weighing at least 15 kg to less than 40 kg, golimumab is administered at 100 mg at week 0, followed by 50 mg at weeks 2, 6, and every 4 weeks thereafter.

Golimumab is administered as a prefilled syringe; children aged 12 and older can self-administer it after proper training by a healthcare provider.

This is the first pediatric approval for golimumab, which is already approved for four indications, including adults living with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, and moderately to severely active UC. 

Full prescribing information and medication guide is available online.

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

The FDA approved the TNF-alpha inhibitor golimumab (Simponi, Johnson & Johnson) to treat children with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) weighing at least 15 kg. 

Of the more than 1 million people in the US living with UC, roughly 20% are children, Johnson & Johnson noted in a statement announcing approval. 

The pediatric indication for golimumab in UC was supported by the open-label PURSUIT 2 phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of subcutaneously administered golimumab in children aged 2 years and older with moderately to severely active UC. 

In the trial, the primary endpoint of clinical remission at week 6 was achieved by 32% of children. Clinical remission was defined as a Mayo score ≤ 2 points, with no individual subscore > 1.

The secondary endpoints of clinical response at week 6 was achieved by 58%, and endoscopic improvement at week 6 was achieved by 40% of patients receiving golimumab. 

Clinical response was defined as a decrease from baseline in the Mayo score by > 30% and > 3 points, with either a decrease from baseline in the rectal bleeding subscore of > 1 or a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1. Endoscopic remission was defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 based on local endoscopy.

Among children treated with golimumab who were in clinical remission at 6 weeks, 57% maintained clinical remission of symptoms at week 54. Safety results in children were consistent with clinical trials of golimumab in adults with UC, the company said. 

The recommended dose of golimumab for pediatric patients weighing at least 40 kg is 200 mg at week 0, followed by 100 mg at weeks 2, 6, and every 4 weeks thereafter; for those weighing at least 15 kg to less than 40 kg, golimumab is administered at 100 mg at week 0, followed by 50 mg at weeks 2, 6, and every 4 weeks thereafter.

Golimumab is administered as a prefilled syringe; children aged 12 and older can self-administer it after proper training by a healthcare provider.

This is the first pediatric approval for golimumab, which is already approved for four indications, including adults living with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, and moderately to severely active UC. 

Full prescribing information and medication guide is available online.

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

The benefits of many elective nonhepatic surgeries outweigh the risks for select patients with compensated cirrhosis, but those at high risk for poor surgical outcomes should continue to seek alternatives to surgery, according to an updated guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology.

Procedures such as cholecystectomy and hernia repair can be safely performed if precautions are taken, but surgical decision-making in patients with cirrhosis calls for a nuanced approach that takes into account several factors, including severity of liver disease, nonhepatic comorbidities, and procedure-specific considerations, wrote lead author Nadim Mahmud, MD, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology. 

“Patients with cirrhosis face substantially higher risks from surgery than those without liver disease, and careful guidance and risk stratification are essential,” Mahmud told GI & Hepatology News.

“At the same time, more patients are living longer with cirrhosis and increasingly require nonhepatic surgeries. Clinicians need up-to-date, practical recommendations that go beyond liver scores alone by integrating liver disease severity, comorbidities, and procedure-specific risk,” Mahmud said. The new guideline provides a comprehensive framework to help ensure that patients with cirrhosis undergo necessary operations, while managing preventable complications, he explained.

The guideline includes four recommendations for preoperative care, of which three are conditional and one is strong. The strong recommendation calls for the use of thrombopoietin receptor agonists, dosed according to baseline platelet count, in patients with cirrhosis and severe thrombocytopenia who are undergoing invasive procedures to reduce the need for perioperative transfusions and potentially reduce the risk for periprocedural bleeding.

Three conditional recommendations:

• For patients with compensated cirrhosis and unclear presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), preoperative liver stiffness measurement and platelet count assessment are recommended to determine whether CSPH is present due to increased perioperative risks associated with the condition. Cross-sectional imaging should be conducted to identify portosystemic collaterals and complications of portal hypertension.
• For patients with cirrhosis and CSPH with alternative indications for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), such as large varices or refractory ascites, preoperative TIPS is suggested to reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality attributable to portal hypertension.
• For patients with cirrhosis undergoing major hepatic surgery, referral to a high-volume liver surgery or transplant center, when feasible, is recommended.

The guideline also advises on 26 key concepts, including nutrition, alcohol and tobacco use, comorbidities such as frailty and sarcopenia, and preoperative treatment of liver disease drivers such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and autoimmune hepatitis. 

 

What’s New and Notable?

New elements of the guideline include use of cirrhosis-specific risk calculators, especially the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver disease (VOCAL)-Penn Score, to estimate operative risk and facilitate shared decision-making regarding surgery. The VOCAL-Penn Score, developed by Mahmud and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania, incorporates surgery type and has shown superiority to older tools that often overestimate risk, Mahmud told GI & Hepatology News.

The guideline highlights standardized assessment of portal hypertension using noninvasive liver stiffness measurement plus platelet count and imaging, Mahmud said. “The guideline also underscores the importance of considering liver transplant evaluation before surgery in higher-risk patients,” he noted.

Clinicians will find clear recommendations on optimizing the perioperative period through nutritional support and structured prehabilitation, as well as the use of viscoelastic testing to guide transfusion decisions and the use of thrombopoietin-receptor agonists for severe thrombocytopenia, he added.

“Importantly, in carefully selected patients with significant portal hypertension, a preoperative transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt may be reasonable, though it is not recommended broadly,” Mahmud said. “Finally, procedure-specific guidance, such as elective hernia repair after ascites control, laparoscopic cholecystectomy in well-compensated cirrhosis, and sleeve gastrectomy as the bariatric procedure of choice, helps translate risk into action,” he said.

These elements address key challenges in managing perioperative risk in patients with cirrhosis, namely miscalibrated risk estimates, inconsistent portal hypertension assessment, hemostasis management, and wide variation in practice, Mahmud noted.

 

Tackling Clinical Challenges

The new guideline collates the latest evidence and assessment tools to provide practical advice for clinicians to not only estimate risk but also better prepare patients with cirrhosis for surgical procedures, Peter D. Block, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the section of digestive diseases at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, told GI & Hepatology News.

“The larger and more invasive the operation, the higher the risk,” said Block, who was not involved in writing the guideline. Surgeries associated with the highest risk for patients with cirrhosis include major open abdominal operations, chest or cardiothoracic surgery, and major vascular surgeries, as well as emergency operations, for which there is less time to optimize any liver-related problems in advance, he said.

“Cirrhosis affects clotting, fluid balance, immunity, kidney function, and medication clearance, and each of these factors influence surgical risk,” Block said. “The guideline recommends combining liver-specific risk assessment scores with surgery-specific factors and clinical judgement, rather than relying on a single test,” he noted.

For elective surgeries, “the guideline provides practical pathways for when and how to optimize first, and when surgery must proceed despite higher risk,” he said.

The guideline was supported by the American College of Gastroenterology. Mahmud disclosed receiving research support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and investigator-initiated research funding from Grifols, unrelated to the guideline. Block had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

The benefits of many elective nonhepatic surgeries outweigh the risks for select patients with compensated cirrhosis, but those at high risk for poor surgical outcomes should continue to seek alternatives to surgery, according to an updated guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology.

Procedures such as cholecystectomy and hernia repair can be safely performed if precautions are taken, but surgical decision-making in patients with cirrhosis calls for a nuanced approach that takes into account several factors, including severity of liver disease, nonhepatic comorbidities, and procedure-specific considerations, wrote lead author Nadim Mahmud, MD, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology. 

“Patients with cirrhosis face substantially higher risks from surgery than those without liver disease, and careful guidance and risk stratification are essential,” Mahmud told GI & Hepatology News.

“At the same time, more patients are living longer with cirrhosis and increasingly require nonhepatic surgeries. Clinicians need up-to-date, practical recommendations that go beyond liver scores alone by integrating liver disease severity, comorbidities, and procedure-specific risk,” Mahmud said. The new guideline provides a comprehensive framework to help ensure that patients with cirrhosis undergo necessary operations, while managing preventable complications, he explained.

The guideline includes four recommendations for preoperative care, of which three are conditional and one is strong. The strong recommendation calls for the use of thrombopoietin receptor agonists, dosed according to baseline platelet count, in patients with cirrhosis and severe thrombocytopenia who are undergoing invasive procedures to reduce the need for perioperative transfusions and potentially reduce the risk for periprocedural bleeding.

Three conditional recommendations:

• For patients with compensated cirrhosis and unclear presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), preoperative liver stiffness measurement and platelet count assessment are recommended to determine whether CSPH is present due to increased perioperative risks associated with the condition. Cross-sectional imaging should be conducted to identify portosystemic collaterals and complications of portal hypertension.
• For patients with cirrhosis and CSPH with alternative indications for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), such as large varices or refractory ascites, preoperative TIPS is suggested to reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality attributable to portal hypertension.
• For patients with cirrhosis undergoing major hepatic surgery, referral to a high-volume liver surgery or transplant center, when feasible, is recommended.

