From the AGA Journals

A hemostatic powder was shown superior to standard endoscopic treatment in stopping and preventing recurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding caused by malignant tumors.

The findings, published online in Gastroenterology (2023 Jun 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.042), come from the largest randomized trial to date of TC-325 (Hemospray, Cook Medical), compared with standard endoscopic hemostatic interventions for tumor bleeding.

For their research, Rapat Pittayanon, MD, of Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok and her colleagues, randomized patients (60% male, mean age 63) with active malignant upper or lower GI bleeding and low disability levels related to their cancers (ECOG score 0-2). The study was conducted at nine hospitals in Thailand.

The 106 patients who passed screening underwent either TC-325 or standard endoscopic hemostasis, which could involve use of thermal or mechanical methods or adrenaline injection, alone or combined with another modality, at the endoscopist’s discretion. Crossover between treatment allocations was permitted if hemostasis was not achieved. Investigators assessed rates of immediate hemostasis and rebleeding at 30 days.

Dr. Pittayanon and colleagues found rebleeding to be significantly lower among TC-325 treated patients, at 2.1%, compared with 21.3% for standard care (odds ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.80; P = .03). Rates of immediate hemostasis were 100% for TC-325–treated subjects, compared with 68.6% in the conventional-treatment group (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.93-2.29; P < .001).

None of the 55 patients in the TC-325 group underwent crossover treatment, but 15 patients in the standard care group were crossed over to TC-325 after their endoscopic treatment was deemed to have failed. One-fifth of patients who got TC-325 as a crossover treatment developed rebleeding at 30 days, which the investigators surmised was related to mucosal damage incurred during the endoscopic procedure.

The study was not powered to adequately assess survival outcomes. Seven patients in the TC-325 group and four in the conventional care group died before 30 days’ follow-up, and no death was directly related to recurrent tumor bleeding.

“To our knowledge, our trial is the first to show such significant findings in an RCT setting, which now provide a long-awaited efficacious hemostatic approach where one had been lacking when managing patients with malignant GI bleeding,” the investigators wrote in their analysis.

“Perhaps most importantly, this carefully controlled study also highlights the unreliable hemostatic effect of standard endoscopic modalities available for GI tumor hemostasis, with high 30-day rebleeding rates in our patient population.”

Dr. Pittayanon and colleagues noted several limitations of their study. These included the inability to blind patients to an endoscopist, which “may have influenced subsequent management decisions … including the decision to cross over.”

Only in 5 of 15 cases of crossover did the treating endoscopist provide photo evidence of treatment failure as required by the trial’s protocol. Also, the use of adrenaline injection alone was permitted in the study, in contrast to best practice guidelines for endoscopic hemostasis to treat peptic ulcer bleeding. Finally, the study was conducted in Thailand, potentially reducing the generalizability of the results.

The study was funded by King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital; the Thai Red Cross; and Chulalongkorn University. Cook Medical donated some of the TC-325 kits used in the study.

One study coauthor, Alan N. Barkun, disclosed consulting work for Medtronic and past paid work for Cook Medical. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A hemostatic powder was shown superior to standard endoscopic treatment in stopping and preventing recurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding caused by malignant tumors.

The findings, published online in Gastroenterology (2023 Jun 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.042), come from the largest randomized trial to date of TC-325 (Hemospray, Cook Medical), compared with standard endoscopic hemostatic interventions for tumor bleeding.

For their research, Rapat Pittayanon, MD, of Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok and her colleagues, randomized patients (60% male, mean age 63) with active malignant upper or lower GI bleeding and low disability levels related to their cancers (ECOG score 0-2). The study was conducted at nine hospitals in Thailand.

The 106 patients who passed screening underwent either TC-325 or standard endoscopic hemostasis, which could involve use of thermal or mechanical methods or adrenaline injection, alone or combined with another modality, at the endoscopist’s discretion. Crossover between treatment allocations was permitted if hemostasis was not achieved. Investigators assessed rates of immediate hemostasis and rebleeding at 30 days.

Dr. Pittayanon and colleagues found rebleeding to be significantly lower among TC-325 treated patients, at 2.1%, compared with 21.3% for standard care (odds ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.80; P = .03). Rates of immediate hemostasis were 100% for TC-325–treated subjects, compared with 68.6% in the conventional-treatment group (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.93-2.29; P < .001).

None of the 55 patients in the TC-325 group underwent crossover treatment, but 15 patients in the standard care group were crossed over to TC-325 after their endoscopic treatment was deemed to have failed. One-fifth of patients who got TC-325 as a crossover treatment developed rebleeding at 30 days, which the investigators surmised was related to mucosal damage incurred during the endoscopic procedure.

The study was not powered to adequately assess survival outcomes. Seven patients in the TC-325 group and four in the conventional care group died before 30 days’ follow-up, and no death was directly related to recurrent tumor bleeding.

“To our knowledge, our trial is the first to show such significant findings in an RCT setting, which now provide a long-awaited efficacious hemostatic approach where one had been lacking when managing patients with malignant GI bleeding,” the investigators wrote in their analysis.

“Perhaps most importantly, this carefully controlled study also highlights the unreliable hemostatic effect of standard endoscopic modalities available for GI tumor hemostasis, with high 30-day rebleeding rates in our patient population.”

Dr. Pittayanon and colleagues noted several limitations of their study. These included the inability to blind patients to an endoscopist, which “may have influenced subsequent management decisions … including the decision to cross over.”

Only in 5 of 15 cases of crossover did the treating endoscopist provide photo evidence of treatment failure as required by the trial’s protocol. Also, the use of adrenaline injection alone was permitted in the study, in contrast to best practice guidelines for endoscopic hemostasis to treat peptic ulcer bleeding. Finally, the study was conducted in Thailand, potentially reducing the generalizability of the results.

The study was funded by King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital; the Thai Red Cross; and Chulalongkorn University. Cook Medical donated some of the TC-325 kits used in the study.

One study coauthor, Alan N. Barkun, disclosed consulting work for Medtronic and past paid work for Cook Medical. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A hemostatic powder was shown superior to standard endoscopic treatment in stopping and preventing recurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding caused by malignant tumors.

The findings, published online in Gastroenterology (2023 Jun 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.042), come from the largest randomized trial to date of TC-325 (Hemospray, Cook Medical), compared with standard endoscopic hemostatic interventions for tumor bleeding.

For their research, Rapat Pittayanon, MD, of Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok and her colleagues, randomized patients (60% male, mean age 63) with active malignant upper or lower GI bleeding and low disability levels related to their cancers (ECOG score 0-2). The study was conducted at nine hospitals in Thailand.

The 106 patients who passed screening underwent either TC-325 or standard endoscopic hemostasis, which could involve use of thermal or mechanical methods or adrenaline injection, alone or combined with another modality, at the endoscopist’s discretion. Crossover between treatment allocations was permitted if hemostasis was not achieved. Investigators assessed rates of immediate hemostasis and rebleeding at 30 days.

Dr. Pittayanon and colleagues found rebleeding to be significantly lower among TC-325 treated patients, at 2.1%, compared with 21.3% for standard care (odds ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.80; P = .03). Rates of immediate hemostasis were 100% for TC-325–treated subjects, compared with 68.6% in the conventional-treatment group (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.93-2.29; P < .001).

None of the 55 patients in the TC-325 group underwent crossover treatment, but 15 patients in the standard care group were crossed over to TC-325 after their endoscopic treatment was deemed to have failed. One-fifth of patients who got TC-325 as a crossover treatment developed rebleeding at 30 days, which the investigators surmised was related to mucosal damage incurred during the endoscopic procedure.

The study was not powered to adequately assess survival outcomes. Seven patients in the TC-325 group and four in the conventional care group died before 30 days’ follow-up, and no death was directly related to recurrent tumor bleeding.

“To our knowledge, our trial is the first to show such significant findings in an RCT setting, which now provide a long-awaited efficacious hemostatic approach where one had been lacking when managing patients with malignant GI bleeding,” the investigators wrote in their analysis.

“Perhaps most importantly, this carefully controlled study also highlights the unreliable hemostatic effect of standard endoscopic modalities available for GI tumor hemostasis, with high 30-day rebleeding rates in our patient population.”

Dr. Pittayanon and colleagues noted several limitations of their study. These included the inability to blind patients to an endoscopist, which “may have influenced subsequent management decisions … including the decision to cross over.”

Only in 5 of 15 cases of crossover did the treating endoscopist provide photo evidence of treatment failure as required by the trial’s protocol. Also, the use of adrenaline injection alone was permitted in the study, in contrast to best practice guidelines for endoscopic hemostasis to treat peptic ulcer bleeding. Finally, the study was conducted in Thailand, potentially reducing the generalizability of the results.

The study was funded by King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital; the Thai Red Cross; and Chulalongkorn University. Cook Medical donated some of the TC-325 kits used in the study.

One study coauthor, Alan N. Barkun, disclosed consulting work for Medtronic and past paid work for Cook Medical. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

High consumption of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk of developing Crohn’s disease, according to results from a large meta-analysis, but not ulcerative colitis.

Ultraprocessed foods contain large amounts of artificial flavors, stabilizers, emulsifiers, sweeteners, or preservatives. Studies have linked higher consumption of them to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancers.

For their research, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Neeraj Nerula, MD of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues pooled data from five recent cohort studies to assess whether their consumption was also linked to inflammatory bowel disease.

The included cohort studies together enrolled more than 1 million participants (mean age, 43-56; 55%-85% female). Of these, 916 developed Crohn’s disease, and 1,934 developed ulcerative colitis, during follow-up. None of the participants had IBD at baseline, and all were followed up at least 1 year. All the studies used the same food classification system, called NOVA, to assess foods eaten, and all were conducted between 2020 and 2022.

People who consumed more ultraprocessed foods saw higher Crohn’s risk, compared with those classed as consuming lower amounts of these foods (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.14). Also, lower risk of Crohn’s was observed among participants who consumed more unprocessed or minimally processed foods, such as vegetables, chicken, milk, and eggs (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94). The same associations were not seen for ulcerative colitis.

“Our findings support the hypothesis that consumption of [ultraprocessed foods] and low consumption of unprocessed/minimally processed foods may increase the risk for CD,” Dr. Nerula and colleagues wrote. The lack of association seen with ulcerative colitis might be explained by differences in the pathogenesis of each disease.

