Key clinical point: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine is safe and effective in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: The immediate adverse reaction after vaccination was rare. Adverse events of special interest (relative risk [RR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.51) and new diagnosis of COVID-19 (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.51-1.78) were small and similar between matched IBD and non-IBD cohorts.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study of 864,575 patients from multiple institutes across the USA who received the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, of which 5,562 patients had a previous diagnosis for IBD. One and 2 vaccine doses were administered in 1,822 and 3,740 patients with IBD, respectively.

Disclosures: The authors declared receiving no financial support or grants for this study. The authors declared no relevant disclosures.

Source: Hadi YB et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jun 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.014.

Key clinical point: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine is safe and effective in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: The immediate adverse reaction after vaccination was rare. Adverse events of special interest (relative risk [RR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.51) and new diagnosis of COVID-19 (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.51-1.78) were small and similar between matched IBD and non-IBD cohorts.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study of 864,575 patients from multiple institutes across the USA who received the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, of which 5,562 patients had a previous diagnosis for IBD. One and 2 vaccine doses were administered in 1,822 and 3,740 patients with IBD, respectively.

Disclosures: The authors declared receiving no financial support or grants for this study. The authors declared no relevant disclosures.

Source: Hadi YB et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jun 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.014.

Key clinical point: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine is safe and effective in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: The immediate adverse reaction after vaccination was rare. Adverse events of special interest (relative risk [RR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.51) and new diagnosis of COVID-19 (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.51-1.78) were small and similar between matched IBD and non-IBD cohorts.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study of 864,575 patients from multiple institutes across the USA who received the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, of which 5,562 patients had a previous diagnosis for IBD. One and 2 vaccine doses were administered in 1,822 and 3,740 patients with IBD, respectively.

Disclosures: The authors declared receiving no financial support or grants for this study. The authors declared no relevant disclosures.

Source: Hadi YB et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jun 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.014.

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who switched from one infliximab biosimilar to another had no adverse impact on infliximab trough levels and clinical disease activity, regardless of whether switching for the first or second time.

Major finding: Median infliximab trough levels were higher after vs before switch (5.5 vs 4.9 μg/mL; P = .007). C-reactive protein (P = .43) and disease activity scores (P = .82) did not change significantly before vs early after switch, regardless of whether switching for the first or second time; the proportion of patients in remission also did not change significantly (91% vs 92%; P = .75).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective observational cohort study of 222 patients with IBD treated with infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 who underwent a nonmedical switch to SB2, of which 99 patients underwent a second switch.

Disclosures: No funding interests were declared. RP Luber, S Honap, MA Samaan, and PM Irving declared receiving grants and serving as speaker, consultant, and/or on advisory board for various sources.

Source: Luber RP et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Jul 5. doi: 10.1111/apt.16497.

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who switched from one infliximab biosimilar to another had no adverse impact on infliximab trough levels and clinical disease activity, regardless of whether switching for the first or second time.

Major finding: Median infliximab trough levels were higher after vs before switch (5.5 vs 4.9 μg/mL; P = .007). C-reactive protein (P = .43) and disease activity scores (P = .82) did not change significantly before vs early after switch, regardless of whether switching for the first or second time; the proportion of patients in remission also did not change significantly (91% vs 92%; P = .75).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective observational cohort study of 222 patients with IBD treated with infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 who underwent a nonmedical switch to SB2, of which 99 patients underwent a second switch.

Disclosures: No funding interests were declared. RP Luber, S Honap, MA Samaan, and PM Irving declared receiving grants and serving as speaker, consultant, and/or on advisory board for various sources.

Source: Luber RP et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Jul 5. doi: 10.1111/apt.16497.

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who switched from one infliximab biosimilar to another had no adverse impact on infliximab trough levels and clinical disease activity, regardless of whether switching for the first or second time.

Major finding: Median infliximab trough levels were higher after vs before switch (5.5 vs 4.9 μg/mL; P = .007). C-reactive protein (P = .43) and disease activity scores (P = .82) did not change significantly before vs early after switch, regardless of whether switching for the first or second time; the proportion of patients in remission also did not change significantly (91% vs 92%; P = .75).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective observational cohort study of 222 patients with IBD treated with infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 who underwent a nonmedical switch to SB2, of which 99 patients underwent a second switch.

Disclosures: No funding interests were declared. RP Luber, S Honap, MA Samaan, and PM Irving declared receiving grants and serving as speaker, consultant, and/or on advisory board for various sources.

Source: Luber RP et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Jul 5. doi: 10.1111/apt.16497.

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib appears to be a promising treatment option as rescue therapy in patients hospitalized for a severe flare of refractory ulcerative colitis (UC).

