From the AGA Journals

Patients with intestinal methanogen overgrowth (IMO) have a higher rate and severity of constipation but a lower rate and severity of diarrhea, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“The distinct phenotype of patients with IMO should be incorporated in patient-reported outcome measures and further correlated with mechanistic microbiome studies,” wrote investigators led by gastroenterologist Ali Rezaie, MD, MSc, medical director of the GI Motility Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and director of biotechnology in the center’s Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program. Recognizing specific GI symptom profiles can improve diagnosis and treatment strategies, facilitating further clinical trials and targeted microbiome studies to optimize patient care. 

Excessive luminal loads of methanogenic archaea – archaea being bacteria-like prokaryotes and one of the main three domains of the tree of life – have been implicated in the pathophysiology of various diseases, including constipation. 

 

The Study

To elucidate the phenotypical presentation of IMO in patients, Rezaie’s group compared the prevalence and severity of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in individuals who had IMO with those who did not have IMO. IMO was based on excess levels of this gaseous GI byproduct in exhaled breath tests.

Searching electronic databases from inception to September 2023, the researchers identified 19 eligible studies from diverse geographical regions with 1293 IMO patients and 3208 controls. Eleven studies were performed in the United States; the other studies were conducted in France (n = 2), India (n = 2), New Zealand (n = 1), South Korea (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), and the United Kingdom (n = 1). Thirteen studies were of high quality, as defined by a Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale score of 6. 

Patients with IMO were found to exhibit a range of GI symptoms, including bloating (78%), constipation (51%), diarrhea (33%), abdominal pain (65%), nausea (30%), and flatulence (56%).

In other findings:

• Patients with IMO had a significantly higher prevalence of constipation vs controls: 47% vs 38% (odds ratio [OR], 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-2.83, P < .0001).
• They had a lower prevalence of diarrhea: 37% vs 52% (OR .58, 95% CI, .37-.90, P = .01); and nausea: 32% vs 45%; (OR, .75; 95% CI, .60-.94, P = .01).
• Patients with IMO had more severe constipation: standard mean deviation [SMD], .77 (95% CI, .11-1.43, P = .02) and a lower severity of diarrhea: SMD, –.71 (95% CI, –1.39 to –.03, P = .04). Significant heterogeneity of effect, however, was detected.
• Constipation was more prevalent in IMO diagnosed with the lactulose breath test and the glucose breath test and constipation was particularly prevalent in Europe and the United States.

Mechanism of Action

The findings on constipation and diarrhea corroborate methane’s slowing physiologic effects on motility, the authors noted. It has been consistently found to delay gut transit, both small bowel and colonic transit.

Mechanistically, methane reduces small intestinal peristaltic velocity while augmenting non-propagating contraction amplitude, suggesting that reduction of intestinal transit time is mediated through promotion of non-propulsive contractions.

“This study further consolidates methane’s causal role in constipation and paves the way to establish validated disease-specific patient-reported outcomes,” Rezaie and associates wrote, calling for longitudinal and mechanistic studies assessing the archaeome in order to advance understanding of IMO.

This study was funded in part by Nancy Stark and Stanley Lezman in support of the MAST Program’s Innovation Project at Cedars-Sinai.

Rezaie serves as a consultant/speaker for Bausch Health. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center has a licensing agreement with Gemelli Biotech, in which Rezaie and coauthor Pimentel have equity. They also hold equity in Good LIFE. Pimentel consults for and has received grant support from Bausch Health.

Patients with intestinal methanogen overgrowth (IMO) have a higher rate and severity of constipation but a lower rate and severity of diarrhea, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“The distinct phenotype of patients with IMO should be incorporated in patient-reported outcome measures and further correlated with mechanistic microbiome studies,” wrote investigators led by gastroenterologist Ali Rezaie, MD, MSc, medical director of the GI Motility Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and director of biotechnology in the center’s Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program. Recognizing specific GI symptom profiles can improve diagnosis and treatment strategies, facilitating further clinical trials and targeted microbiome studies to optimize patient care. 

Excessive luminal loads of methanogenic archaea – archaea being bacteria-like prokaryotes and one of the main three domains of the tree of life – have been implicated in the pathophysiology of various diseases, including constipation. 

 

The Study

To elucidate the phenotypical presentation of IMO in patients, Rezaie’s group compared the prevalence and severity of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in individuals who had IMO with those who did not have IMO. IMO was based on excess levels of this gaseous GI byproduct in exhaled breath tests.

Searching electronic databases from inception to September 2023, the researchers identified 19 eligible studies from diverse geographical regions with 1293 IMO patients and 3208 controls. Eleven studies were performed in the United States; the other studies were conducted in France (n = 2), India (n = 2), New Zealand (n = 1), South Korea (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), and the United Kingdom (n = 1). Thirteen studies were of high quality, as defined by a Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale score of 6. 

Patients with IMO were found to exhibit a range of GI symptoms, including bloating (78%), constipation (51%), diarrhea (33%), abdominal pain (65%), nausea (30%), and flatulence (56%).

In other findings:

• Patients with IMO had a significantly higher prevalence of constipation vs controls: 47% vs 38% (odds ratio [OR], 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-2.83, P < .0001).
• They had a lower prevalence of diarrhea: 37% vs 52% (OR .58, 95% CI, .37-.90, P = .01); and nausea: 32% vs 45%; (OR, .75; 95% CI, .60-.94, P = .01).
• Patients with IMO had more severe constipation: standard mean deviation [SMD], .77 (95% CI, .11-1.43, P = .02) and a lower severity of diarrhea: SMD, –.71 (95% CI, –1.39 to –.03, P = .04). Significant heterogeneity of effect, however, was detected.
• Constipation was more prevalent in IMO diagnosed with the lactulose breath test and the glucose breath test and constipation was particularly prevalent in Europe and the United States.

Mechanism of Action

The findings on constipation and diarrhea corroborate methane’s slowing physiologic effects on motility, the authors noted. It has been consistently found to delay gut transit, both small bowel and colonic transit.

Mechanistically, methane reduces small intestinal peristaltic velocity while augmenting non-propagating contraction amplitude, suggesting that reduction of intestinal transit time is mediated through promotion of non-propulsive contractions.

“This study further consolidates methane’s causal role in constipation and paves the way to establish validated disease-specific patient-reported outcomes,” Rezaie and associates wrote, calling for longitudinal and mechanistic studies assessing the archaeome in order to advance understanding of IMO.

This study was funded in part by Nancy Stark and Stanley Lezman in support of the MAST Program’s Innovation Project at Cedars-Sinai.

Rezaie serves as a consultant/speaker for Bausch Health. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center has a licensing agreement with Gemelli Biotech, in which Rezaie and coauthor Pimentel have equity. They also hold equity in Good LIFE. Pimentel consults for and has received grant support from Bausch Health.

Patients with intestinal methanogen overgrowth (IMO) have a higher rate and severity of constipation but a lower rate and severity of diarrhea, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“The distinct phenotype of patients with IMO should be incorporated in patient-reported outcome measures and further correlated with mechanistic microbiome studies,” wrote investigators led by gastroenterologist Ali Rezaie, MD, MSc, medical director of the GI Motility Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and director of biotechnology in the center’s Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program. Recognizing specific GI symptom profiles can improve diagnosis and treatment strategies, facilitating further clinical trials and targeted microbiome studies to optimize patient care. 

Excessive luminal loads of methanogenic archaea – archaea being bacteria-like prokaryotes and one of the main three domains of the tree of life – have been implicated in the pathophysiology of various diseases, including constipation. 

 

The Study

To elucidate the phenotypical presentation of IMO in patients, Rezaie’s group compared the prevalence and severity of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in individuals who had IMO with those who did not have IMO. IMO was based on excess levels of this gaseous GI byproduct in exhaled breath tests.

Searching electronic databases from inception to September 2023, the researchers identified 19 eligible studies from diverse geographical regions with 1293 IMO patients and 3208 controls. Eleven studies were performed in the United States; the other studies were conducted in France (n = 2), India (n = 2), New Zealand (n = 1), South Korea (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), and the United Kingdom (n = 1). Thirteen studies were of high quality, as defined by a Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale score of 6. 

Patients with IMO were found to exhibit a range of GI symptoms, including bloating (78%), constipation (51%), diarrhea (33%), abdominal pain (65%), nausea (30%), and flatulence (56%).

In other findings:

• Patients with IMO had a significantly higher prevalence of constipation vs controls: 47% vs 38% (odds ratio [OR], 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-2.83, P < .0001).
• They had a lower prevalence of diarrhea: 37% vs 52% (OR .58, 95% CI, .37-.90, P = .01); and nausea: 32% vs 45%; (OR, .75; 95% CI, .60-.94, P = .01).
• Patients with IMO had more severe constipation: standard mean deviation [SMD], .77 (95% CI, .11-1.43, P = .02) and a lower severity of diarrhea: SMD, –.71 (95% CI, –1.39 to –.03, P = .04). Significant heterogeneity of effect, however, was detected.
• Constipation was more prevalent in IMO diagnosed with the lactulose breath test and the glucose breath test and constipation was particularly prevalent in Europe and the United States.

Mechanism of Action

The findings on constipation and diarrhea corroborate methane’s slowing physiologic effects on motility, the authors noted. It has been consistently found to delay gut transit, both small bowel and colonic transit.

Mechanistically, methane reduces small intestinal peristaltic velocity while augmenting non-propagating contraction amplitude, suggesting that reduction of intestinal transit time is mediated through promotion of non-propulsive contractions.

“This study further consolidates methane’s causal role in constipation and paves the way to establish validated disease-specific patient-reported outcomes,” Rezaie and associates wrote, calling for longitudinal and mechanistic studies assessing the archaeome in order to advance understanding of IMO.

