User login
Fecal Hemoglobin Levels From Negative FITs Signal CRC Risk
, according to a large international dose-response meta-analysis.
Although the association with neoplasia decreased as f-Hb levels rose, the findings support the development of risk-stratified screening strategies based on these concentrations, according to researchers led by Danica M.N. van den Berg, MSc, a PhD candidate and econometrics researcher in the Department of Public Health at Erasmus MC, University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Higher f-Hb concentrations in prior negative screening tests are strongly associated with an increased risk of detecting colorectal neoplasia in subsequent screenings, van den Berg said in an interview. “Gastroenterologists and other clinicians should consider the value of f-Hb concentrations in refining screening protocols and personalizing patient care to detect colorectal neoplasia earlier and more accurately.”
Published in Gastroenterology, the study was prompted by prior research showing individuals with f-Hb concentrations just below the positivity cutoff had an elevated CRC risk vs those with low or no f-Hb. “However, global variations in FIT positivity cutoffs and f-Hb category definitions complicated cross-study comparisons,” van den Berg said. Given the lack of an established dose-response relationship, the study aimed to clarify how f-Hb levels in previous screenings correlate with colorectal neoplasia detection. “Understanding this relationship is crucial for developing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening strategies based on prior FIT results, which could improve the harm-benefit balance of screening,” she said.
According to van den Berg, f-Hb concentrations could help determine optimal CRC screening intervals by identifying higher-risk individuals who could benefit from more frequent testing, while those with lower concentrations could be screened less frequently.
Study Details
The systematic review and meta-analysis are the first to focus on the dose-response relationship between f-Hb levels in prior FIT screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection, van den Berg said. It included 13 ethnically diverse studies published during 2011-2023 with 4,493,223 individuals from Spain, France, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, Korea, Italy, and Norway. Most studies were cohort-based, and one was a randomized controlled trial.
All studies demonstrated a positive association between f-Hb in previous screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection. Almost all reported the f-Hb concentration measured in the prior screening round, while one study combined the f-Hb concentration of two previous screening rounds by using the cumulative f-Hb value. There was, however, wide variability in the stool positivity cut-offs in the included studies, ranging from 10 μg f-Hb/g to 80 μg f-Hb/g.
With an overall effect size of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.59-0.79), pooled analysis revealed that in the next screening round, individuals with f-Hb concentrations in stool of 5, 10, 20, and 40 μg/g had a threefold, fivefold, eightfold, and 13-fold higher risk for colorectal neoplasia, respectively, vs individuals showing 0 μg/g. Although there was significant study heterogeneity (I2 = 97.5%, P < .001), sensitivity analyses confirmed the consistency of findings. Interestingly, subgroup analyses indicated that f-Hb concentrations from a previous negative test were especially predictive of advanced neoplasia in subsequent screenings.
“This is a strategy worth pursuing and evaluating in the United States,” said gastroenterologist Theodore R. Levin, MD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Northern California, commenting on the study but not involved in it. “However, there is no currently available FIT brand in the US that reports f-Hb concentration. All FITs in the US report as a qualitative positive-negative result.”
The Dutch investigation aligns with prior studies demonstrating a positive association between f-Hb concentrations in previous screenings and the detection of colorectal neoplasia. “Our working hypothesis was that risk increases in a decreasing manner as f-Hb concentrations rise, and the findings supported this hypothesis,” van den Berg said.
Other research has projected f-Hb level risk stratification to be effective and perhaps cost-effective in reducing delayed diagnosis of CRC.
Feasibility of Implementation
In large national screening programs in Europe, Asia, and Australia, as well as those of Kaiser Permanente and the Veterans Health Administration in the United States, information on f-Hb concentrations is already available.
“Therefore, incorporating an Hb-based approach should be relatively easy and affordable,” van den Berg said, and may help to optimize resource use while maintaining high detection rates. “However, the more critical question is whether such an approach would be acceptable to the target population.” To that end, randomized controlled trials in Italy and the Netherlands are offering tailored invitation intervals based on prior f-Hb concentrations and may provide insight into the real-world application of risk-stratified screening.
Among the many variables to be considered in the context of population-wide screening are cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and practicality, as well as invitation intervals, positivity cut-off levels, and start and stop ages for screening. “A key focus will be understanding the acceptability of risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening based on f-Hb among the target population and addressing any information needs they may have, as these are critical factors for successful implementation,” said van den Berg. Her group is currently studying the most effective and cost-effective risk-based strategy for CRC screening based on f-Hb levels.
The authors cautioned that since individuals with undetectable f-Hb levels make up the majority of those with negative FIT results, care must be taken that reducing screening frequency for this low-risk group does not lead to unfavorable outcomes at the population level.
This study was funded by the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research, which had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing.
The authors declared no competing interests. Levin disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a large international dose-response meta-analysis.
Although the association with neoplasia decreased as f-Hb levels rose, the findings support the development of risk-stratified screening strategies based on these concentrations, according to researchers led by Danica M.N. van den Berg, MSc, a PhD candidate and econometrics researcher in the Department of Public Health at Erasmus MC, University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Higher f-Hb concentrations in prior negative screening tests are strongly associated with an increased risk of detecting colorectal neoplasia in subsequent screenings, van den Berg said in an interview. “Gastroenterologists and other clinicians should consider the value of f-Hb concentrations in refining screening protocols and personalizing patient care to detect colorectal neoplasia earlier and more accurately.”
Published in Gastroenterology, the study was prompted by prior research showing individuals with f-Hb concentrations just below the positivity cutoff had an elevated CRC risk vs those with low or no f-Hb. “However, global variations in FIT positivity cutoffs and f-Hb category definitions complicated cross-study comparisons,” van den Berg said. Given the lack of an established dose-response relationship, the study aimed to clarify how f-Hb levels in previous screenings correlate with colorectal neoplasia detection. “Understanding this relationship is crucial for developing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening strategies based on prior FIT results, which could improve the harm-benefit balance of screening,” she said.
According to van den Berg, f-Hb concentrations could help determine optimal CRC screening intervals by identifying higher-risk individuals who could benefit from more frequent testing, while those with lower concentrations could be screened less frequently.
Study Details
The systematic review and meta-analysis are the first to focus on the dose-response relationship between f-Hb levels in prior FIT screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection, van den Berg said. It included 13 ethnically diverse studies published during 2011-2023 with 4,493,223 individuals from Spain, France, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, Korea, Italy, and Norway. Most studies were cohort-based, and one was a randomized controlled trial.
All studies demonstrated a positive association between f-Hb in previous screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection. Almost all reported the f-Hb concentration measured in the prior screening round, while one study combined the f-Hb concentration of two previous screening rounds by using the cumulative f-Hb value. There was, however, wide variability in the stool positivity cut-offs in the included studies, ranging from 10 μg f-Hb/g to 80 μg f-Hb/g.
With an overall effect size of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.59-0.79), pooled analysis revealed that in the next screening round, individuals with f-Hb concentrations in stool of 5, 10, 20, and 40 μg/g had a threefold, fivefold, eightfold, and 13-fold higher risk for colorectal neoplasia, respectively, vs individuals showing 0 μg/g. Although there was significant study heterogeneity (I2 = 97.5%, P < .001), sensitivity analyses confirmed the consistency of findings. Interestingly, subgroup analyses indicated that f-Hb concentrations from a previous negative test were especially predictive of advanced neoplasia in subsequent screenings.
“This is a strategy worth pursuing and evaluating in the United States,” said gastroenterologist Theodore R. Levin, MD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Northern California, commenting on the study but not involved in it. “However, there is no currently available FIT brand in the US that reports f-Hb concentration. All FITs in the US report as a qualitative positive-negative result.”
The Dutch investigation aligns with prior studies demonstrating a positive association between f-Hb concentrations in previous screenings and the detection of colorectal neoplasia. “Our working hypothesis was that risk increases in a decreasing manner as f-Hb concentrations rise, and the findings supported this hypothesis,” van den Berg said.
Other research has projected f-Hb level risk stratification to be effective and perhaps cost-effective in reducing delayed diagnosis of CRC.
Feasibility of Implementation
In large national screening programs in Europe, Asia, and Australia, as well as those of Kaiser Permanente and the Veterans Health Administration in the United States, information on f-Hb concentrations is already available.
“Therefore, incorporating an Hb-based approach should be relatively easy and affordable,” van den Berg said, and may help to optimize resource use while maintaining high detection rates. “However, the more critical question is whether such an approach would be acceptable to the target population.” To that end, randomized controlled trials in Italy and the Netherlands are offering tailored invitation intervals based on prior f-Hb concentrations and may provide insight into the real-world application of risk-stratified screening.
Among the many variables to be considered in the context of population-wide screening are cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and practicality, as well as invitation intervals, positivity cut-off levels, and start and stop ages for screening. “A key focus will be understanding the acceptability of risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening based on f-Hb among the target population and addressing any information needs they may have, as these are critical factors for successful implementation,” said van den Berg. Her group is currently studying the most effective and cost-effective risk-based strategy for CRC screening based on f-Hb levels.
The authors cautioned that since individuals with undetectable f-Hb levels make up the majority of those with negative FIT results, care must be taken that reducing screening frequency for this low-risk group does not lead to unfavorable outcomes at the population level.
This study was funded by the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research, which had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing.
The authors declared no competing interests. Levin disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a large international dose-response meta-analysis.