Major finding: Overall, 27.3% of patients underwent colectomy during a median follow-up duration of 6.5 months. The estimated colectomy-free survival at 3 and 6 months was 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.5%-90.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI, 61.9%-87.3%), respectively. At week 14, rates of clinical response, clinical remission, and steroid-free clinical remission were 41.8%, 34.5%, and 32.7%, respectively. No deaths were reported; however, 3 patients discontinued tofacitinib because of adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study of 55 patients who received tofacitinib as rescue therapy for a flare of UC that required hospitalization.

Disclosures: No source of funding was declared. Some of the authors declared receiving personal interests like counseling, boards, transports, or fees from various sources.

Source: Uzzan M et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Jun 20. doi: 10.1111/apt.16463.

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib appears to be a promising treatment option as rescue therapy in patients hospitalized for a severe flare of refractory ulcerative colitis (UC).

Major finding: Overall, 27.3% of patients underwent colectomy during a median follow-up duration of 6.5 months. The estimated colectomy-free survival at 3 and 6 months was 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.5%-90.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI, 61.9%-87.3%), respectively. At week 14, rates of clinical response, clinical remission, and steroid-free clinical remission were 41.8%, 34.5%, and 32.7%, respectively. No deaths were reported; however, 3 patients discontinued tofacitinib because of adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study of 55 patients who received tofacitinib as rescue therapy for a flare of UC that required hospitalization.

Disclosures: No source of funding was declared. Some of the authors declared receiving personal interests like counseling, boards, transports, or fees from various sources.

Source: Uzzan M et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Jun 20. doi: 10.1111/apt.16463.

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib appears to be a promising treatment option as rescue therapy in patients hospitalized for a severe flare of refractory ulcerative colitis (UC).

Major finding: Overall, 27.3% of patients underwent colectomy during a median follow-up duration of 6.5 months. The estimated colectomy-free survival at 3 and 6 months was 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.5%-90.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI, 61.9%-87.3%), respectively. At week 14, rates of clinical response, clinical remission, and steroid-free clinical remission were 41.8%, 34.5%, and 32.7%, respectively. No deaths were reported; however, 3 patients discontinued tofacitinib because of adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study of 55 patients who received tofacitinib as rescue therapy for a flare of UC that required hospitalization.

Disclosures: No source of funding was declared. Some of the authors declared receiving personal interests like counseling, boards, transports, or fees from various sources.

Source: Uzzan M et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Jun 20. doi: 10.1111/apt.16463.

Key clinical point: Preliminary real-world data show excellent efficacy of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with very low absolute breakthrough infection rate in fully vaccinated patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which was comparable to that of the reference population.

Major finding: The rate of breakthrough infection more than 7 and 14 days after the second dose in patients with IBD vs matched reference cohort was 0.19% vs 0.15% and 0.14% vs 0.10%, respectively. The relative risk for breakthrough infection among patients with IBD vs matched cohort more than 7 and 14 days after the second dose was 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.97) and 1.26 (95% CI, 0.71-2.23), respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study of 12,231 BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccines with IBD-aged 16 years and older from the Maccabi Healthcare Services IBD registry and 36,254 vaccinated matched reference patients.

Disclosures: The study received no external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ben-Tov A et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jul 2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.076.

Key clinical point: Preliminary real-world data show excellent efficacy of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with very low absolute breakthrough infection rate in fully vaccinated patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which was comparable to that of the reference population.

Major finding: The rate of breakthrough infection more than 7 and 14 days after the second dose in patients with IBD vs matched reference cohort was 0.19% vs 0.15% and 0.14% vs 0.10%, respectively. The relative risk for breakthrough infection among patients with IBD vs matched cohort more than 7 and 14 days after the second dose was 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.97) and 1.26 (95% CI, 0.71-2.23), respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study of 12,231 BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccines with IBD-aged 16 years and older from the Maccabi Healthcare Services IBD registry and 36,254 vaccinated matched reference patients.

Disclosures: The study received no external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ben-Tov A et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jul 2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.076.

Key clinical point: Preliminary real-world data show excellent efficacy of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with very low absolute breakthrough infection rate in fully vaccinated patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which was comparable to that of the reference population.

Major finding: The rate of breakthrough infection more than 7 and 14 days after the second dose in patients with IBD vs matched reference cohort was 0.19% vs 0.15% and 0.14% vs 0.10%, respectively. The relative risk for breakthrough infection among patients with IBD vs matched cohort more than 7 and 14 days after the second dose was 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.97) and 1.26 (95% CI, 0.71-2.23), respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study of 12,231 BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccines with IBD-aged 16 years and older from the Maccabi Healthcare Services IBD registry and 36,254 vaccinated matched reference patients.

Disclosures: The study received no external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ben-Tov A et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jul 2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.076.