The guideline also advises on 26 key concepts, including nutrition, alcohol and tobacco use, comorbidities such as frailty and sarcopenia, and preoperative treatment of liver disease drivers such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and autoimmune hepatitis. 

 

What’s New and Notable?

New elements of the guideline include use of cirrhosis-specific risk calculators, especially the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver disease (VOCAL)-Penn Score, to estimate operative risk and facilitate shared decision-making regarding surgery. The VOCAL-Penn Score, developed by Mahmud and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania, incorporates surgery type and has shown superiority to older tools that often overestimate risk, Mahmud told GI & Hepatology News.

The guideline highlights standardized assessment of portal hypertension using noninvasive liver stiffness measurement plus platelet count and imaging, Mahmud said. “The guideline also underscores the importance of considering liver transplant evaluation before surgery in higher-risk patients,” he noted.

Clinicians will find clear recommendations on optimizing the perioperative period through nutritional support and structured prehabilitation, as well as the use of viscoelastic testing to guide transfusion decisions and the use of thrombopoietin-receptor agonists for severe thrombocytopenia, he added.

“Importantly, in carefully selected patients with significant portal hypertension, a preoperative transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt may be reasonable, though it is not recommended broadly,” Mahmud said. “Finally, procedure-specific guidance, such as elective hernia repair after ascites control, laparoscopic cholecystectomy in well-compensated cirrhosis, and sleeve gastrectomy as the bariatric procedure of choice, helps translate risk into action,” he said.

These elements address key challenges in managing perioperative risk in patients with cirrhosis, namely miscalibrated risk estimates, inconsistent portal hypertension assessment, hemostasis management, and wide variation in practice, Mahmud noted.

 

Tackling Clinical Challenges

The new guideline collates the latest evidence and assessment tools to provide practical advice for clinicians to not only estimate risk but also better prepare patients with cirrhosis for surgical procedures, Peter D. Block, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the section of digestive diseases at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, told GI & Hepatology News.

“The larger and more invasive the operation, the higher the risk,” said Block, who was not involved in writing the guideline. Surgeries associated with the highest risk for patients with cirrhosis include major open abdominal operations, chest or cardiothoracic surgery, and major vascular surgeries, as well as emergency operations, for which there is less time to optimize any liver-related problems in advance, he said.

“Cirrhosis affects clotting, fluid balance, immunity, kidney function, and medication clearance, and each of these factors influence surgical risk,” Block said. “The guideline recommends combining liver-specific risk assessment scores with surgery-specific factors and clinical judgement, rather than relying on a single test,” he noted.

For elective surgeries, “the guideline provides practical pathways for when and how to optimize first, and when surgery must proceed despite higher risk,” he said.

The guideline was supported by the American College of Gastroenterology. Mahmud disclosed receiving research support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and investigator-initiated research funding from Grifols, unrelated to the guideline. Block had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

The benefits of many elective nonhepatic surgeries outweigh the risks for select patients with compensated cirrhosis, but those at high risk for poor surgical outcomes should continue to seek alternatives to surgery, according to an updated guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology.

Procedures such as cholecystectomy and hernia repair can be safely performed if precautions are taken, but surgical decision-making in patients with cirrhosis calls for a nuanced approach that takes into account several factors, including severity of liver disease, nonhepatic comorbidities, and procedure-specific considerations, wrote lead author Nadim Mahmud, MD, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology. 

“Patients with cirrhosis face substantially higher risks from surgery than those without liver disease, and careful guidance and risk stratification are essential,” Mahmud told GI & Hepatology News.

“At the same time, more patients are living longer with cirrhosis and increasingly require nonhepatic surgeries. Clinicians need up-to-date, practical recommendations that go beyond liver scores alone by integrating liver disease severity, comorbidities, and procedure-specific risk,” Mahmud said. The new guideline provides a comprehensive framework to help ensure that patients with cirrhosis undergo necessary operations, while managing preventable complications, he explained.

The guideline includes four recommendations for preoperative care, of which three are conditional and one is strong. The strong recommendation calls for the use of thrombopoietin receptor agonists, dosed according to baseline platelet count, in patients with cirrhosis and severe thrombocytopenia who are undergoing invasive procedures to reduce the need for perioperative transfusions and potentially reduce the risk for periprocedural bleeding.

Three conditional recommendations:

• For patients with compensated cirrhosis and unclear presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), preoperative liver stiffness measurement and platelet count assessment are recommended to determine whether CSPH is present due to increased perioperative risks associated with the condition. Cross-sectional imaging should be conducted to identify portosystemic collaterals and complications of portal hypertension.
• For patients with cirrhosis and CSPH with alternative indications for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), such as large varices or refractory ascites, preoperative TIPS is suggested to reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality attributable to portal hypertension.
• For patients with cirrhosis undergoing major hepatic surgery, referral to a high-volume liver surgery or transplant center, when feasible, is recommended.

The guideline also advises on 26 key concepts, including nutrition, alcohol and tobacco use, comorbidities such as frailty and sarcopenia, and preoperative treatment of liver disease drivers such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and autoimmune hepatitis. 

 

What’s New and Notable?

New elements of the guideline include use of cirrhosis-specific risk calculators, especially the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver disease (VOCAL)-Penn Score, to estimate operative risk and facilitate shared decision-making regarding surgery. The VOCAL-Penn Score, developed by Mahmud and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania, incorporates surgery type and has shown superiority to older tools that often overestimate risk, Mahmud told GI & Hepatology News.

The guideline highlights standardized assessment of portal hypertension using noninvasive liver stiffness measurement plus platelet count and imaging, Mahmud said. “The guideline also underscores the importance of considering liver transplant evaluation before surgery in higher-risk patients,” he noted.

Clinicians will find clear recommendations on optimizing the perioperative period through nutritional support and structured prehabilitation, as well as the use of viscoelastic testing to guide transfusion decisions and the use of thrombopoietin-receptor agonists for severe thrombocytopenia, he added.

“Importantly, in carefully selected patients with significant portal hypertension, a preoperative transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt may be reasonable, though it is not recommended broadly,” Mahmud said. “Finally, procedure-specific guidance, such as elective hernia repair after ascites control, laparoscopic cholecystectomy in well-compensated cirrhosis, and sleeve gastrectomy as the bariatric procedure of choice, helps translate risk into action,” he said.

These elements address key challenges in managing perioperative risk in patients with cirrhosis, namely miscalibrated risk estimates, inconsistent portal hypertension assessment, hemostasis management, and wide variation in practice, Mahmud noted.

 

Tackling Clinical Challenges

The new guideline collates the latest evidence and assessment tools to provide practical advice for clinicians to not only estimate risk but also better prepare patients with cirrhosis for surgical procedures, Peter D. Block, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the section of digestive diseases at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, told GI & Hepatology News.

“The larger and more invasive the operation, the higher the risk,” said Block, who was not involved in writing the guideline. Surgeries associated with the highest risk for patients with cirrhosis include major open abdominal operations, chest or cardiothoracic surgery, and major vascular surgeries, as well as emergency operations, for which there is less time to optimize any liver-related problems in advance, he said.

“Cirrhosis affects clotting, fluid balance, immunity, kidney function, and medication clearance, and each of these factors influence surgical risk,” Block said. “The guideline recommends combining liver-specific risk assessment scores with surgery-specific factors and clinical judgement, rather than relying on a single test,” he noted.

For elective surgeries, “the guideline provides practical pathways for when and how to optimize first, and when surgery must proceed despite higher risk,” he said.

The guideline was supported by the American College of Gastroenterology. Mahmud disclosed receiving research support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and investigator-initiated research funding from Grifols, unrelated to the guideline. Block had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

DENVER – Standard intact protein formulas (SPFs) significantly increased the risk for gastrointestinal complications in premature infants compared to extensively hydrolyzed formulas (eHFs), according to new data presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2025 National Conference & Exhibition.

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) can affect the intestinal wall of neonates, with potentially life-threatening results. The inflammatory condition is characterized by feeding intolerance, rectal bleeding, and bowel perforations, said presenting author Puja Kulkarni, medical student at California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, California, and colleagues.

The etiology of NEC remains unclear, but previous research suggests that formula feeding may play a role, the researchers said. “NEC remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in premature infants, yet there is still no clear consensus on the optimal feeding strategy to reduce risk,” Kulkarni said in an interview with GI & Hepatology News.

Most hospital guidelines call for solely using SPFs in NICUs, especially in cases where maternal breast milk is not available, said Kulkarni. Therefore, “it was critical to investigate whether different types of formula, such as extensively hydrolyzed formula, could influence the incidence of NEC,” she said.