This study was funded in part by Nancy Stark and Stanley Lezman in support of the MAST Program’s Innovation Project at Cedars-Sinai.

Rezaie serves as a consultant/speaker for Bausch Health. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center has a licensing agreement with Gemelli Biotech, in which Rezaie and coauthor Pimentel have equity. They also hold equity in Good LIFE. Pimentel consults for and has received grant support from Bausch Health.

An increase of patients presenting with the complex combination of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) with co-existing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and/or mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), has prompted the issuance of clinical practice guidance from AGA to help clinicians comprehend such cases.

“Recognizing and treating GI symptoms in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and comorbid POTS or MCAS present major challenges for clinicians, who often feel under equipped to address their needs,” AGA reported in the update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Importantly, “the poor understanding of these overlapping syndromes can lead to nonstandardized approaches to diagnostic evaluation and management,” the authors noted.

“Gastroenterology providers should be aware of the features of [these syndromes] to recognize the full complexity of patients presenting with multisystemic symptoms.”

Hypermobility spectrum disorders, which include hEDS, are typically genetic, and patients experience pain along with joint hypermobility, or extreme flexibility of joints beyond the normal range of motion.

With research showing that most of those patients — up to 98% — also experience GI symptoms, gastroenterologists may be encountering them more commonly than realized, Lucinda A. Harris, MD, AGAF, of the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, in Scottsdale, Arizona, explained to GI & Hepatology News.

“As our knowledge in gastroenterology has progressed, we realize that hypermobility itself predisposes individuals to disorders of brain-gut interaction,” she said. “We may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to diagnosing patients with hypermobility.”

Additionally, “many of these patients have POTS, which has also been increasingly diagnosed,” Harris added. “The strong overlap of these conditions prompted us to present this data.”

With a lack of evidence-based understanding of the overlapping syndromes, AGA’s guidance does not carry formal ratings but is drawn from a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

In addition to the key recommendation of being aware of the observed combination of syndromes, their recommendations include:

• Regarding testing: Testing for POTS/MCAS should be targeted to patients presenting with clinical manifestations of the disorders, but universal testing for POTS/MCAS in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders is not currently supported by the evidence, the guidance advises.
• Gastroenterologists seeing patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction should inquire about joint hypermobility and strongly consider incorporating the Beighton score for assessing joint hypermobility into their practice as a screening tool; if the screen is positive, gastroenterologists may consider applying 2017 diagnostic criteria to diagnose hEDS or offer appropriate referral to a specialist where resources are available, the AGA recommends.
• Medical management: Management of GI symptoms in hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and POTS/MCAS should focus on treating the most prominent GI symptoms and abnormal GI function test results.
• In addition to general disorders of gut-brain interactions and GI motility disorder treatment, management should also include treating any symptoms attributable to POTS and/or MCAS.

Treatment of POTS may include increasing fluid and salt intake, exercise training, and use of compression garments. Special pharmacological treatments for volume expansion, heart rate control, and vasoconstriction with integrated care from multiple specialties (eg, cardiology, neurology) should be considered in patients who do not respond to conservative lifestyle measures.

In patients presenting to gastroenterology providers, testing for mast cell disorders including MCAS should be considered in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and disorders of gut-brain interaction with episodic symptoms that suggest a more generalized mast cell disorder involving two or more physiological systems. However, current data does not support the use of these tests for routine evaluation of GI symptoms in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders without clinical or laboratory evidence of a primary or secondary mast cell disorder, the authors noted.

Harris explained that patients presenting with gut-brain disorders are often mistakenly classified as having irritable bowel syndrome or dyspepsia, whereas these conditions may be affecting the GI disorders they have.

“For example, a patient with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome might have problems with constipation, which is impacted by pelvic floor dysfunction,” she said. “Due to their hypermobility, they may experience more pelvic floor descent than usual.”

“If we do not recognize this, the patient risks developing rectal prolapse or not effectively addressing their constipation.”

Regarding patient characteristics, Harris said that those with hEDS and POTS appear to more likely be women and tend to present in younger patients, aged 18-50 years. Of note, there is no genetic test for hEDS.

“The take-home point for clinicians should be to consider POTS and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome when encountering young female patients with symptoms of palpitations, hypermobility, and orthostatic intolerance,” she said.

“Recognizing hypermobility is crucial, not only for GI symptoms but also to prevent joint dislocations, tendon ruptures, and other connective tissue issues.”

Clinicians are further urged to “offer informed counseling, and guide patients away from unreliable sources or fragmented care to foster therapeutic relationships and evidence-based care,” the authors added.

 

Deciphering Gut-Brain Disorder Challenges

Commenting to GI & Hepatology News, Clair Francomano, MD, a professor of medical and molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine, in Indianapolis, said the new guidance sheds important light on the syndromes.

“I’m delighted to see this guidance offered through the AGA as it will encourage gastroenterologists to think of EDS, POTS and MCAS when they are evaluating patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction,” Francomano said.

“This should allow patients to receive more accurate and timely diagnoses and appropriate management.”

Francomano noted that the Ehlers-Danlos Society, which provides information for clinicians and patients alike on the syndromes, and where she serves on the medical scientific board, has also been active in raising awareness.

“While co-occurrence of POTS and MCAS with EDS has in fact been recognized for many years, I do think awareness is increasing, in large part due to the advocacy and educational efforts of the Ehlers-Danlos Society,” she said.

The take-home message? “When clinicians see disorders of the gut-brain axis, POTS or MCAS, they should be thinking, ‘Could this be related to joint hypermobility or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome?’” Francomano said.

Harris reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Ardelyx, Salix, and Gemelli Biotech and reported receiving research support from Takeda and Anyx. Francomano did not report any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An increase of patients presenting with the complex combination of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) with co-existing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and/or mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), has prompted the issuance of clinical practice guidance from AGA to help clinicians comprehend such cases.

“Recognizing and treating GI symptoms in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and comorbid POTS or MCAS present major challenges for clinicians, who often feel under equipped to address their needs,” AGA reported in the update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Importantly, “the poor understanding of these overlapping syndromes can lead to nonstandardized approaches to diagnostic evaluation and management,” the authors noted.

“Gastroenterology providers should be aware of the features of [these syndromes] to recognize the full complexity of patients presenting with multisystemic symptoms.”

Hypermobility spectrum disorders, which include hEDS, are typically genetic, and patients experience pain along with joint hypermobility, or extreme flexibility of joints beyond the normal range of motion.

With research showing that most of those patients — up to 98% — also experience GI symptoms, gastroenterologists may be encountering them more commonly than realized, Lucinda A. Harris, MD, AGAF, of the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, in Scottsdale, Arizona, explained to GI & Hepatology News.

“As our knowledge in gastroenterology has progressed, we realize that hypermobility itself predisposes individuals to disorders of brain-gut interaction,” she said. “We may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to diagnosing patients with hypermobility.”

Additionally, “many of these patients have POTS, which has also been increasingly diagnosed,” Harris added. “The strong overlap of these conditions prompted us to present this data.”

With a lack of evidence-based understanding of the overlapping syndromes, AGA’s guidance does not carry formal ratings but is drawn from a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

In addition to the key recommendation of being aware of the observed combination of syndromes, their recommendations include:

• Regarding testing: Testing for POTS/MCAS should be targeted to patients presenting with clinical manifestations of the disorders, but universal testing for POTS/MCAS in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders is not currently supported by the evidence, the guidance advises.
• Gastroenterologists seeing patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction should inquire about joint hypermobility and strongly consider incorporating the Beighton score for assessing joint hypermobility into their practice as a screening tool; if the screen is positive, gastroenterologists may consider applying 2017 diagnostic criteria to diagnose hEDS or offer appropriate referral to a specialist where resources are available, the AGA recommends.
• Medical management: Management of GI symptoms in hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and POTS/MCAS should focus on treating the most prominent GI symptoms and abnormal GI function test results.
• In addition to general disorders of gut-brain interactions and GI motility disorder treatment, management should also include treating any symptoms attributable to POTS and/or MCAS.

Treatment of POTS may include increasing fluid and salt intake, exercise training, and use of compression garments. Special pharmacological treatments for volume expansion, heart rate control, and vasoconstriction with integrated care from multiple specialties (eg, cardiology, neurology) should be considered in patients who do not respond to conservative lifestyle measures.

In patients presenting to gastroenterology providers, testing for mast cell disorders including MCAS should be considered in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and disorders of gut-brain interaction with episodic symptoms that suggest a more generalized mast cell disorder involving two or more physiological systems. However, current data does not support the use of these tests for routine evaluation of GI symptoms in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders without clinical or laboratory evidence of a primary or secondary mast cell disorder, the authors noted.

Harris explained that patients presenting with gut-brain disorders are often mistakenly classified as having irritable bowel syndrome or dyspepsia, whereas these conditions may be affecting the GI disorders they have.

“For example, a patient with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome might have problems with constipation, which is impacted by pelvic floor dysfunction,” she said. “Due to their hypermobility, they may experience more pelvic floor descent than usual.”

“If we do not recognize this, the patient risks developing rectal prolapse or not effectively addressing their constipation.”

Regarding patient characteristics, Harris said that those with hEDS and POTS appear to more likely be women and tend to present in younger patients, aged 18-50 years. Of note, there is no genetic test for hEDS.

“The take-home point for clinicians should be to consider POTS and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome when encountering young female patients with symptoms of palpitations, hypermobility, and orthostatic intolerance,” she said.

“Recognizing hypermobility is crucial, not only for GI symptoms but also to prevent joint dislocations, tendon ruptures, and other connective tissue issues.”