Key clinical point: Adalimumab was effective and well tolerated in children with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving high-dose induction adalimumab vs external placebo were in partial Mayo score (MS) remission at week 8 (60% vs 19.8%; P = .0001). The full MS remission at week 52 was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving high-dose maintenance adalimumab vs external placebo (45% vs 18.4%; P = .0001). No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: The phase 3 ENVISION I trial included 93 children with moderate-to-severe UC despite stable doses of concurrent oral corticosteroids or immunosuppressants randomly assigned to either high-dose or standard-dose induction adalimumab. Patients with a response at week 8 were randomly assigned to either high-dose or standard-dose maintenance adalimumab or placebo up to week 52.

Disclosures: The study was funded by AbbVie. Some of the authors including the lead author reported receiving research funding, advisory board fees, consultation fees, and honoraria from various sources including AbbVie. Six of the authors declared being full-time employees at AbbVie and/or owning stocks/stock options.

Source: Croft NM et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jun 18. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00142-4.

Key clinical point: Adalimumab was effective and well tolerated in children with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving high-dose induction adalimumab vs external placebo were in partial Mayo score (MS) remission at week 8 (60% vs 19.8%; P = .0001). The full MS remission at week 52 was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving high-dose maintenance adalimumab vs external placebo (45% vs 18.4%; P = .0001). No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: The phase 3 ENVISION I trial included 93 children with moderate-to-severe UC despite stable doses of concurrent oral corticosteroids or immunosuppressants randomly assigned to either high-dose or standard-dose induction adalimumab. Patients with a response at week 8 were randomly assigned to either high-dose or standard-dose maintenance adalimumab or placebo up to week 52.

Disclosures: The study was funded by AbbVie. Some of the authors including the lead author reported receiving research funding, advisory board fees, consultation fees, and honoraria from various sources including AbbVie. Six of the authors declared being full-time employees at AbbVie and/or owning stocks/stock options.

Source: Croft NM et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jun 18. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00142-4.

Key clinical point: Adalimumab was effective and well tolerated in children with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving high-dose induction adalimumab vs external placebo were in partial Mayo score (MS) remission at week 8 (60% vs 19.8%; P = .0001). The full MS remission at week 52 was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving high-dose maintenance adalimumab vs external placebo (45% vs 18.4%; P = .0001). No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: The phase 3 ENVISION I trial included 93 children with moderate-to-severe UC despite stable doses of concurrent oral corticosteroids or immunosuppressants randomly assigned to either high-dose or standard-dose induction adalimumab. Patients with a response at week 8 were randomly assigned to either high-dose or standard-dose maintenance adalimumab or placebo up to week 52.

Disclosures: The study was funded by AbbVie. Some of the authors including the lead author reported receiving research funding, advisory board fees, consultation fees, and honoraria from various sources including AbbVie. Six of the authors declared being full-time employees at AbbVie and/or owning stocks/stock options.

Source: Croft NM et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jun 18. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00142-4.

The efficacy of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with IBD and complications from a COVID-19 infection unique to patients with IBD have not been well elucidated. This month, three manuscripts were published in Gastroenterology examining real-world data on vaccine efficacy and COVID infection outcomes in IBD patients.

Over 60% of Israelis have been fully vaccinated.  Ben-Tov and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of BNT162b2 vaccination in 12,231 IBD patients matched to 36,254 using data from the second largest state-mandated healthcare provider in Israel. Seven days after the second vaccination, breakthrough infections were observed in 0.19% of IBD patients and 0.15% of control patients.  Of the 23 breakthrough infections in IBD patients, 2 patients were hospitalized, and one patient died.  Crohn’s disease patients were at greater risk of breakthrough infections in a multivariable analysis [HR3.56 (95% CI-1.29,9.83). Patients with UC and those on immune modifying agents did not have a higher risk of breakthrough infections. It should be noted that that these results may not be generalizable to other populations, as the median age was 47 and there were limited patients on immunosuppressive therapies (10.8% on anti-TNF, 1.4% on methotrexate, 4.8% on thiopurines).

A similar study by Hadi et al.  retrospectively examined the safety and efficacy of vaccination in IBD patients using a large United States research network encompassing >800,000 vaccinated patients. Of these patients, 5,562 had a diagnosis of IBD (3,740 received both vaccine doses). In contrast to the previous study, 53% of patients were on a biologic and/or thiopurine. In this analysis, there were no differences in the rate of adverse events reported, subsequent COVID-19 infections, or COVID-19 related hospitalizations between IBD and non-IBD patients. In addition, there was not a higher rate of adverse events after vaccination between those on a biologic or immunomodulator compared. The authors state that there were ≤10 breakthrough infections in patients on a biologic or immunomodulator, although did not perform a statistical comparison to IBD patients not on immunosuppressive therapies.