Kulkarni and colleagues conducted a literature search and identified three randomized, controlled trials that compared eHFs to SPFs in a study population of 1180 premature infants.

Overall, infants who received SPFs had a significantly greater risk for both NEC and feeding intolerance than those who received eHFs, with odds ratios of 2.54 and 2.87, respectively, and these associations remained after a sensitivity analysis. 

Other research, such as the German Infant Nutritional Intervention (GINI) study, has shown similar results regarding the effect of formula type on childhood pathologies, Kulkarni noted. The GINI study showed that HFs can help prevent the development of allergic diseases in children with a family history of allergies, she said.

The results of the current analysis suggest a significantly increased risk for NEC, as well as feeding intolerance, which can be a precursor to NEC, in premature infants fed SPFs compared to those fed eHFs, said Kulkarni. “If validated by further research, this could lead to changes in NICU feeding protocols, especially in situations where donor breast milk is not available. Clinicians may want to consider the type of protein in formula as an important factor in NEC prevention,” she said. The current findings support the need for more research into the effects of formula throughout the infant and childhood years.

Additional studies are needed to validate the findings in larger, multicenter cohorts to ensure generalizability, especially in the US, where current guidelines favor SPFs based on limited data, said Kulkarni. Much of the research in the US has been conducted by the formula companies themselves, and she and her colleagues took this risk for bias into account in their meta-analysis.

 

Younger Babies at Greater Risk

Documented rates of NEC have remained stable or decreased slightly over the past 20 years, which supports the need for research on prevention and early identification, as well as effective medical treatment, said Catherine Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC/PC, in an interview.

“With improved neonatal intensive care, younger neonates are surviving, but these babies also have a higher risk of development of NEC,” said Haut, director of nursing research and evidence-based practice at Nemours Children’s Health, Delaware, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

“Historically, NEC has been related to feeding, among other variables, but the use of more specific or standardized feeding methods including increased use of human milk in very low-birth weight infants has resulted in better outcomes,” she said.

The finding from the current meta-analysis that the use of SPFs poses a higher risk for NEC than the use of eHFs was not unexpected, Haut told GI & Hepatology News. Some infants are allergic to cow’s milk, and replacing this type of formula with eHF is the recommended treatment as these formulas incorporate proteins which are more easily digested, she said.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered high levels of evidence, and the current study’s documentation of the benefits of eHF could help decrease the rate of NEC in premature infants, Haut said. “Despite a higher cost associated with eHF, in formula-fed preterm neonates, there would be benefit to using eHF vs risk of standard protein formulas,” she said.

However, the current study represents a very small population compared to the total number of infants born at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, which is reported to be 10% of all newborns in the US each year, Haut noted.

Additional large studies, including randomized control trials, are needed to further document the effects of using eHF in very young premature infants and potentially help reduce the incidence of NEC in this population, she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER – Standard intact protein formulas (SPFs) significantly increased the risk for gastrointestinal complications in premature infants compared to extensively hydrolyzed formulas (eHFs), according to new data presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2025 National Conference & Exhibition.

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) can affect the intestinal wall of neonates, with potentially life-threatening results. The inflammatory condition is characterized by feeding intolerance, rectal bleeding, and bowel perforations, said presenting author Puja Kulkarni, medical student at California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, California, and colleagues.

The etiology of NEC remains unclear, but previous research suggests that formula feeding may play a role, the researchers said. “NEC remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in premature infants, yet there is still no clear consensus on the optimal feeding strategy to reduce risk,” Kulkarni said in an interview with GI & Hepatology News.

Most hospital guidelines call for solely using SPFs in NICUs, especially in cases where maternal breast milk is not available, said Kulkarni. Therefore, “it was critical to investigate whether different types of formula, such as extensively hydrolyzed formula, could influence the incidence of NEC,” she said.

Kulkarni and colleagues conducted a literature search and identified three randomized, controlled trials that compared eHFs to SPFs in a study population of 1180 premature infants.

Overall, infants who received SPFs had a significantly greater risk for both NEC and feeding intolerance than those who received eHFs, with odds ratios of 2.54 and 2.87, respectively, and these associations remained after a sensitivity analysis. 

Other research, such as the German Infant Nutritional Intervention (GINI) study, has shown similar results regarding the effect of formula type on childhood pathologies, Kulkarni noted. The GINI study showed that HFs can help prevent the development of allergic diseases in children with a family history of allergies, she said.

The results of the current analysis suggest a significantly increased risk for NEC, as well as feeding intolerance, which can be a precursor to NEC, in premature infants fed SPFs compared to those fed eHFs, said Kulkarni. “If validated by further research, this could lead to changes in NICU feeding protocols, especially in situations where donor breast milk is not available. Clinicians may want to consider the type of protein in formula as an important factor in NEC prevention,” she said. The current findings support the need for more research into the effects of formula throughout the infant and childhood years.

Additional studies are needed to validate the findings in larger, multicenter cohorts to ensure generalizability, especially in the US, where current guidelines favor SPFs based on limited data, said Kulkarni. Much of the research in the US has been conducted by the formula companies themselves, and she and her colleagues took this risk for bias into account in their meta-analysis.

 

Younger Babies at Greater Risk

Documented rates of NEC have remained stable or decreased slightly over the past 20 years, which supports the need for research on prevention and early identification, as well as effective medical treatment, said Catherine Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC/PC, in an interview.

“With improved neonatal intensive care, younger neonates are surviving, but these babies also have a higher risk of development of NEC,” said Haut, director of nursing research and evidence-based practice at Nemours Children’s Health, Delaware, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

“Historically, NEC has been related to feeding, among other variables, but the use of more specific or standardized feeding methods including increased use of human milk in very low-birth weight infants has resulted in better outcomes,” she said.

The finding from the current meta-analysis that the use of SPFs poses a higher risk for NEC than the use of eHFs was not unexpected, Haut told GI & Hepatology News. Some infants are allergic to cow’s milk, and replacing this type of formula with eHF is the recommended treatment as these formulas incorporate proteins which are more easily digested, she said.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered high levels of evidence, and the current study’s documentation of the benefits of eHF could help decrease the rate of NEC in premature infants, Haut said. “Despite a higher cost associated with eHF, in formula-fed preterm neonates, there would be benefit to using eHF vs risk of standard protein formulas,” she said.

However, the current study represents a very small population compared to the total number of infants born at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, which is reported to be 10% of all newborns in the US each year, Haut noted.

Additional large studies, including randomized control trials, are needed to further document the effects of using eHF in very young premature infants and potentially help reduce the incidence of NEC in this population, she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER – Standard intact protein formulas (SPFs) significantly increased the risk for gastrointestinal complications in premature infants compared to extensively hydrolyzed formulas (eHFs), according to new data presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2025 National Conference & Exhibition.

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) can affect the intestinal wall of neonates, with potentially life-threatening results. The inflammatory condition is characterized by feeding intolerance, rectal bleeding, and bowel perforations, said presenting author Puja Kulkarni, medical student at California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, California, and colleagues.

The etiology of NEC remains unclear, but previous research suggests that formula feeding may play a role, the researchers said. “NEC remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in premature infants, yet there is still no clear consensus on the optimal feeding strategy to reduce risk,” Kulkarni said in an interview with GI & Hepatology News.

Most hospital guidelines call for solely using SPFs in NICUs, especially in cases where maternal breast milk is not available, said Kulkarni. Therefore, “it was critical to investigate whether different types of formula, such as extensively hydrolyzed formula, could influence the incidence of NEC,” she said.

Kulkarni and colleagues conducted a literature search and identified three randomized, controlled trials that compared eHFs to SPFs in a study population of 1180 premature infants.

Overall, infants who received SPFs had a significantly greater risk for both NEC and feeding intolerance than those who received eHFs, with odds ratios of 2.54 and 2.87, respectively, and these associations remained after a sensitivity analysis. 

Other research, such as the German Infant Nutritional Intervention (GINI) study, has shown similar results regarding the effect of formula type on childhood pathologies, Kulkarni noted. The GINI study showed that HFs can help prevent the development of allergic diseases in children with a family history of allergies, she said.

The results of the current analysis suggest a significantly increased risk for NEC, as well as feeding intolerance, which can be a precursor to NEC, in premature infants fed SPFs compared to those fed eHFs, said Kulkarni. “If validated by further research, this could lead to changes in NICU feeding protocols, especially in situations where donor breast milk is not available. Clinicians may want to consider the type of protein in formula as an important factor in NEC prevention,” she said. The current findings support the need for more research into the effects of formula throughout the infant and childhood years.

Additional studies are needed to validate the findings in larger, multicenter cohorts to ensure generalizability, especially in the US, where current guidelines favor SPFs based on limited data, said Kulkarni. Much of the research in the US has been conducted by the formula companies themselves, and she and her colleagues took this risk for bias into account in their meta-analysis.

 

Younger Babies at Greater Risk

Documented rates of NEC have remained stable or decreased slightly over the past 20 years, which supports the need for research on prevention and early identification, as well as effective medical treatment, said Catherine Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC/PC, in an interview.