Ultraprocessed foods might contribute to Crohn’s by disrupting gut microbiota, the authors wrote. “For instance, emulsifiers have been shown to increase epithelial permeability, disruption of the intestinal barrier, and gut dysbiosis in mice. Carboxymethyl cellulose has been shown to facilitate bacterial adherence to gut epithelium, possibly leading to bacterial overgrowth and invasion of bacteria in between the intestinal villi. Furthermore, additives such as carrageenan, titanium dioxide, and maltodextrin have been shown to promote intestinal inflammation.”

Dr. Nerula and colleagues described as strengths of their study its large size, the low heterogenicity of the included studies, and the use of validated, standardized questionnaires to measure dietary intake in each study. Nonetheless, they cautioned, the results might not apply to younger age groups, and the majority of participants were White North Americans and Europeans, making it difficult to generalize results.

“Advancements in food processing and associated changes in dietary patterns could explain the rise of IBD incidence during the 20th and 21st centuries,” Dr. Narula and colleagues concluded. “Further investigations are needed to identify the specific potential culprits among processed foods that could account for the increased risk of CD observed.”

The study authors did not report outside funding. Dr. Narula disclosed receiving fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers including Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck, and others. Two of coauthors also disclosed receiving funds from industry, and five additional coauthors had no conflicts.

High consumption of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk of developing Crohn’s disease, according to results from a large meta-analysis, but not ulcerative colitis.

Ultraprocessed foods contain large amounts of artificial flavors, stabilizers, emulsifiers, sweeteners, or preservatives. Studies have linked higher consumption of them to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancers.

For their research, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Neeraj Nerula, MD of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues pooled data from five recent cohort studies to assess whether their consumption was also linked to inflammatory bowel disease.

The included cohort studies together enrolled more than 1 million participants (mean age, 43-56; 55%-85% female). Of these, 916 developed Crohn’s disease, and 1,934 developed ulcerative colitis, during follow-up. None of the participants had IBD at baseline, and all were followed up at least 1 year. All the studies used the same food classification system, called NOVA, to assess foods eaten, and all were conducted between 2020 and 2022.

People who consumed more ultraprocessed foods saw higher Crohn’s risk, compared with those classed as consuming lower amounts of these foods (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.14). Also, lower risk of Crohn’s was observed among participants who consumed more unprocessed or minimally processed foods, such as vegetables, chicken, milk, and eggs (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94). The same associations were not seen for ulcerative colitis.

“Our findings support the hypothesis that consumption of [ultraprocessed foods] and low consumption of unprocessed/minimally processed foods may increase the risk for CD,” Dr. Nerula and colleagues wrote. The lack of association seen with ulcerative colitis might be explained by differences in the pathogenesis of each disease.

Ultraprocessed foods might contribute to Crohn’s by disrupting gut microbiota, the authors wrote. “For instance, emulsifiers have been shown to increase epithelial permeability, disruption of the intestinal barrier, and gut dysbiosis in mice. Carboxymethyl cellulose has been shown to facilitate bacterial adherence to gut epithelium, possibly leading to bacterial overgrowth and invasion of bacteria in between the intestinal villi. Furthermore, additives such as carrageenan, titanium dioxide, and maltodextrin have been shown to promote intestinal inflammation.”

Dr. Nerula and colleagues described as strengths of their study its large size, the low heterogenicity of the included studies, and the use of validated, standardized questionnaires to measure dietary intake in each study. Nonetheless, they cautioned, the results might not apply to younger age groups, and the majority of participants were White North Americans and Europeans, making it difficult to generalize results.

“Advancements in food processing and associated changes in dietary patterns could explain the rise of IBD incidence during the 20th and 21st centuries,” Dr. Narula and colleagues concluded. “Further investigations are needed to identify the specific potential culprits among processed foods that could account for the increased risk of CD observed.”

The study authors did not report outside funding. Dr. Narula disclosed receiving fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers including Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck, and others. Two of coauthors also disclosed receiving funds from industry, and five additional coauthors had no conflicts.

High consumption of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk of developing Crohn’s disease, according to results from a large meta-analysis, but not ulcerative colitis.

Ultraprocessed foods contain large amounts of artificial flavors, stabilizers, emulsifiers, sweeteners, or preservatives. Studies have linked higher consumption of them to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancers.

For their research, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Neeraj Nerula, MD of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues pooled data from five recent cohort studies to assess whether their consumption was also linked to inflammatory bowel disease.

The included cohort studies together enrolled more than 1 million participants (mean age, 43-56; 55%-85% female). Of these, 916 developed Crohn’s disease, and 1,934 developed ulcerative colitis, during follow-up. None of the participants had IBD at baseline, and all were followed up at least 1 year. All the studies used the same food classification system, called NOVA, to assess foods eaten, and all were conducted between 2020 and 2022.

People who consumed more ultraprocessed foods saw higher Crohn’s risk, compared with those classed as consuming lower amounts of these foods (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.14). Also, lower risk of Crohn’s was observed among participants who consumed more unprocessed or minimally processed foods, such as vegetables, chicken, milk, and eggs (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94). The same associations were not seen for ulcerative colitis.

“Our findings support the hypothesis that consumption of [ultraprocessed foods] and low consumption of unprocessed/minimally processed foods may increase the risk for CD,” Dr. Nerula and colleagues wrote. The lack of association seen with ulcerative colitis might be explained by differences in the pathogenesis of each disease.

Ultraprocessed foods might contribute to Crohn’s by disrupting gut microbiota, the authors wrote. “For instance, emulsifiers have been shown to increase epithelial permeability, disruption of the intestinal barrier, and gut dysbiosis in mice. Carboxymethyl cellulose has been shown to facilitate bacterial adherence to gut epithelium, possibly leading to bacterial overgrowth and invasion of bacteria in between the intestinal villi. Furthermore, additives such as carrageenan, titanium dioxide, and maltodextrin have been shown to promote intestinal inflammation.”

Dr. Nerula and colleagues described as strengths of their study its large size, the low heterogenicity of the included studies, and the use of validated, standardized questionnaires to measure dietary intake in each study. Nonetheless, they cautioned, the results might not apply to younger age groups, and the majority of participants were White North Americans and Europeans, making it difficult to generalize results.

“Advancements in food processing and associated changes in dietary patterns could explain the rise of IBD incidence during the 20th and 21st centuries,” Dr. Narula and colleagues concluded. “Further investigations are needed to identify the specific potential culprits among processed foods that could account for the increased risk of CD observed.”

The study authors did not report outside funding. Dr. Narula disclosed receiving fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers including Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck, and others. Two of coauthors also disclosed receiving funds from industry, and five additional coauthors had no conflicts.

Advancements in tools for assessing the function of the esophagus have led to important refinements in the diagnosis of achalasia and achalasia-like conditions, at a pace that has left the line-tracing technology considered to have debatable merit just 15 years ago “now as obsolete as a typewriter,” experts said recently in a review in Gastro Hep Advances.

“We have come to conceptualize esophageal motility disorders by specific aspects of physiological dysfunction,” wrote a trio of experts – Peter Kahrilas, MD, professor of medicine; Dustin Carlson, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine, and John Pandolfino, MD, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology, all at Northwestern University, Chicago. “A major implication of this approach is a shift in management strategy toward rendering treatment in a phenotype-specific manner.”

High-resolution manometry (HRM) was trail-blazing, they said, as it replaced line-tracing manometry in evaluating the motility of the esophagus. HRM led to the subtyping of achalasia based on the three patterns of pressurization in the esophagus that are associated with obstruction at the esophagogastric junction. But the field has continued to advance.

“It has since become clear that obstructive physiology also occurs in syndromes besides achalasia involving the esophagogastric junction and/or distal esophagus,” Dr. Kahrilas, Dr. Carlson, and Dr. Pandolfino said. “In fact, obstructive physiology is increasingly recognized as the fundamental abnormality leading to the perception of dysphagia with esophageal motility disorders. This concept of obstructive physiology as the fundamental abnormality has substantially morphed the clinical management of esophageal motility disorders.”

HRM, has many limitations, but in cases of an uncertain achalasia diagnosis, functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) technology can help, they said. FLIP can also help surgeons tailor myotomy procedures.

In FLIP, a probe is carefully filled with fluid, causing distension of the esophagus. In the test, the distensibility of the esophagogastric junction is measured. The procedure allows a more refined assessment of the movement of the esophagus, and the subtypes of achalasia.

Identifying the achalasia subtype is crucial to choosing the right treatment, data suggests. There have been no randomized controlled trials on achalasia management that prospectively consider achalasia subtype, but retrospective analysis of RCT data “suggests that achalasia subtypes are of great relevance in forecasting treatment effectiveness,” they said.

In one trial, pneumatic dilation was effective in 100% of type II achalasia, which involves panesophageal pressurization, significantly better than laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). But it was much less effective than LHM in type III achalasia, the spastic form, although a significance couldn’t be established because of the number of cases. Data from a meta-analysis showed that peroral endoscopic myotomy, which allows for a longer myotomy if needed, was better than LHM for classic achalasia and spastic achalasia and was most efficacious overall.

The writers said that the diagnostic classifications for achalasia are likely to continue to evolve, pointing to the dynamic nature of the Chicago Classification for the disorder.

“The fact that it has now gone through four iterations since 2008 emphasizes that this is a work in progress and that no classification scheme of esophageal motility disorders based on a single test will ever be perfect,” they said. “After all, there are no biomarkers of esophageal motility disorders and, in the absence of a biomarker, there can be no ‘gold standard’ for diagnosis.”

Dr. Pandolfino, Dr. Kahrilas, and Northwestern University hold shared intellectual property rights and ownership surrounding FLIP Panometry systems, methods, and apparatus with Medtronic. Dr. Kahrilas reported consulting with Ironwood, Reckitt, and Phathom. Dr. Carlson reported conflicts of interest with Medtronic and Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pandolfino reported conflicts of interest with Sandhill Scientific/Diversatek, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Torax, and Ironwood.