These manuscripts evaluated outcomes in large cohorts of IBD patients, although the results are limited by the fact that they relied on diagnosis coding for inclusion of IBD patients and recording of events. Furthermore, it is likely that many patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections are diagnosed outside an individuals’ healthcare system limiting capturing of events for their analyses. Nevertheless, these studies clearly demonstrate safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IBD. Further work is needed, however, to evaluate real-world long-term efficacy of vaccination in IBD patients on immunosuppressive therapy.

Both IBD and SARS-CoV-2 increase an individual’s risk of a venous thromboembolism (VTE). Using a veteran’s administrations (VA) cohort, Mahmud and colleagues identified 428 patients with IBD who developed a VTE within the one year study period. After adjusting for recent hospitalizations and steroid exposure, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 8.15-fold increased risk of VTE (95% CI 4.34-15.30). This study is limited by the fact that there were just 21 events of VTE after a SARS-CoV-2 infection. If the results are validated in an independent larger cohort of patients, however, practitioners should consider VTE prophylaxis in IBD patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The efficacy of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with IBD and complications from a COVID-19 infection unique to patients with IBD have not been well elucidated. This month, three manuscripts were published in Gastroenterology examining real-world data on vaccine efficacy and COVID infection outcomes in IBD patients.

Over 60% of Israelis have been fully vaccinated.  Ben-Tov and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of BNT162b2 vaccination in 12,231 IBD patients matched to 36,254 using data from the second largest state-mandated healthcare provider in Israel. Seven days after the second vaccination, breakthrough infections were observed in 0.19% of IBD patients and 0.15% of control patients.  Of the 23 breakthrough infections in IBD patients, 2 patients were hospitalized, and one patient died.  Crohn’s disease patients were at greater risk of breakthrough infections in a multivariable analysis [HR3.56 (95% CI-1.29,9.83). Patients with UC and those on immune modifying agents did not have a higher risk of breakthrough infections. It should be noted that that these results may not be generalizable to other populations, as the median age was 47 and there were limited patients on immunosuppressive therapies (10.8% on anti-TNF, 1.4% on methotrexate, 4.8% on thiopurines).

A similar study by Hadi et al.  retrospectively examined the safety and efficacy of vaccination in IBD patients using a large United States research network encompassing >800,000 vaccinated patients. Of these patients, 5,562 had a diagnosis of IBD (3,740 received both vaccine doses). In contrast to the previous study, 53% of patients were on a biologic and/or thiopurine. In this analysis, there were no differences in the rate of adverse events reported, subsequent COVID-19 infections, or COVID-19 related hospitalizations between IBD and non-IBD patients. In addition, there was not a higher rate of adverse events after vaccination between those on a biologic or immunomodulator compared. The authors state that there were ≤10 breakthrough infections in patients on a biologic or immunomodulator, although did not perform a statistical comparison to IBD patients not on immunosuppressive therapies.

These manuscripts evaluated outcomes in large cohorts of IBD patients, although the results are limited by the fact that they relied on diagnosis coding for inclusion of IBD patients and recording of events. Furthermore, it is likely that many patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections are diagnosed outside an individuals’ healthcare system limiting capturing of events for their analyses. Nevertheless, these studies clearly demonstrate safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IBD. Further work is needed, however, to evaluate real-world long-term efficacy of vaccination in IBD patients on immunosuppressive therapy.

Both IBD and SARS-CoV-2 increase an individual’s risk of a venous thromboembolism (VTE). Using a veteran’s administrations (VA) cohort, Mahmud and colleagues identified 428 patients with IBD who developed a VTE within the one year study period. After adjusting for recent hospitalizations and steroid exposure, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 8.15-fold increased risk of VTE (95% CI 4.34-15.30). This study is limited by the fact that there were just 21 events of VTE after a SARS-CoV-2 infection. If the results are validated in an independent larger cohort of patients, however, practitioners should consider VTE prophylaxis in IBD patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The efficacy of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with IBD and complications from a COVID-19 infection unique to patients with IBD have not been well elucidated. This month, three manuscripts were published in Gastroenterology examining real-world data on vaccine efficacy and COVID infection outcomes in IBD patients.

Over 60% of Israelis have been fully vaccinated.  Ben-Tov and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of BNT162b2 vaccination in 12,231 IBD patients matched to 36,254 using data from the second largest state-mandated healthcare provider in Israel. Seven days after the second vaccination, breakthrough infections were observed in 0.19% of IBD patients and 0.15% of control patients.  Of the 23 breakthrough infections in IBD patients, 2 patients were hospitalized, and one patient died.  Crohn’s disease patients were at greater risk of breakthrough infections in a multivariable analysis [HR3.56 (95% CI-1.29,9.83). Patients with UC and those on immune modifying agents did not have a higher risk of breakthrough infections. It should be noted that that these results may not be generalizable to other populations, as the median age was 47 and there were limited patients on immunosuppressive therapies (10.8% on anti-TNF, 1.4% on methotrexate, 4.8% on thiopurines).