Clinicians are further urged to “offer informed counseling, and guide patients away from unreliable sources or fragmented care to foster therapeutic relationships and evidence-based care,” the authors added.

 

Deciphering Gut-Brain Disorder Challenges

Commenting to GI & Hepatology News, Clair Francomano, MD, a professor of medical and molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine, in Indianapolis, said the new guidance sheds important light on the syndromes.

“I’m delighted to see this guidance offered through the AGA as it will encourage gastroenterologists to think of EDS, POTS and MCAS when they are evaluating patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction,” Francomano said.

“This should allow patients to receive more accurate and timely diagnoses and appropriate management.”

Francomano noted that the Ehlers-Danlos Society, which provides information for clinicians and patients alike on the syndromes, and where she serves on the medical scientific board, has also been active in raising awareness.

“While co-occurrence of POTS and MCAS with EDS has in fact been recognized for many years, I do think awareness is increasing, in large part due to the advocacy and educational efforts of the Ehlers-Danlos Society,” she said.

The take-home message? “When clinicians see disorders of the gut-brain axis, POTS or MCAS, they should be thinking, ‘Could this be related to joint hypermobility or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome?’” Francomano said.

Harris reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Ardelyx, Salix, and Gemelli Biotech and reported receiving research support from Takeda and Anyx. Francomano did not report any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An increase of patients presenting with the complex combination of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) with co-existing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and/or mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), has prompted the issuance of clinical practice guidance from AGA to help clinicians comprehend such cases.

“Recognizing and treating GI symptoms in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and comorbid POTS or MCAS present major challenges for clinicians, who often feel under equipped to address their needs,” AGA reported in the update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Importantly, “the poor understanding of these overlapping syndromes can lead to nonstandardized approaches to diagnostic evaluation and management,” the authors noted.

“Gastroenterology providers should be aware of the features of [these syndromes] to recognize the full complexity of patients presenting with multisystemic symptoms.”

Hypermobility spectrum disorders, which include hEDS, are typically genetic, and patients experience pain along with joint hypermobility, or extreme flexibility of joints beyond the normal range of motion.

With research showing that most of those patients — up to 98% — also experience GI symptoms, gastroenterologists may be encountering them more commonly than realized, Lucinda A. Harris, MD, AGAF, of the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, in Scottsdale, Arizona, explained to GI & Hepatology News.

“As our knowledge in gastroenterology has progressed, we realize that hypermobility itself predisposes individuals to disorders of brain-gut interaction,” she said. “We may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to diagnosing patients with hypermobility.”

Additionally, “many of these patients have POTS, which has also been increasingly diagnosed,” Harris added. “The strong overlap of these conditions prompted us to present this data.”

With a lack of evidence-based understanding of the overlapping syndromes, AGA’s guidance does not carry formal ratings but is drawn from a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

In addition to the key recommendation of being aware of the observed combination of syndromes, their recommendations include:

• Regarding testing: Testing for POTS/MCAS should be targeted to patients presenting with clinical manifestations of the disorders, but universal testing for POTS/MCAS in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders is not currently supported by the evidence, the guidance advises.
• Gastroenterologists seeing patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction should inquire about joint hypermobility and strongly consider incorporating the Beighton score for assessing joint hypermobility into their practice as a screening tool; if the screen is positive, gastroenterologists may consider applying 2017 diagnostic criteria to diagnose hEDS or offer appropriate referral to a specialist where resources are available, the AGA recommends.
• Medical management: Management of GI symptoms in hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and POTS/MCAS should focus on treating the most prominent GI symptoms and abnormal GI function test results.
• In addition to general disorders of gut-brain interactions and GI motility disorder treatment, management should also include treating any symptoms attributable to POTS and/or MCAS.

Treatment of POTS may include increasing fluid and salt intake, exercise training, and use of compression garments. Special pharmacological treatments for volume expansion, heart rate control, and vasoconstriction with integrated care from multiple specialties (eg, cardiology, neurology) should be considered in patients who do not respond to conservative lifestyle measures.

In patients presenting to gastroenterology providers, testing for mast cell disorders including MCAS should be considered in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and disorders of gut-brain interaction with episodic symptoms that suggest a more generalized mast cell disorder involving two or more physiological systems. However, current data does not support the use of these tests for routine evaluation of GI symptoms in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders without clinical or laboratory evidence of a primary or secondary mast cell disorder, the authors noted.

Harris explained that patients presenting with gut-brain disorders are often mistakenly classified as having irritable bowel syndrome or dyspepsia, whereas these conditions may be affecting the GI disorders they have.

“For example, a patient with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome might have problems with constipation, which is impacted by pelvic floor dysfunction,” she said. “Due to their hypermobility, they may experience more pelvic floor descent than usual.”

“If we do not recognize this, the patient risks developing rectal prolapse or not effectively addressing their constipation.”

Regarding patient characteristics, Harris said that those with hEDS and POTS appear to more likely be women and tend to present in younger patients, aged 18-50 years. Of note, there is no genetic test for hEDS.

“The take-home point for clinicians should be to consider POTS and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome when encountering young female patients with symptoms of palpitations, hypermobility, and orthostatic intolerance,” she said.

“Recognizing hypermobility is crucial, not only for GI symptoms but also to prevent joint dislocations, tendon ruptures, and other connective tissue issues.”

Clinicians are further urged to “offer informed counseling, and guide patients away from unreliable sources or fragmented care to foster therapeutic relationships and evidence-based care,” the authors added.

 

Deciphering Gut-Brain Disorder Challenges

Commenting to GI & Hepatology News, Clair Francomano, MD, a professor of medical and molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine, in Indianapolis, said the new guidance sheds important light on the syndromes.

“I’m delighted to see this guidance offered through the AGA as it will encourage gastroenterologists to think of EDS, POTS and MCAS when they are evaluating patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction,” Francomano said.

“This should allow patients to receive more accurate and timely diagnoses and appropriate management.”

Francomano noted that the Ehlers-Danlos Society, which provides information for clinicians and patients alike on the syndromes, and where she serves on the medical scientific board, has also been active in raising awareness.

“While co-occurrence of POTS and MCAS with EDS has in fact been recognized for many years, I do think awareness is increasing, in large part due to the advocacy and educational efforts of the Ehlers-Danlos Society,” she said.

The take-home message? “When clinicians see disorders of the gut-brain axis, POTS or MCAS, they should be thinking, ‘Could this be related to joint hypermobility or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome?’” Francomano said.

Harris reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Ardelyx, Salix, and Gemelli Biotech and reported receiving research support from Takeda and Anyx. Francomano did not report any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Out-of-pocket costs for bowel preparation are deterring people, especially vulnerable and underserved groups, from colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, a large insurance-claims analysis in Gastroenterology reported.

Moreover, this cost-sharing contravenes the preventive-care provisions for bowel preparation mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Led by Gastroenterologist Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, a clinical associate professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the study found a significant proportion of prescribed bowel preparation claims — 53% for commercial plans and 83% for Medicare — still involve patient cost-sharing, indicating noncompliance with ACA guidelines. Although expense-sharing was less prevalent among Medicaid claims (just 27%), it was not eliminated, suggesting room for improvement in coverage enforcement across the board.

“Colon cancer is unique in that it can be prevented with colonoscopy, but where are the patients? Bowel prep is a major reason that patients defer screening,” Shah told GI & Hepatology News. He said his group was quite surprised that the majority in the study cohort were paying something out of pocket when these costs should have been covered. “Primary care doctors may not think to ask about bowel prep costs when they order screening colonoscopies.”

The findings emerged from an analysis of 2,593,079 prescription drug claims: 52.9% from commercial plans, 35% from Medicare Part D plans, and 8.3% from Medicaid plans.

“These patient costs of $30 or $50 are a real not a theoretical deterrent,” said Whitney Jones, MD, a gastroenterologist, adjunct clinical professor at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, and founder of the nonprofit Colon Cancer Prevention Project. Jones was not involved in the analysis. “Some insurers require prior patient authorization for the low-dose preps, but gastroenterologists are doing so many colonoscopies they don’t always have time to get a PA [prior authorization] on everyone.” 

With the increasing use of blood and stool-based CRC testing, he added, “when you get a positive result, it’s really important to have the procedure quickly.” And appropriate bowel preparation is a small, cost-effective portion of the total costs of colonoscopy, a procedure that ultimately saves insurers significant money in treatment costs.

The authors noted that while CRC is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US, screening rates remain low, with only 59% of adults aged 45 years or older up to date with screening. Screening rates are particularly low among racial and ethnic minority groups as compared with White individuals, a disparity that highlights the need to address existing barriers and enhance screening efforts.

In the current study, shared costs by bowel preparation volume also varied. Low-volume formulations had consistently higher out-of-pocket costs: a median of $60 for low-volume vs $10 for high-volume in commercial plans. In Medicare, 75% of high-volume claims had shared costs compared with 90% for their low-volume counterparts. The cost-sharing difference was slightly narrower with Medicaid: 27% of high-volume claims vs 30% of low-volume claims.

This is concerning, as low-volume options, which are preferred by patients for their better tolerability, can enhance uptake and adherence and improve colonoscopy outcomes. Shah advises physicians to consider prescribing low-volume preparations. “Let patients know about the potential out-of-pocket cost and about copay cards and assistance programs and use high-volume preps as an alternative rather than a go-to,” he said.

As to costs across insurance types, among commercial plans, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $10 for high-volume and $60 for low-volume product claims. For Medicare, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $8 for high-volume and $55.99 for low-volume products.

Under the ACA, CRC screening is classified as a recommended preventive service, requiring health plans to cover it without cost-sharing. Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services previously tried to enforce this mandate in 2015 and 2016, stating that colonoscopy preparation medications should be covered at no cost, many health plans are still not compliant.