Advancements in tools for assessing the function of the esophagus have led to important refinements in the diagnosis of achalasia and achalasia-like conditions, at a pace that has left the line-tracing technology considered to have debatable merit just 15 years ago “now as obsolete as a typewriter,” experts said recently in a review in Gastro Hep Advances.

“We have come to conceptualize esophageal motility disorders by specific aspects of physiological dysfunction,” wrote a trio of experts – Peter Kahrilas, MD, professor of medicine; Dustin Carlson, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine, and John Pandolfino, MD, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology, all at Northwestern University, Chicago. “A major implication of this approach is a shift in management strategy toward rendering treatment in a phenotype-specific manner.”

High-resolution manometry (HRM) was trail-blazing, they said, as it replaced line-tracing manometry in evaluating the motility of the esophagus. HRM led to the subtyping of achalasia based on the three patterns of pressurization in the esophagus that are associated with obstruction at the esophagogastric junction. But the field has continued to advance.

“It has since become clear that obstructive physiology also occurs in syndromes besides achalasia involving the esophagogastric junction and/or distal esophagus,” Dr. Kahrilas, Dr. Carlson, and Dr. Pandolfino said. “In fact, obstructive physiology is increasingly recognized as the fundamental abnormality leading to the perception of dysphagia with esophageal motility disorders. This concept of obstructive physiology as the fundamental abnormality has substantially morphed the clinical management of esophageal motility disorders.”

HRM, has many limitations, but in cases of an uncertain achalasia diagnosis, functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) technology can help, they said. FLIP can also help surgeons tailor myotomy procedures.

In FLIP, a probe is carefully filled with fluid, causing distension of the esophagus. In the test, the distensibility of the esophagogastric junction is measured. The procedure allows a more refined assessment of the movement of the esophagus, and the subtypes of achalasia.

Identifying the achalasia subtype is crucial to choosing the right treatment, data suggests. There have been no randomized controlled trials on achalasia management that prospectively consider achalasia subtype, but retrospective analysis of RCT data “suggests that achalasia subtypes are of great relevance in forecasting treatment effectiveness,” they said.

In one trial, pneumatic dilation was effective in 100% of type II achalasia, which involves panesophageal pressurization, significantly better than laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). But it was much less effective than LHM in type III achalasia, the spastic form, although a significance couldn’t be established because of the number of cases. Data from a meta-analysis showed that peroral endoscopic myotomy, which allows for a longer myotomy if needed, was better than LHM for classic achalasia and spastic achalasia and was most efficacious overall.

The writers said that the diagnostic classifications for achalasia are likely to continue to evolve, pointing to the dynamic nature of the Chicago Classification for the disorder.

“The fact that it has now gone through four iterations since 2008 emphasizes that this is a work in progress and that no classification scheme of esophageal motility disorders based on a single test will ever be perfect,” they said. “After all, there are no biomarkers of esophageal motility disorders and, in the absence of a biomarker, there can be no ‘gold standard’ for diagnosis.”

Dr. Pandolfino, Dr. Kahrilas, and Northwestern University hold shared intellectual property rights and ownership surrounding FLIP Panometry systems, methods, and apparatus with Medtronic. Dr. Kahrilas reported consulting with Ironwood, Reckitt, and Phathom. Dr. Carlson reported conflicts of interest with Medtronic and Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pandolfino reported conflicts of interest with Sandhill Scientific/Diversatek, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Torax, and Ironwood.

Advancements in tools for assessing the function of the esophagus have led to important refinements in the diagnosis of achalasia and achalasia-like conditions, at a pace that has left the line-tracing technology considered to have debatable merit just 15 years ago “now as obsolete as a typewriter,” experts said recently in a review in Gastro Hep Advances.

“We have come to conceptualize esophageal motility disorders by specific aspects of physiological dysfunction,” wrote a trio of experts – Peter Kahrilas, MD, professor of medicine; Dustin Carlson, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine, and John Pandolfino, MD, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology, all at Northwestern University, Chicago. “A major implication of this approach is a shift in management strategy toward rendering treatment in a phenotype-specific manner.”

High-resolution manometry (HRM) was trail-blazing, they said, as it replaced line-tracing manometry in evaluating the motility of the esophagus. HRM led to the subtyping of achalasia based on the three patterns of pressurization in the esophagus that are associated with obstruction at the esophagogastric junction. But the field has continued to advance.

“It has since become clear that obstructive physiology also occurs in syndromes besides achalasia involving the esophagogastric junction and/or distal esophagus,” Dr. Kahrilas, Dr. Carlson, and Dr. Pandolfino said. “In fact, obstructive physiology is increasingly recognized as the fundamental abnormality leading to the perception of dysphagia with esophageal motility disorders. This concept of obstructive physiology as the fundamental abnormality has substantially morphed the clinical management of esophageal motility disorders.”

HRM, has many limitations, but in cases of an uncertain achalasia diagnosis, functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) technology can help, they said. FLIP can also help surgeons tailor myotomy procedures.

In FLIP, a probe is carefully filled with fluid, causing distension of the esophagus. In the test, the distensibility of the esophagogastric junction is measured. The procedure allows a more refined assessment of the movement of the esophagus, and the subtypes of achalasia.

Identifying the achalasia subtype is crucial to choosing the right treatment, data suggests. There have been no randomized controlled trials on achalasia management that prospectively consider achalasia subtype, but retrospective analysis of RCT data “suggests that achalasia subtypes are of great relevance in forecasting treatment effectiveness,” they said.

In one trial, pneumatic dilation was effective in 100% of type II achalasia, which involves panesophageal pressurization, significantly better than laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). But it was much less effective than LHM in type III achalasia, the spastic form, although a significance couldn’t be established because of the number of cases. Data from a meta-analysis showed that peroral endoscopic myotomy, which allows for a longer myotomy if needed, was better than LHM for classic achalasia and spastic achalasia and was most efficacious overall.

The writers said that the diagnostic classifications for achalasia are likely to continue to evolve, pointing to the dynamic nature of the Chicago Classification for the disorder.

“The fact that it has now gone through four iterations since 2008 emphasizes that this is a work in progress and that no classification scheme of esophageal motility disorders based on a single test will ever be perfect,” they said. “After all, there are no biomarkers of esophageal motility disorders and, in the absence of a biomarker, there can be no ‘gold standard’ for diagnosis.”

Dr. Pandolfino, Dr. Kahrilas, and Northwestern University hold shared intellectual property rights and ownership surrounding FLIP Panometry systems, methods, and apparatus with Medtronic. Dr. Kahrilas reported consulting with Ironwood, Reckitt, and Phathom. Dr. Carlson reported conflicts of interest with Medtronic and Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pandolfino reported conflicts of interest with Sandhill Scientific/Diversatek, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Torax, and Ironwood.

Using the adenoma detection rate (ADR) for all colonoscopies could be just as good as using the more traditional ADR approach of using only colonoscopies that are performed for screening purposes, a new paper suggests.

The findings, published earlier this year in Gastroenterology, point to a potentially simpler approach to the ADR, an established colonoscopy quality metric that measures the percentage of colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma was found, the researchers said, because of the complexities posed by separating out screening colonoscopies from those for other indications.

“Methods for ascertaining colonoscopy indication include manual review, electronic medical record queries, and text string searches of colonoscopy reports, which are resource-intensive and subject to misclassification,” said the researchers, led by Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, and Christopher Jensen, PhD, researchers at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. “These barriers have impeded the universal adoption of screening ADR reporting and suggest the need for a simpler, valid alternative to screening ADR.”

The analysis included Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and the University of Texas Southwestern’s Parkland Memorial Hospital – large, demographically diverse, community-based health systems with 45 endoscopy centers and covering about 3% of the U.S. population. The data that were assessed covered 487 endoscopists who performed 1,046,916 cancer-negative colonoscopies from January 2011 to June 2019.

The median overall ADR was 36.3%; the median screening, ADR 29.7%; the diagnostic ADR, 37.1%; and the surveillance ADR, 48.6%.

No matter the colonoscopy indication, the researchers found, ADRs were similarly inversely related to the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rate. For patients of physicians with ADRs of 45% or more, using the group with a less than 25% ADR as the reference group, the risk hazard ratio for the overall ADRs was 0.44, and for the screening ADRs, it was 0.43.

Researchers also found that the quartile of overall ADR had a similar overall predictive ability for PCCRC to the quartile of screening ADR – both with a C-statistic of 0.71.

The overall ADR did just about as well as the screening ADR in identifying physician performance quartile groupings – especially in the case of the lowest quartile. Among the 293 endoscopists who performed colonoscopies in 2017-2018, for instance, 62 of the 73 providers who were in the lowest quartile for screening ADR were also in the lowest quartile for the overall ADR, the researchers found. And there were no providers who differed by more than one quartile.

When considering all quartiles, 69.6% of endoscopists had identical quartile rankings for overall ADR and screening ADR, 29.4% differed by one quartile, and only 1% differed by two quartiles.

The inclination to use screening colonoscopies to compute ADR metrics was intended to promote uniformity in the field, but this might not be the best practice, the researchers suggest.

“Given the large differences in screening ADRs between settings and the potential for indication misclassification, it is not clear that restricting ADR calculations to screening colonoscopies allows for a more ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison across settings than methods that include all colonoscopies,” they said. “The current study found that overall ADR as a quality metric performed similarly to screening ADR for predicting PCCRC and identifying the same providers in the lowest quartile. In addition, it is simpler to calculate, not susceptible to indication misclassification or potential provider-related biases, and more precise because it includes many more colonoscopies.”

In an editorial that was published in Gastroenterology, Jill Tinmouth, MD, PhD, University of Toronto, and Catherine Dubé, MD, University of Ottawa, noted that measuring ADR is valuable only if it improves the quality of colonoscopies.

“Ultimately, this new approach to measuring ADR and identifying underperformance is only valuable if it leads to improvement in colonoscopy quality. The approach proposed by Corley et al. should make it easier for facilities, screening programs, and jurisdictions to measure ADR, and this is an important first step. However, to move the dial on quality, reporting ADR needs to be accompanied by physician uptake of strategies to improve their colonoscopy performance, that is, split-dose bowel preparation, proper insertion and withdrawal techniques ([e.g.], careful cleaning and inspection and turning the patient, when possible), and improved polypectomy skills,” they wrote.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Using the adenoma detection rate (ADR) for all colonoscopies could be just as good as using the more traditional ADR approach of using only colonoscopies that are performed for screening purposes, a new paper suggests.