A similar study by Hadi et al.  retrospectively examined the safety and efficacy of vaccination in IBD patients using a large United States research network encompassing >800,000 vaccinated patients. Of these patients, 5,562 had a diagnosis of IBD (3,740 received both vaccine doses). In contrast to the previous study, 53% of patients were on a biologic and/or thiopurine. In this analysis, there were no differences in the rate of adverse events reported, subsequent COVID-19 infections, or COVID-19 related hospitalizations between IBD and non-IBD patients. In addition, there was not a higher rate of adverse events after vaccination between those on a biologic or immunomodulator compared. The authors state that there were ≤10 breakthrough infections in patients on a biologic or immunomodulator, although did not perform a statistical comparison to IBD patients not on immunosuppressive therapies.

These manuscripts evaluated outcomes in large cohorts of IBD patients, although the results are limited by the fact that they relied on diagnosis coding for inclusion of IBD patients and recording of events. Furthermore, it is likely that many patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections are diagnosed outside an individuals’ healthcare system limiting capturing of events for their analyses. Nevertheless, these studies clearly demonstrate safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IBD. Further work is needed, however, to evaluate real-world long-term efficacy of vaccination in IBD patients on immunosuppressive therapy.

Both IBD and SARS-CoV-2 increase an individual’s risk of a venous thromboembolism (VTE). Using a veteran’s administrations (VA) cohort, Mahmud and colleagues identified 428 patients with IBD who developed a VTE within the one year study period. After adjusting for recent hospitalizations and steroid exposure, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 8.15-fold increased risk of VTE (95% CI 4.34-15.30). This study is limited by the fact that there were just 21 events of VTE after a SARS-CoV-2 infection. If the results are validated in an independent larger cohort of patients, however, practitioners should consider VTE prophylaxis in IBD patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The AGA journals Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), and Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) recently selected the recipients of their editorial fellowships, which runs from July 2021 through June 2022. The AGA editorial fellowship program is in its fourth year. 

• Amisha Ahuja, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Helenie Kefalalkes, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Katherine Falloon, MD (CGH)
• Judy Trieu, MD, MPH (CGH)
• Lindsey Kennedy, PhD (CMGH)
• Vivian Ortiz, MD (CMGH)  
• Sagarika Satyavada, MD (TIGE)
• Eric Swei, MD (TIGE)

The AGA journals Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), and Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) recently selected the recipients of their editorial fellowships, which runs from July 2021 through June 2022. The AGA editorial fellowship program is in its fourth year. 

• Amisha Ahuja, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Helenie Kefalalkes, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Katherine Falloon, MD (CGH)
• Judy Trieu, MD, MPH (CGH)
• Lindsey Kennedy, PhD (CMGH)
• Vivian Ortiz, MD (CMGH)  
• Sagarika Satyavada, MD (TIGE)
• Eric Swei, MD (TIGE)

The AGA journals Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), and Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) recently selected the recipients of their editorial fellowships, which runs from July 2021 through June 2022. The AGA editorial fellowship program is in its fourth year. 

• Amisha Ahuja, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Helenie Kefalalkes, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Katherine Falloon, MD (CGH)
• Judy Trieu, MD, MPH (CGH)
• Lindsey Kennedy, PhD (CMGH)
• Vivian Ortiz, MD (CMGH)  
• Sagarika Satyavada, MD (TIGE)
• Eric Swei, MD (TIGE)

David Y. Graham, MD – William Beaumont Prize in Gastroenterology

Dr. David Graham is this year’s recipient of the AGA William Beaumont Prize in Gastroenterology. A remarkable clinician, scientist, and mentor to the next generation of GI, Dr. Graham currently serves as professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Dr. Graham was born in Ancon, in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father was working as an engineer. The family eventually settled in Lake Jackson, a small gulf coast town outside of Houston. There he developed a love for outdoor activities including hunting, fishing, and riding horses. He received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame and returned home to Houston to receive his medical degree with honors from Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Graham’s training was interrupted by the Vietnam War during which he was drafted into the U.S. Army as a flight surgeon.

In addition to his clinical and research missions, Dr. Graham has mentored numerous individuals during his years as a clinician scientist, many of whom have gone on to have successful careers in academic medicine. He has been an active AGA member for more than 4 decades, receiving several honors including the prestigious AGA Mentor Award in 2015 and the Janssen Award for Special Achievement in Gastroenterology.