Although the association with neoplasia decreased as f-Hb levels rose, the findings support the development of risk-stratified screening strategies based on these concentrations, according to researchers led by Danica M.N. van den Berg, MSc, a PhD candidate and econometrics researcher in the Department of Public Health at Erasmus MC, University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Higher f-Hb concentrations in prior negative screening tests are strongly associated with an increased risk of detecting colorectal neoplasia in subsequent screenings, van den Berg said in an interview. “Gastroenterologists and other clinicians should consider the value of f-Hb concentrations in refining screening protocols and personalizing patient care to detect colorectal neoplasia earlier and more accurately.”
Published in Gastroenterology, the study was prompted by prior research showing individuals with f-Hb concentrations just below the positivity cutoff had an elevated CRC risk vs those with low or no f-Hb. “However, global variations in FIT positivity cutoffs and f-Hb category definitions complicated cross-study comparisons,” van den Berg said. Given the lack of an established dose-response relationship, the study aimed to clarify how f-Hb levels in previous screenings correlate with colorectal neoplasia detection. “Understanding this relationship is crucial for developing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening strategies based on prior FIT results, which could improve the harm-benefit balance of screening,” she said.
According to van den Berg, f-Hb concentrations could help determine optimal CRC screening intervals by identifying higher-risk individuals who could benefit from more frequent testing, while those with lower concentrations could be screened less frequently.
Study Details
The systematic review and meta-analysis are the first to focus on the dose-response relationship between f-Hb levels in prior FIT screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection, van den Berg said. It included 13 ethnically diverse studies published during 2011-2023 with 4,493,223 individuals from Spain, France, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, Korea, Italy, and Norway. Most studies were cohort-based, and one was a randomized controlled trial.
All studies demonstrated a positive association between f-Hb in previous screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection. Almost all reported the f-Hb concentration measured in the prior screening round, while one study combined the f-Hb concentration of two previous screening rounds by using the cumulative f-Hb value. There was, however, wide variability in the stool positivity cut-offs in the included studies, ranging from 10 μg f-Hb/g to 80 μg f-Hb/g.
With an overall effect size of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.59-0.79), pooled analysis revealed that in the next screening round, individuals with f-Hb concentrations in stool of 5, 10, 20, and 40 μg/g had a threefold, fivefold, eightfold, and 13-fold higher risk for colorectal neoplasia, respectively, vs individuals showing 0 μg/g. Although there was significant study heterogeneity (I2 = 97.5%, P < .001), sensitivity analyses confirmed the consistency of findings. Interestingly, subgroup analyses indicated that f-Hb concentrations from a previous negative test were especially predictive of advanced neoplasia in subsequent screenings.
“This is a strategy worth pursuing and evaluating in the United States,” said gastroenterologist Theodore R. Levin, MD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Northern California, commenting on the study but not involved in it. “However, there is no currently available FIT brand in the US that reports f-Hb concentration. All FITs in the US report as a qualitative positive-negative result.”
The Dutch investigation aligns with prior studies demonstrating a positive association between f-Hb concentrations in previous screenings and the detection of colorectal neoplasia. “Our working hypothesis was that risk increases in a decreasing manner as f-Hb concentrations rise, and the findings supported this hypothesis,” van den Berg said.
Other research has projected f-Hb level risk stratification to be effective and perhaps cost-effective in reducing delayed diagnosis of CRC.
Feasibility of Implementation
In large national screening programs in Europe, Asia, and Australia, as well as those of Kaiser Permanente and the Veterans Health Administration in the United States, information on f-Hb concentrations is already available.
“Therefore, incorporating an Hb-based approach should be relatively easy and affordable,” van den Berg said, and may help to optimize resource use while maintaining high detection rates. “However, the more critical question is whether such an approach would be acceptable to the target population.” To that end, randomized controlled trials in Italy and the Netherlands are offering tailored invitation intervals based on prior f-Hb concentrations and may provide insight into the real-world application of risk-stratified screening.
Among the many variables to be considered in the context of population-wide screening are cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and practicality, as well as invitation intervals, positivity cut-off levels, and start and stop ages for screening. “A key focus will be understanding the acceptability of risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening based on f-Hb among the target population and addressing any information needs they may have, as these are critical factors for successful implementation,” said van den Berg. Her group is currently studying the most effective and cost-effective risk-based strategy for CRC screening based on f-Hb levels.
The authors cautioned that since individuals with undetectable f-Hb levels make up the majority of those with negative FIT results, care must be taken that reducing screening frequency for this low-risk group does not lead to unfavorable outcomes at the population level.
This study was funded by the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research, which had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing.
The authors declared no competing interests. Levin disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Random Biopsy Improves IBD Dysplasia Detection, With Caveats
according to a recent review and meta-analysis.
Random biopsies collected in studies after 2011 provided limited additional yield, suggesting that high-definition equipment alone may be sufficient to achieve a high detection rate, lead author Li Gao, MD, of Air Force Medical University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues reported. In contrast, patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) consistently benefited from random biopsy, offering clearer support for use in this subgroup.
“Random biopsy has been proposed as a strategy that may detect dysplastic lesions that cannot be identified endoscopically, thus minimizing the occurrence of missed colitis-associated dysplasia during colonoscopy,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. However, the role of random biopsies in colonoscopic surveillance for patients with IBD remains a topic of ongoing debate.”
The SCENIC guidelines remain inconclusive on the role of random biopsy in IBD surveillance, the investigators noted, while other guidelines recommend random biopsy with high-definition white light endoscopy, but not chromoendoscopy.
The present meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of random biopsy on dysplasia detection. The investigators aggregated prospective and retrospective studies published in English through September 2023, all of which compared random biopsy with other surveillance techniques and reported the proportion of dysplasia detected exclusively through random biopsy.
“To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and meta-analysis was the first comprehensive summary of the additional yield of random biopsy during colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with IBD,” Dr. Gao and colleagues noted.
The final dataset comprised 37 studies with 9,051 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance for IBD. Patients had diverse baseline characteristics, including different proportions of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, as well as varying prevalence of PSC, a known risk factor for colorectal neoplasia.
The pooled additional yield of random biopsy was 10.34% in per-patient analysis and 16.20% in per-lesion analysis, meaning that approximately 1 in 10 patients and 1 in 6 lesions were detected exclusively through random biopsy. Despite these benefits, detection rates were relatively low: 1.31% per patient and 2.82% per lesion.
Subgroup analyses showed a decline in random biopsy additional yield over time. Studies conducted before 2011 reported an additional yield of 14.43% in per-patient analysis, compared to just 0.42% in studies conducted after 2011. This decline coincided with the widespread adoption of high-definition endoscopy.
PSC status strongly influenced detection rates throughout the study period. In patients without PSC (0%-10% PSC prevalence), the additional yield of random biopsy was 4.83% in per-patient analysis and 11.23% in per-lesion analysis. In studies where all patients had PSC, the additional yield increased dramatically to 56.05% and 45.22%, respectively.
“These findings highlight the incremental benefits of random biopsy and provide valuable insights into the management of endoscopic surveillance in patients with IBD,” the investigators wrote. “Considering the decreased additional yields in studies initiated after 2011, and the influence of PSC, endoscopy centers lacking full high-definition equipment should consider incorporating random biopsy in the standard colonoscopy surveillance for IBD patients, especially in those with PSC.”This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province, and the Nanchang High-Level Scientific and Technological Innovation Talents “Double Hundred Plan” project. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) with colonic involvement are at two- to threefold increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with the general population. The development and progression of dysplasia in these patients with IBD does not follow the typical adenoma-carcinoma sequence; rather, patients with IBD at increased risk of colorectal cancer may have field cancerization changes. Historically, these mucosal changes have been difficult to visualize endoscopically, at least with standard definition endoscopes. As a result, systematic, four-quadrant, random biopsies — 8 in each segment of the colon, totaling to 32 biopsies — are recommended for dysplasia detection. The practice has been adopted and accepted widely. Over time, there have been significant advancements in the management of IBD, with improved colonoscopic resolution, adjunct surveillance techniques, focus on quality of colonoscopic exams and evolution of treatments and treatment targets, and these have resulted in a reduction in the risk of CRC in patients with IBD. The value of random biopsies for dysplasia surveillance in patients with colonic IBD has been questioned.
In this context, the systematic review and meta-analysis from Gao and colleagues provides critical insights into the yield of random biopsies for dysplasia surveillance in patients with IBD. Through a detailed analysis of 37 studies published between 2003 to 2023, with 9051 patients who underwent dysplasia surveillance with random biopsies, they ascertained the incremental yield of random biopsies. Overall, 1.3% of patients who underwent random biopsies were detected to have dysplasia. Of these, 1 in 10 patients were detected to have dysplasia only on random biopsies. On per-lesion analysis, one in six dysplastic lesions were only detected on random biopsies. Interestingly, this yield of random biopsies varied markedly depending on the era, as a surrogate for quality of colonoscopies. In studies that fully enrolled and published before 2011 (majority of patients recruited in the 1990s to early 2000s), the per-patient incremental yield of random biopsies was 14%; this dropped precipitously to 0.4% in studies published after 2011 (majority of patients recruited in late 2000s to 2010s). The incremental yield of random biopsies remained markedly high in studies with a high proportion of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), a condition consistently associated with a four- to sixfold higher risk of CRC in patients with IBD.