The findings, published earlier this year in Gastroenterology, point to a potentially simpler approach to the ADR, an established colonoscopy quality metric that measures the percentage of colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma was found, the researchers said, because of the complexities posed by separating out screening colonoscopies from those for other indications.

“Methods for ascertaining colonoscopy indication include manual review, electronic medical record queries, and text string searches of colonoscopy reports, which are resource-intensive and subject to misclassification,” said the researchers, led by Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, and Christopher Jensen, PhD, researchers at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. “These barriers have impeded the universal adoption of screening ADR reporting and suggest the need for a simpler, valid alternative to screening ADR.”

The analysis included Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and the University of Texas Southwestern’s Parkland Memorial Hospital – large, demographically diverse, community-based health systems with 45 endoscopy centers and covering about 3% of the U.S. population. The data that were assessed covered 487 endoscopists who performed 1,046,916 cancer-negative colonoscopies from January 2011 to June 2019.

The median overall ADR was 36.3%; the median screening, ADR 29.7%; the diagnostic ADR, 37.1%; and the surveillance ADR, 48.6%.

No matter the colonoscopy indication, the researchers found, ADRs were similarly inversely related to the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rate. For patients of physicians with ADRs of 45% or more, using the group with a less than 25% ADR as the reference group, the risk hazard ratio for the overall ADRs was 0.44, and for the screening ADRs, it was 0.43.

Researchers also found that the quartile of overall ADR had a similar overall predictive ability for PCCRC to the quartile of screening ADR – both with a C-statistic of 0.71.

The overall ADR did just about as well as the screening ADR in identifying physician performance quartile groupings – especially in the case of the lowest quartile. Among the 293 endoscopists who performed colonoscopies in 2017-2018, for instance, 62 of the 73 providers who were in the lowest quartile for screening ADR were also in the lowest quartile for the overall ADR, the researchers found. And there were no providers who differed by more than one quartile.

When considering all quartiles, 69.6% of endoscopists had identical quartile rankings for overall ADR and screening ADR, 29.4% differed by one quartile, and only 1% differed by two quartiles.

The inclination to use screening colonoscopies to compute ADR metrics was intended to promote uniformity in the field, but this might not be the best practice, the researchers suggest.

“Given the large differences in screening ADRs between settings and the potential for indication misclassification, it is not clear that restricting ADR calculations to screening colonoscopies allows for a more ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison across settings than methods that include all colonoscopies,” they said. “The current study found that overall ADR as a quality metric performed similarly to screening ADR for predicting PCCRC and identifying the same providers in the lowest quartile. In addition, it is simpler to calculate, not susceptible to indication misclassification or potential provider-related biases, and more precise because it includes many more colonoscopies.”

In an editorial that was published in Gastroenterology, Jill Tinmouth, MD, PhD, University of Toronto, and Catherine Dubé, MD, University of Ottawa, noted that measuring ADR is valuable only if it improves the quality of colonoscopies.

“Ultimately, this new approach to measuring ADR and identifying underperformance is only valuable if it leads to improvement in colonoscopy quality. The approach proposed by Corley et al. should make it easier for facilities, screening programs, and jurisdictions to measure ADR, and this is an important first step. However, to move the dial on quality, reporting ADR needs to be accompanied by physician uptake of strategies to improve their colonoscopy performance, that is, split-dose bowel preparation, proper insertion and withdrawal techniques ([e.g.], careful cleaning and inspection and turning the patient, when possible), and improved polypectomy skills,” they wrote.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Using the adenoma detection rate (ADR) for all colonoscopies could be just as good as using the more traditional ADR approach of using only colonoscopies that are performed for screening purposes, a new paper suggests.

The findings, published earlier this year in Gastroenterology, point to a potentially simpler approach to the ADR, an established colonoscopy quality metric that measures the percentage of colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma was found, the researchers said, because of the complexities posed by separating out screening colonoscopies from those for other indications.

“Methods for ascertaining colonoscopy indication include manual review, electronic medical record queries, and text string searches of colonoscopy reports, which are resource-intensive and subject to misclassification,” said the researchers, led by Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, and Christopher Jensen, PhD, researchers at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. “These barriers have impeded the universal adoption of screening ADR reporting and suggest the need for a simpler, valid alternative to screening ADR.”

The analysis included Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and the University of Texas Southwestern’s Parkland Memorial Hospital – large, demographically diverse, community-based health systems with 45 endoscopy centers and covering about 3% of the U.S. population. The data that were assessed covered 487 endoscopists who performed 1,046,916 cancer-negative colonoscopies from January 2011 to June 2019.

The median overall ADR was 36.3%; the median screening, ADR 29.7%; the diagnostic ADR, 37.1%; and the surveillance ADR, 48.6%.

No matter the colonoscopy indication, the researchers found, ADRs were similarly inversely related to the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rate. For patients of physicians with ADRs of 45% or more, using the group with a less than 25% ADR as the reference group, the risk hazard ratio for the overall ADRs was 0.44, and for the screening ADRs, it was 0.43.

Researchers also found that the quartile of overall ADR had a similar overall predictive ability for PCCRC to the quartile of screening ADR – both with a C-statistic of 0.71.

The overall ADR did just about as well as the screening ADR in identifying physician performance quartile groupings – especially in the case of the lowest quartile. Among the 293 endoscopists who performed colonoscopies in 2017-2018, for instance, 62 of the 73 providers who were in the lowest quartile for screening ADR were also in the lowest quartile for the overall ADR, the researchers found. And there were no providers who differed by more than one quartile.

When considering all quartiles, 69.6% of endoscopists had identical quartile rankings for overall ADR and screening ADR, 29.4% differed by one quartile, and only 1% differed by two quartiles.

The inclination to use screening colonoscopies to compute ADR metrics was intended to promote uniformity in the field, but this might not be the best practice, the researchers suggest.

“Given the large differences in screening ADRs between settings and the potential for indication misclassification, it is not clear that restricting ADR calculations to screening colonoscopies allows for a more ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison across settings than methods that include all colonoscopies,” they said. “The current study found that overall ADR as a quality metric performed similarly to screening ADR for predicting PCCRC and identifying the same providers in the lowest quartile. In addition, it is simpler to calculate, not susceptible to indication misclassification or potential provider-related biases, and more precise because it includes many more colonoscopies.”

In an editorial that was published in Gastroenterology, Jill Tinmouth, MD, PhD, University of Toronto, and Catherine Dubé, MD, University of Ottawa, noted that measuring ADR is valuable only if it improves the quality of colonoscopies.

“Ultimately, this new approach to measuring ADR and identifying underperformance is only valuable if it leads to improvement in colonoscopy quality. The approach proposed by Corley et al. should make it easier for facilities, screening programs, and jurisdictions to measure ADR, and this is an important first step. However, to move the dial on quality, reporting ADR needs to be accompanied by physician uptake of strategies to improve their colonoscopy performance, that is, split-dose bowel preparation, proper insertion and withdrawal techniques ([e.g.], careful cleaning and inspection and turning the patient, when possible), and improved polypectomy skills,” they wrote.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A comprehensive new analysis estimates that 2.4 million Americans have been diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and up to 56,000 new cases are diagnosed each year.

“The prevalence of IBD in the United States has been gradually increasing over the last decade, and thus the burden of caring for IBD is likely to increase as life expectancy increases,” said co-principal investigator Andrés Hurtado-Lorenzo, PhD, senior vice president, Translational Research and IBD Ventures, Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

These data provide “an initial step toward optimizing health care resources allocation and improving care of individuals with IBD,” said Manasi Agrawal, MD, a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

For the federally funded study, researchers pooled data from commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid insurance plans to derive a population-based estimate of the incidence and prevalence of IBD throughout the United States.

“In essence, we consider this to be the most extensive study of the incidence and prevalence of IBD in the United States based on physician-diagnosed IBD, which is representative of nearly the entire U.S. population with health insurance,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Trends identified

Key findings from the study include the following.

• The age- and sex-standardized incidence of IBD was 10.9 per 100,000 person years.
• The incidence of IBD peaks in the third decade of life, decreases to a relatively stable level across the fourth to eighth decades, and declines further beyond age 80.
• Ulcerative colitis is slightly more common than Crohn’s disease in most age groups, except in children, among whom this trend is reversed.
• The adjusted prevalence data show that IBD has been diagnosed in more than 0.7% of Americans, with 721 cases per 100,000, or nearly 1 in 100.
• Historically, IBD was slightly more common in men. Now it’s slightly more common in adult women and male children.
• IBD prevalence is highest in the Northeast and lowest in the western region of the United States.
• The overall prevalence of IBD increased gradually from 2011 to 2020.

“Environmental variables, such as ultra-processed foods, pollution, and urbanization, to name a few, are implicated in IBD risk. Shifts in our modern environment and improving diagnostics may be two reasons why we see rising trends in IBD,” said Dr. Agrawal, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
 

Prevalence highest among Whites

The data also point to significant differences in prevalence among different racial groups in the United States, with Whites having a rate of IBD that is seven times higher than Blacks, six times higher than Hispanics, and 21 times higher than Asians.

The prevalence of IBD per 100,000 population was 812 in Whites, 504 in Blacks, 403 in Asians, and 458 in Hispanics.

“It’s important to note that the reasons for ethnic disparities in IBD prevalence are complex and multifactorial, and further research is needed to better understand the specific mechanisms underlying these disparities,” said Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.

Factors that could contribute to this disparity include genetic and environmental factors, socioeconomic factors, health care disparities, differences in disease awareness and reporting, and underdiagnosis in some populations.

The data suggest a lower prevalence of IBD among children with Medicaid insurance, “which underscores the need for further investigation into the influence of social determinants of health on IBD care,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Insights important for planning

Because of the fragmented nature of the health care system, it’s been challenging to get an accurate estimate of how many patients in the United States have IBD, said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The authors and involved organizations are to be fully complemented on this really ambitious and important study. Having an idea of how common IBD is and how it is likely to increase in prevalence is important for resource planning for organizations and health care systems,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in the study.