Read more about Dr. Graham’s life and contribution to the GI community in a commentary in Gastroenterology written by Fasiha Kanwal, MD, and Hashem B. El-Serag, M, MPH. 
 

Kim E. Barrett, PHD, AGAF – Distinguished Achievement Award in Basic Science

Dr. Kim E. Barrett is the 2021 recipient of the AGA Distinguished Achievement Award in Basic Science for her outstanding contributions to understanding mechanisms and regulation of intestinal epithelial transport and barrier function. She currently serves as distinguished professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and is serving as a rotating appointment as director of the Division of Graduate Education of the National Science Foundation.

Born in London, Dr. Barrett was the first of her family to attend college. She earned a BSc in Medicinal Chemistry at University College London where she also stayed to complete her PhD studies. Following the completion of her PhD, Dr. Barrett moved to the U.S. to continue her training at the National Institutes of Health, where she continued her work in studies on the functional heterogeneity of mast cells. Alongside her many contributions to the GI field, she still believes in having fun, living by the phrase “put yourself about a bit.” She is a proud member of the band GI Distress as one of the “Fabulous Fasebettes.”

Read more about Dr. Barrett’s contributions to the GI community in a commentary in Gastroenterology, written by Mark Donowitz, MD, and Stephen Keely, MD.

David Y. Graham, MD – William Beaumont Prize in Gastroenterology

Dr. David Graham is this year’s recipient of the AGA William Beaumont Prize in Gastroenterology. A remarkable clinician, scientist, and mentor to the next generation of GI, Dr. Graham currently serves as professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Dr. Graham was born in Ancon, in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father was working as an engineer. The family eventually settled in Lake Jackson, a small gulf coast town outside of Houston. There he developed a love for outdoor activities including hunting, fishing, and riding horses. He received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame and returned home to Houston to receive his medical degree with honors from Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Graham’s training was interrupted by the Vietnam War during which he was drafted into the U.S. Army as a flight surgeon.

In addition to his clinical and research missions, Dr. Graham has mentored numerous individuals during his years as a clinician scientist, many of whom have gone on to have successful careers in academic medicine. He has been an active AGA member for more than 4 decades, receiving several honors including the prestigious AGA Mentor Award in 2015 and the Janssen Award for Special Achievement in Gastroenterology.

Read more about Dr. Graham’s life and contribution to the GI community in a commentary in Gastroenterology written by Fasiha Kanwal, MD, and Hashem B. El-Serag, M, MPH. 
 

Kim E. Barrett, PHD, AGAF – Distinguished Achievement Award in Basic Science

Dr. Kim E. Barrett is the 2021 recipient of the AGA Distinguished Achievement Award in Basic Science for her outstanding contributions to understanding mechanisms and regulation of intestinal epithelial transport and barrier function. She currently serves as distinguished professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and is serving as a rotating appointment as director of the Division of Graduate Education of the National Science Foundation.

Born in London, Dr. Barrett was the first of her family to attend college. She earned a BSc in Medicinal Chemistry at University College London where she also stayed to complete her PhD studies. Following the completion of her PhD, Dr. Barrett moved to the U.S. to continue her training at the National Institutes of Health, where she continued her work in studies on the functional heterogeneity of mast cells. Alongside her many contributions to the GI field, she still believes in having fun, living by the phrase “put yourself about a bit.” She is a proud member of the band GI Distress as one of the “Fabulous Fasebettes.”

Read more about Dr. Barrett’s contributions to the GI community in a commentary in Gastroenterology, written by Mark Donowitz, MD, and Stephen Keely, MD.

David Y. Graham, MD – William Beaumont Prize in Gastroenterology

Dr. David Graham is this year’s recipient of the AGA William Beaumont Prize in Gastroenterology. A remarkable clinician, scientist, and mentor to the next generation of GI, Dr. Graham currently serves as professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Dr. Graham was born in Ancon, in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father was working as an engineer. The family eventually settled in Lake Jackson, a small gulf coast town outside of Houston. There he developed a love for outdoor activities including hunting, fishing, and riding horses. He received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame and returned home to Houston to receive his medical degree with honors from Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Graham’s training was interrupted by the Vietnam War during which he was drafted into the U.S. Army as a flight surgeon.

In addition to his clinical and research missions, Dr. Graham has mentored numerous individuals during his years as a clinician scientist, many of whom have gone on to have successful careers in academic medicine. He has been an active AGA member for more than 4 decades, receiving several honors including the prestigious AGA Mentor Award in 2015 and the Janssen Award for Special Achievement in Gastroenterology.

Read more about Dr. Graham’s life and contribution to the GI community in a commentary in Gastroenterology written by Fasiha Kanwal, MD, and Hashem B. El-Serag, M, MPH. 
 