These findings lend support to the notion that improvements in endoscopy equipment with wide adoption of high-definition white-light colonoscopes and an emphasis on quality of endoscopic examination may be leading to better endoscopic detection of previously “invisible” dysplastic lesions, leading to a markedly lower incremental yield of random biopsies in the current era. This questions the utility of routinely collecting 32 random biopsies during a surveillance exam for a patient with IBD at increased risk of CRC (as long as a thorough high-quality exam is being performed), though there may be subpopulations such as patients with PSC where there may be benefit. Large ongoing trials comparing the yield of targeted biopsies vs random and targeted biopsies in patients with IBD undergoing dysplasia surveillance with high-definition colonoscopes will help to definitively address this question.
Siddharth Singh, MD, MS, is associate professor of medicine and director of the UCSD IBD Center in the division of gastroenterology, University of California, San Diego. He declares no conflicts of interest relative to this article.
Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) with colonic involvement are at two- to threefold increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with the general population. The development and progression of dysplasia in these patients with IBD does not follow the typical adenoma-carcinoma sequence; rather, patients with IBD at increased risk of colorectal cancer may have field cancerization changes. Historically, these mucosal changes have been difficult to visualize endoscopically, at least with standard definition endoscopes. As a result, systematic, four-quadrant, random biopsies — 8 in each segment of the colon, totaling to 32 biopsies — are recommended for dysplasia detection. The practice has been adopted and accepted widely. Over time, there have been significant advancements in the management of IBD, with improved colonoscopic resolution, adjunct surveillance techniques, focus on quality of colonoscopic exams and evolution of treatments and treatment targets, and these have resulted in a reduction in the risk of CRC in patients with IBD. The value of random biopsies for dysplasia surveillance in patients with colonic IBD has been questioned.
In this context, the systematic review and meta-analysis from Gao and colleagues provides critical insights into the yield of random biopsies for dysplasia surveillance in patients with IBD. Through a detailed analysis of 37 studies published between 2003 to 2023, with 9051 patients who underwent dysplasia surveillance with random biopsies, they ascertained the incremental yield of random biopsies. Overall, 1.3% of patients who underwent random biopsies were detected to have dysplasia. Of these, 1 in 10 patients were detected to have dysplasia only on random biopsies. On per-lesion analysis, one in six dysplastic lesions were only detected on random biopsies. Interestingly, this yield of random biopsies varied markedly depending on the era, as a surrogate for quality of colonoscopies. In studies that fully enrolled and published before 2011 (majority of patients recruited in the 1990s to early 2000s), the per-patient incremental yield of random biopsies was 14%; this dropped precipitously to 0.4% in studies published after 2011 (majority of patients recruited in late 2000s to 2010s). The incremental yield of random biopsies remained markedly high in studies with a high proportion of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), a condition consistently associated with a four- to sixfold higher risk of CRC in patients with IBD.
These findings lend support to the notion that improvements in endoscopy equipment with wide adoption of high-definition white-light colonoscopes and an emphasis on quality of endoscopic examination may be leading to better endoscopic detection of previously “invisible” dysplastic lesions, leading to a markedly lower incremental yield of random biopsies in the current era. This questions the utility of routinely collecting 32 random biopsies during a surveillance exam for a patient with IBD at increased risk of CRC (as long as a thorough high-quality exam is being performed), though there may be subpopulations such as patients with PSC where there may be benefit. Large ongoing trials comparing the yield of targeted biopsies vs random and targeted biopsies in patients with IBD undergoing dysplasia surveillance with high-definition colonoscopes will help to definitively address this question.
Siddharth Singh, MD, MS, is associate professor of medicine and director of the UCSD IBD Center in the division of gastroenterology, University of California, San Diego. He declares no conflicts of interest relative to this article.
Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) with colonic involvement are at two- to threefold increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with the general population. The development and progression of dysplasia in these patients with IBD does not follow the typical adenoma-carcinoma sequence; rather, patients with IBD at increased risk of colorectal cancer may have field cancerization changes. Historically, these mucosal changes have been difficult to visualize endoscopically, at least with standard definition endoscopes. As a result, systematic, four-quadrant, random biopsies — 8 in each segment of the colon, totaling to 32 biopsies — are recommended for dysplasia detection. The practice has been adopted and accepted widely. Over time, there have been significant advancements in the management of IBD, with improved colonoscopic resolution, adjunct surveillance techniques, focus on quality of colonoscopic exams and evolution of treatments and treatment targets, and these have resulted in a reduction in the risk of CRC in patients with IBD. The value of random biopsies for dysplasia surveillance in patients with colonic IBD has been questioned.
In this context, the systematic review and meta-analysis from Gao and colleagues provides critical insights into the yield of random biopsies for dysplasia surveillance in patients with IBD. Through a detailed analysis of 37 studies published between 2003 to 2023, with 9051 patients who underwent dysplasia surveillance with random biopsies, they ascertained the incremental yield of random biopsies. Overall, 1.3% of patients who underwent random biopsies were detected to have dysplasia. Of these, 1 in 10 patients were detected to have dysplasia only on random biopsies. On per-lesion analysis, one in six dysplastic lesions were only detected on random biopsies. Interestingly, this yield of random biopsies varied markedly depending on the era, as a surrogate for quality of colonoscopies. In studies that fully enrolled and published before 2011 (majority of patients recruited in the 1990s to early 2000s), the per-patient incremental yield of random biopsies was 14%; this dropped precipitously to 0.4% in studies published after 2011 (majority of patients recruited in late 2000s to 2010s). The incremental yield of random biopsies remained markedly high in studies with a high proportion of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), a condition consistently associated with a four- to sixfold higher risk of CRC in patients with IBD.
These findings lend support to the notion that improvements in endoscopy equipment with wide adoption of high-definition white-light colonoscopes and an emphasis on quality of endoscopic examination may be leading to better endoscopic detection of previously “invisible” dysplastic lesions, leading to a markedly lower incremental yield of random biopsies in the current era. This questions the utility of routinely collecting 32 random biopsies during a surveillance exam for a patient with IBD at increased risk of CRC (as long as a thorough high-quality exam is being performed), though there may be subpopulations such as patients with PSC where there may be benefit. Large ongoing trials comparing the yield of targeted biopsies vs random and targeted biopsies in patients with IBD undergoing dysplasia surveillance with high-definition colonoscopes will help to definitively address this question.
Siddharth Singh, MD, MS, is associate professor of medicine and director of the UCSD IBD Center in the division of gastroenterology, University of California, San Diego. He declares no conflicts of interest relative to this article.
according to a recent review and meta-analysis.
Random biopsies collected in studies after 2011 provided limited additional yield, suggesting that high-definition equipment alone may be sufficient to achieve a high detection rate, lead author Li Gao, MD, of Air Force Medical University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues reported. In contrast, patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) consistently benefited from random biopsy, offering clearer support for use in this subgroup.
“Random biopsy has been proposed as a strategy that may detect dysplastic lesions that cannot be identified endoscopically, thus minimizing the occurrence of missed colitis-associated dysplasia during colonoscopy,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. However, the role of random biopsies in colonoscopic surveillance for patients with IBD remains a topic of ongoing debate.”
The SCENIC guidelines remain inconclusive on the role of random biopsy in IBD surveillance, the investigators noted, while other guidelines recommend random biopsy with high-definition white light endoscopy, but not chromoendoscopy.
The present meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of random biopsy on dysplasia detection. The investigators aggregated prospective and retrospective studies published in English through September 2023, all of which compared random biopsy with other surveillance techniques and reported the proportion of dysplasia detected exclusively through random biopsy.
“To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and meta-analysis was the first comprehensive summary of the additional yield of random biopsy during colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with IBD,” Dr. Gao and colleagues noted.
The final dataset comprised 37 studies with 9,051 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance for IBD. Patients had diverse baseline characteristics, including different proportions of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, as well as varying prevalence of PSC, a known risk factor for colorectal neoplasia.
The pooled additional yield of random biopsy was 10.34% in per-patient analysis and 16.20% in per-lesion analysis, meaning that approximately 1 in 10 patients and 1 in 6 lesions were detected exclusively through random biopsy. Despite these benefits, detection rates were relatively low: 1.31% per patient and 2.82% per lesion.
Subgroup analyses showed a decline in random biopsy additional yield over time. Studies conducted before 2011 reported an additional yield of 14.43% in per-patient analysis, compared to just 0.42% in studies conducted after 2011. This decline coincided with the widespread adoption of high-definition endoscopy.
PSC status strongly influenced detection rates throughout the study period. In patients without PSC (0%-10% PSC prevalence), the additional yield of random biopsy was 4.83% in per-patient analysis and 11.23% in per-lesion analysis. In studies where all patients had PSC, the additional yield increased dramatically to 56.05% and 45.22%, respectively.
“These findings highlight the incremental benefits of random biopsy and provide valuable insights into the management of endoscopic surveillance in patients with IBD,” the investigators wrote. “Considering the decreased additional yields in studies initiated after 2011, and the influence of PSC, endoscopy centers lacking full high-definition equipment should consider incorporating random biopsy in the standard colonoscopy surveillance for IBD patients, especially in those with PSC.”This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province, and the Nanchang High-Level Scientific and Technological Innovation Talents “Double Hundred Plan” project. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
according to a recent review and meta-analysis.
Random biopsies collected in studies after 2011 provided limited additional yield, suggesting that high-definition equipment alone may be sufficient to achieve a high detection rate, lead author Li Gao, MD, of Air Force Medical University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues reported. In contrast, patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) consistently benefited from random biopsy, offering clearer support for use in this subgroup.