“With improved neonatal intensive care, younger neonates are surviving, but these babies also have a higher risk of development of NEC,” said Haut, director of nursing research and evidence-based practice at Nemours Children’s Health, Delaware, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

“Historically, NEC has been related to feeding, among other variables, but the use of more specific or standardized feeding methods including increased use of human milk in very low-birth weight infants has resulted in better outcomes,” she said.

The finding from the current meta-analysis that the use of SPFs poses a higher risk for NEC than the use of eHFs was not unexpected, Haut told GI & Hepatology News. Some infants are allergic to cow’s milk, and replacing this type of formula with eHF is the recommended treatment as these formulas incorporate proteins which are more easily digested, she said.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered high levels of evidence, and the current study’s documentation of the benefits of eHF could help decrease the rate of NEC in premature infants, Haut said. “Despite a higher cost associated with eHF, in formula-fed preterm neonates, there would be benefit to using eHF vs risk of standard protein formulas,” she said.

However, the current study represents a very small population compared to the total number of infants born at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, which is reported to be 10% of all newborns in the US each year, Haut noted.

Additional large studies, including randomized control trials, are needed to further document the effects of using eHF in very young premature infants and potentially help reduce the incidence of NEC in this population, she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) could be detected earlier, treated more effectively, and prevented more widely if European countries adopt structured, risk-stratified surveillance alongside systemic public health strategies, according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).

The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 . 

“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.

“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.

HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.

 

Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance

In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.

EASL’s key recommendations include:

• Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
• Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
• Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
• A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
• Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions

Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.

Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”

Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”

Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.

 

Barriers to Screening Uptake

HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.

Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”

However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.

Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.

 

Expanded Training and Public Health Measures

The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.

The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.

“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.

Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) could be detected earlier, treated more effectively, and prevented more widely if European countries adopt structured, risk-stratified surveillance alongside systemic public health strategies, according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).

The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 . 

“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.

“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.

HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.

 

Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance

In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.

EASL’s key recommendations include:

• Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
• Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
• Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
• A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
• Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions

Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.

Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”

Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”

Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.

 

Barriers to Screening Uptake

HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.

Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”

However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.

Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.

 

Expanded Training and Public Health Measures

The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.

The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.

“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.

Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) could be detected earlier, treated more effectively, and prevented more widely if European countries adopt structured, risk-stratified surveillance alongside systemic public health strategies, according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).

The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 . 

“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.

“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.

HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.

 

Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance

In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.

EASL’s key recommendations include:

• Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
• Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
• Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
• A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
• Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions

Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.

Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”

Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”

Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.

 

Barriers to Screening Uptake

HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.

Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”

However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.

Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.

 

Expanded Training and Public Health Measures

The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.

The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.

“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.

Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptom-based “at-need” endoscopy may be a safe alternative to standard surveillance in patients with low-risk Barrett’s esophagus (BE), based on results of a randomized controlled trial.

The Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Versus Endoscopy at Need Study (BOSS) showed that surveillance endoscopy did not significantly improve overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival, compared with “at-need” endoscopy requested by patients with symptoms, reported Oliver Old, MD, of Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, England, and colleagues.

“Surveillance endoscopy at regular intervals is advocated by major gastroenterology societies and practiced in numerous countries worldwide to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) early in these high-risk patients,” investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. However, “there are conflicting observational studies on the benefits of Barrett’s esophagus surveillance.”

To address this knowledge gap, Old and colleagues conducted the first randomized study of its kind. The BOSS trial was a multicenter trial conducted at 109 hospitals across the United Kingdom. Adults with an endoscopic and histologic diagnosis of BE were eligible if they were fit for endoscopy and had no history of high-grade dysplasia, esophageal adenocarcinoma, or prior upper gastrointestinal cancer. Patients with low-grade dysplasia were permitted to enroll, consistent with practice guidelines at the time.

A total of 3,453 participants were randomized between 2009 and 2011 to undergo surveillance endoscopy every 2 years or to receive at-need endoscopy triggered only by symptoms. Patients and clinicians were aware of treatment assignment. In the surveillance group, quadrantic biopsies were taken at 2-cm intervals throughout the Barrett’s segment.

The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific survival (deaths from any cancer), time to diagnosis of EAC, stage at diagnosis, number of endoscopies performed, and procedure-related adverse events. 

Of the 3,453 patients randomized, 1,733 were assigned to surveillance and 1,719 to symptom-driven, at-need endoscopy. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; the mean age was 63 years, and about 70% were men.

Over the course of the trial, 25% of patients in the surveillance arm, and 9% in the at-need arm, withdrew from the trial back into clinical care, but allowed data collection of their outcomes. After a median of 12.8 years of follow-up, there was no significant difference in overall survival: 333 deaths occurred in the surveillance group (19.2%) and 356 in the at-need group (20.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10). Cancer-specific survival was also similar across groups, with 108 cancer-related deaths in the surveillance arm and 106 in the at-need arm (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33).

EAC was diagnosed in 40 patients in the surveillance arm (2.3%) and 31 in the at-need arm (1.8%), a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.82-2.11). Stage at diagnosis did not differ between the two groups.

Endoscopy use was higher in the surveillance arm, with 6,124 procedures compared with 2,424 in the at-need arm. Serious adverse events were rare, reported in 0.5% of surveillance patients and 0.4% of at-need patients, with most related to complications of endoscopy such as bleeding or perforation.

End-of-trial exit endoscopy, offered only to patients in the at-need group (based on data and safety monitoring committee recommendation), detected an additional eight cases of EAC and eight cases of high-grade dysplasia, but these findings were not included in the primary trial analysis.

“These data challenge current clinical practice where surveillance is advocated for all patients with BE,” the investigators wrote. “These results are likely to influence societal guidelines regarding surveillance for nondysplastic BE and inform decision making for individual patients and clinicians.”

The study was supported by the Health Technology Assessment Programme, United Kingdom. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Symptom-based “at-need” endoscopy may be a safe alternative to standard surveillance in patients with low-risk Barrett’s esophagus (BE), based on results of a randomized controlled trial.

The Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Versus Endoscopy at Need Study (BOSS) showed that surveillance endoscopy did not significantly improve overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival, compared with “at-need” endoscopy requested by patients with symptoms, reported Oliver Old, MD, of Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, England, and colleagues.

“Surveillance endoscopy at regular intervals is advocated by major gastroenterology societies and practiced in numerous countries worldwide to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) early in these high-risk patients,” investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. However, “there are conflicting observational studies on the benefits of Barrett’s esophagus surveillance.”

To address this knowledge gap, Old and colleagues conducted the first randomized study of its kind. The BOSS trial was a multicenter trial conducted at 109 hospitals across the United Kingdom. Adults with an endoscopic and histologic diagnosis of BE were eligible if they were fit for endoscopy and had no history of high-grade dysplasia, esophageal adenocarcinoma, or prior upper gastrointestinal cancer. Patients with low-grade dysplasia were permitted to enroll, consistent with practice guidelines at the time.

A total of 3,453 participants were randomized between 2009 and 2011 to undergo surveillance endoscopy every 2 years or to receive at-need endoscopy triggered only by symptoms. Patients and clinicians were aware of treatment assignment. In the surveillance group, quadrantic biopsies were taken at 2-cm intervals throughout the Barrett’s segment.

The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific survival (deaths from any cancer), time to diagnosis of EAC, stage at diagnosis, number of endoscopies performed, and procedure-related adverse events. 

Of the 3,453 patients randomized, 1,733 were assigned to surveillance and 1,719 to symptom-driven, at-need endoscopy. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; the mean age was 63 years, and about 70% were men.

Over the course of the trial, 25% of patients in the surveillance arm, and 9% in the at-need arm, withdrew from the trial back into clinical care, but allowed data collection of their outcomes. After a median of 12.8 years of follow-up, there was no significant difference in overall survival: 333 deaths occurred in the surveillance group (19.2%) and 356 in the at-need group (20.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10). Cancer-specific survival was also similar across groups, with 108 cancer-related deaths in the surveillance arm and 106 in the at-need arm (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33).

EAC was diagnosed in 40 patients in the surveillance arm (2.3%) and 31 in the at-need arm (1.8%), a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.82-2.11). Stage at diagnosis did not differ between the two groups.

Endoscopy use was higher in the surveillance arm, with 6,124 procedures compared with 2,424 in the at-need arm. Serious adverse events were rare, reported in 0.5% of surveillance patients and 0.4% of at-need patients, with most related to complications of endoscopy such as bleeding or perforation.

End-of-trial exit endoscopy, offered only to patients in the at-need group (based on data and safety monitoring committee recommendation), detected an additional eight cases of EAC and eight cases of high-grade dysplasia, but these findings were not included in the primary trial analysis.

“These data challenge current clinical practice where surveillance is advocated for all patients with BE,” the investigators wrote. “These results are likely to influence societal guidelines regarding surveillance for nondysplastic BE and inform decision making for individual patients and clinicians.”