Although IBD incidence and prevalence is lower in non-White populations, there is still a “sizeable burden of IBD in those groups, and it’s important to understand the implications of that in terms of disease biology, treatment availability, disparities, and access to care,” he added.

“With the aging of the population and increasing prevalence, it is also important to understand that the ‘face of IBD’ in the coming decades may be different than what we traditionally have estimated it to be. This is also important to incorporate in decision-making,” Dr. Ananthakrishnan said.

Funding for the study was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo, Dr. Agrawal, and Dr. Ananthakrishnan have declared no relevant disclosures.

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

A comprehensive new analysis estimates that 2.4 million Americans have been diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and up to 56,000 new cases are diagnosed each year.

“The prevalence of IBD in the United States has been gradually increasing over the last decade, and thus the burden of caring for IBD is likely to increase as life expectancy increases,” said co-principal investigator Andrés Hurtado-Lorenzo, PhD, senior vice president, Translational Research and IBD Ventures, Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

These data provide “an initial step toward optimizing health care resources allocation and improving care of individuals with IBD,” said Manasi Agrawal, MD, a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

For the federally funded study, researchers pooled data from commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid insurance plans to derive a population-based estimate of the incidence and prevalence of IBD throughout the United States.

“In essence, we consider this to be the most extensive study of the incidence and prevalence of IBD in the United States based on physician-diagnosed IBD, which is representative of nearly the entire U.S. population with health insurance,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Trends identified

Key findings from the study include the following.

• The age- and sex-standardized incidence of IBD was 10.9 per 100,000 person years.
• The incidence of IBD peaks in the third decade of life, decreases to a relatively stable level across the fourth to eighth decades, and declines further beyond age 80.
• Ulcerative colitis is slightly more common than Crohn’s disease in most age groups, except in children, among whom this trend is reversed.
• The adjusted prevalence data show that IBD has been diagnosed in more than 0.7% of Americans, with 721 cases per 100,000, or nearly 1 in 100.
• Historically, IBD was slightly more common in men. Now it’s slightly more common in adult women and male children.
• IBD prevalence is highest in the Northeast and lowest in the western region of the United States.
• The overall prevalence of IBD increased gradually from 2011 to 2020.

“Environmental variables, such as ultra-processed foods, pollution, and urbanization, to name a few, are implicated in IBD risk. Shifts in our modern environment and improving diagnostics may be two reasons why we see rising trends in IBD,” said Dr. Agrawal, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
 

Prevalence highest among Whites

The data also point to significant differences in prevalence among different racial groups in the United States, with Whites having a rate of IBD that is seven times higher than Blacks, six times higher than Hispanics, and 21 times higher than Asians.

The prevalence of IBD per 100,000 population was 812 in Whites, 504 in Blacks, 403 in Asians, and 458 in Hispanics.

“It’s important to note that the reasons for ethnic disparities in IBD prevalence are complex and multifactorial, and further research is needed to better understand the specific mechanisms underlying these disparities,” said Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.

Factors that could contribute to this disparity include genetic and environmental factors, socioeconomic factors, health care disparities, differences in disease awareness and reporting, and underdiagnosis in some populations.

The data suggest a lower prevalence of IBD among children with Medicaid insurance, “which underscores the need for further investigation into the influence of social determinants of health on IBD care,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Insights important for planning

Because of the fragmented nature of the health care system, it’s been challenging to get an accurate estimate of how many patients in the United States have IBD, said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The authors and involved organizations are to be fully complemented on this really ambitious and important study. Having an idea of how common IBD is and how it is likely to increase in prevalence is important for resource planning for organizations and health care systems,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in the study.

Although IBD incidence and prevalence is lower in non-White populations, there is still a “sizeable burden of IBD in those groups, and it’s important to understand the implications of that in terms of disease biology, treatment availability, disparities, and access to care,” he added.

“With the aging of the population and increasing prevalence, it is also important to understand that the ‘face of IBD’ in the coming decades may be different than what we traditionally have estimated it to be. This is also important to incorporate in decision-making,” Dr. Ananthakrishnan said.

Funding for the study was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo, Dr. Agrawal, and Dr. Ananthakrishnan have declared no relevant disclosures.

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

A comprehensive new analysis estimates that 2.4 million Americans have been diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and up to 56,000 new cases are diagnosed each year.

“The prevalence of IBD in the United States has been gradually increasing over the last decade, and thus the burden of caring for IBD is likely to increase as life expectancy increases,” said co-principal investigator Andrés Hurtado-Lorenzo, PhD, senior vice president, Translational Research and IBD Ventures, Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

These data provide “an initial step toward optimizing health care resources allocation and improving care of individuals with IBD,” said Manasi Agrawal, MD, a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

For the federally funded study, researchers pooled data from commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid insurance plans to derive a population-based estimate of the incidence and prevalence of IBD throughout the United States.

“In essence, we consider this to be the most extensive study of the incidence and prevalence of IBD in the United States based on physician-diagnosed IBD, which is representative of nearly the entire U.S. population with health insurance,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Trends identified

Key findings from the study include the following.

• The age- and sex-standardized incidence of IBD was 10.9 per 100,000 person years.
• The incidence of IBD peaks in the third decade of life, decreases to a relatively stable level across the fourth to eighth decades, and declines further beyond age 80.
• Ulcerative colitis is slightly more common than Crohn’s disease in most age groups, except in children, among whom this trend is reversed.
• The adjusted prevalence data show that IBD has been diagnosed in more than 0.7% of Americans, with 721 cases per 100,000, or nearly 1 in 100.
• Historically, IBD was slightly more common in men. Now it’s slightly more common in adult women and male children.
• IBD prevalence is highest in the Northeast and lowest in the western region of the United States.
• The overall prevalence of IBD increased gradually from 2011 to 2020.

“Environmental variables, such as ultra-processed foods, pollution, and urbanization, to name a few, are implicated in IBD risk. Shifts in our modern environment and improving diagnostics may be two reasons why we see rising trends in IBD,” said Dr. Agrawal, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
 

Prevalence highest among Whites

The data also point to significant differences in prevalence among different racial groups in the United States, with Whites having a rate of IBD that is seven times higher than Blacks, six times higher than Hispanics, and 21 times higher than Asians.

The prevalence of IBD per 100,000 population was 812 in Whites, 504 in Blacks, 403 in Asians, and 458 in Hispanics.

“It’s important to note that the reasons for ethnic disparities in IBD prevalence are complex and multifactorial, and further research is needed to better understand the specific mechanisms underlying these disparities,” said Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.

Factors that could contribute to this disparity include genetic and environmental factors, socioeconomic factors, health care disparities, differences in disease awareness and reporting, and underdiagnosis in some populations.

The data suggest a lower prevalence of IBD among children with Medicaid insurance, “which underscores the need for further investigation into the influence of social determinants of health on IBD care,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Insights important for planning

Because of the fragmented nature of the health care system, it’s been challenging to get an accurate estimate of how many patients in the United States have IBD, said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The authors and involved organizations are to be fully complemented on this really ambitious and important study. Having an idea of how common IBD is and how it is likely to increase in prevalence is important for resource planning for organizations and health care systems,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in the study.

Although IBD incidence and prevalence is lower in non-White populations, there is still a “sizeable burden of IBD in those groups, and it’s important to understand the implications of that in terms of disease biology, treatment availability, disparities, and access to care,” he added.

“With the aging of the population and increasing prevalence, it is also important to understand that the ‘face of IBD’ in the coming decades may be different than what we traditionally have estimated it to be. This is also important to incorporate in decision-making,” Dr. Ananthakrishnan said.

Funding for the study was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo, Dr. Agrawal, and Dr. Ananthakrishnan have declared no relevant disclosures.

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

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease now dominates the practice of hepatology, and hepatic steatosis may be detected as an incidental finding on imaging despite normal aminotransferase levels. It is important to identify patients at risk of progressive fibrosis.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Calculation of the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score (based on age, alanine and aspartate aminotransferase [ALT and AST] levels, and platelet count by the primary care provider, using either an online calculator or the dot phrase “.fib4” in Epic) is a useful first step. If the value is low (with a high negative predictive value for advanced fibrosis), the patient does not need to be referred but can be managed for risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. If the value is high, suggesting advanced fibrosis, the patient requires further evaluation. If the value is indeterminate, options for assessing liver stiffness include vibration-controlled transient elastography (with a controlled attenuation parameter to assess the degree of steatosis) and ultrasound elastography. A low liver stiffness score argues against the need for subspecialty management. An indeterminate score may be followed by magnetic resonance elastography, if available. An alternative to elastography is the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) blood test, based on serum levels of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 1 (TIMP-1), amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen (PIIINP), and hyaluronic acid.

Dr. Friedman is the Anton R. Fried, MD, chair of the department of medicine at Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Mass., and assistant chief of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Tufts University, Boston. Dr. Martin is chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami, where he is the Mandel Chair of Gastroenterology. The authors disclose no conflicts.

Published previously in Gastro Hep Advances (doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.03.008).

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease now dominates the practice of hepatology, and hepatic steatosis may be detected as an incidental finding on imaging despite normal aminotransferase levels. It is important to identify patients at risk of progressive fibrosis.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Calculation of the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score (based on age, alanine and aspartate aminotransferase [ALT and AST] levels, and platelet count by the primary care provider, using either an online calculator or the dot phrase “.fib4” in Epic) is a useful first step. If the value is low (with a high negative predictive value for advanced fibrosis), the patient does not need to be referred but can be managed for risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. If the value is high, suggesting advanced fibrosis, the patient requires further evaluation. If the value is indeterminate, options for assessing liver stiffness include vibration-controlled transient elastography (with a controlled attenuation parameter to assess the degree of steatosis) and ultrasound elastography. A low liver stiffness score argues against the need for subspecialty management. An indeterminate score may be followed by magnetic resonance elastography, if available. An alternative to elastography is the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) blood test, based on serum levels of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 1 (TIMP-1), amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen (PIIINP), and hyaluronic acid.

Dr. Friedman is the Anton R. Fried, MD, chair of the department of medicine at Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Mass., and assistant chief of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Tufts University, Boston. Dr. Martin is chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami, where he is the Mandel Chair of Gastroenterology. The authors disclose no conflicts.

Published previously in Gastro Hep Advances (doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.03.008).