Kim E. Barrett, PHD, AGAF – Distinguished Achievement Award in Basic Science

Dr. Kim E. Barrett is the 2021 recipient of the AGA Distinguished Achievement Award in Basic Science for her outstanding contributions to understanding mechanisms and regulation of intestinal epithelial transport and barrier function. She currently serves as distinguished professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and is serving as a rotating appointment as director of the Division of Graduate Education of the National Science Foundation.

Born in London, Dr. Barrett was the first of her family to attend college. She earned a BSc in Medicinal Chemistry at University College London where she also stayed to complete her PhD studies. Following the completion of her PhD, Dr. Barrett moved to the U.S. to continue her training at the National Institutes of Health, where she continued her work in studies on the functional heterogeneity of mast cells. Alongside her many contributions to the GI field, she still believes in having fun, living by the phrase “put yourself about a bit.” She is a proud member of the band GI Distress as one of the “Fabulous Fasebettes.”

Read more about Dr. Barrett’s contributions to the GI community in a commentary in Gastroenterology, written by Mark Donowitz, MD, and Stephen Keely, MD.

AGA has released a new Clinical Practice Update Expert Review providing 12 best practice advice statements on the diagnosis and management of bleeding gastric varices. The evidence-based advice includes the following: 

• Initial therapy for bleeding gastric varices should focus on acute hemostasis for hemodynamic stabilization with a plan for further diagnostic evaluation and/or transfer to a tertiary care center with expertise in gastric varices management. 
• Following initial endoscopic hemostasis, cross-sectional (magnetic resonance or CT) imaging with portal venous contrast phase should be obtained to determine vascular anatomy, including the presence or absence of portosystemic shunts and gastrorenal shunts. 
• Determination of definitive therapy for bleeding gastric varices should be based on endoscopic appearance of the gastric varix, the underlying vascular anatomy, presence of comorbid portal hypertensive complications, and available local resources. This is ideally done via a multidisciplinary discussion between the GI or hepatologist and the interventional radiologist. 

In this AGA Clinical Practice Update Expert Review, the experts also suggest adding an estimate of variceal size and high-risk stigmata (discolored marks, platelet plugs) to the Sarin classification when describing patients’ gastric varices.  

Read the full list of the best practice advice statements in the AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Bleeding Gastric Varices: Expert Review. 

AGA has released a new Clinical Practice Update Expert Review providing 12 best practice advice statements on the diagnosis and management of bleeding gastric varices. The evidence-based advice includes the following: 

• Initial therapy for bleeding gastric varices should focus on acute hemostasis for hemodynamic stabilization with a plan for further diagnostic evaluation and/or transfer to a tertiary care center with expertise in gastric varices management. 
• Following initial endoscopic hemostasis, cross-sectional (magnetic resonance or CT) imaging with portal venous contrast phase should be obtained to determine vascular anatomy, including the presence or absence of portosystemic shunts and gastrorenal shunts. 
• Determination of definitive therapy for bleeding gastric varices should be based on endoscopic appearance of the gastric varix, the underlying vascular anatomy, presence of comorbid portal hypertensive complications, and available local resources. This is ideally done via a multidisciplinary discussion between the GI or hepatologist and the interventional radiologist. 

In this AGA Clinical Practice Update Expert Review, the experts also suggest adding an estimate of variceal size and high-risk stigmata (discolored marks, platelet plugs) to the Sarin classification when describing patients’ gastric varices.  

Read the full list of the best practice advice statements in the AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Bleeding Gastric Varices: Expert Review. 

AGA has released a new Clinical Practice Update Expert Review providing 12 best practice advice statements on the diagnosis and management of bleeding gastric varices. The evidence-based advice includes the following: 

• Initial therapy for bleeding gastric varices should focus on acute hemostasis for hemodynamic stabilization with a plan for further diagnostic evaluation and/or transfer to a tertiary care center with expertise in gastric varices management. 
• Following initial endoscopic hemostasis, cross-sectional (magnetic resonance or CT) imaging with portal venous contrast phase should be obtained to determine vascular anatomy, including the presence or absence of portosystemic shunts and gastrorenal shunts. 
• Determination of definitive therapy for bleeding gastric varices should be based on endoscopic appearance of the gastric varix, the underlying vascular anatomy, presence of comorbid portal hypertensive complications, and available local resources. This is ideally done via a multidisciplinary discussion between the GI or hepatologist and the interventional radiologist. 

In this AGA Clinical Practice Update Expert Review, the experts also suggest adding an estimate of variceal size and high-risk stigmata (discolored marks, platelet plugs) to the Sarin classification when describing patients’ gastric varices.  

Read the full list of the best practice advice statements in the AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Bleeding Gastric Varices: Expert Review. 