The study was supported by the Health Technology Assessment Programme, United Kingdom. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Symptom-based “at-need” endoscopy may be a safe alternative to standard surveillance in patients with low-risk Barrett’s esophagus (BE), based on results of a randomized controlled trial.

The Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Versus Endoscopy at Need Study (BOSS) showed that surveillance endoscopy did not significantly improve overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival, compared with “at-need” endoscopy requested by patients with symptoms, reported Oliver Old, MD, of Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, England, and colleagues.

“Surveillance endoscopy at regular intervals is advocated by major gastroenterology societies and practiced in numerous countries worldwide to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) early in these high-risk patients,” investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. However, “there are conflicting observational studies on the benefits of Barrett’s esophagus surveillance.”

To address this knowledge gap, Old and colleagues conducted the first randomized study of its kind. The BOSS trial was a multicenter trial conducted at 109 hospitals across the United Kingdom. Adults with an endoscopic and histologic diagnosis of BE were eligible if they were fit for endoscopy and had no history of high-grade dysplasia, esophageal adenocarcinoma, or prior upper gastrointestinal cancer. Patients with low-grade dysplasia were permitted to enroll, consistent with practice guidelines at the time.

A total of 3,453 participants were randomized between 2009 and 2011 to undergo surveillance endoscopy every 2 years or to receive at-need endoscopy triggered only by symptoms. Patients and clinicians were aware of treatment assignment. In the surveillance group, quadrantic biopsies were taken at 2-cm intervals throughout the Barrett’s segment.

The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific survival (deaths from any cancer), time to diagnosis of EAC, stage at diagnosis, number of endoscopies performed, and procedure-related adverse events. 

Of the 3,453 patients randomized, 1,733 were assigned to surveillance and 1,719 to symptom-driven, at-need endoscopy. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; the mean age was 63 years, and about 70% were men.

Over the course of the trial, 25% of patients in the surveillance arm, and 9% in the at-need arm, withdrew from the trial back into clinical care, but allowed data collection of their outcomes. After a median of 12.8 years of follow-up, there was no significant difference in overall survival: 333 deaths occurred in the surveillance group (19.2%) and 356 in the at-need group (20.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10). Cancer-specific survival was also similar across groups, with 108 cancer-related deaths in the surveillance arm and 106 in the at-need arm (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33).

EAC was diagnosed in 40 patients in the surveillance arm (2.3%) and 31 in the at-need arm (1.8%), a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.82-2.11). Stage at diagnosis did not differ between the two groups.

Endoscopy use was higher in the surveillance arm, with 6,124 procedures compared with 2,424 in the at-need arm. Serious adverse events were rare, reported in 0.5% of surveillance patients and 0.4% of at-need patients, with most related to complications of endoscopy such as bleeding or perforation.

End-of-trial exit endoscopy, offered only to patients in the at-need group (based on data and safety monitoring committee recommendation), detected an additional eight cases of EAC and eight cases of high-grade dysplasia, but these findings were not included in the primary trial analysis.

“These data challenge current clinical practice where surveillance is advocated for all patients with BE,” the investigators wrote. “These results are likely to influence societal guidelines regarding surveillance for nondysplastic BE and inform decision making for individual patients and clinicians.”

The study was supported by the Health Technology Assessment Programme, United Kingdom. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

BERLIN — A novel investigational ileal bile acid transporter (IBAT) inhibitor, linerixibat, significantly and rapidly reduced cholestatic pruritus in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), according to phase 3 results from the GLISTEN trial.

The therapy also improved sleep interference associated with itching and was generally well-tolerated, offering hope for patients who do not respond to existing treatments.

“Linerixibat has the potential to be the first global therapy indicated for pruritus,” asserted Andreas E. Kremer, MD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025.

Cholestatic pruritus is one of the most distressing and disabling symptoms of PBC, often unrelieved by existing first-line therapies such as ursodeoxycholic acid.

Up to 70% of patients with PBC experience cholestatic pruritus which can seriously impair quality of life, comparable to that seen in severe Parkinson’s disease or heart failure, said Kremer. With the limitations of existing treatments, symptom control remains a major unmet clinical need.

 

The GLISTEN Trial

Linerixibat is a minimally absorbed oral IBAT inhibitor that inhibits bile acid reuptake and reduces key mediators of pruritus.

Participants in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were randomized to oral linerixibat 40 mg twice daily (n = 119) or to placebo (n = 119) for 24 weeks. Patients had PBC and moderate-to-severe pruritus (Worst Itch Numerical Rating Scale [WI-NRS] ≥ 4).

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly worst-itch score over 24 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included change in itch at week 2, change in sleep interference over 24 weeks, responder rates (≥ 2-, ≥ 3-, and ≥ 4-point reduction), and patient-reported global impression of severity and change.

The majority of participants (95%) were women and had a mean WI-NRS of 7.3 at baseline. After 24 weeks of twice daily dosing of linerixibat or placebo, participants entered a blinded crossover period for 8 weeks.

 

24-Week Data

Linerixibat produced a significant improvement in pruritus vs placebo, with a least-squares mean change in WI-NRS of -2.86 compared with -2.15, respectively, resulting in an adjusted mean difference of -0.72 (P = .001). The benefit appeared rapid, with superiority already evident at 2 weeks (P < .001), noted Kremer, adding this is important for patients.

Pruritus-related sleep interference NRS also improved significantly (-2.77 vs -2.24; difference, -0.53; P = .024). By week 24, 56% of patients with linerixibat achieved a ≥ 3-point reduction compared with 43% of those treated with placebo (nominal P = .043).

“A three-point reduction for a patient with pruritus is a clearly meaningful benefit,” said Kremer.

In addition, a greater proportion of patients with linerixibat rated their itch as “absent” (21% vs 9%) on the patient global impression of severity scales. The ideal goal for these patients is complete relief, “and here we saw that every fifth patient on linerixibat achieved such relief,” he pointed out.

Linerixibat was generally well-tolerated, and the most frequent on-treatment adverse event was diarrhea, which occurred in 61% of patients compared with 18% of those on placebo. There were five (4%) discontinuations on linerixibat vs one (< 1%) on placebo. Abdominal pain was experienced by 18% on linerixibat and 3% on placebo. There was also a slight elevation of alanine aminotransferase in 11 (9%) vs three patients (3%).

“In summary, it is a safe drug from our perspective,” said Kremer.

 

Focusing on Symptoms, Not Biochemical Response

Commenting for GI & Hepatology News, Frank Tacke, MD, head of the Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology at Charité Medical University Berlin, Germany, explained that so far drugs for the treatment of PBC focused on the biochemical response. These treatments have shown a reduction in liver enzymes and in disease activity, but less of a reduction in symptoms, he explained. “This is the first drug at phase 3 that focuses on itching, which is one of the major symptoms in people with PBC. As such, this is a major breakthrough.”

Sabine Weber, MD, gastroenterologist at the University Hospital of Munich, Germany, said that the data suggested particular potential for patients whose pruritus doesn’t respond to first-line treatment, even if the treatment is otherwise effective.

“This is so important for patients who — due to their extreme itching — experience serious lifestyle effects such as isolation because they can’t go out socially,” she said. “We desperately need drugs to help these patients, and here we have one drug that seems to do this.”

Weber noted that linerixibat works differently from other PBC treatments. It is licensed in pediatric medicine for a number of diseases, but “this is the first time we’ve seen it for use in adults,” she added.

Kremer disclosed receiving research support from Gilead, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, and Roche; consulting for AbbVie, Advanz, Alentis, Alphasigma, AstraZeneca, Avior, Bayer, CymaBay Therapeutics, Eisai, Escient, Falk, Gilead, GSK, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Mirum, MSD, Roche, Takeda, and Vifor; and receiving payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Advanz, Alphasigma, Falk, Gilead, GSK, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Mirum, MSD, Roche, Takeda, and Vifor. Tache declared that he previously gave lectures for GSK. Weber declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

The GLISTEN study was funded by GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — A novel investigational ileal bile acid transporter (IBAT) inhibitor, linerixibat, significantly and rapidly reduced cholestatic pruritus in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), according to phase 3 results from the GLISTEN trial.

The therapy also improved sleep interference associated with itching and was generally well-tolerated, offering hope for patients who do not respond to existing treatments.

“Linerixibat has the potential to be the first global therapy indicated for pruritus,” asserted Andreas E. Kremer, MD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025.

Cholestatic pruritus is one of the most distressing and disabling symptoms of PBC, often unrelieved by existing first-line therapies such as ursodeoxycholic acid.

Up to 70% of patients with PBC experience cholestatic pruritus which can seriously impair quality of life, comparable to that seen in severe Parkinson’s disease or heart failure, said Kremer. With the limitations of existing treatments, symptom control remains a major unmet clinical need.