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease now dominates the practice of hepatology, and hepatic steatosis may be detected as an incidental finding on imaging despite normal aminotransferase levels. It is important to identify patients at risk of progressive fibrosis.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Calculation of the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score (based on age, alanine and aspartate aminotransferase [ALT and AST] levels, and platelet count by the primary care provider, using either an online calculator or the dot phrase “.fib4” in Epic) is a useful first step. If the value is low (with a high negative predictive value for advanced fibrosis), the patient does not need to be referred but can be managed for risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. If the value is high, suggesting advanced fibrosis, the patient requires further evaluation. If the value is indeterminate, options for assessing liver stiffness include vibration-controlled transient elastography (with a controlled attenuation parameter to assess the degree of steatosis) and ultrasound elastography. A low liver stiffness score argues against the need for subspecialty management. An indeterminate score may be followed by magnetic resonance elastography, if available. An alternative to elastography is the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) blood test, based on serum levels of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 1 (TIMP-1), amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen (PIIINP), and hyaluronic acid.

Dr. Friedman is the Anton R. Fried, MD, chair of the department of medicine at Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Mass., and assistant chief of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Tufts University, Boston. Dr. Martin is chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami, where he is the Mandel Chair of Gastroenterology. The authors disclose no conflicts.

Published previously in Gastro Hep Advances (doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.03.008).

Medications taken by prospective fathers for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) do not seem to affect fertility or birth outcomes, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The effort is the first meta-analysis to assess semen parameters and the risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancy for male patients with IBD who have taken biologics, thiopurines or methotrexate for the condition, the researchers said.

“We provide encouraging evidence that biologic, thiopurine, and methotrexate therapy among male patients with IBD are not associated with impairments in male fertility or with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes,” said the researchers, led in part by John Gubatan, MD, instructor in medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, who worked with investigators in Copenhagen and Toronto. “Taken together, our data support the safety of continuing biologics, thiopurines, or methotrexate across the reproductive spectrum.”

Questions of fertility and pregnancy outcomes are of particular importance in IBD, since patients are often diagnosed around the time of their reproductive years – about 30 years old for Crohn’s disease and 35 years old for ulcerative colitis. There has been far more research attention paid to female than male reproductive considerations, mainly the health of the fetus when the mother takes biologic therapy for IBD during pregnancy, which has generally found to be safe.

Their search found 13 studies with male IBD patients exposed to biologics, 10 exposed to thiopurines and 6 to methotrexate. Researchers extracted data on sperm count, sperm motility, and abnormal sperm morphology – three metrics considered a proxy for male fertility – as well as early pregnancy loss, preterm birth and congenital malformations.

Researchers found no differences between sperm count, motility or morphology between those exposed and not exposed to biologics, thiopurines and methotrexate, with a couple of exceptions. They actually found that sperm count was higher for thiopurine users, compared with nonusers, and there was only one study on methotrexate and abnormal sperm morphology, so there was no data to pool together for that comparison.

In a subgroup analysis, there was a trend toward higher sperm count in thiopurine users, compared with biologic or methotrexate users, but no differences were seen in the other parameters.

Similarly, there were no significant differences for users and nonusers of these medications for early pregnancy loss, preterm births or congenital malformations, the researchers found.

A prior systematic review suggested that azathioprine might be associated with low sperm count, but this new analysis calls that into question.

“Our results, which demonstrated that thiopurine use among male patients with IBD is associated with increased sperm count, refute this prior finding,” the researchers said. The previous finding, they noted, was only qualitative because the authors didn’t do an analysis to calculate effect size or determine statistical significance.

“Furthermore,” the researchers said, “our study included more updated studies and a greater number of patients.”

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Medications taken by prospective fathers for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) do not seem to affect fertility or birth outcomes, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The effort is the first meta-analysis to assess semen parameters and the risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancy for male patients with IBD who have taken biologics, thiopurines or methotrexate for the condition, the researchers said.

“We provide encouraging evidence that biologic, thiopurine, and methotrexate therapy among male patients with IBD are not associated with impairments in male fertility or with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes,” said the researchers, led in part by John Gubatan, MD, instructor in medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, who worked with investigators in Copenhagen and Toronto. “Taken together, our data support the safety of continuing biologics, thiopurines, or methotrexate across the reproductive spectrum.”

Questions of fertility and pregnancy outcomes are of particular importance in IBD, since patients are often diagnosed around the time of their reproductive years – about 30 years old for Crohn’s disease and 35 years old for ulcerative colitis. There has been far more research attention paid to female than male reproductive considerations, mainly the health of the fetus when the mother takes biologic therapy for IBD during pregnancy, which has generally found to be safe.

Their search found 13 studies with male IBD patients exposed to biologics, 10 exposed to thiopurines and 6 to methotrexate. Researchers extracted data on sperm count, sperm motility, and abnormal sperm morphology – three metrics considered a proxy for male fertility – as well as early pregnancy loss, preterm birth and congenital malformations.

Researchers found no differences between sperm count, motility or morphology between those exposed and not exposed to biologics, thiopurines and methotrexate, with a couple of exceptions. They actually found that sperm count was higher for thiopurine users, compared with nonusers, and there was only one study on methotrexate and abnormal sperm morphology, so there was no data to pool together for that comparison.

In a subgroup analysis, there was a trend toward higher sperm count in thiopurine users, compared with biologic or methotrexate users, but no differences were seen in the other parameters.

Similarly, there were no significant differences for users and nonusers of these medications for early pregnancy loss, preterm births or congenital malformations, the researchers found.

A prior systematic review suggested that azathioprine might be associated with low sperm count, but this new analysis calls that into question.

“Our results, which demonstrated that thiopurine use among male patients with IBD is associated with increased sperm count, refute this prior finding,” the researchers said. The previous finding, they noted, was only qualitative because the authors didn’t do an analysis to calculate effect size or determine statistical significance.

“Furthermore,” the researchers said, “our study included more updated studies and a greater number of patients.”

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Medications taken by prospective fathers for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) do not seem to affect fertility or birth outcomes, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The effort is the first meta-analysis to assess semen parameters and the risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancy for male patients with IBD who have taken biologics, thiopurines or methotrexate for the condition, the researchers said.

“We provide encouraging evidence that biologic, thiopurine, and methotrexate therapy among male patients with IBD are not associated with impairments in male fertility or with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes,” said the researchers, led in part by John Gubatan, MD, instructor in medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, who worked with investigators in Copenhagen and Toronto. “Taken together, our data support the safety of continuing biologics, thiopurines, or methotrexate across the reproductive spectrum.”

Questions of fertility and pregnancy outcomes are of particular importance in IBD, since patients are often diagnosed around the time of their reproductive years – about 30 years old for Crohn’s disease and 35 years old for ulcerative colitis. There has been far more research attention paid to female than male reproductive considerations, mainly the health of the fetus when the mother takes biologic therapy for IBD during pregnancy, which has generally found to be safe.

Their search found 13 studies with male IBD patients exposed to biologics, 10 exposed to thiopurines and 6 to methotrexate. Researchers extracted data on sperm count, sperm motility, and abnormal sperm morphology – three metrics considered a proxy for male fertility – as well as early pregnancy loss, preterm birth and congenital malformations.

Researchers found no differences between sperm count, motility or morphology between those exposed and not exposed to biologics, thiopurines and methotrexate, with a couple of exceptions. They actually found that sperm count was higher for thiopurine users, compared with nonusers, and there was only one study on methotrexate and abnormal sperm morphology, so there was no data to pool together for that comparison.

In a subgroup analysis, there was a trend toward higher sperm count in thiopurine users, compared with biologic or methotrexate users, but no differences were seen in the other parameters.

Similarly, there were no significant differences for users and nonusers of these medications for early pregnancy loss, preterm births or congenital malformations, the researchers found.

A prior systematic review suggested that azathioprine might be associated with low sperm count, but this new analysis calls that into question.

“Our results, which demonstrated that thiopurine use among male patients with IBD is associated with increased sperm count, refute this prior finding,” the researchers said. The previous finding, they noted, was only qualitative because the authors didn’t do an analysis to calculate effect size or determine statistical significance.

“Furthermore,” the researchers said, “our study included more updated studies and a greater number of patients.”

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Offering a blood test to people who have declined both a colonoscopy and a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) increased colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by 7.5% without decreasing use of the preferred first-line options, researchers report.

However, the number of people in the study who subsequently underwent timely colonoscopy after a positive blood test did not increase, signaling a continuing challenge in CRC prevention and treatment.

“The main message is that the blood test can do what it’s meant to do, which is increase screening uptake,” first author Peter Liang, MD, MPH, told this news organization. Dr. Liang is a gastroenterologist and researcher at NYU Langone Health and the VA New York Harbor Health Care System in New York.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In the United States, the rate of use of first-line screening has for years been stuck at about 70% or lower for eligible people, Dr. Liang said. A different modality is needed to help raise the numbers.

The blood test is easy to perform and requires only a few tubes of blood, he noted. No diet restrictions, test prep, or contact with stool is necessary.

We are all searching for ways to get that first-line screening rate up from 60% to 70% to 80% to 90%, noted Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“A lot of people think these blood tests are the promised land,” said Dr. May, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at UCLA Health. “We want to see that, when we offer these blood tests, the uptake is 20%-25% higher, which would get us closer to the national goal of 80% screened.”
 

Blood test as a second-line screening option

The study enrolled 359 veterans at a Veterans Affairs medical center. Participants were 50-75 years old and were eligible for screening but had declined a colonoscopy and a stool test within the previous 6 months.

They were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The control group received a letter and telephone outreach in which participants were again offered screening with colonoscopy or FIT only. The intervention group was additionally offered the blood test as a second-line option.

The primary outcome was completion of any screening test within 6 months. The secondary outcome was completion of a full screening strategy within 6 months, including colonoscopy for those with a positive noninvasive test result.

Of the people who had declined first-line tests and were reoffered first-line tests and the blood test, 17.1% completed screening within 6 months, compared with 9.6% of those who were only reoffered the first-line tests. The uptake of colonoscopy and FIT was similar between the two groups. The full-screening strategy was completed by 14.9% in the intervention group, compared with 9% in the control group.