At the nonfederal level, Jones noted, Kentucky, which has a significant high-risk population, recently became the first state to pass legislation requiring health benefit plans to cover all guideline-recommended CRC exams and lab tests.

For its part, AGA has also called on payers to eliminate all cost-sharing barriers across the CRC screening continuum.

Of note, the study authors said, the higher compliance with the ACA mandate in commercial and Medicaid plans than in Medicare highlights disparities that may disproportionately affect vulnerable older adults. While nearly half of commercial patients and nearly three quarters of Medicaid patients incurred zero out-of-pocket costs, fewer than 17% of Medicare beneficiaries, or 1 in 6, did so.

Although these costs may be low relative to the colonoscopy, they nevertheless can deter uptake of preventive screenings, potentially leading to higher CRC incidence and mortality. “While some patients may be willing to pay modest out-of-pocket costs, any required payment, however small, can serve as a barrier to preventative care, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote. “These financial barriers will continue to contribute to widening disparities and hinder progress toward equitable screening outcomes.”

In the meantime, said Shah, “Physicians should advocate now to their representatives in Congress that bowel prep costs should already be covered as part of the ACA.”

This study was funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals, maker of SUFLAVE preparation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare. Jones is a speaker and consultant for Grail LLC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Out-of-pocket costs for bowel preparation are deterring people, especially vulnerable and underserved groups, from colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, a large insurance-claims analysis in Gastroenterology reported.

Moreover, this cost-sharing contravenes the preventive-care provisions for bowel preparation mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Led by Gastroenterologist Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, a clinical associate professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the study found a significant proportion of prescribed bowel preparation claims — 53% for commercial plans and 83% for Medicare — still involve patient cost-sharing, indicating noncompliance with ACA guidelines. Although expense-sharing was less prevalent among Medicaid claims (just 27%), it was not eliminated, suggesting room for improvement in coverage enforcement across the board.

“Colon cancer is unique in that it can be prevented with colonoscopy, but where are the patients? Bowel prep is a major reason that patients defer screening,” Shah told GI & Hepatology News. He said his group was quite surprised that the majority in the study cohort were paying something out of pocket when these costs should have been covered. “Primary care doctors may not think to ask about bowel prep costs when they order screening colonoscopies.”

The findings emerged from an analysis of 2,593,079 prescription drug claims: 52.9% from commercial plans, 35% from Medicare Part D plans, and 8.3% from Medicaid plans.

“These patient costs of $30 or $50 are a real not a theoretical deterrent,” said Whitney Jones, MD, a gastroenterologist, adjunct clinical professor at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, and founder of the nonprofit Colon Cancer Prevention Project. Jones was not involved in the analysis. “Some insurers require prior patient authorization for the low-dose preps, but gastroenterologists are doing so many colonoscopies they don’t always have time to get a PA [prior authorization] on everyone.” 

With the increasing use of blood and stool-based CRC testing, he added, “when you get a positive result, it’s really important to have the procedure quickly.” And appropriate bowel preparation is a small, cost-effective portion of the total costs of colonoscopy, a procedure that ultimately saves insurers significant money in treatment costs.

The authors noted that while CRC is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US, screening rates remain low, with only 59% of adults aged 45 years or older up to date with screening. Screening rates are particularly low among racial and ethnic minority groups as compared with White individuals, a disparity that highlights the need to address existing barriers and enhance screening efforts.

In the current study, shared costs by bowel preparation volume also varied. Low-volume formulations had consistently higher out-of-pocket costs: a median of $60 for low-volume vs $10 for high-volume in commercial plans. In Medicare, 75% of high-volume claims had shared costs compared with 90% for their low-volume counterparts. The cost-sharing difference was slightly narrower with Medicaid: 27% of high-volume claims vs 30% of low-volume claims.

This is concerning, as low-volume options, which are preferred by patients for their better tolerability, can enhance uptake and adherence and improve colonoscopy outcomes. Shah advises physicians to consider prescribing low-volume preparations. “Let patients know about the potential out-of-pocket cost and about copay cards and assistance programs and use high-volume preps as an alternative rather than a go-to,” he said.

As to costs across insurance types, among commercial plans, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $10 for high-volume and $60 for low-volume product claims. For Medicare, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $8 for high-volume and $55.99 for low-volume products.

Under the ACA, CRC screening is classified as a recommended preventive service, requiring health plans to cover it without cost-sharing. Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services previously tried to enforce this mandate in 2015 and 2016, stating that colonoscopy preparation medications should be covered at no cost, many health plans are still not compliant.

At the nonfederal level, Jones noted, Kentucky, which has a significant high-risk population, recently became the first state to pass legislation requiring health benefit plans to cover all guideline-recommended CRC exams and lab tests.

For its part, AGA has also called on payers to eliminate all cost-sharing barriers across the CRC screening continuum.

Of note, the study authors said, the higher compliance with the ACA mandate in commercial and Medicaid plans than in Medicare highlights disparities that may disproportionately affect vulnerable older adults. While nearly half of commercial patients and nearly three quarters of Medicaid patients incurred zero out-of-pocket costs, fewer than 17% of Medicare beneficiaries, or 1 in 6, did so.

Although these costs may be low relative to the colonoscopy, they nevertheless can deter uptake of preventive screenings, potentially leading to higher CRC incidence and mortality. “While some patients may be willing to pay modest out-of-pocket costs, any required payment, however small, can serve as a barrier to preventative care, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote. “These financial barriers will continue to contribute to widening disparities and hinder progress toward equitable screening outcomes.”

In the meantime, said Shah, “Physicians should advocate now to their representatives in Congress that bowel prep costs should already be covered as part of the ACA.”

This study was funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals, maker of SUFLAVE preparation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare. Jones is a speaker and consultant for Grail LLC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Out-of-pocket costs for bowel preparation are deterring people, especially vulnerable and underserved groups, from colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, a large insurance-claims analysis in Gastroenterology reported.

Moreover, this cost-sharing contravenes the preventive-care provisions for bowel preparation mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Led by Gastroenterologist Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, a clinical associate professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the study found a significant proportion of prescribed bowel preparation claims — 53% for commercial plans and 83% for Medicare — still involve patient cost-sharing, indicating noncompliance with ACA guidelines. Although expense-sharing was less prevalent among Medicaid claims (just 27%), it was not eliminated, suggesting room for improvement in coverage enforcement across the board.

“Colon cancer is unique in that it can be prevented with colonoscopy, but where are the patients? Bowel prep is a major reason that patients defer screening,” Shah told GI & Hepatology News. He said his group was quite surprised that the majority in the study cohort were paying something out of pocket when these costs should have been covered. “Primary care doctors may not think to ask about bowel prep costs when they order screening colonoscopies.”

The findings emerged from an analysis of 2,593,079 prescription drug claims: 52.9% from commercial plans, 35% from Medicare Part D plans, and 8.3% from Medicaid plans.

“These patient costs of $30 or $50 are a real not a theoretical deterrent,” said Whitney Jones, MD, a gastroenterologist, adjunct clinical professor at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, and founder of the nonprofit Colon Cancer Prevention Project. Jones was not involved in the analysis. “Some insurers require prior patient authorization for the low-dose preps, but gastroenterologists are doing so many colonoscopies they don’t always have time to get a PA [prior authorization] on everyone.” 

With the increasing use of blood and stool-based CRC testing, he added, “when you get a positive result, it’s really important to have the procedure quickly.” And appropriate bowel preparation is a small, cost-effective portion of the total costs of colonoscopy, a procedure that ultimately saves insurers significant money in treatment costs.

The authors noted that while CRC is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US, screening rates remain low, with only 59% of adults aged 45 years or older up to date with screening. Screening rates are particularly low among racial and ethnic minority groups as compared with White individuals, a disparity that highlights the need to address existing barriers and enhance screening efforts.

In the current study, shared costs by bowel preparation volume also varied. Low-volume formulations had consistently higher out-of-pocket costs: a median of $60 for low-volume vs $10 for high-volume in commercial plans. In Medicare, 75% of high-volume claims had shared costs compared with 90% for their low-volume counterparts. The cost-sharing difference was slightly narrower with Medicaid: 27% of high-volume claims vs 30% of low-volume claims.

This is concerning, as low-volume options, which are preferred by patients for their better tolerability, can enhance uptake and adherence and improve colonoscopy outcomes. Shah advises physicians to consider prescribing low-volume preparations. “Let patients know about the potential out-of-pocket cost and about copay cards and assistance programs and use high-volume preps as an alternative rather than a go-to,” he said.

As to costs across insurance types, among commercial plans, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $10 for high-volume and $60 for low-volume product claims. For Medicare, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $8 for high-volume and $55.99 for low-volume products.

Under the ACA, CRC screening is classified as a recommended preventive service, requiring health plans to cover it without cost-sharing. Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services previously tried to enforce this mandate in 2015 and 2016, stating that colonoscopy preparation medications should be covered at no cost, many health plans are still not compliant.

At the nonfederal level, Jones noted, Kentucky, which has a significant high-risk population, recently became the first state to pass legislation requiring health benefit plans to cover all guideline-recommended CRC exams and lab tests.

For its part, AGA has also called on payers to eliminate all cost-sharing barriers across the CRC screening continuum.

Of note, the study authors said, the higher compliance with the ACA mandate in commercial and Medicaid plans than in Medicare highlights disparities that may disproportionately affect vulnerable older adults. While nearly half of commercial patients and nearly three quarters of Medicaid patients incurred zero out-of-pocket costs, fewer than 17% of Medicare beneficiaries, or 1 in 6, did so.