 

The GLISTEN Trial

Linerixibat is a minimally absorbed oral IBAT inhibitor that inhibits bile acid reuptake and reduces key mediators of pruritus.

Participants in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were randomized to oral linerixibat 40 mg twice daily (n = 119) or to placebo (n = 119) for 24 weeks. Patients had PBC and moderate-to-severe pruritus (Worst Itch Numerical Rating Scale [WI-NRS] ≥ 4).

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly worst-itch score over 24 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included change in itch at week 2, change in sleep interference over 24 weeks, responder rates (≥ 2-, ≥ 3-, and ≥ 4-point reduction), and patient-reported global impression of severity and change.

The majority of participants (95%) were women and had a mean WI-NRS of 7.3 at baseline. After 24 weeks of twice daily dosing of linerixibat or placebo, participants entered a blinded crossover period for 8 weeks.

 

24-Week Data

Linerixibat produced a significant improvement in pruritus vs placebo, with a least-squares mean change in WI-NRS of -2.86 compared with -2.15, respectively, resulting in an adjusted mean difference of -0.72 (P = .001). The benefit appeared rapid, with superiority already evident at 2 weeks (P < .001), noted Kremer, adding this is important for patients.

Pruritus-related sleep interference NRS also improved significantly (-2.77 vs -2.24; difference, -0.53; P = .024). By week 24, 56% of patients with linerixibat achieved a ≥ 3-point reduction compared with 43% of those treated with placebo (nominal P = .043).

“A three-point reduction for a patient with pruritus is a clearly meaningful benefit,” said Kremer.

In addition, a greater proportion of patients with linerixibat rated their itch as “absent” (21% vs 9%) on the patient global impression of severity scales. The ideal goal for these patients is complete relief, “and here we saw that every fifth patient on linerixibat achieved such relief,” he pointed out.

Linerixibat was generally well-tolerated, and the most frequent on-treatment adverse event was diarrhea, which occurred in 61% of patients compared with 18% of those on placebo. There were five (4%) discontinuations on linerixibat vs one (< 1%) on placebo. Abdominal pain was experienced by 18% on linerixibat and 3% on placebo. There was also a slight elevation of alanine aminotransferase in 11 (9%) vs three patients (3%).

“In summary, it is a safe drug from our perspective,” said Kremer.

 

Focusing on Symptoms, Not Biochemical Response

Commenting for GI & Hepatology News, Frank Tacke, MD, head of the Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology at Charité Medical University Berlin, Germany, explained that so far drugs for the treatment of PBC focused on the biochemical response. These treatments have shown a reduction in liver enzymes and in disease activity, but less of a reduction in symptoms, he explained. “This is the first drug at phase 3 that focuses on itching, which is one of the major symptoms in people with PBC. As such, this is a major breakthrough.”

Sabine Weber, MD, gastroenterologist at the University Hospital of Munich, Germany, said that the data suggested particular potential for patients whose pruritus doesn’t respond to first-line treatment, even if the treatment is otherwise effective.

“This is so important for patients who — due to their extreme itching — experience serious lifestyle effects such as isolation because they can’t go out socially,” she said. “We desperately need drugs to help these patients, and here we have one drug that seems to do this.”

Weber noted that linerixibat works differently from other PBC treatments. It is licensed in pediatric medicine for a number of diseases, but “this is the first time we’ve seen it for use in adults,” she added.

Kremer disclosed receiving research support from Gilead, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, and Roche; consulting for AbbVie, Advanz, Alentis, Alphasigma, AstraZeneca, Avior, Bayer, CymaBay Therapeutics, Eisai, Escient, Falk, Gilead, GSK, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Mirum, MSD, Roche, Takeda, and Vifor; and receiving payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Advanz, Alphasigma, Falk, Gilead, GSK, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Mirum, MSD, Roche, Takeda, and Vifor. Tache declared that he previously gave lectures for GSK. Weber declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

The GLISTEN study was funded by GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — A novel investigational ileal bile acid transporter (IBAT) inhibitor, linerixibat, significantly and rapidly reduced cholestatic pruritus in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), according to phase 3 results from the GLISTEN trial.

The therapy also improved sleep interference associated with itching and was generally well-tolerated, offering hope for patients who do not respond to existing treatments.

“Linerixibat has the potential to be the first global therapy indicated for pruritus,” asserted Andreas E. Kremer, MD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025.

Cholestatic pruritus is one of the most distressing and disabling symptoms of PBC, often unrelieved by existing first-line therapies such as ursodeoxycholic acid.

Up to 70% of patients with PBC experience cholestatic pruritus which can seriously impair quality of life, comparable to that seen in severe Parkinson’s disease or heart failure, said Kremer. With the limitations of existing treatments, symptom control remains a major unmet clinical need.

 

The GLISTEN Trial

Linerixibat is a minimally absorbed oral IBAT inhibitor that inhibits bile acid reuptake and reduces key mediators of pruritus.

Participants in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were randomized to oral linerixibat 40 mg twice daily (n = 119) or to placebo (n = 119) for 24 weeks. Patients had PBC and moderate-to-severe pruritus (Worst Itch Numerical Rating Scale [WI-NRS] ≥ 4).

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly worst-itch score over 24 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included change in itch at week 2, change in sleep interference over 24 weeks, responder rates (≥ 2-, ≥ 3-, and ≥ 4-point reduction), and patient-reported global impression of severity and change.

The majority of participants (95%) were women and had a mean WI-NRS of 7.3 at baseline. After 24 weeks of twice daily dosing of linerixibat or placebo, participants entered a blinded crossover period for 8 weeks.

 

24-Week Data

Linerixibat produced a significant improvement in pruritus vs placebo, with a least-squares mean change in WI-NRS of -2.86 compared with -2.15, respectively, resulting in an adjusted mean difference of -0.72 (P = .001). The benefit appeared rapid, with superiority already evident at 2 weeks (P < .001), noted Kremer, adding this is important for patients.

Pruritus-related sleep interference NRS also improved significantly (-2.77 vs -2.24; difference, -0.53; P = .024). By week 24, 56% of patients with linerixibat achieved a ≥ 3-point reduction compared with 43% of those treated with placebo (nominal P = .043).

“A three-point reduction for a patient with pruritus is a clearly meaningful benefit,” said Kremer.

In addition, a greater proportion of patients with linerixibat rated their itch as “absent” (21% vs 9%) on the patient global impression of severity scales. The ideal goal for these patients is complete relief, “and here we saw that every fifth patient on linerixibat achieved such relief,” he pointed out.

Linerixibat was generally well-tolerated, and the most frequent on-treatment adverse event was diarrhea, which occurred in 61% of patients compared with 18% of those on placebo. There were five (4%) discontinuations on linerixibat vs one (< 1%) on placebo. Abdominal pain was experienced by 18% on linerixibat and 3% on placebo. There was also a slight elevation of alanine aminotransferase in 11 (9%) vs three patients (3%).

“In summary, it is a safe drug from our perspective,” said Kremer.

 

Focusing on Symptoms, Not Biochemical Response

Commenting for GI & Hepatology News, Frank Tacke, MD, head of the Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology at Charité Medical University Berlin, Germany, explained that so far drugs for the treatment of PBC focused on the biochemical response. These treatments have shown a reduction in liver enzymes and in disease activity, but less of a reduction in symptoms, he explained. “This is the first drug at phase 3 that focuses on itching, which is one of the major symptoms in people with PBC. As such, this is a major breakthrough.”

Sabine Weber, MD, gastroenterologist at the University Hospital of Munich, Germany, said that the data suggested particular potential for patients whose pruritus doesn’t respond to first-line treatment, even if the treatment is otherwise effective.

“This is so important for patients who — due to their extreme itching — experience serious lifestyle effects such as isolation because they can’t go out socially,” she said. “We desperately need drugs to help these patients, and here we have one drug that seems to do this.”

Weber noted that linerixibat works differently from other PBC treatments. It is licensed in pediatric medicine for a number of diseases, but “this is the first time we’ve seen it for use in adults,” she added.

Kremer disclosed receiving research support from Gilead, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, and Roche; consulting for AbbVie, Advanz, Alentis, Alphasigma, AstraZeneca, Avior, Bayer, CymaBay Therapeutics, Eisai, Escient, Falk, Gilead, GSK, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Mirum, MSD, Roche, Takeda, and Vifor; and receiving payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Advanz, Alphasigma, Falk, Gilead, GSK, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Mirum, MSD, Roche, Takeda, and Vifor. Tache declared that he previously gave lectures for GSK. Weber declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

The GLISTEN study was funded by GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Global consensus recommendations were recently published for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH).

These recommendations aim to boost guideline adherence and disease awareness, which have lagged despite a surge of national and international guidance in recent years, lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of the Global NASH/MASH Council, Washington, DC, and colleagues, reported.