At first glance, the results for uptake seem a bit disappointing, Dr. May said. However, the numbers in this study may not reflect the true potential of the blood tests – which are relatively new and have not yet been incorporated into routine care – because they had to be conducted in a separate appointment at a lab, she said.

If blood tests for CRC were part of the workflow, Dr. May explained, patients could undergo them with a routine blood draw already scheduled to check for diabetes or high cholesterol, for instance, and the numbers presumably would go up.

“I think this study underestimates the proportion of people who will participate,” she said. “We need a study that tests this strategy in a more real-world scenario.”

Nonetheless, “This is the first trial that’s looking at this question, and it’s an important question,” Dr. May added.

Dr. Liang and colleagues acknowledge that a limitation of the study is that it was performed in only one VA center among an older, predominantly male population, so it will be important to make the comparisons in more diverse study populations.
 

Blood test reliability

The septin 9 blood test is the only blood test approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CRC screening and is indicated for those who have declined first-line tests. However, the extent of usage of the blood test in this context is unclear, as it has only been approved since 2016.

Because the blood test is not covered by Medicare, Dr. Liang said, accessibility has been limited. One of the reasons for the lack of coverage is that the blood tests are less reliable than first-line tests, he said.

The test detects methylated septin 9 DNA, a biomarker for CRC. The FDA-approved version of the test has a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 79% for CRC.

Dr. May said she’d have more confidence in the blood tests if those numbers were higher, at 80%-90%.

Dr. Liang told this news organization that previous research has compared test use when colonoscopy, FIT, and a blood test are considered equally, but because the blood test is indicated only after a person declines first-line screening, his team designed an approach in which the blood test was a second-line option for its target population.

Other blood tests now on the market or under development appear to have higher sensitivity and specificity, he added.

“We think our results are actually applicable to a blood test in general,” Dr. Liang said.

Blood tests are only the first step, though. Getting people who screen positive to follow up with a diagnostic colonoscopy is critical, Dr. May and the authors agree.

“That’s something we, as a nation, just haven’t figured out,” Dr. May said. “It has to become a priority.”

The study was supported in part by the Veterans Health Administration and was funded by Epigenomics and a grant from the New York Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy’s Florence Lefcourt Endoscopy Research Award to Dr. Laing, who is also supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Liang has received research support from Epigenomics and Freenome and is on the advisory board for Guardant Health. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. May is a consultant for Exact Sciences and Geneoscopy, both of which are developing stool tests, and for Freenome, which is developing stool and blood tests.

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

Offering a blood test to people who have declined both a colonoscopy and a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) increased colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by 7.5% without decreasing use of the preferred first-line options, researchers report.

However, the number of people in the study who subsequently underwent timely colonoscopy after a positive blood test did not increase, signaling a continuing challenge in CRC prevention and treatment.

“The main message is that the blood test can do what it’s meant to do, which is increase screening uptake,” first author Peter Liang, MD, MPH, told this news organization. Dr. Liang is a gastroenterologist and researcher at NYU Langone Health and the VA New York Harbor Health Care System in New York.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In the United States, the rate of use of first-line screening has for years been stuck at about 70% or lower for eligible people, Dr. Liang said. A different modality is needed to help raise the numbers.

The blood test is easy to perform and requires only a few tubes of blood, he noted. No diet restrictions, test prep, or contact with stool is necessary.

We are all searching for ways to get that first-line screening rate up from 60% to 70% to 80% to 90%, noted Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“A lot of people think these blood tests are the promised land,” said Dr. May, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at UCLA Health. “We want to see that, when we offer these blood tests, the uptake is 20%-25% higher, which would get us closer to the national goal of 80% screened.”
 

Blood test as a second-line screening option

The study enrolled 359 veterans at a Veterans Affairs medical center. Participants were 50-75 years old and were eligible for screening but had declined a colonoscopy and a stool test within the previous 6 months.

They were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The control group received a letter and telephone outreach in which participants were again offered screening with colonoscopy or FIT only. The intervention group was additionally offered the blood test as a second-line option.

The primary outcome was completion of any screening test within 6 months. The secondary outcome was completion of a full screening strategy within 6 months, including colonoscopy for those with a positive noninvasive test result.

Of the people who had declined first-line tests and were reoffered first-line tests and the blood test, 17.1% completed screening within 6 months, compared with 9.6% of those who were only reoffered the first-line tests. The uptake of colonoscopy and FIT was similar between the two groups. The full-screening strategy was completed by 14.9% in the intervention group, compared with 9% in the control group.

At first glance, the results for uptake seem a bit disappointing, Dr. May said. However, the numbers in this study may not reflect the true potential of the blood tests – which are relatively new and have not yet been incorporated into routine care – because they had to be conducted in a separate appointment at a lab, she said.

If blood tests for CRC were part of the workflow, Dr. May explained, patients could undergo them with a routine blood draw already scheduled to check for diabetes or high cholesterol, for instance, and the numbers presumably would go up.

“I think this study underestimates the proportion of people who will participate,” she said. “We need a study that tests this strategy in a more real-world scenario.”

Nonetheless, “This is the first trial that’s looking at this question, and it’s an important question,” Dr. May added.

Dr. Liang and colleagues acknowledge that a limitation of the study is that it was performed in only one VA center among an older, predominantly male population, so it will be important to make the comparisons in more diverse study populations.
 

Blood test reliability

The septin 9 blood test is the only blood test approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CRC screening and is indicated for those who have declined first-line tests. However, the extent of usage of the blood test in this context is unclear, as it has only been approved since 2016.

Because the blood test is not covered by Medicare, Dr. Liang said, accessibility has been limited. One of the reasons for the lack of coverage is that the blood tests are less reliable than first-line tests, he said.

The test detects methylated septin 9 DNA, a biomarker for CRC. The FDA-approved version of the test has a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 79% for CRC.

Dr. May said she’d have more confidence in the blood tests if those numbers were higher, at 80%-90%.

Dr. Liang told this news organization that previous research has compared test use when colonoscopy, FIT, and a blood test are considered equally, but because the blood test is indicated only after a person declines first-line screening, his team designed an approach in which the blood test was a second-line option for its target population.

Other blood tests now on the market or under development appear to have higher sensitivity and specificity, he added.

“We think our results are actually applicable to a blood test in general,” Dr. Liang said.

Blood tests are only the first step, though. Getting people who screen positive to follow up with a diagnostic colonoscopy is critical, Dr. May and the authors agree.

“That’s something we, as a nation, just haven’t figured out,” Dr. May said. “It has to become a priority.”

The study was supported in part by the Veterans Health Administration and was funded by Epigenomics and a grant from the New York Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy’s Florence Lefcourt Endoscopy Research Award to Dr. Laing, who is also supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Liang has received research support from Epigenomics and Freenome and is on the advisory board for Guardant Health. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. May is a consultant for Exact Sciences and Geneoscopy, both of which are developing stool tests, and for Freenome, which is developing stool and blood tests.

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

Offering a blood test to people who have declined both a colonoscopy and a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) increased colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by 7.5% without decreasing use of the preferred first-line options, researchers report.

However, the number of people in the study who subsequently underwent timely colonoscopy after a positive blood test did not increase, signaling a continuing challenge in CRC prevention and treatment.

“The main message is that the blood test can do what it’s meant to do, which is increase screening uptake,” first author Peter Liang, MD, MPH, told this news organization. Dr. Liang is a gastroenterologist and researcher at NYU Langone Health and the VA New York Harbor Health Care System in New York.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In the United States, the rate of use of first-line screening has for years been stuck at about 70% or lower for eligible people, Dr. Liang said. A different modality is needed to help raise the numbers.

The blood test is easy to perform and requires only a few tubes of blood, he noted. No diet restrictions, test prep, or contact with stool is necessary.

We are all searching for ways to get that first-line screening rate up from 60% to 70% to 80% to 90%, noted Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“A lot of people think these blood tests are the promised land,” said Dr. May, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at UCLA Health. “We want to see that, when we offer these blood tests, the uptake is 20%-25% higher, which would get us closer to the national goal of 80% screened.”
 

Blood test as a second-line screening option

The study enrolled 359 veterans at a Veterans Affairs medical center. Participants were 50-75 years old and were eligible for screening but had declined a colonoscopy and a stool test within the previous 6 months.

They were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The control group received a letter and telephone outreach in which participants were again offered screening with colonoscopy or FIT only. The intervention group was additionally offered the blood test as a second-line option.

The primary outcome was completion of any screening test within 6 months. The secondary outcome was completion of a full screening strategy within 6 months, including colonoscopy for those with a positive noninvasive test result.

Of the people who had declined first-line tests and were reoffered first-line tests and the blood test, 17.1% completed screening within 6 months, compared with 9.6% of those who were only reoffered the first-line tests. The uptake of colonoscopy and FIT was similar between the two groups. The full-screening strategy was completed by 14.9% in the intervention group, compared with 9% in the control group.

At first glance, the results for uptake seem a bit disappointing, Dr. May said. However, the numbers in this study may not reflect the true potential of the blood tests – which are relatively new and have not yet been incorporated into routine care – because they had to be conducted in a separate appointment at a lab, she said.

If blood tests for CRC were part of the workflow, Dr. May explained, patients could undergo them with a routine blood draw already scheduled to check for diabetes or high cholesterol, for instance, and the numbers presumably would go up.

“I think this study underestimates the proportion of people who will participate,” she said. “We need a study that tests this strategy in a more real-world scenario.”

Nonetheless, “This is the first trial that’s looking at this question, and it’s an important question,” Dr. May added.

Dr. Liang and colleagues acknowledge that a limitation of the study is that it was performed in only one VA center among an older, predominantly male population, so it will be important to make the comparisons in more diverse study populations.
 

Blood test reliability

The septin 9 blood test is the only blood test approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CRC screening and is indicated for those who have declined first-line tests. However, the extent of usage of the blood test in this context is unclear, as it has only been approved since 2016.

Because the blood test is not covered by Medicare, Dr. Liang said, accessibility has been limited. One of the reasons for the lack of coverage is that the blood tests are less reliable than first-line tests, he said.

The test detects methylated septin 9 DNA, a biomarker for CRC. The FDA-approved version of the test has a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 79% for CRC.

Dr. May said she’d have more confidence in the blood tests if those numbers were higher, at 80%-90%.