“Random biopsy has been proposed as a strategy that may detect dysplastic lesions that cannot be identified endoscopically, thus minimizing the occurrence of missed colitis-associated dysplasia during colonoscopy,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. However, the role of random biopsies in colonoscopic surveillance for patients with IBD remains a topic of ongoing debate.”
The SCENIC guidelines remain inconclusive on the role of random biopsy in IBD surveillance, the investigators noted, while other guidelines recommend random biopsy with high-definition white light endoscopy, but not chromoendoscopy.
The present meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of random biopsy on dysplasia detection. The investigators aggregated prospective and retrospective studies published in English through September 2023, all of which compared random biopsy with other surveillance techniques and reported the proportion of dysplasia detected exclusively through random biopsy.
“To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and meta-analysis was the first comprehensive summary of the additional yield of random biopsy during colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with IBD,” Dr. Gao and colleagues noted.
The final dataset comprised 37 studies with 9,051 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance for IBD. Patients had diverse baseline characteristics, including different proportions of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, as well as varying prevalence of PSC, a known risk factor for colorectal neoplasia.
The pooled additional yield of random biopsy was 10.34% in per-patient analysis and 16.20% in per-lesion analysis, meaning that approximately 1 in 10 patients and 1 in 6 lesions were detected exclusively through random biopsy. Despite these benefits, detection rates were relatively low: 1.31% per patient and 2.82% per lesion.
Subgroup analyses showed a decline in random biopsy additional yield over time. Studies conducted before 2011 reported an additional yield of 14.43% in per-patient analysis, compared to just 0.42% in studies conducted after 2011. This decline coincided with the widespread adoption of high-definition endoscopy.
PSC status strongly influenced detection rates throughout the study period. In patients without PSC (0%-10% PSC prevalence), the additional yield of random biopsy was 4.83% in per-patient analysis and 11.23% in per-lesion analysis. In studies where all patients had PSC, the additional yield increased dramatically to 56.05% and 45.22%, respectively.
“These findings highlight the incremental benefits of random biopsy and provide valuable insights into the management of endoscopic surveillance in patients with IBD,” the investigators wrote. “Considering the decreased additional yields in studies initiated after 2011, and the influence of PSC, endoscopy centers lacking full high-definition equipment should consider incorporating random biopsy in the standard colonoscopy surveillance for IBD patients, especially in those with PSC.”This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province, and the Nanchang High-Level Scientific and Technological Innovation Talents “Double Hundred Plan” project. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Suboptimal Diets Tied to Global Doubling of GI Cancer Cases
according to a recent study.
Writing in Gastroenterology, researchers led by Li Liu, PhD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, reported that excessive consumption of processed meats (the biggest culprit), insufficient fruit intake, and insufficient whole grain intake were the leading dietary risk factors. In addition, the number of diet-related cases doubled from 1990 to 2018.
“In regions with limited access to healthy foods, policy interventions like taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing nutritious options may help shift dietary patterns and reduce cancer risk,” Liu said in an interview.
The study examined meta-analyses from 184 countries in seven regions for the period 1990-2018 looking at rates of six major GI cancers: colorectal, liver, esophageal, pancreatic, and gallbladder/biliary tract. Among these, the age-standardized incidence of liver, pancreatic, and colorectal increased significantly over the past 3 decades.
The research team used a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the impact of diet on GI cancer independent of energy intake and adiposity. Although the principal dietary risk factors varied across individual cancers, suboptimal intake of the three aforementioned components was responsible for 66.51% of all diet-attributable GI cancers in 2018. The global mean processed meat consumption was 17 g/d in 2018, falling to a low in South Asia of 3 g/d.
The investigators also found diet-linked cancer incidence positively correlated with the Sociodemographic Index (SDI), an integrated measure of national development, income, and fertility. Incidence varied across world regions, with the highest proportion of cases in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and in high-income countries. The findings support the development of targeted diet-related public health interventions in various regions and nations to reduce GI cancer incidence, the authors wrote.
Among the study’s specific findings:
- In 2018, 21.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 19.1-24.5) of incident GI cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal diets, a relatively stable proportion since 1990 (22.4%; 95% UI, 19.7-25.6).
- Absolute diet-attributable cases doubled from 580,862 (95% UI, 510,658-664,076) in 1990 to 1,039,877 (95% UI, 923,482-1,187,244) in 2018.
- Excessive processed meat consumption (5.9%; 95% UI, 4.2%-7.9%), insufficient fruit intake (4.8%; 95% UI, 3.8%-5.9%), and insufficient whole grain intake (3.6%; 95% UI, 2.8%-5.1%) were the most significant dietary risk factors in 2018 — a shift from 1990 when the third major concern was insufficient non-starchy vegetable intake.
Given the well-established link between diet and GI cancers, the incidence findings came as no surprise. “However, the dramatic doubling of diet-attributable cases over the past few decades was truly unexpected,” Liu said. “This increase can likely be attributed to global population growth and aging. While aging is an irreversible process, we can still reduce the growing burden of diet-related GI cancers by focusing on modifiable behaviors, particularly through targeted dietary interventions.”
A Modifiable Risk Factor
Commenting on the analysis but not involved in it, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, noted that his own group’s studies also support the association of diet with an increased risk for GI cancers, particularly colorectal cancers.
“Although much work needs to be done to clarify the precise mechanisms underlying this association, there are substantial data that diet may cause changes in the gut microbiome, which in turn promotes cancer,” Chan said in an interview. “Going forward, we are working to develop strategies in which diet is modified to mitigate the risk of cancer associated with suboptimal diets.”
In other study findings, Liu’s group observed that two regional groups, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, as well as high-income countries, bore the top three diet-attributable burdens worldwide in 2018, all driven mostly by an upward-trending excess of processed meat.
By regions, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia experienced the highest attributable burden across regions in 1990 (31.6%; UI, 27.0%-37.4%) and 2018 (31.6%; UI, 27.3%-36.5%).
As for the impact of the SDI, the authors explained that diet-attributable GI cancer burden was higher among adults with higher education and living in urban areas than among those with lower education and rural residency. “Some dietary habits tended to be worse in higher-SDI countries, specifically, higher consumption of processed meats,” they wrote.
Although the proportional attributable GI incidence remains relatively stable, they added, the doubling of absolute cases from 1990 to 2018, along with the discrepancies between urbanicity and countries/regions, supports more targeted preventive measures.
And while the diet-GI cancer connection is clear, they agreed with Chan in that “the precise pathogenesis from suboptimal diets to these cancers remains unclear and requires further basic studies to clarify the mechanism.”
In the meantime, the findings “underscore the urgent need for proactive public health interventions. Diet, as a modifiable risk factor, still offers substantial potential for improvement,” Liu said.
This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Chan disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a recent study.
Writing in Gastroenterology, researchers led by Li Liu, PhD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, reported that excessive consumption of processed meats (the biggest culprit), insufficient fruit intake, and insufficient whole grain intake were the leading dietary risk factors. In addition, the number of diet-related cases doubled from 1990 to 2018.
“In regions with limited access to healthy foods, policy interventions like taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing nutritious options may help shift dietary patterns and reduce cancer risk,” Liu said in an interview.
The study examined meta-analyses from 184 countries in seven regions for the period 1990-2018 looking at rates of six major GI cancers: colorectal, liver, esophageal, pancreatic, and gallbladder/biliary tract. Among these, the age-standardized incidence of liver, pancreatic, and colorectal increased significantly over the past 3 decades.
The research team used a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the impact of diet on GI cancer independent of energy intake and adiposity. Although the principal dietary risk factors varied across individual cancers, suboptimal intake of the three aforementioned components was responsible for 66.51% of all diet-attributable GI cancers in 2018. The global mean processed meat consumption was 17 g/d in 2018, falling to a low in South Asia of 3 g/d.
The investigators also found diet-linked cancer incidence positively correlated with the Sociodemographic Index (SDI), an integrated measure of national development, income, and fertility. Incidence varied across world regions, with the highest proportion of cases in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and in high-income countries. The findings support the development of targeted diet-related public health interventions in various regions and nations to reduce GI cancer incidence, the authors wrote.
Among the study’s specific findings:
- In 2018, 21.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 19.1-24.5) of incident GI cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal diets, a relatively stable proportion since 1990 (22.4%; 95% UI, 19.7-25.6).
- Absolute diet-attributable cases doubled from 580,862 (95% UI, 510,658-664,076) in 1990 to 1,039,877 (95% UI, 923,482-1,187,244) in 2018.
- Excessive processed meat consumption (5.9%; 95% UI, 4.2%-7.9%), insufficient fruit intake (4.8%; 95% UI, 3.8%-5.9%), and insufficient whole grain intake (3.6%; 95% UI, 2.8%-5.1%) were the most significant dietary risk factors in 2018 — a shift from 1990 when the third major concern was insufficient non-starchy vegetable intake.
Given the well-established link between diet and GI cancers, the incidence findings came as no surprise. “However, the dramatic doubling of diet-attributable cases over the past few decades was truly unexpected,” Liu said. “This increase can likely be attributed to global population growth and aging. While aging is an irreversible process, we can still reduce the growing burden of diet-related GI cancers by focusing on modifiable behaviors, particularly through targeted dietary interventions.”
A Modifiable Risk Factor
Commenting on the analysis but not involved in it, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, noted that his own group’s studies also support the association of diet with an increased risk for GI cancers, particularly colorectal cancers.