“Although these documents are similar in many ways, there are important differences in their recommendations, which have created some confusion within the field,” the panel wrote in Gastroenterology. “Areas of discordance among guidelines can be partly responsible for their low rate of implementation and the suboptimal awareness about this liver disease. Furthermore, these guidelines can be long and complex, making it challenging for busy clinicians to access the appropriate information quickly and efficiently.”

To address these gaps, more than 40 experts from around the world collaborated on the consensus project. The team reviewed 61 eligible documents published between 2018 and January 2025. Each guideline was evaluated across eight domains: epidemiology; screening; risk stratification using noninvasive tests (NITs); lifestyle management; treatment with existing medications; treatment with future medications; hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and preventive guidance; and pregnancy and pediatric populations.

Areas of discordance were advanced to a Delphi process using iterative online surveys, with a supermajority threshold of 67% required for acceptance. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, and by the end, all statements had achieved more than 90% agreement. The final recommendations were then summarized into practical algorithms for clinical use.

The results cover the full spectrum of MASLD care. For screening and diagnosis, experts agreed that individuals with type 2 diabetes, obesity plus cardiometabolic risk factors, or persistently elevated aminotransferases should be considered high risk. Alcohol thresholds were standardized, clarifying when to classify disease as MASLD, alcohol-related liver disease, or the hybrid “Met-ALD.”

For risk stratification, the panel endorsed a two-step algorithm beginning with the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, followed by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) or other NITs in patients above the threshold. This approach, the authors noted, was designed to be feasible in both primary care and specialty settings.

Lifestyle intervention remains the cornerstone of treatment, with weight-loss goals of 5% to reduce steatosis, 7%–10% to reduce inflammation, and at least 10% to improve fibrosis. To this end, the panel recommended a Mediterranean-style diet, increased physical activity, and reductions in sedentary time.

Drug therapy recommendations prioritized glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for patients with diabetes or obesity, though these were not considered MASH-specific agents. Pioglitazone was noted as an option for diabetes management but not as direct MASH therapy. The panel did not recommend vitamin E, ursodeoxycholic acid, or omega-3 fatty acids, citing insufficient evidence.

The document also provides structured guidance on resmetirom, the first FDA-approved therapy for MASH. Its use was endorsed in patients with F2–F3 fibrosis confirmed by NITs, with safety checks at 3, 6, and 12 months, and efficacy evaluation after 1 year. Treatment futility was defined as concordant worsening across two NITs.

Preventive recommendations included hepatitis A and B vaccination and HCC surveillance every 6 months in patients with cirrhosis. Surveillance in noncirrhotic MASH was left to clinician judgment, based on individualized risk factors. Special considerations were outlined for pediatric and pregnant populations, although the evidence base in these groups remains sparse.

“Further research is required to determine the effectiveness of this algorithm in raising awareness of MASLD and its treatment,” Dr. Younossi and colleagues concluded.

The study was supported by the Global NASH/MASH Council, Inova Health System, and an unrestricted educational grant from Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and others.







 

Global consensus recommendations were recently published for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH).

These recommendations aim to boost guideline adherence and disease awareness, which have lagged despite a surge of national and international guidance in recent years, lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of the Global NASH/MASH Council, Washington, DC, and colleagues, reported.

“Although these documents are similar in many ways, there are important differences in their recommendations, which have created some confusion within the field,” the panel wrote in Gastroenterology. “Areas of discordance among guidelines can be partly responsible for their low rate of implementation and the suboptimal awareness about this liver disease. Furthermore, these guidelines can be long and complex, making it challenging for busy clinicians to access the appropriate information quickly and efficiently.”

To address these gaps, more than 40 experts from around the world collaborated on the consensus project. The team reviewed 61 eligible documents published between 2018 and January 2025. Each guideline was evaluated across eight domains: epidemiology; screening; risk stratification using noninvasive tests (NITs); lifestyle management; treatment with existing medications; treatment with future medications; hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and preventive guidance; and pregnancy and pediatric populations.

Areas of discordance were advanced to a Delphi process using iterative online surveys, with a supermajority threshold of 67% required for acceptance. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, and by the end, all statements had achieved more than 90% agreement. The final recommendations were then summarized into practical algorithms for clinical use.

The results cover the full spectrum of MASLD care. For screening and diagnosis, experts agreed that individuals with type 2 diabetes, obesity plus cardiometabolic risk factors, or persistently elevated aminotransferases should be considered high risk. Alcohol thresholds were standardized, clarifying when to classify disease as MASLD, alcohol-related liver disease, or the hybrid “Met-ALD.”

For risk stratification, the panel endorsed a two-step algorithm beginning with the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, followed by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) or other NITs in patients above the threshold. This approach, the authors noted, was designed to be feasible in both primary care and specialty settings.

Lifestyle intervention remains the cornerstone of treatment, with weight-loss goals of 5% to reduce steatosis, 7%–10% to reduce inflammation, and at least 10% to improve fibrosis. To this end, the panel recommended a Mediterranean-style diet, increased physical activity, and reductions in sedentary time.

Drug therapy recommendations prioritized glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for patients with diabetes or obesity, though these were not considered MASH-specific agents. Pioglitazone was noted as an option for diabetes management but not as direct MASH therapy. The panel did not recommend vitamin E, ursodeoxycholic acid, or omega-3 fatty acids, citing insufficient evidence.

The document also provides structured guidance on resmetirom, the first FDA-approved therapy for MASH. Its use was endorsed in patients with F2–F3 fibrosis confirmed by NITs, with safety checks at 3, 6, and 12 months, and efficacy evaluation after 1 year. Treatment futility was defined as concordant worsening across two NITs.

Preventive recommendations included hepatitis A and B vaccination and HCC surveillance every 6 months in patients with cirrhosis. Surveillance in noncirrhotic MASH was left to clinician judgment, based on individualized risk factors. Special considerations were outlined for pediatric and pregnant populations, although the evidence base in these groups remains sparse.

“Further research is required to determine the effectiveness of this algorithm in raising awareness of MASLD and its treatment,” Dr. Younossi and colleagues concluded.

The study was supported by the Global NASH/MASH Council, Inova Health System, and an unrestricted educational grant from Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and others.







 

Global consensus recommendations were recently published for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH).

These recommendations aim to boost guideline adherence and disease awareness, which have lagged despite a surge of national and international guidance in recent years, lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of the Global NASH/MASH Council, Washington, DC, and colleagues, reported.

“Although these documents are similar in many ways, there are important differences in their recommendations, which have created some confusion within the field,” the panel wrote in Gastroenterology. “Areas of discordance among guidelines can be partly responsible for their low rate of implementation and the suboptimal awareness about this liver disease. Furthermore, these guidelines can be long and complex, making it challenging for busy clinicians to access the appropriate information quickly and efficiently.”

To address these gaps, more than 40 experts from around the world collaborated on the consensus project. The team reviewed 61 eligible documents published between 2018 and January 2025. Each guideline was evaluated across eight domains: epidemiology; screening; risk stratification using noninvasive tests (NITs); lifestyle management; treatment with existing medications; treatment with future medications; hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and preventive guidance; and pregnancy and pediatric populations.

Areas of discordance were advanced to a Delphi process using iterative online surveys, with a supermajority threshold of 67% required for acceptance. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, and by the end, all statements had achieved more than 90% agreement. The final recommendations were then summarized into practical algorithms for clinical use.

The results cover the full spectrum of MASLD care. For screening and diagnosis, experts agreed that individuals with type 2 diabetes, obesity plus cardiometabolic risk factors, or persistently elevated aminotransferases should be considered high risk. Alcohol thresholds were standardized, clarifying when to classify disease as MASLD, alcohol-related liver disease, or the hybrid “Met-ALD.”

For risk stratification, the panel endorsed a two-step algorithm beginning with the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, followed by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) or other NITs in patients above the threshold. This approach, the authors noted, was designed to be feasible in both primary care and specialty settings.

Lifestyle intervention remains the cornerstone of treatment, with weight-loss goals of 5% to reduce steatosis, 7%–10% to reduce inflammation, and at least 10% to improve fibrosis. To this end, the panel recommended a Mediterranean-style diet, increased physical activity, and reductions in sedentary time.

Drug therapy recommendations prioritized glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for patients with diabetes or obesity, though these were not considered MASH-specific agents. Pioglitazone was noted as an option for diabetes management but not as direct MASH therapy. The panel did not recommend vitamin E, ursodeoxycholic acid, or omega-3 fatty acids, citing insufficient evidence.

The document also provides structured guidance on resmetirom, the first FDA-approved therapy for MASH. Its use was endorsed in patients with F2–F3 fibrosis confirmed by NITs, with safety checks at 3, 6, and 12 months, and efficacy evaluation after 1 year. Treatment futility was defined as concordant worsening across two NITs.

Preventive recommendations included hepatitis A and B vaccination and HCC surveillance every 6 months in patients with cirrhosis. Surveillance in noncirrhotic MASH was left to clinician judgment, based on individualized risk factors. Special considerations were outlined for pediatric and pregnant populations, although the evidence base in these groups remains sparse.