You have a will, so you can rest easy, right? Not necessarily. If your will is outdated, it can actually cause more harm than good. Even though it can provide for some contingencies, an old will can’t cover every change that may have occurred since it was first drawn. Here are five reasons to update your will.

Keep it current

When life changes, so should your will. Ensure that this important document matches your current wishes by reviewing it every few years.

Take a look at what has changed

Professionals advise that you review your will every few years and more often if situations such as the following five have occurred since you last updated your will.

• Family changes. If you’ve had any changes in your family situation, you will probably need to update your will. Events such as marriage, divorce, death, birth, adoption, or a falling out with a loved one may affect how your estate will be distributed, who should act as guardian for your dependents, and who should be named as executor of your estate.
• Relocating to a new state. The laws among the states vary. Moving to a new state or purchasing property in another state can affect your estate plan and how property in that state will be taxed and distributed.
• Changes in your estate’s value. When you made your will, your assets may have been relatively modest. Now the value may be larger and your will no longer reflects how you would like your estate divided.
• Tax law changes. Federal and state legislatures are continually tinkering with federal estate and state inheritance tax laws. An old will may fail to take advantage of strategies that will minimize estate taxes.
• You want to support a favorite cause. If you have developed a connection to a cause, you may want to benefit a particular charity with a gift in your estate. Contact us for sample language you can share with your attorney to include a gift to us in your will.

Get the help you need

To make sure your will accomplishes all you intend, seek the help of an attorney who specializes in estate planning. Already finalized your charitable distribution to the AGA Research Foundation? Send us your letter of intent at [email protected].

You have a will, so you can rest easy, right? Not necessarily. If your will is outdated, it can actually cause more harm than good. Even though it can provide for some contingencies, an old will can’t cover every change that may have occurred since it was first drawn. Here are five reasons to update your will.

Keep it current

When life changes, so should your will. Ensure that this important document matches your current wishes by reviewing it every few years.

Take a look at what has changed

Professionals advise that you review your will every few years and more often if situations such as the following five have occurred since you last updated your will.

• Family changes. If you’ve had any changes in your family situation, you will probably need to update your will. Events such as marriage, divorce, death, birth, adoption, or a falling out with a loved one may affect how your estate will be distributed, who should act as guardian for your dependents, and who should be named as executor of your estate.
• Relocating to a new state. The laws among the states vary. Moving to a new state or purchasing property in another state can affect your estate plan and how property in that state will be taxed and distributed.
• Changes in your estate’s value. When you made your will, your assets may have been relatively modest. Now the value may be larger and your will no longer reflects how you would like your estate divided.
• Tax law changes. Federal and state legislatures are continually tinkering with federal estate and state inheritance tax laws. An old will may fail to take advantage of strategies that will minimize estate taxes.
• You want to support a favorite cause. If you have developed a connection to a cause, you may want to benefit a particular charity with a gift in your estate. Contact us for sample language you can share with your attorney to include a gift to us in your will.

Get the help you need

To make sure your will accomplishes all you intend, seek the help of an attorney who specializes in estate planning. Already finalized your charitable distribution to the AGA Research Foundation? Send us your letter of intent at [email protected].

You have a will, so you can rest easy, right? Not necessarily. If your will is outdated, it can actually cause more harm than good. Even though it can provide for some contingencies, an old will can’t cover every change that may have occurred since it was first drawn. Here are five reasons to update your will.

Keep it current

When life changes, so should your will. Ensure that this important document matches your current wishes by reviewing it every few years.

Take a look at what has changed

Professionals advise that you review your will every few years and more often if situations such as the following five have occurred since you last updated your will.

• Family changes. If you’ve had any changes in your family situation, you will probably need to update your will. Events such as marriage, divorce, death, birth, adoption, or a falling out with a loved one may affect how your estate will be distributed, who should act as guardian for your dependents, and who should be named as executor of your estate.
• Relocating to a new state. The laws among the states vary. Moving to a new state or purchasing property in another state can affect your estate plan and how property in that state will be taxed and distributed.
• Changes in your estate’s value. When you made your will, your assets may have been relatively modest. Now the value may be larger and your will no longer reflects how you would like your estate divided.
• Tax law changes. Federal and state legislatures are continually tinkering with federal estate and state inheritance tax laws. An old will may fail to take advantage of strategies that will minimize estate taxes.
• You want to support a favorite cause. If you have developed a connection to a cause, you may want to benefit a particular charity with a gift in your estate. Contact us for sample language you can share with your attorney to include a gift to us in your will.

Get the help you need

To make sure your will accomplishes all you intend, seek the help of an attorney who specializes in estate planning. Already finalized your charitable distribution to the AGA Research Foundation? Send us your letter of intent at [email protected].