“Although much work needs to be done to clarify the precise mechanisms underlying this association, there are substantial data that diet may cause changes in the gut microbiome, which in turn promotes cancer,” Chan said in an interview. “Going forward, we are working to develop strategies in which diet is modified to mitigate the risk of cancer associated with suboptimal diets.”
In other study findings, Liu’s group observed that two regional groups, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, as well as high-income countries, bore the top three diet-attributable burdens worldwide in 2018, all driven mostly by an upward-trending excess of processed meat.
By regions, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia experienced the highest attributable burden across regions in 1990 (31.6%; UI, 27.0%-37.4%) and 2018 (31.6%; UI, 27.3%-36.5%).
As for the impact of the SDI, the authors explained that diet-attributable GI cancer burden was higher among adults with higher education and living in urban areas than among those with lower education and rural residency. “Some dietary habits tended to be worse in higher-SDI countries, specifically, higher consumption of processed meats,” they wrote.
Although the proportional attributable GI incidence remains relatively stable, they added, the doubling of absolute cases from 1990 to 2018, along with the discrepancies between urbanicity and countries/regions, supports more targeted preventive measures.
And while the diet-GI cancer connection is clear, they agreed with Chan in that “the precise pathogenesis from suboptimal diets to these cancers remains unclear and requires further basic studies to clarify the mechanism.”
In the meantime, the findings “underscore the urgent need for proactive public health interventions. Diet, as a modifiable risk factor, still offers substantial potential for improvement,” Liu said.
This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Chan disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a recent study.
Writing in Gastroenterology, researchers led by Li Liu, PhD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, reported that excessive consumption of processed meats (the biggest culprit), insufficient fruit intake, and insufficient whole grain intake were the leading dietary risk factors. In addition, the number of diet-related cases doubled from 1990 to 2018.
“In regions with limited access to healthy foods, policy interventions like taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing nutritious options may help shift dietary patterns and reduce cancer risk,” Liu said in an interview.
The study examined meta-analyses from 184 countries in seven regions for the period 1990-2018 looking at rates of six major GI cancers: colorectal, liver, esophageal, pancreatic, and gallbladder/biliary tract. Among these, the age-standardized incidence of liver, pancreatic, and colorectal increased significantly over the past 3 decades.
The research team used a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the impact of diet on GI cancer independent of energy intake and adiposity. Although the principal dietary risk factors varied across individual cancers, suboptimal intake of the three aforementioned components was responsible for 66.51% of all diet-attributable GI cancers in 2018. The global mean processed meat consumption was 17 g/d in 2018, falling to a low in South Asia of 3 g/d.
The investigators also found diet-linked cancer incidence positively correlated with the Sociodemographic Index (SDI), an integrated measure of national development, income, and fertility. Incidence varied across world regions, with the highest proportion of cases in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and in high-income countries. The findings support the development of targeted diet-related public health interventions in various regions and nations to reduce GI cancer incidence, the authors wrote.
Among the study’s specific findings:
- In 2018, 21.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 19.1-24.5) of incident GI cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal diets, a relatively stable proportion since 1990 (22.4%; 95% UI, 19.7-25.6).
- Absolute diet-attributable cases doubled from 580,862 (95% UI, 510,658-664,076) in 1990 to 1,039,877 (95% UI, 923,482-1,187,244) in 2018.
- Excessive processed meat consumption (5.9%; 95% UI, 4.2%-7.9%), insufficient fruit intake (4.8%; 95% UI, 3.8%-5.9%), and insufficient whole grain intake (3.6%; 95% UI, 2.8%-5.1%) were the most significant dietary risk factors in 2018 — a shift from 1990 when the third major concern was insufficient non-starchy vegetable intake.
Given the well-established link between diet and GI cancers, the incidence findings came as no surprise. “However, the dramatic doubling of diet-attributable cases over the past few decades was truly unexpected,” Liu said. “This increase can likely be attributed to global population growth and aging. While aging is an irreversible process, we can still reduce the growing burden of diet-related GI cancers by focusing on modifiable behaviors, particularly through targeted dietary interventions.”
A Modifiable Risk Factor
Commenting on the analysis but not involved in it, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, noted that his own group’s studies also support the association of diet with an increased risk for GI cancers, particularly colorectal cancers.
“Although much work needs to be done to clarify the precise mechanisms underlying this association, there are substantial data that diet may cause changes in the gut microbiome, which in turn promotes cancer,” Chan said in an interview. “Going forward, we are working to develop strategies in which diet is modified to mitigate the risk of cancer associated with suboptimal diets.”
In other study findings, Liu’s group observed that two regional groups, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, as well as high-income countries, bore the top three diet-attributable burdens worldwide in 2018, all driven mostly by an upward-trending excess of processed meat.
By regions, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia experienced the highest attributable burden across regions in 1990 (31.6%; UI, 27.0%-37.4%) and 2018 (31.6%; UI, 27.3%-36.5%).
As for the impact of the SDI, the authors explained that diet-attributable GI cancer burden was higher among adults with higher education and living in urban areas than among those with lower education and rural residency. “Some dietary habits tended to be worse in higher-SDI countries, specifically, higher consumption of processed meats,” they wrote.
Although the proportional attributable GI incidence remains relatively stable, they added, the doubling of absolute cases from 1990 to 2018, along with the discrepancies between urbanicity and countries/regions, supports more targeted preventive measures.
And while the diet-GI cancer connection is clear, they agreed with Chan in that “the precise pathogenesis from suboptimal diets to these cancers remains unclear and requires further basic studies to clarify the mechanism.”
In the meantime, the findings “underscore the urgent need for proactive public health interventions. Diet, as a modifiable risk factor, still offers substantial potential for improvement,” Liu said.
This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Chan disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Women Researchers Remain Underrepresented in Pharma-Sponsored IBD Presentations
A recent study found that The study was published in Gastroenterology and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .
Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.
Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.
“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.
In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.
In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.
The Study
The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.
They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.
Among the study findings:
- Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
- The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
- The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
- The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).
Why the Discordance?
This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”
Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”
Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.
“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”
Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”
Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”
This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A recent study found that The study was published in Gastroenterology and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .
Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.
Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.
“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.
In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.
In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.
The Study
The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.
They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.
Among the study findings:
- Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
- The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
- The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
- The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).
Why the Discordance?
This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”
Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”
Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.
“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”
Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”
Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”
This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A recent study found that The study was published in Gastroenterology and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .
Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.
Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.
“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.
In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.
In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.
The Study
The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.
They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.
Among the study findings:
- Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
- The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
- The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
- The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).
Why the Discordance?
This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”
Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”
Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.
“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”
Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”
Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”
This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Managing GI and Liver Conditions During Pregnancy: New Guidance from AGA
according to a clinical practice update (CPU) from the American Gastroenterological Association.
Notably, procedures, medications, or other interventions intended to improve maternal health shouldn’t be withheld solely because the patient is pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, treatments should be personalized based on a risk-benefit assessment.
“Pregnancy causes significant physiological changes that can affect the GI tract and liver function. Some common conditions — such as nausea, vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and constipation — may be exacerbated, and underlying GI or liver diseases can behave differently during pregnancy,” said lead author Shivangi Kothari, MD, associate professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, both in Rochester, New York.
“These conditions can pose significant risks to both the mother and fetus, and their management requires a specialized, updated approach,” she said. “This clinical practice update stresses the need for coordinated, multidisciplinary care among obstetricians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and maternal-and-fetal medicine experts to ensure optimal outcomes, particularly in complex or high-risk cases.”
The update was published online in Gastroenterology.
Pregnancy-Related Concerns
The best path to optimal outcomes is to start early, the authors wrote. Before pregnancy, patients should consider preconception and contraceptive care counseling with a multidisciplinary team that can address GI and liver issues, especially among reproductive-age people who want to become pregnant.
Once pregnant, though, patients shouldn’t be deterred from receiving procedures, medications, or interventions just because they’re pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, taking an individual approach will help clinicians decide what to do based on the risks and benefits.
At the beginning of pregnancy, early treatment of nausea and vomiting can reduce progression to hyperemesis gravidarum, the authors wrote. Stepwise treatment can include vitamin B6, doxylamine, hydration, and adequate nutrition, followed by ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and intravenous glucocorticoids in moderate to severe cases.
Constipation may also pose a problem because of hormonal, physiological, and medication-related changes. Treatment options can include dietary fiber, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives.
Patients with certain conditions — such as complex inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), advanced cirrhosis, or liver transplant — should work with a multidisciplinary team to coordinate birth, preferably in a tertiary care center, the authors wrote.
For patients with IBD, clinical remission helps to improve pregnancy outcomes, including before conception, during pregnancy, and throughout the postpartum period. Biologic agents should be used during pregnancy and postpartum, though methotrexate, thalidomide, and ozanimod should be stopped at least 6 months before conception.
For patients with chronic hepatitis B, serum hepatitis B virus DNA and liver biochemical levels should be tested. Patients with a serum level > 200,000 IU/mL during the third trimester should be considered for treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.
For patients on immunosuppressive therapy for chronic liver diseases or after liver transplantation, therapy should continue at the lowest effective dose. However, mycophenolate mofetil shouldn’t be administered during pregnancy.
Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy may be diagnosed during the second or third trimester based on pruritus and a serum bile acid level > 10 μmol/L. Treatment should include oral ursodeoxycholic acid, with a total daily dose of 10-15 mg/kg.
Other pregnancy-related liver diseases — such as pre-eclampsia; hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; and acute fatty liver of pregnancy — require careful birth planning and evaluation for possible liver transplantation. For certain high-risk patients, daily aspirin should start at week 12 of gestation.