“Further research is required to determine the effectiveness of this algorithm in raising awareness of MASLD and its treatment,” Dr. Younossi and colleagues concluded.

The study was supported by the Global NASH/MASH Council, Inova Health System, and an unrestricted educational grant from Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and others.







 

Biologic and corticosteroid maintenance therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are generally safe and effective, even at reduced doses, according to a recent meta-analysis of long-term data.

These findings support keeping patients on long-term maintenance therapy to prevent relapse, lead author Alberto Barchi, MD, of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, and colleagues, reported.

“Given the high relapse rate after treatment cessation, despite good initial response after induction, there is need for further information about long-term outcomes of maintenance treatments,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, few studies have focused on long-term effects of EoE therapies.”

In response, Dr. Barchi and colleagues conducted the present systematic review and meta-analysis, which included studies evaluating maintenance therapies for EoE with at least 48 weeks of follow-up. Eligible studies enrolled patients with confirmed EoE who had received an induction regimen and continued therapy long-term. The final dataset comprised 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 11 observational studies, with long-term outcomes were reported among 1,819 patients.

The primary outcome was histologic success, defined as fewer than 15 or 6 eosinophils per high-power field (HPF). Secondary outcomes included clinical and endoscopic response, treatment adherence, and safety events.

Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, with randomized trials and observational studies analyzed separately. Risk ratios for sustained remission versus placebo or induction therapy were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Safety outcomes included pooled rates of adverse events, severe adverse events, and treatment discontinuation.

Across 9 randomized controlled trials, swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) maintained histologic remission (less than 15 eosinophils/HPF) in 86% of patients, while biologics achieved a rate of 79%. At the stricter threshold of less than 6 eosinophils/HPF, remission rates for STCs and biologics were 59% and 70%, respectively.

Clinical remission rates were lower, at 58% for STCs and 59% for biologics. Endoscopic outcomes were less consistent-ly reported, but most trials showed stable or improved scores during long-term treatment.

In observational cohorts, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) maintained histologic remission in 64% of patients and clinical remission in 80%. For STCs in the real-world setting, histologic and clinical remission rates were 49% and 51%, respectively.

Stepping down the dose of maintenance therapy—whether conventional or biologic—did not increase relapse risk (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72–1.51). In contrast, treatment withdrawal was clearly associated with higher relapse rates: in pooled analyses, continuing therapy yielded nearly an 8-fold greater likelihood of sustained remission compared with discontinuation (RR 7.87; 95% CI, 4.19–14.77).

Safety signals were favorable. Severe adverse events occurred in 3% of patients in randomized trials and 5% in observational studies, while overall withdrawal rates were 10% and 4%, respectively. The most common adverse events with STCs were oropharyngeal candidiasis and reductions in morning cortisol, while biologics were mainly associated with injection-site reactions, headache, and nasopharyngitis.

“Results suggest that prolonging treatment is efficient in maintaining histologic and clinical remission, with overall drug-related safe profiles both in randomized trials and observational studies,” the investigators concluded, noting that more work is needed to determine if there is an optimal drug for maintenance therapy, and if certain patients can successfully discontinue treatment.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer, UCB Pharma, AstraZeneca, and others.
 

Biologic and corticosteroid maintenance therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are generally safe and effective, even at reduced doses, according to a recent meta-analysis of long-term data.

These findings support keeping patients on long-term maintenance therapy to prevent relapse, lead author Alberto Barchi, MD, of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, and colleagues, reported.

“Given the high relapse rate after treatment cessation, despite good initial response after induction, there is need for further information about long-term outcomes of maintenance treatments,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, few studies have focused on long-term effects of EoE therapies.”

In response, Dr. Barchi and colleagues conducted the present systematic review and meta-analysis, which included studies evaluating maintenance therapies for EoE with at least 48 weeks of follow-up. Eligible studies enrolled patients with confirmed EoE who had received an induction regimen and continued therapy long-term. The final dataset comprised 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 11 observational studies, with long-term outcomes were reported among 1,819 patients.

The primary outcome was histologic success, defined as fewer than 15 or 6 eosinophils per high-power field (HPF). Secondary outcomes included clinical and endoscopic response, treatment adherence, and safety events.

Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, with randomized trials and observational studies analyzed separately. Risk ratios for sustained remission versus placebo or induction therapy were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Safety outcomes included pooled rates of adverse events, severe adverse events, and treatment discontinuation.

Across 9 randomized controlled trials, swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) maintained histologic remission (less than 15 eosinophils/HPF) in 86% of patients, while biologics achieved a rate of 79%. At the stricter threshold of less than 6 eosinophils/HPF, remission rates for STCs and biologics were 59% and 70%, respectively.

Clinical remission rates were lower, at 58% for STCs and 59% for biologics. Endoscopic outcomes were less consistent-ly reported, but most trials showed stable or improved scores during long-term treatment.

In observational cohorts, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) maintained histologic remission in 64% of patients and clinical remission in 80%. For STCs in the real-world setting, histologic and clinical remission rates were 49% and 51%, respectively.

Stepping down the dose of maintenance therapy—whether conventional or biologic—did not increase relapse risk (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72–1.51). In contrast, treatment withdrawal was clearly associated with higher relapse rates: in pooled analyses, continuing therapy yielded nearly an 8-fold greater likelihood of sustained remission compared with discontinuation (RR 7.87; 95% CI, 4.19–14.77).

Safety signals were favorable. Severe adverse events occurred in 3% of patients in randomized trials and 5% in observational studies, while overall withdrawal rates were 10% and 4%, respectively. The most common adverse events with STCs were oropharyngeal candidiasis and reductions in morning cortisol, while biologics were mainly associated with injection-site reactions, headache, and nasopharyngitis.

“Results suggest that prolonging treatment is efficient in maintaining histologic and clinical remission, with overall drug-related safe profiles both in randomized trials and observational studies,” the investigators concluded, noting that more work is needed to determine if there is an optimal drug for maintenance therapy, and if certain patients can successfully discontinue treatment.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer, UCB Pharma, AstraZeneca, and others.
 

Biologic and corticosteroid maintenance therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are generally safe and effective, even at reduced doses, according to a recent meta-analysis of long-term data.

These findings support keeping patients on long-term maintenance therapy to prevent relapse, lead author Alberto Barchi, MD, of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, and colleagues, reported.

“Given the high relapse rate after treatment cessation, despite good initial response after induction, there is need for further information about long-term outcomes of maintenance treatments,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, few studies have focused on long-term effects of EoE therapies.”

In response, Dr. Barchi and colleagues conducted the present systematic review and meta-analysis, which included studies evaluating maintenance therapies for EoE with at least 48 weeks of follow-up. Eligible studies enrolled patients with confirmed EoE who had received an induction regimen and continued therapy long-term. The final dataset comprised 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 11 observational studies, with long-term outcomes were reported among 1,819 patients.

The primary outcome was histologic success, defined as fewer than 15 or 6 eosinophils per high-power field (HPF). Secondary outcomes included clinical and endoscopic response, treatment adherence, and safety events.

Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, with randomized trials and observational studies analyzed separately. Risk ratios for sustained remission versus placebo or induction therapy were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Safety outcomes included pooled rates of adverse events, severe adverse events, and treatment discontinuation.

Across 9 randomized controlled trials, swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) maintained histologic remission (less than 15 eosinophils/HPF) in 86% of patients, while biologics achieved a rate of 79%. At the stricter threshold of less than 6 eosinophils/HPF, remission rates for STCs and biologics were 59% and 70%, respectively.

Clinical remission rates were lower, at 58% for STCs and 59% for biologics. Endoscopic outcomes were less consistent-ly reported, but most trials showed stable or improved scores during long-term treatment.

In observational cohorts, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) maintained histologic remission in 64% of patients and clinical remission in 80%. For STCs in the real-world setting, histologic and clinical remission rates were 49% and 51%, respectively.

Stepping down the dose of maintenance therapy—whether conventional or biologic—did not increase relapse risk (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72–1.51). In contrast, treatment withdrawal was clearly associated with higher relapse rates: in pooled analyses, continuing therapy yielded nearly an 8-fold greater likelihood of sustained remission compared with discontinuation (RR 7.87; 95% CI, 4.19–14.77).

Safety signals were favorable. Severe adverse events occurred in 3% of patients in randomized trials and 5% in observational studies, while overall withdrawal rates were 10% and 4%, respectively. The most common adverse events with STCs were oropharyngeal candidiasis and reductions in morning cortisol, while biologics were mainly associated with injection-site reactions, headache, and nasopharyngitis.

“Results suggest that prolonging treatment is efficient in maintaining histologic and clinical remission, with overall drug-related safe profiles both in randomized trials and observational studies,” the investigators concluded, noting that more work is needed to determine if there is an optimal drug for maintenance therapy, and if certain patients can successfully discontinue treatment.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer, UCB Pharma, AstraZeneca, and others.