Dr. Liang told this news organization that previous research has compared test use when colonoscopy, FIT, and a blood test are considered equally, but because the blood test is indicated only after a person declines first-line screening, his team designed an approach in which the blood test was a second-line option for its target population.

Other blood tests now on the market or under development appear to have higher sensitivity and specificity, he added.

“We think our results are actually applicable to a blood test in general,” Dr. Liang said.

Blood tests are only the first step, though. Getting people who screen positive to follow up with a diagnostic colonoscopy is critical, Dr. May and the authors agree.

“That’s something we, as a nation, just haven’t figured out,” Dr. May said. “It has to become a priority.”

The study was supported in part by the Veterans Health Administration and was funded by Epigenomics and a grant from the New York Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy’s Florence Lefcourt Endoscopy Research Award to Dr. Laing, who is also supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Liang has received research support from Epigenomics and Freenome and is on the advisory board for Guardant Health. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. May is a consultant for Exact Sciences and Geneoscopy, both of which are developing stool tests, and for Freenome, which is developing stool and blood tests.

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

TOPLINE:

A new study provides reassurance about the long-term safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) use in older adults, finding no increased risk for dementia or cognitive changes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Post hoc observational study within the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial.
• 18,934 adults aged 65+ from the United States and Australia without dementia at baseline.
• 4,667 (25%) PPI users and 368 (2%) H2RA users at baseline.
• PPI and H2RA use, dementia incidence, and cognitive changes were tracked.

TAKEAWAY:

• In multivariable analysis, baseline PPI use was not associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio, 0.88) or cognitive impairment (HR, 1.00).
• PPI use was not linked to changes in overall cognitive test scores over time (beta –0.002).
• No associations were found between H2RA use and cognitive endpoints.

IN PRACTICE:

“Long-term use of PPIs in older adults is unlikely to have negative effects on cognition,” the study team concludes.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Raaj Mehta, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. The study was published online in Gastroenterology. Funding was provided by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, and other institutions.

LIMITATIONS:

Potential for residual confounding and underestimation of PPI and H2RA use, lack of data on medication dose and duration, and the absence of ApoE4 allele status.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Mehta has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A new study provides reassurance about the long-term safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) use in older adults, finding no increased risk for dementia or cognitive changes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Post hoc observational study within the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial.
• 18,934 adults aged 65+ from the United States and Australia without dementia at baseline.
• 4,667 (25%) PPI users and 368 (2%) H2RA users at baseline.
• PPI and H2RA use, dementia incidence, and cognitive changes were tracked.

TAKEAWAY:

• In multivariable analysis, baseline PPI use was not associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio, 0.88) or cognitive impairment (HR, 1.00).
• PPI use was not linked to changes in overall cognitive test scores over time (beta –0.002).
• No associations were found between H2RA use and cognitive endpoints.

IN PRACTICE:

“Long-term use of PPIs in older adults is unlikely to have negative effects on cognition,” the study team concludes.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Raaj Mehta, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. The study was published online in Gastroenterology. Funding was provided by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, and other institutions.

LIMITATIONS:

Potential for residual confounding and underestimation of PPI and H2RA use, lack of data on medication dose and duration, and the absence of ApoE4 allele status.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Mehta has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A new study provides reassurance about the long-term safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) use in older adults, finding no increased risk for dementia or cognitive changes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Post hoc observational study within the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial.
• 18,934 adults aged 65+ from the United States and Australia without dementia at baseline.
• 4,667 (25%) PPI users and 368 (2%) H2RA users at baseline.
• PPI and H2RA use, dementia incidence, and cognitive changes were tracked.

TAKEAWAY:

• In multivariable analysis, baseline PPI use was not associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio, 0.88) or cognitive impairment (HR, 1.00).
• PPI use was not linked to changes in overall cognitive test scores over time (beta –0.002).
• No associations were found between H2RA use and cognitive endpoints.

IN PRACTICE:

“Long-term use of PPIs in older adults is unlikely to have negative effects on cognition,” the study team concludes.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Raaj Mehta, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. The study was published online in Gastroenterology. Funding was provided by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, and other institutions.

LIMITATIONS:

Potential for residual confounding and underestimation of PPI and H2RA use, lack of data on medication dose and duration, and the absence of ApoE4 allele status.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Mehta has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Almost one-third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated at academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies may be nonadherent to biologic therapy, resulting in more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, based on a retrospective study.

Nonadherence became increasingly common in the presence of four previously reported risk factors, including smoking status, narcotic use, psychiatric history, and prior biologic use, reported lead author Lauren A. George, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Identifying patients at risk for nonadherence is important to develop strategies to improve adherence,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “The aim of this analysis was to evaluate adherence across several academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies, to assess if previously identified risk factors for nonadherence remained significant across several diverse IBD centers, and to evaluate outcomes associated with nonadherence.”

Three tertiary care IBD clinics provided data from 608 patients with IBD. Inclusion required at least three consecutive prescription claims. All biologics were self-injectable, including adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab.

Primary outcomes were medication possession ratio (MPR) and adherence, with nonadherence defined by an MPR lower than 0.86. Secondary outcomes included ED visits and hospitalizations.

After a median follow-up period of 903 days, the overall MPR was 0.95, with adherence of 68%-70%, which is considered “high,” according to Dr. George and colleagues, as it exceeds previously reported national adherence rates.

“[Findings were] similar across all centers, geographic regions, and patient demographics,” the investigators noted.

The four previously described risk factors did in fact predict nonadherence, with likelihood of nonadherence significantly increasing with each additional risk factor present. Patients with all four risk factors had less than 50% adherence.

Nonadherence was also significantly associated with more ED visits and hospitalizations, highlighting “the impact of biologic adherence on direct patient outcomes and healthcare costs,” the investigators wrote.

“All healthcare industry stakeholders including healthcare systems, manufacturers, and third-party benefit providers need to understand the importance of improving patient adherence,” Dr. George and colleagues concluded. “Decreasing barriers to self-injectable medication acquisition, increasing direct patient interaction with integrated pharmacy teams, and comprehensive patient education are a start to improving patient adherence. In addition, we propose that enhanced care pathways for patients with risk factors for nonadherence would improve adherence and outcomes.”

No funding was reported. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, and others.

This article was updated 7/13/23.

Almost one-third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated at academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies may be nonadherent to biologic therapy, resulting in more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, based on a retrospective study.

Nonadherence became increasingly common in the presence of four previously reported risk factors, including smoking status, narcotic use, psychiatric history, and prior biologic use, reported lead author Lauren A. George, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Identifying patients at risk for nonadherence is important to develop strategies to improve adherence,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “The aim of this analysis was to evaluate adherence across several academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies, to assess if previously identified risk factors for nonadherence remained significant across several diverse IBD centers, and to evaluate outcomes associated with nonadherence.”

Three tertiary care IBD clinics provided data from 608 patients with IBD. Inclusion required at least three consecutive prescription claims. All biologics were self-injectable, including adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab.

Primary outcomes were medication possession ratio (MPR) and adherence, with nonadherence defined by an MPR lower than 0.86. Secondary outcomes included ED visits and hospitalizations.

After a median follow-up period of 903 days, the overall MPR was 0.95, with adherence of 68%-70%, which is considered “high,” according to Dr. George and colleagues, as it exceeds previously reported national adherence rates.

“[Findings were] similar across all centers, geographic regions, and patient demographics,” the investigators noted.

The four previously described risk factors did in fact predict nonadherence, with likelihood of nonadherence significantly increasing with each additional risk factor present. Patients with all four risk factors had less than 50% adherence.

Nonadherence was also significantly associated with more ED visits and hospitalizations, highlighting “the impact of biologic adherence on direct patient outcomes and healthcare costs,” the investigators wrote.

“All healthcare industry stakeholders including healthcare systems, manufacturers, and third-party benefit providers need to understand the importance of improving patient adherence,” Dr. George and colleagues concluded. “Decreasing barriers to self-injectable medication acquisition, increasing direct patient interaction with integrated pharmacy teams, and comprehensive patient education are a start to improving patient adherence. In addition, we propose that enhanced care pathways for patients with risk factors for nonadherence would improve adherence and outcomes.”

No funding was reported. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, and others.

This article was updated 7/13/23.

Almost one-third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated at academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies may be nonadherent to biologic therapy, resulting in more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, based on a retrospective study.

Nonadherence became increasingly common in the presence of four previously reported risk factors, including smoking status, narcotic use, psychiatric history, and prior biologic use, reported lead author Lauren A. George, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Identifying patients at risk for nonadherence is important to develop strategies to improve adherence,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “The aim of this analysis was to evaluate adherence across several academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies, to assess if previously identified risk factors for nonadherence remained significant across several diverse IBD centers, and to evaluate outcomes associated with nonadherence.”

Three tertiary care IBD clinics provided data from 608 patients with IBD. Inclusion required at least three consecutive prescription claims. All biologics were self-injectable, including adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab.

Primary outcomes were medication possession ratio (MPR) and adherence, with nonadherence defined by an MPR lower than 0.86. Secondary outcomes included ED visits and hospitalizations.

After a median follow-up period of 903 days, the overall MPR was 0.95, with adherence of 68%-70%, which is considered “high,” according to Dr. George and colleagues, as it exceeds previously reported national adherence rates.

“[Findings were] similar across all centers, geographic regions, and patient demographics,” the investigators noted.

The four previously described risk factors did in fact predict nonadherence, with likelihood of nonadherence significantly increasing with each additional risk factor present. Patients with all four risk factors had less than 50% adherence.

Nonadherence was also significantly associated with more ED visits and hospitalizations, highlighting “the impact of biologic adherence on direct patient outcomes and healthcare costs,” the investigators wrote.

“All healthcare industry stakeholders including healthcare systems, manufacturers, and third-party benefit providers need to understand the importance of improving patient adherence,” Dr. George and colleagues concluded. “Decreasing barriers to self-injectable medication acquisition, increasing direct patient interaction with integrated pharmacy teams, and comprehensive patient education are a start to improving patient adherence. In addition, we propose that enhanced care pathways for patients with risk factors for nonadherence would improve adherence and outcomes.”

No funding was reported. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, and others.

This article was updated 7/13/23.