Although these costs may be low relative to the colonoscopy, they nevertheless can deter uptake of preventive screenings, potentially leading to higher CRC incidence and mortality. “While some patients may be willing to pay modest out-of-pocket costs, any required payment, however small, can serve as a barrier to preventative care, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote. “These financial barriers will continue to contribute to widening disparities and hinder progress toward equitable screening outcomes.”

In the meantime, said Shah, “Physicians should advocate now to their representatives in Congress that bowel prep costs should already be covered as part of the ACA.”

This study was funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals, maker of SUFLAVE preparation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare. Jones is a speaker and consultant for Grail LLC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most GI service chiefs in the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system support point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training, but fewer than half have the technology in their facility, according to a national survey.

Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.

“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”

To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.

Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.

Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.

Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.

Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds. 

Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them. 

Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.

“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway. 

They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

Most GI service chiefs in the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system support point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training, but fewer than half have the technology in their facility, according to a national survey.

Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.

“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”

To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.

Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.

Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.

Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.

Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds. 

Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them. 

Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.

“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway. 

They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

Most GI service chiefs in the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system support point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training, but fewer than half have the technology in their facility, according to a national survey.

Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.

“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”

To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.

Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.

Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.

Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.

Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds. 

Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them. 

Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.

“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway. 

They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

Medications for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appear to have no impact on risk of incident malignancies among patients with a history of breast cancer, according to investigators.

These findings diminish concerns that IBD therapy could theoretically reactivate dormant micrometastases, lead author Guillaume Le Cosquer, MD, of Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France, and colleagues, reported.

“In patients with IBD, medical management of subjects with a history of breast cancer is a frequent and unresolved problem for clinicians,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.09.034).

Previous studies have reported that conventional immunosuppressants and biologics do not increase risk of incident cancer among IBD patients with a prior nondigestive malignancy; however, recent guidelines from the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) suggest that data are insufficient to make associated recommendations, prompting the present study.

“[T]he major strength of our work is that it is the first to focus on the most frequent cancer (breast cancer) in patients with IBD only, with the longest follow-up after breast cancer in patients with IBD ever published,” Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues noted.

The dataset included 207 patients with IBD and a history of breast cancer, drawn from 7 tertiary centers across France. 

The index date was the time of breast cancer diagnosis, and patients were followed for a median of 71 months. The median time from cancer diagnosis to initiation of IBD treatment was 28 months. 

First-line post-cancer treatments included conventional immunosuppressants (19.3%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents (19.8%), vedolizumab (7.2%), and ustekinumab (1.9%). Approximately half (51.6%) received no immunosuppressive therapy during follow-up.

Over the study period, 42 incident cancers were recorded (20.3%), among which 34 were breast cancer recurrences. Adjusted incidence rates per 1000 person-years were 10.2 (95% CI, 6.0–16.4) in the untreated group and 28.9 (95% CI, 11.6–59.6) in patients exposed to immunosuppressive or biologic therapies (P = .0519). Incident cancer–free survival did not differ significantly between treated and untreated groups (P = .4796).

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of incident cancer included T4d stage (P = .036), triple-negative status (P = .016), and follow-up duration shorter than 71 months (P = .005).

“[I]mmunosuppressant and biologic use in selected patients with IBD with prior breast cancer does not seem to increase the risk of incident cancer,” the investigators wrote, noting that the main predictors of cancer recurrence were known poor prognostic features of breast cancer.

Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues acknowledged a lack of prospective safety data for biologic therapies among patients with prior malignancy, as these individuals are often excluded from clinical trials. Still, they underscored alignment between their findings and earlier retrospective studies, including analyses from the SAPPHIRE registry and Medicare data, which also found no significant increase in breast cancer recurrence with anti-TNF agents or newer biologics such as vedolizumab and ustekinumab. 

“Our findings will help clinicians to make decisions in multidisciplinary meetings to start immunosuppressants or biologics in case of IBD flare-up in these patients,” they concluded.

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

Medications for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appear to have no impact on risk of incident malignancies among patients with a history of breast cancer, according to investigators.

These findings diminish concerns that IBD therapy could theoretically reactivate dormant micrometastases, lead author Guillaume Le Cosquer, MD, of Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France, and colleagues, reported.

“In patients with IBD, medical management of subjects with a history of breast cancer is a frequent and unresolved problem for clinicians,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.09.034).

Previous studies have reported that conventional immunosuppressants and biologics do not increase risk of incident cancer among IBD patients with a prior nondigestive malignancy; however, recent guidelines from the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) suggest that data are insufficient to make associated recommendations, prompting the present study.

“[T]he major strength of our work is that it is the first to focus on the most frequent cancer (breast cancer) in patients with IBD only, with the longest follow-up after breast cancer in patients with IBD ever published,” Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues noted.

The dataset included 207 patients with IBD and a history of breast cancer, drawn from 7 tertiary centers across France. 

The index date was the time of breast cancer diagnosis, and patients were followed for a median of 71 months. The median time from cancer diagnosis to initiation of IBD treatment was 28 months. 

First-line post-cancer treatments included conventional immunosuppressants (19.3%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents (19.8%), vedolizumab (7.2%), and ustekinumab (1.9%). Approximately half (51.6%) received no immunosuppressive therapy during follow-up.

Over the study period, 42 incident cancers were recorded (20.3%), among which 34 were breast cancer recurrences. Adjusted incidence rates per 1000 person-years were 10.2 (95% CI, 6.0–16.4) in the untreated group and 28.9 (95% CI, 11.6–59.6) in patients exposed to immunosuppressive or biologic therapies (P = .0519). Incident cancer–free survival did not differ significantly between treated and untreated groups (P = .4796).

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of incident cancer included T4d stage (P = .036), triple-negative status (P = .016), and follow-up duration shorter than 71 months (P = .005).

“[I]mmunosuppressant and biologic use in selected patients with IBD with prior breast cancer does not seem to increase the risk of incident cancer,” the investigators wrote, noting that the main predictors of cancer recurrence were known poor prognostic features of breast cancer.

Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues acknowledged a lack of prospective safety data for biologic therapies among patients with prior malignancy, as these individuals are often excluded from clinical trials. Still, they underscored alignment between their findings and earlier retrospective studies, including analyses from the SAPPHIRE registry and Medicare data, which also found no significant increase in breast cancer recurrence with anti-TNF agents or newer biologics such as vedolizumab and ustekinumab. 

“Our findings will help clinicians to make decisions in multidisciplinary meetings to start immunosuppressants or biologics in case of IBD flare-up in these patients,” they concluded.

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

Medications for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appear to have no impact on risk of incident malignancies among patients with a history of breast cancer, according to investigators.

These findings diminish concerns that IBD therapy could theoretically reactivate dormant micrometastases, lead author Guillaume Le Cosquer, MD, of Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France, and colleagues, reported.

“In patients with IBD, medical management of subjects with a history of breast cancer is a frequent and unresolved problem for clinicians,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.09.034).

Previous studies have reported that conventional immunosuppressants and biologics do not increase risk of incident cancer among IBD patients with a prior nondigestive malignancy; however, recent guidelines from the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) suggest that data are insufficient to make associated recommendations, prompting the present study.

“[T]he major strength of our work is that it is the first to focus on the most frequent cancer (breast cancer) in patients with IBD only, with the longest follow-up after breast cancer in patients with IBD ever published,” Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues noted.

The dataset included 207 patients with IBD and a history of breast cancer, drawn from 7 tertiary centers across France. 

The index date was the time of breast cancer diagnosis, and patients were followed for a median of 71 months. The median time from cancer diagnosis to initiation of IBD treatment was 28 months. 

First-line post-cancer treatments included conventional immunosuppressants (19.3%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents (19.8%), vedolizumab (7.2%), and ustekinumab (1.9%). Approximately half (51.6%) received no immunosuppressive therapy during follow-up.

Over the study period, 42 incident cancers were recorded (20.3%), among which 34 were breast cancer recurrences. Adjusted incidence rates per 1000 person-years were 10.2 (95% CI, 6.0–16.4) in the untreated group and 28.9 (95% CI, 11.6–59.6) in patients exposed to immunosuppressive or biologic therapies (P = .0519). Incident cancer–free survival did not differ significantly between treated and untreated groups (P = .4796).

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of incident cancer included T4d stage (P = .036), triple-negative status (P = .016), and follow-up duration shorter than 71 months (P = .005).

“[I]mmunosuppressant and biologic use in selected patients with IBD with prior breast cancer does not seem to increase the risk of incident cancer,” the investigators wrote, noting that the main predictors of cancer recurrence were known poor prognostic features of breast cancer.

Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues acknowledged a lack of prospective safety data for biologic therapies among patients with prior malignancy, as these individuals are often excluded from clinical trials. Still, they underscored alignment between their findings and earlier retrospective studies, including analyses from the SAPPHIRE registry and Medicare data, which also found no significant increase in breast cancer recurrence with anti-TNF agents or newer biologics such as vedolizumab and ustekinumab. 

“Our findings will help clinicians to make decisions in multidisciplinary meetings to start immunosuppressants or biologics in case of IBD flare-up in these patients,” they concluded.

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

Like diners saving on drinks, endoscopists can safely forgo sterile water in favor of tap, reducing both environmental and financial costs, according to a recent narrative review.

“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”

After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.

Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.

“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”

Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.

They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.

Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use. 

They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
 

Like diners saving on drinks, endoscopists can safely forgo sterile water in favor of tap, reducing both environmental and financial costs, according to a recent narrative review.

“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”

After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.

Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.

“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”

Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.

They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.

Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use. 

They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
 

Like diners saving on drinks, endoscopists can safely forgo sterile water in favor of tap, reducing both environmental and financial costs, according to a recent narrative review.

“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”

After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.

Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.

“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”

Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.

They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.

Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use. 

They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
 

Among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, a machine learning (ML) model enhanced mortality prediction compared with traditional methods and was consistent across country income levels in a large global study.

“This highly inclusive, representative, and globally derived model has been externally validated,” Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a crystal ball. It helps hospital teams, transplant centers, gastroenterology and intensive care unit services triage and prioritize patients more effectively.”

The study supporting the model, which Bajaj said “could be used at this stage,” was published online in Gastroenterology. The model is available for downloading at https://silveys.shinyapps.io/app_cleared/.

 

CLEARED Cohort Analyzed

Wide variations across the world regarding available resources, outpatient services, reasons for admission, and etiologies of cirrhosis can influence patient outcomes, according to Bajaj and colleagues. Therefore, they sought to use ML approaches to improve prognostication for all countries.

They analyzed admission-day data from the prospective Chronic Liver Disease Evolution And Registry for Events and Decompensation (CLEARED) consortium, which includes inpatients with cirrhosis enrolled from six continents. The analysis compared ML approaches with logistical regression to predict inpatient mortality.

The researchers performed internal validation (75/25 split) and subdivision using World-Bank income status: low/low-middle (L-LMIC), upper middle (UMIC), and high (HIC). They determined that the ML model with the best area-under-the-curve (AUC) would be externally validated in a US-Veteran cirrhosis inpatient population.

The CLEARED cohort included 7239 cirrhosis inpatients (mean age, 56 years; 64% men; median MELD-Na, 25) from 115 centers globally; 22.5% of centers belonged to LMICs, 41% to UMICs, and 34% to HICs.

A total of 808 patients (11.1%) died in the hospital.

Random-Forest analysis showed the best AUC (0.815) with high calibration. This was significantly better than parametric logistic regression (AUC, 0.774) and LASSO (AUC, 0.787) models.

Random-Forest also was better than logistic regression regardless of country income-level: HIC (AUC,0.806), UMIC (AUC, 0.867), and L-LMICs (AUC, 0.768).

Of the top 15 important variables selected from Random-Forest, admission for acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, high MELD-Na/white blood count, and not being in high income country were variables most predictive of mortality.

In contrast, higher albumin, hemoglobin, diuretic use on admission, viral etiology, and being in a high-income country were most protective.

The Random-Forest model was validated in 28,670 veterans (mean age, 67 years; 96% men; median MELD-Na,15), with an inpatient mortality of 4% (1158 patients).

The final Random-Forest model, using 48 of the 67 original covariates, attained a strong AUC of 0.859. A refit version using only the top 15 variables achieved a comparable AUC of 0.851.

 

Clinical Relevance

“Cirrhosis and resultant organ failures remain a dynamic and multidisciplinary problem,” Bajaj noted. “Machine learning techniques are one part of multi-faceted management strategy that is required in this population.”

If patients fall into the high-risk category, he said, “careful consultation with patients, families, and clinical teams is needed before providing information, including where this model was derived from. The results of these discussions could be instructive regarding decisions for transfer, more aggressive monitoring/ICU transfer, palliative care or transplant assessments.”

Meena B. Bansal, MD, system chief, Division of Liver Diseases, Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, called the tool “very promising.” However, she told GI & Hepatology News, “it was validated on a VA [Veterans Affairs] cohort, which is a bit different than the cohort of patients seen at Mount Sinai. Therefore, validation in more academic tertiary care medical centers with high volume liver transplant would be helpful.”

 

Furthermore, said Bansal, who was not involved in the study, “they excluded those that receiving a liver transplant, and while only a small number, this is an important limitation.”

Nevertheless, she added, “Artificial intelligence has great potential in predictive risk models and will likely be a tool that assists for risk stratification, clinical management, and hopefully improved clinical outcomes.”

This study was partly supported by a VA Merit review to Bajaj and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were reported by any author.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, a machine learning (ML) model enhanced mortality prediction compared with traditional methods and was consistent across country income levels in a large global study.

“This highly inclusive, representative, and globally derived model has been externally validated,” Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a crystal ball. It helps hospital teams, transplant centers, gastroenterology and intensive care unit services triage and prioritize patients more effectively.”

The study supporting the model, which Bajaj said “could be used at this stage,” was published online in Gastroenterology. The model is available for downloading at https://silveys.shinyapps.io/app_cleared/.

 

CLEARED Cohort Analyzed

Wide variations across the world regarding available resources, outpatient services, reasons for admission, and etiologies of cirrhosis can influence patient outcomes, according to Bajaj and colleagues. Therefore, they sought to use ML approaches to improve prognostication for all countries.

They analyzed admission-day data from the prospective Chronic Liver Disease Evolution And Registry for Events and Decompensation (CLEARED) consortium, which includes inpatients with cirrhosis enrolled from six continents. The analysis compared ML approaches with logistical regression to predict inpatient mortality.

The researchers performed internal validation (75/25 split) and subdivision using World-Bank income status: low/low-middle (L-LMIC), upper middle (UMIC), and high (HIC). They determined that the ML model with the best area-under-the-curve (AUC) would be externally validated in a US-Veteran cirrhosis inpatient population.

The CLEARED cohort included 7239 cirrhosis inpatients (mean age, 56 years; 64% men; median MELD-Na, 25) from 115 centers globally; 22.5% of centers belonged to LMICs, 41% to UMICs, and 34% to HICs.

A total of 808 patients (11.1%) died in the hospital.

Random-Forest analysis showed the best AUC (0.815) with high calibration. This was significantly better than parametric logistic regression (AUC, 0.774) and LASSO (AUC, 0.787) models.

Random-Forest also was better than logistic regression regardless of country income-level: HIC (AUC,0.806), UMIC (AUC, 0.867), and L-LMICs (AUC, 0.768).

Of the top 15 important variables selected from Random-Forest, admission for acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, high MELD-Na/white blood count, and not being in high income country were variables most predictive of mortality.

In contrast, higher albumin, hemoglobin, diuretic use on admission, viral etiology, and being in a high-income country were most protective.

The Random-Forest model was validated in 28,670 veterans (mean age, 67 years; 96% men; median MELD-Na,15), with an inpatient mortality of 4% (1158 patients).

The final Random-Forest model, using 48 of the 67 original covariates, attained a strong AUC of 0.859. A refit version using only the top 15 variables achieved a comparable AUC of 0.851.

 

Clinical Relevance

“Cirrhosis and resultant organ failures remain a dynamic and multidisciplinary problem,” Bajaj noted. “Machine learning techniques are one part of multi-faceted management strategy that is required in this population.”

If patients fall into the high-risk category, he said, “careful consultation with patients, families, and clinical teams is needed before providing information, including where this model was derived from. The results of these discussions could be instructive regarding decisions for transfer, more aggressive monitoring/ICU transfer, palliative care or transplant assessments.”

Meena B. Bansal, MD, system chief, Division of Liver Diseases, Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, called the tool “very promising.” However, she told GI & Hepatology News, “it was validated on a VA [Veterans Affairs] cohort, which is a bit different than the cohort of patients seen at Mount Sinai. Therefore, validation in more academic tertiary care medical centers with high volume liver transplant would be helpful.”

 

Furthermore, said Bansal, who was not involved in the study, “they excluded those that receiving a liver transplant, and while only a small number, this is an important limitation.”

Nevertheless, she added, “Artificial intelligence has great potential in predictive risk models and will likely be a tool that assists for risk stratification, clinical management, and hopefully improved clinical outcomes.”

This study was partly supported by a VA Merit review to Bajaj and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were reported by any author.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, a machine learning (ML) model enhanced mortality prediction compared with traditional methods and was consistent across country income levels in a large global study.

“This highly inclusive, representative, and globally derived model has been externally validated,” Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a crystal ball. It helps hospital teams, transplant centers, gastroenterology and intensive care unit services triage and prioritize patients more effectively.”

The study supporting the model, which Bajaj said “could be used at this stage,” was published online in Gastroenterology. The model is available for downloading at https://silveys.shinyapps.io/app_cleared/.

 

CLEARED Cohort Analyzed

Wide variations across the world regarding available resources, outpatient services, reasons for admission, and etiologies of cirrhosis can influence patient outcomes, according to Bajaj and colleagues. Therefore, they sought to use ML approaches to improve prognostication for all countries.

They analyzed admission-day data from the prospective Chronic Liver Disease Evolution And Registry for Events and Decompensation (CLEARED) consortium, which includes inpatients with cirrhosis enrolled from six continents. The analysis compared ML approaches with logistical regression to predict inpatient mortality.

The researchers performed internal validation (75/25 split) and subdivision using World-Bank income status: low/low-middle (L-LMIC), upper middle (UMIC), and high (HIC). They determined that the ML model with the best area-under-the-curve (AUC) would be externally validated in a US-Veteran cirrhosis inpatient population.

The CLEARED cohort included 7239 cirrhosis inpatients (mean age, 56 years; 64% men; median MELD-Na, 25) from 115 centers globally; 22.5% of centers belonged to LMICs, 41% to UMICs, and 34% to HICs.

A total of 808 patients (11.1%) died in the hospital.

Random-Forest analysis showed the best AUC (0.815) with high calibration. This was significantly better than parametric logistic regression (AUC, 0.774) and LASSO (AUC, 0.787) models.

Random-Forest also was better than logistic regression regardless of country income-level: HIC (AUC,0.806), UMIC (AUC, 0.867), and L-LMICs (AUC, 0.768).

Of the top 15 important variables selected from Random-Forest, admission for acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, high MELD-Na/white blood count, and not being in high income country were variables most predictive of mortality.

In contrast, higher albumin, hemoglobin, diuretic use on admission, viral etiology, and being in a high-income country were most protective.