In addition, elective endoscopic procedures should wait until after birth, and nonemergent but necessary procedures should be performed during the second trimester. Patients with cirrhosis should undergo evaluation for esophageal varices, and upper endoscopy should happen during the second trimester to guide beta-blocker therapy or endoscopic variceal litigation.
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be performed for urgent indications, such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and some gallstone pancreatitis cases, ideally during the second trimester.
Cholecystectomy is considered safe during pregnancy, with a laparoscopic approach as the standard of care regardless of trimester, though the second trimester is ideal.
Pregnancy-Related Updates in Practice
Ultimately, clinicians should familiarize themselves with the best practice advice to feel comfortable when counseling and managing pregnancy-related concerns, especially high-risk patients, said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, and founder of the IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
“Half of all patients with GI and liver disease are women, and oftentimes, they don’t have appropriate guidance regarding reproductive health in the context of their disease,” she said. “There exists a very large knowledge gap in this area, particularly because most clinical trials exclude pregnant people.”
Most importantly, the advice statements can guide practitioners on how to help pregnant patients make informed reproductive decisions, she added.
“This CPU makes it clear that preconception counseling and multidisciplinary care are key in optimizing reproductive health, regardless of the underlying GI or liver disease,” Shmidt said. “GI practitioners should be counseling women well in advance of pregnancy and recruiting all relevant stakeholders as early as possible, even prior to conception. This way, pregnancy care is not reactive, but instead proactive.”
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Kothari and Shmidt reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a clinical practice update (CPU) from the American Gastroenterological Association.
Notably, procedures, medications, or other interventions intended to improve maternal health shouldn’t be withheld solely because the patient is pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, treatments should be personalized based on a risk-benefit assessment.
“Pregnancy causes significant physiological changes that can affect the GI tract and liver function. Some common conditions — such as nausea, vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and constipation — may be exacerbated, and underlying GI or liver diseases can behave differently during pregnancy,” said lead author Shivangi Kothari, MD, associate professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, both in Rochester, New York.
“These conditions can pose significant risks to both the mother and fetus, and their management requires a specialized, updated approach,” she said. “This clinical practice update stresses the need for coordinated, multidisciplinary care among obstetricians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and maternal-and-fetal medicine experts to ensure optimal outcomes, particularly in complex or high-risk cases.”
The update was published online in Gastroenterology.
Pregnancy-Related Concerns
The best path to optimal outcomes is to start early, the authors wrote. Before pregnancy, patients should consider preconception and contraceptive care counseling with a multidisciplinary team that can address GI and liver issues, especially among reproductive-age people who want to become pregnant.
Once pregnant, though, patients shouldn’t be deterred from receiving procedures, medications, or interventions just because they’re pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, taking an individual approach will help clinicians decide what to do based on the risks and benefits.
At the beginning of pregnancy, early treatment of nausea and vomiting can reduce progression to hyperemesis gravidarum, the authors wrote. Stepwise treatment can include vitamin B6, doxylamine, hydration, and adequate nutrition, followed by ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and intravenous glucocorticoids in moderate to severe cases.
Constipation may also pose a problem because of hormonal, physiological, and medication-related changes. Treatment options can include dietary fiber, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives.
Patients with certain conditions — such as complex inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), advanced cirrhosis, or liver transplant — should work with a multidisciplinary team to coordinate birth, preferably in a tertiary care center, the authors wrote.
For patients with IBD, clinical remission helps to improve pregnancy outcomes, including before conception, during pregnancy, and throughout the postpartum period. Biologic agents should be used during pregnancy and postpartum, though methotrexate, thalidomide, and ozanimod should be stopped at least 6 months before conception.
For patients with chronic hepatitis B, serum hepatitis B virus DNA and liver biochemical levels should be tested. Patients with a serum level > 200,000 IU/mL during the third trimester should be considered for treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.
For patients on immunosuppressive therapy for chronic liver diseases or after liver transplantation, therapy should continue at the lowest effective dose. However, mycophenolate mofetil shouldn’t be administered during pregnancy.
Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy may be diagnosed during the second or third trimester based on pruritus and a serum bile acid level > 10 μmol/L. Treatment should include oral ursodeoxycholic acid, with a total daily dose of 10-15 mg/kg.
Other pregnancy-related liver diseases — such as pre-eclampsia; hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; and acute fatty liver of pregnancy — require careful birth planning and evaluation for possible liver transplantation. For certain high-risk patients, daily aspirin should start at week 12 of gestation.
In addition, elective endoscopic procedures should wait until after birth, and nonemergent but necessary procedures should be performed during the second trimester. Patients with cirrhosis should undergo evaluation for esophageal varices, and upper endoscopy should happen during the second trimester to guide beta-blocker therapy or endoscopic variceal litigation.
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be performed for urgent indications, such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and some gallstone pancreatitis cases, ideally during the second trimester.
Cholecystectomy is considered safe during pregnancy, with a laparoscopic approach as the standard of care regardless of trimester, though the second trimester is ideal.
Pregnancy-Related Updates in Practice
Ultimately, clinicians should familiarize themselves with the best practice advice to feel comfortable when counseling and managing pregnancy-related concerns, especially high-risk patients, said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, and founder of the IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
“Half of all patients with GI and liver disease are women, and oftentimes, they don’t have appropriate guidance regarding reproductive health in the context of their disease,” she said. “There exists a very large knowledge gap in this area, particularly because most clinical trials exclude pregnant people.”
Most importantly, the advice statements can guide practitioners on how to help pregnant patients make informed reproductive decisions, she added.
“This CPU makes it clear that preconception counseling and multidisciplinary care are key in optimizing reproductive health, regardless of the underlying GI or liver disease,” Shmidt said. “GI practitioners should be counseling women well in advance of pregnancy and recruiting all relevant stakeholders as early as possible, even prior to conception. This way, pregnancy care is not reactive, but instead proactive.”
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Kothari and Shmidt reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a clinical practice update (CPU) from the American Gastroenterological Association.
Notably, procedures, medications, or other interventions intended to improve maternal health shouldn’t be withheld solely because the patient is pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, treatments should be personalized based on a risk-benefit assessment.
“Pregnancy causes significant physiological changes that can affect the GI tract and liver function. Some common conditions — such as nausea, vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and constipation — may be exacerbated, and underlying GI or liver diseases can behave differently during pregnancy,” said lead author Shivangi Kothari, MD, associate professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, both in Rochester, New York.
“These conditions can pose significant risks to both the mother and fetus, and their management requires a specialized, updated approach,” she said. “This clinical practice update stresses the need for coordinated, multidisciplinary care among obstetricians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and maternal-and-fetal medicine experts to ensure optimal outcomes, particularly in complex or high-risk cases.”
The update was published online in Gastroenterology.
Pregnancy-Related Concerns
The best path to optimal outcomes is to start early, the authors wrote. Before pregnancy, patients should consider preconception and contraceptive care counseling with a multidisciplinary team that can address GI and liver issues, especially among reproductive-age people who want to become pregnant.
Once pregnant, though, patients shouldn’t be deterred from receiving procedures, medications, or interventions just because they’re pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, taking an individual approach will help clinicians decide what to do based on the risks and benefits.
At the beginning of pregnancy, early treatment of nausea and vomiting can reduce progression to hyperemesis gravidarum, the authors wrote. Stepwise treatment can include vitamin B6, doxylamine, hydration, and adequate nutrition, followed by ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and intravenous glucocorticoids in moderate to severe cases.
Constipation may also pose a problem because of hormonal, physiological, and medication-related changes. Treatment options can include dietary fiber, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives.
Patients with certain conditions — such as complex inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), advanced cirrhosis, or liver transplant — should work with a multidisciplinary team to coordinate birth, preferably in a tertiary care center, the authors wrote.
For patients with IBD, clinical remission helps to improve pregnancy outcomes, including before conception, during pregnancy, and throughout the postpartum period. Biologic agents should be used during pregnancy and postpartum, though methotrexate, thalidomide, and ozanimod should be stopped at least 6 months before conception.
For patients with chronic hepatitis B, serum hepatitis B virus DNA and liver biochemical levels should be tested. Patients with a serum level > 200,000 IU/mL during the third trimester should be considered for treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.
For patients on immunosuppressive therapy for chronic liver diseases or after liver transplantation, therapy should continue at the lowest effective dose. However, mycophenolate mofetil shouldn’t be administered during pregnancy.
Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy may be diagnosed during the second or third trimester based on pruritus and a serum bile acid level > 10 μmol/L. Treatment should include oral ursodeoxycholic acid, with a total daily dose of 10-15 mg/kg.
Other pregnancy-related liver diseases — such as pre-eclampsia; hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; and acute fatty liver of pregnancy — require careful birth planning and evaluation for possible liver transplantation. For certain high-risk patients, daily aspirin should start at week 12 of gestation.
In addition, elective endoscopic procedures should wait until after birth, and nonemergent but necessary procedures should be performed during the second trimester. Patients with cirrhosis should undergo evaluation for esophageal varices, and upper endoscopy should happen during the second trimester to guide beta-blocker therapy or endoscopic variceal litigation.
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be performed for urgent indications, such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and some gallstone pancreatitis cases, ideally during the second trimester.
Cholecystectomy is considered safe during pregnancy, with a laparoscopic approach as the standard of care regardless of trimester, though the second trimester is ideal.