The Random-Forest model was validated in 28,670 veterans (mean age, 67 years; 96% men; median MELD-Na,15), with an inpatient mortality of 4% (1158 patients).

The final Random-Forest model, using 48 of the 67 original covariates, attained a strong AUC of 0.859. A refit version using only the top 15 variables achieved a comparable AUC of 0.851.

 

Clinical Relevance

“Cirrhosis and resultant organ failures remain a dynamic and multidisciplinary problem,” Bajaj noted. “Machine learning techniques are one part of multi-faceted management strategy that is required in this population.”

If patients fall into the high-risk category, he said, “careful consultation with patients, families, and clinical teams is needed before providing information, including where this model was derived from. The results of these discussions could be instructive regarding decisions for transfer, more aggressive monitoring/ICU transfer, palliative care or transplant assessments.”

Meena B. Bansal, MD, system chief, Division of Liver Diseases, Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, called the tool “very promising.” However, she told GI & Hepatology News, “it was validated on a VA [Veterans Affairs] cohort, which is a bit different than the cohort of patients seen at Mount Sinai. Therefore, validation in more academic tertiary care medical centers with high volume liver transplant would be helpful.”

 

Furthermore, said Bansal, who was not involved in the study, “they excluded those that receiving a liver transplant, and while only a small number, this is an important limitation.”

Nevertheless, she added, “Artificial intelligence has great potential in predictive risk models and will likely be a tool that assists for risk stratification, clinical management, and hopefully improved clinical outcomes.”

This study was partly supported by a VA Merit review to Bajaj and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were reported by any author.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in sleep metrics detected with wearable technology could serve as an inflammation marker and potentially predict inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flareups, regardless of whether a patient has symptoms, an observational study suggested.

Sleep data from 101 study participants over a mean duration of about 228 days revealed that altered sleep architecture was only apparent when inflammation was present — symptoms alone did not impact sleep cycles or signal inflammation.

“We thought symptoms might have an impact on sleep, but interestingly, our data showed that measurable changes like reduced rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and increased light sleep only occurred during periods of active inflammation,” Robert Hirten, MD, associate professor of Medicine (Gastroenterology), and Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, told GI & Hepatology News.

“It was also interesting to see distinct patterns in sleep metrics begin to shift over the 45 days before a flare, suggesting the potential for sleep to serve as an early indicator of disease activity,” he added.

“Sleep is often overlooked in the management of IBD, but it may provide valuable insights into a patient’s underlying disease state,” he said. “While sleep monitoring isn’t yet a standard part of IBD care, this study highlights its potential as a noninvasive window into disease activity, and a promising area for future clinical integration.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

Less REM Sleep, More Light Sleep

Researchers assessed the impact of inflammation and symptoms on sleep architecture in IBD by analyzing data from 101 individuals who answered daily disease activity surveys and wore a wearable device.

The mean age of participants was 41 years and 65.3% were women. Sixty-three participants (62.4%) had Crohn’s disease (CD) and 38 (37.6%) had ulcerative colitis (UC).

Almost 40 (39.6%) participants used an Apple Watch; 50 (49.5%) used a Fitbit; and 11 (10.9%) used an Oura ring. Sleep architecture, sleep efficiency, and total hours asleep were collected from the devices. Participants were encouraged to wear their devices for at least 4 days per week and 8 hours per day and were not required to wear them at night. Participants provided data by linking their devices to ehive, Mount Sinai’s custom app.

Daily clinical disease activity was assessed using the UC or CD Patient Reported Outcome-2 survey. Participants were asked to answer at least four daily surveys each week.

Associations between sleep metrics and periods of symptomatic and inflammatory flares, and combinations of symptomatic and inflammatory activity, were compared to periods of symptomatic and inflammatory remission.

Furthermore, researchers explored the rate of change in sleep metrics for 45 days before and after inflammatory and symptomatic flares.

Participants contributed a mean duration of 228.16 nights of wearable data. During active inflammation, they spent a lower percentage of sleep time in REM (20% vs 21.59%) and a greater percentage of sleep time in light sleep (62.23% vs 59.95%) than during inflammatory remission. No differences were observed in the mean percentage of time in deep sleep, sleep efficiency, or total time asleep.

During symptomatic flares, there were no differences in the percentage of sleep time in REM sleep, deep sleep, light sleep, or sleep efficiency compared with periods of inflammatory remission. However, participants slept less overall during symptomatic flares compared with during symptomatic remission.

Compared with during asymptomatic and uninflamed periods, during asymptomatic but inflamed periods, participants spent a lower percentage of time in REM sleep, and more time in light sleep; however, there were no differences in sleep efficiency or total time asleep.

Similarly, participants had more light sleep and less REM sleep during symptomatic and inflammatory flares than during asymptomatic and uninflamed periods — but there were no differences in the percentage of time spent in deep sleep, in sleep efficiency, and the total time asleep.

Symptomatic flares alone, without inflammation, did not impact sleep metrics, the researchers concluded. However, periods with active inflammation were associated with a significantly smaller percentage of sleep time in REM sleep and a greater percentage of sleep time in light sleep.

The team also performed longitudinal mapping of sleep patterns before, during, and after disease exacerbations by analyzing sleep data for 6 weeks before and 6 weeks after flare episodes.

They found that sleep disturbances significantly worsen leading up to inflammatory flares and improve afterward, suggesting that sleep changes may signal upcoming increased disease activity. Evaluating the intersection of inflammatory and symptomatic flares, altered sleep architecture was only evident when inflammation was present.

“These findings raise important questions about whether intervening on sleep can actually impact inflammation or disease trajectory in IBD,” Hirten said. “Next steps include studying whether targeted sleep interventions can improve both sleep and IBD outcomes.”

While this research is still in the early stages, he said, “it suggests that sleep may have a relationship with inflammatory activity in IBD. For patients, it reinforces the value of paying attention to sleep changes.”

The findings also show the potential of wearable devices to guide more personalized monitoring, he added. “More work is needed before sleep metrics can be used routinely in clinical decision-making.”

 

Validates the Use of Wearables

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Michael Mintz, MD, a gastroenterologist at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian in New York City, observed, “Gastrointestinal symptoms often do not correlate with objective disease activity in IBD, creating a diagnostic challenge for gastroenterologists. Burdensome, expensive, and/or invasive testing, such as colonoscopies, stool tests, or imaging, are frequently required to monitor disease activity.” 

“This study is a first step in objectively monitoring inflammation in a patient-centric way that does not create undue burden to our patients,” he said. “It also provides longitudinal data that suggests changes in sleep patterns can pre-date disease flares, which ideally can lead to earlier intervention to prevent disease complications.”

Like Hirten, he noted that clinical decisions, such as changing IBD therapy, should not be based on the results of this study. “Rather this provides validation that wearable technology can provide useful objective data that correlates with disease activity.”

Furthermore, he said, it is not clear whether analyzing sleep data is a cost-effective way of monitoring IBD disease activity, or whether that data should be used alone or in combination with other objective disease markers, to influence clinical decision-making.

“This study provides proof of concept that there is a relationship between sleep characteristics and objective inflammation, but further studies are needed,” he said. “I am hopeful that this technology will give us another tool that we can use in clinical practice to monitor disease activity and improve outcomes in a way that is comfortable and convenient for our patients.”

This study was supported by a grant to Hirten from the US National Institutes of Health. Hirten reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol Meyers Squibb, AbbVie; stock options from Salvo Health; and research support from Janssen, Intralytix, EnLiSense, Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation. Mintz declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in sleep metrics detected with wearable technology could serve as an inflammation marker and potentially predict inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flareups, regardless of whether a patient has symptoms, an observational study suggested.

Sleep data from 101 study participants over a mean duration of about 228 days revealed that altered sleep architecture was only apparent when inflammation was present — symptoms alone did not impact sleep cycles or signal inflammation.

“We thought symptoms might have an impact on sleep, but interestingly, our data showed that measurable changes like reduced rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and increased light sleep only occurred during periods of active inflammation,” Robert Hirten, MD, associate professor of Medicine (Gastroenterology), and Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, told GI & Hepatology News.

“It was also interesting to see distinct patterns in sleep metrics begin to shift over the 45 days before a flare, suggesting the potential for sleep to serve as an early indicator of disease activity,” he added.

“Sleep is often overlooked in the management of IBD, but it may provide valuable insights into a patient’s underlying disease state,” he said. “While sleep monitoring isn’t yet a standard part of IBD care, this study highlights its potential as a noninvasive window into disease activity, and a promising area for future clinical integration.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

Less REM Sleep, More Light Sleep

Researchers assessed the impact of inflammation and symptoms on sleep architecture in IBD by analyzing data from 101 individuals who answered daily disease activity surveys and wore a wearable device.

The mean age of participants was 41 years and 65.3% were women. Sixty-three participants (62.4%) had Crohn’s disease (CD) and 38 (37.6%) had ulcerative colitis (UC).

Almost 40 (39.6%) participants used an Apple Watch; 50 (49.5%) used a Fitbit; and 11 (10.9%) used an Oura ring. Sleep architecture, sleep efficiency, and total hours asleep were collected from the devices. Participants were encouraged to wear their devices for at least 4 days per week and 8 hours per day and were not required to wear them at night. Participants provided data by linking their devices to ehive, Mount Sinai’s custom app.

Daily clinical disease activity was assessed using the UC or CD Patient Reported Outcome-2 survey. Participants were asked to answer at least four daily surveys each week.

Associations between sleep metrics and periods of symptomatic and inflammatory flares, and combinations of symptomatic and inflammatory activity, were compared to periods of symptomatic and inflammatory remission.