Pregnancy-Related Updates in Practice
Ultimately, clinicians should familiarize themselves with the best practice advice to feel comfortable when counseling and managing pregnancy-related concerns, especially high-risk patients, said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, and founder of the IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
“Half of all patients with GI and liver disease are women, and oftentimes, they don’t have appropriate guidance regarding reproductive health in the context of their disease,” she said. “There exists a very large knowledge gap in this area, particularly because most clinical trials exclude pregnant people.”
Most importantly, the advice statements can guide practitioners on how to help pregnant patients make informed reproductive decisions, she added.
“This CPU makes it clear that preconception counseling and multidisciplinary care are key in optimizing reproductive health, regardless of the underlying GI or liver disease,” Shmidt said. “GI practitioners should be counseling women well in advance of pregnancy and recruiting all relevant stakeholders as early as possible, even prior to conception. This way, pregnancy care is not reactive, but instead proactive.”
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Kothari and Shmidt reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Obesity Linked with Malignant Progression of Barrett’s Esophagus
A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.
“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.
“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”
The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Analyzing Risk
BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.
Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.
Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.
Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.
Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.
Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.
In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.
Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).
Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).
“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”
Considering Risk
This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.
Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.
“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”
Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.
“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.
One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.
“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.
“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”
The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Analyzing Risk
BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.
Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.
Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.
Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.
Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.
Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.
In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.
Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).
Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).
“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”
Considering Risk
This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.
Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.
“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”
Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.
“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.
One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.
“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.
“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”
The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Analyzing Risk
BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.
Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.
Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.
Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.
Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.
Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.
In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.
Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).
Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).
“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”
Considering Risk
This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.
Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.
“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”
Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.
“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.
One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Hispanic Patients Face Disparities in MASLD
according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
These findings underscore worsening health disparities in MASLD management and outcomes in this patient population, Kaleb Tesfai, BS, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.
Previously, a 2018 meta-analysis found that Hispanic individuals had a higher MASLD prevalence than non-Hispanic White and Black individuals, along with an elevated relative risk of MASH.
“In the setting of the evolving obesity epidemic, prevalence of MASLD has increased and characteristics of patient populations of interest have changed since the time of this prior meta-analysis,” Mr. Tesfai and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Importantly, MASH has become a leading indication for liver transplant, thereby impacting long-term clinical outcomes. As such, accurate, updated prevalence rates and relative risk estimates of MASLD, MASH, advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, and clinical outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US remain poorly characterized.”
The present meta-analysis focused specifically on Hispanic adults in the United States; it compared their disease prevalence, severity, and risk to non-Hispanic adults. Twenty-two studies, conducted between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2023, were included, comprising 756,088 participants, of whom 62,072 were Hispanic.
Study eligibility required reported data on the prevalence of MASLD, MASH, or advanced fibrosis, as well as racial or ethnic subgroup analyses. Studies were excluded if they did not use validated diagnostic methods, such as liver biopsy or imaging, or if they lacked stratification by Hispanic ethnicity. Prevalence estimates and relative risks were calculated using random-effects models. The analysis also accounted for potential confounding factors, including demographic characteristics, metabolic comorbidities, and social determinants of health (SDOH).
The pooled prevalence of MASLD among Hispanic adults was 41% (95% CI, 30%-52%), compared with 27% in non-Hispanic populations, reflecting a relative risk (RR) of 1.50 (95% CI, 1.32-1.69). For MASH, the pooled prevalence among Hispanic adults with MASLD was 61% (95% CI, 39%-82%), with an RR of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.04-1.93), compared with non-Hispanic adults.
“Our systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the worsening health disparities experienced by Hispanic adults in the US, with significant increase in the relative risk of MASLD and MASH in contemporary cohorts compared with prior estimates,” the investigators wrote.
Despite these elevated risks for MASLD and MASH, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis did not show statistically significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations.
The study also characterized the relationship between SDOH and detected health disparities. Adjustments for factors such as income, education, and health care access eliminated the independent association between Hispanic and MASLD risk, suggesting that these structural inequities play a meaningful role in disease disparities.
Still, genetic factors, including PNPLA3 and TM6SF2 risk alleles, were identified as contributors to the higher disease burden in Hispanic populations.
Mr. Tesfai and colleagues called for prospective studies with standardized outcome definitions to better understand risks of advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, as well as long-term clinical outcomes. In addition, they recommended further investigation of SDOH to determine optimal intervention targets.
“Public health initiatives focused on increasing screening for MASLD and MASH and enhancing health care delivery for this high-risk group are critically needed to optimize health outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US,” they concluded.This study was supported by various institutes at the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, and the SDSU-UCSD CREATE Partnership. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Galmed, Pfizer, and others.
according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
These findings underscore worsening health disparities in MASLD management and outcomes in this patient population, Kaleb Tesfai, BS, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.
Previously, a 2018 meta-analysis found that Hispanic individuals had a higher MASLD prevalence than non-Hispanic White and Black individuals, along with an elevated relative risk of MASH.
“In the setting of the evolving obesity epidemic, prevalence of MASLD has increased and characteristics of patient populations of interest have changed since the time of this prior meta-analysis,” Mr. Tesfai and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Importantly, MASH has become a leading indication for liver transplant, thereby impacting long-term clinical outcomes. As such, accurate, updated prevalence rates and relative risk estimates of MASLD, MASH, advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, and clinical outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US remain poorly characterized.”
The present meta-analysis focused specifically on Hispanic adults in the United States; it compared their disease prevalence, severity, and risk to non-Hispanic adults. Twenty-two studies, conducted between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2023, were included, comprising 756,088 participants, of whom 62,072 were Hispanic.
Study eligibility required reported data on the prevalence of MASLD, MASH, or advanced fibrosis, as well as racial or ethnic subgroup analyses. Studies were excluded if they did not use validated diagnostic methods, such as liver biopsy or imaging, or if they lacked stratification by Hispanic ethnicity. Prevalence estimates and relative risks were calculated using random-effects models. The analysis also accounted for potential confounding factors, including demographic characteristics, metabolic comorbidities, and social determinants of health (SDOH).
The pooled prevalence of MASLD among Hispanic adults was 41% (95% CI, 30%-52%), compared with 27% in non-Hispanic populations, reflecting a relative risk (RR) of 1.50 (95% CI, 1.32-1.69). For MASH, the pooled prevalence among Hispanic adults with MASLD was 61% (95% CI, 39%-82%), with an RR of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.04-1.93), compared with non-Hispanic adults.
“Our systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the worsening health disparities experienced by Hispanic adults in the US, with significant increase in the relative risk of MASLD and MASH in contemporary cohorts compared with prior estimates,” the investigators wrote.
Despite these elevated risks for MASLD and MASH, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis did not show statistically significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations.
The study also characterized the relationship between SDOH and detected health disparities. Adjustments for factors such as income, education, and health care access eliminated the independent association between Hispanic and MASLD risk, suggesting that these structural inequities play a meaningful role in disease disparities.
Still, genetic factors, including PNPLA3 and TM6SF2 risk alleles, were identified as contributors to the higher disease burden in Hispanic populations.
Mr. Tesfai and colleagues called for prospective studies with standardized outcome definitions to better understand risks of advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, as well as long-term clinical outcomes. In addition, they recommended further investigation of SDOH to determine optimal intervention targets.
“Public health initiatives focused on increasing screening for MASLD and MASH and enhancing health care delivery for this high-risk group are critically needed to optimize health outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US,” they concluded.This study was supported by various institutes at the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, and the SDSU-UCSD CREATE Partnership. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Galmed, Pfizer, and others.
according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
These findings underscore worsening health disparities in MASLD management and outcomes in this patient population, Kaleb Tesfai, BS, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.
Previously, a 2018 meta-analysis found that Hispanic individuals had a higher MASLD prevalence than non-Hispanic White and Black individuals, along with an elevated relative risk of MASH.
“In the setting of the evolving obesity epidemic, prevalence of MASLD has increased and characteristics of patient populations of interest have changed since the time of this prior meta-analysis,” Mr. Tesfai and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Importantly, MASH has become a leading indication for liver transplant, thereby impacting long-term clinical outcomes. As such, accurate, updated prevalence rates and relative risk estimates of MASLD, MASH, advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, and clinical outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US remain poorly characterized.”
The present meta-analysis focused specifically on Hispanic adults in the United States; it compared their disease prevalence, severity, and risk to non-Hispanic adults. Twenty-two studies, conducted between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2023, were included, comprising 756,088 participants, of whom 62,072 were Hispanic.
Study eligibility required reported data on the prevalence of MASLD, MASH, or advanced fibrosis, as well as racial or ethnic subgroup analyses. Studies were excluded if they did not use validated diagnostic methods, such as liver biopsy or imaging, or if they lacked stratification by Hispanic ethnicity. Prevalence estimates and relative risks were calculated using random-effects models. The analysis also accounted for potential confounding factors, including demographic characteristics, metabolic comorbidities, and social determinants of health (SDOH).
The pooled prevalence of MASLD among Hispanic adults was 41% (95% CI, 30%-52%), compared with 27% in non-Hispanic populations, reflecting a relative risk (RR) of 1.50 (95% CI, 1.32-1.69). For MASH, the pooled prevalence among Hispanic adults with MASLD was 61% (95% CI, 39%-82%), with an RR of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.04-1.93), compared with non-Hispanic adults.
“Our systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the worsening health disparities experienced by Hispanic adults in the US, with significant increase in the relative risk of MASLD and MASH in contemporary cohorts compared with prior estimates,” the investigators wrote.