Furthermore, researchers explored the rate of change in sleep metrics for 45 days before and after inflammatory and symptomatic flares.

Participants contributed a mean duration of 228.16 nights of wearable data. During active inflammation, they spent a lower percentage of sleep time in REM (20% vs 21.59%) and a greater percentage of sleep time in light sleep (62.23% vs 59.95%) than during inflammatory remission. No differences were observed in the mean percentage of time in deep sleep, sleep efficiency, or total time asleep.

During symptomatic flares, there were no differences in the percentage of sleep time in REM sleep, deep sleep, light sleep, or sleep efficiency compared with periods of inflammatory remission. However, participants slept less overall during symptomatic flares compared with during symptomatic remission.

Compared with during asymptomatic and uninflamed periods, during asymptomatic but inflamed periods, participants spent a lower percentage of time in REM sleep, and more time in light sleep; however, there were no differences in sleep efficiency or total time asleep.

Similarly, participants had more light sleep and less REM sleep during symptomatic and inflammatory flares than during asymptomatic and uninflamed periods — but there were no differences in the percentage of time spent in deep sleep, in sleep efficiency, and the total time asleep.

Symptomatic flares alone, without inflammation, did not impact sleep metrics, the researchers concluded. However, periods with active inflammation were associated with a significantly smaller percentage of sleep time in REM sleep and a greater percentage of sleep time in light sleep.

The team also performed longitudinal mapping of sleep patterns before, during, and after disease exacerbations by analyzing sleep data for 6 weeks before and 6 weeks after flare episodes.

They found that sleep disturbances significantly worsen leading up to inflammatory flares and improve afterward, suggesting that sleep changes may signal upcoming increased disease activity. Evaluating the intersection of inflammatory and symptomatic flares, altered sleep architecture was only evident when inflammation was present.

“These findings raise important questions about whether intervening on sleep can actually impact inflammation or disease trajectory in IBD,” Hirten said. “Next steps include studying whether targeted sleep interventions can improve both sleep and IBD outcomes.”

While this research is still in the early stages, he said, “it suggests that sleep may have a relationship with inflammatory activity in IBD. For patients, it reinforces the value of paying attention to sleep changes.”

The findings also show the potential of wearable devices to guide more personalized monitoring, he added. “More work is needed before sleep metrics can be used routinely in clinical decision-making.”

 

Validates the Use of Wearables

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Michael Mintz, MD, a gastroenterologist at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian in New York City, observed, “Gastrointestinal symptoms often do not correlate with objective disease activity in IBD, creating a diagnostic challenge for gastroenterologists. Burdensome, expensive, and/or invasive testing, such as colonoscopies, stool tests, or imaging, are frequently required to monitor disease activity.” 

“This study is a first step in objectively monitoring inflammation in a patient-centric way that does not create undue burden to our patients,” he said. “It also provides longitudinal data that suggests changes in sleep patterns can pre-date disease flares, which ideally can lead to earlier intervention to prevent disease complications.”

Like Hirten, he noted that clinical decisions, such as changing IBD therapy, should not be based on the results of this study. “Rather this provides validation that wearable technology can provide useful objective data that correlates with disease activity.”

Furthermore, he said, it is not clear whether analyzing sleep data is a cost-effective way of monitoring IBD disease activity, or whether that data should be used alone or in combination with other objective disease markers, to influence clinical decision-making.

“This study provides proof of concept that there is a relationship between sleep characteristics and objective inflammation, but further studies are needed,” he said. “I am hopeful that this technology will give us another tool that we can use in clinical practice to monitor disease activity and improve outcomes in a way that is comfortable and convenient for our patients.”

This study was supported by a grant to Hirten from the US National Institutes of Health. Hirten reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol Meyers Squibb, AbbVie; stock options from Salvo Health; and research support from Janssen, Intralytix, EnLiSense, Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation. Mintz declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in sleep metrics detected with wearable technology could serve as an inflammation marker and potentially predict inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flareups, regardless of whether a patient has symptoms, an observational study suggested.

Sleep data from 101 study participants over a mean duration of about 228 days revealed that altered sleep architecture was only apparent when inflammation was present — symptoms alone did not impact sleep cycles or signal inflammation.

“We thought symptoms might have an impact on sleep, but interestingly, our data showed that measurable changes like reduced rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and increased light sleep only occurred during periods of active inflammation,” Robert Hirten, MD, associate professor of Medicine (Gastroenterology), and Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, told GI & Hepatology News.

“It was also interesting to see distinct patterns in sleep metrics begin to shift over the 45 days before a flare, suggesting the potential for sleep to serve as an early indicator of disease activity,” he added.

“Sleep is often overlooked in the management of IBD, but it may provide valuable insights into a patient’s underlying disease state,” he said. “While sleep monitoring isn’t yet a standard part of IBD care, this study highlights its potential as a noninvasive window into disease activity, and a promising area for future clinical integration.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

Less REM Sleep, More Light Sleep

Researchers assessed the impact of inflammation and symptoms on sleep architecture in IBD by analyzing data from 101 individuals who answered daily disease activity surveys and wore a wearable device.

The mean age of participants was 41 years and 65.3% were women. Sixty-three participants (62.4%) had Crohn’s disease (CD) and 38 (37.6%) had ulcerative colitis (UC).

Almost 40 (39.6%) participants used an Apple Watch; 50 (49.5%) used a Fitbit; and 11 (10.9%) used an Oura ring. Sleep architecture, sleep efficiency, and total hours asleep were collected from the devices. Participants were encouraged to wear their devices for at least 4 days per week and 8 hours per day and were not required to wear them at night. Participants provided data by linking their devices to ehive, Mount Sinai’s custom app.

Daily clinical disease activity was assessed using the UC or CD Patient Reported Outcome-2 survey. Participants were asked to answer at least four daily surveys each week.

Associations between sleep metrics and periods of symptomatic and inflammatory flares, and combinations of symptomatic and inflammatory activity, were compared to periods of symptomatic and inflammatory remission.

Furthermore, researchers explored the rate of change in sleep metrics for 45 days before and after inflammatory and symptomatic flares.

Participants contributed a mean duration of 228.16 nights of wearable data. During active inflammation, they spent a lower percentage of sleep time in REM (20% vs 21.59%) and a greater percentage of sleep time in light sleep (62.23% vs 59.95%) than during inflammatory remission. No differences were observed in the mean percentage of time in deep sleep, sleep efficiency, or total time asleep.

During symptomatic flares, there were no differences in the percentage of sleep time in REM sleep, deep sleep, light sleep, or sleep efficiency compared with periods of inflammatory remission. However, participants slept less overall during symptomatic flares compared with during symptomatic remission.

Compared with during asymptomatic and uninflamed periods, during asymptomatic but inflamed periods, participants spent a lower percentage of time in REM sleep, and more time in light sleep; however, there were no differences in sleep efficiency or total time asleep.

Similarly, participants had more light sleep and less REM sleep during symptomatic and inflammatory flares than during asymptomatic and uninflamed periods — but there were no differences in the percentage of time spent in deep sleep, in sleep efficiency, and the total time asleep.

Symptomatic flares alone, without inflammation, did not impact sleep metrics, the researchers concluded. However, periods with active inflammation were associated with a significantly smaller percentage of sleep time in REM sleep and a greater percentage of sleep time in light sleep.

The team also performed longitudinal mapping of sleep patterns before, during, and after disease exacerbations by analyzing sleep data for 6 weeks before and 6 weeks after flare episodes.

They found that sleep disturbances significantly worsen leading up to inflammatory flares and improve afterward, suggesting that sleep changes may signal upcoming increased disease activity. Evaluating the intersection of inflammatory and symptomatic flares, altered sleep architecture was only evident when inflammation was present.

“These findings raise important questions about whether intervening on sleep can actually impact inflammation or disease trajectory in IBD,” Hirten said. “Next steps include studying whether targeted sleep interventions can improve both sleep and IBD outcomes.”

While this research is still in the early stages, he said, “it suggests that sleep may have a relationship with inflammatory activity in IBD. For patients, it reinforces the value of paying attention to sleep changes.”

The findings also show the potential of wearable devices to guide more personalized monitoring, he added. “More work is needed before sleep metrics can be used routinely in clinical decision-making.”

 

Validates the Use of Wearables

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Michael Mintz, MD, a gastroenterologist at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian in New York City, observed, “Gastrointestinal symptoms often do not correlate with objective disease activity in IBD, creating a diagnostic challenge for gastroenterologists. Burdensome, expensive, and/or invasive testing, such as colonoscopies, stool tests, or imaging, are frequently required to monitor disease activity.” 

“This study is a first step in objectively monitoring inflammation in a patient-centric way that does not create undue burden to our patients,” he said. “It also provides longitudinal data that suggests changes in sleep patterns can pre-date disease flares, which ideally can lead to earlier intervention to prevent disease complications.”

Like Hirten, he noted that clinical decisions, such as changing IBD therapy, should not be based on the results of this study. “Rather this provides validation that wearable technology can provide useful objective data that correlates with disease activity.”

Furthermore, he said, it is not clear whether analyzing sleep data is a cost-effective way of monitoring IBD disease activity, or whether that data should be used alone or in combination with other objective disease markers, to influence clinical decision-making.

“This study provides proof of concept that there is a relationship between sleep characteristics and objective inflammation, but further studies are needed,” he said. “I am hopeful that this technology will give us another tool that we can use in clinical practice to monitor disease activity and improve outcomes in a way that is comfortable and convenient for our patients.”

This study was supported by a grant to Hirten from the US National Institutes of Health. Hirten reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol Meyers Squibb, AbbVie; stock options from Salvo Health; and research support from Janssen, Intralytix, EnLiSense, Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation. Mintz declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.