Despite these elevated risks for MASLD and MASH, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis did not show statistically significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations.
The study also characterized the relationship between SDOH and detected health disparities. Adjustments for factors such as income, education, and health care access eliminated the independent association between Hispanic and MASLD risk, suggesting that these structural inequities play a meaningful role in disease disparities.
Still, genetic factors, including PNPLA3 and TM6SF2 risk alleles, were identified as contributors to the higher disease burden in Hispanic populations.
Mr. Tesfai and colleagues called for prospective studies with standardized outcome definitions to better understand risks of advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, as well as long-term clinical outcomes. In addition, they recommended further investigation of SDOH to determine optimal intervention targets.
“Public health initiatives focused on increasing screening for MASLD and MASH and enhancing health care delivery for this high-risk group are critically needed to optimize health outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US,” they concluded.This study was supported by various institutes at the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, and the SDSU-UCSD CREATE Partnership. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Galmed, Pfizer, and others.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
AGA Clinical Practice Update: P-CABs Can Help When PPI Therapy Fails
, according to a recent clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
However, P-CABs are recommended in place of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for most patients with Helicobacter pylori and other conditions where patients haven’t responded to PPIs.
“P-CABs are a newer medication class now available in the US, associated with more rapid, potent, and prolonged gastric acid inhibition than PPI formulations,” said lead author Amit Patel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Duke University School of Medicine and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
“P-CABs have potentially significant clinical benefits in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection and GERD, particularly more severe erosive esophagitis,” he said. “Emerging data are affording additional insights into the clinical benefits of P-CABs in settings such as on-demand therapy for reflux-associated symptoms, bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, and endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus.”
The update was published in Gastroenterology .
P-CAB Developments
For most patients, PPIs and histamine-2 receptor antagonists remain the primary way to inhibit gastric acid secretion for common upper gastrointestinal conditions, the authors wrote. However, P-CABs such as vonoprazan and tegoprazan may provide relief when PPIs have limitations.
Unlike PPIs, P-CABs are considered acid-stable, don’t require premeal dosing, aren’t prodrugs, and don’t require conversion to an active form to provide pharmacologic effects. They tend to have longer half-lives and more rapid onset. Serum gastrin levels typically remain higher with P-CABs.
In terms of safety, randomized trial data indicate that P-CABs are generally well tolerated and have short-term and medium-term safety similar to PPIs. Due to potent acid suppression, enteric infection risks remain higher, though long-term safety data is needed, the authors wrote.
Overall, P-CABs appear to be equally as potent or more potent than PPIs, though more potent acid inhibition isn’t necessarily associated with better outcomes, the authors wrote. For most foregut acid-related disorders — such as heartburn and prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–associated ulcers — P-CABs can help when patients fail PPI therapy.
In general, though, nonclinical factors related to cost, barriers to obtaining medication, and limited long-term safety data may outweigh the advantages of P-CABs, especially if clinical superiority isn’t yet known, the authors wrote.
For GERD, clinicians generally shouldn’t use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. However, P-CABs should be used for those with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. They may also be appropriate for on-demand heartburn therapy, although more evidence is needed.
For erosive esophagitis, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used for milder cases but can be considered for patients with more severe cases that haven’t responded to PPIs, including refractory esophagitis.
For H pylori, P-CABs should be used in place of PPIs for eradication regimens, including among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains. In contrast with most of the other indications in the update, the short-term duration of H pylori treatment reduced the authors’ concerns about P-CAB costs and safety.
For peptic ulcer disease, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used as first-line treatment or prophylaxis. However, the rapid onset and potent acid inhibition could be useful for patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata.
“Emerging data will allow refinements in the populations and clinical settings for which P-CABs at various doses may be considered and advised — and may reveal more clinical scenarios in which they can provide meaningful benefit,” Patel said. “Further investigations, including additional populations and novel indicators, as well as evaluating long-term safety data and cost-effectiveness, are warranted, as P-CABs are incorporated more broadly into clinical practice worldwide.”
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a recent clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
However, P-CABs are recommended in place of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for most patients with Helicobacter pylori and other conditions where patients haven’t responded to PPIs.
“P-CABs are a newer medication class now available in the US, associated with more rapid, potent, and prolonged gastric acid inhibition than PPI formulations,” said lead author Amit Patel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Duke University School of Medicine and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
“P-CABs have potentially significant clinical benefits in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection and GERD, particularly more severe erosive esophagitis,” he said. “Emerging data are affording additional insights into the clinical benefits of P-CABs in settings such as on-demand therapy for reflux-associated symptoms, bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, and endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus.”
The update was published in Gastroenterology .
P-CAB Developments
For most patients, PPIs and histamine-2 receptor antagonists remain the primary way to inhibit gastric acid secretion for common upper gastrointestinal conditions, the authors wrote. However, P-CABs such as vonoprazan and tegoprazan may provide relief when PPIs have limitations.
Unlike PPIs, P-CABs are considered acid-stable, don’t require premeal dosing, aren’t prodrugs, and don’t require conversion to an active form to provide pharmacologic effects. They tend to have longer half-lives and more rapid onset. Serum gastrin levels typically remain higher with P-CABs.
In terms of safety, randomized trial data indicate that P-CABs are generally well tolerated and have short-term and medium-term safety similar to PPIs. Due to potent acid suppression, enteric infection risks remain higher, though long-term safety data is needed, the authors wrote.
Overall, P-CABs appear to be equally as potent or more potent than PPIs, though more potent acid inhibition isn’t necessarily associated with better outcomes, the authors wrote. For most foregut acid-related disorders — such as heartburn and prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–associated ulcers — P-CABs can help when patients fail PPI therapy.
In general, though, nonclinical factors related to cost, barriers to obtaining medication, and limited long-term safety data may outweigh the advantages of P-CABs, especially if clinical superiority isn’t yet known, the authors wrote.
For GERD, clinicians generally shouldn’t use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. However, P-CABs should be used for those with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. They may also be appropriate for on-demand heartburn therapy, although more evidence is needed.
For erosive esophagitis, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used for milder cases but can be considered for patients with more severe cases that haven’t responded to PPIs, including refractory esophagitis.
For H pylori, P-CABs should be used in place of PPIs for eradication regimens, including among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains. In contrast with most of the other indications in the update, the short-term duration of H pylori treatment reduced the authors’ concerns about P-CAB costs and safety.
For peptic ulcer disease, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used as first-line treatment or prophylaxis. However, the rapid onset and potent acid inhibition could be useful for patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata.
“Emerging data will allow refinements in the populations and clinical settings for which P-CABs at various doses may be considered and advised — and may reveal more clinical scenarios in which they can provide meaningful benefit,” Patel said. “Further investigations, including additional populations and novel indicators, as well as evaluating long-term safety data and cost-effectiveness, are warranted, as P-CABs are incorporated more broadly into clinical practice worldwide.”
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a recent clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
However, P-CABs are recommended in place of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for most patients with Helicobacter pylori and other conditions where patients haven’t responded to PPIs.
“P-CABs are a newer medication class now available in the US, associated with more rapid, potent, and prolonged gastric acid inhibition than PPI formulations,” said lead author Amit Patel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Duke University School of Medicine and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
“P-CABs have potentially significant clinical benefits in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection and GERD, particularly more severe erosive esophagitis,” he said. “Emerging data are affording additional insights into the clinical benefits of P-CABs in settings such as on-demand therapy for reflux-associated symptoms, bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, and endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus.”
The update was published in Gastroenterology .
P-CAB Developments
For most patients, PPIs and histamine-2 receptor antagonists remain the primary way to inhibit gastric acid secretion for common upper gastrointestinal conditions, the authors wrote. However, P-CABs such as vonoprazan and tegoprazan may provide relief when PPIs have limitations.
Unlike PPIs, P-CABs are considered acid-stable, don’t require premeal dosing, aren’t prodrugs, and don’t require conversion to an active form to provide pharmacologic effects. They tend to have longer half-lives and more rapid onset. Serum gastrin levels typically remain higher with P-CABs.
In terms of safety, randomized trial data indicate that P-CABs are generally well tolerated and have short-term and medium-term safety similar to PPIs. Due to potent acid suppression, enteric infection risks remain higher, though long-term safety data is needed, the authors wrote.
Overall, P-CABs appear to be equally as potent or more potent than PPIs, though more potent acid inhibition isn’t necessarily associated with better outcomes, the authors wrote. For most foregut acid-related disorders — such as heartburn and prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–associated ulcers — P-CABs can help when patients fail PPI therapy.
In general, though, nonclinical factors related to cost, barriers to obtaining medication, and limited long-term safety data may outweigh the advantages of P-CABs, especially if clinical superiority isn’t yet known, the authors wrote.
For GERD, clinicians generally shouldn’t use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. However, P-CABs should be used for those with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. They may also be appropriate for on-demand heartburn therapy, although more evidence is needed.
For erosive esophagitis, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used for milder cases but can be considered for patients with more severe cases that haven’t responded to PPIs, including refractory esophagitis.
For H pylori, P-CABs should be used in place of PPIs for eradication regimens, including among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains. In contrast with most of the other indications in the update, the short-term duration of H pylori treatment reduced the authors’ concerns about P-CAB costs and safety.
For peptic ulcer disease, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used as first-line treatment or prophylaxis. However, the rapid onset and potent acid inhibition could be useful for patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata.
“Emerging data will allow refinements in the populations and clinical settings for which P-CABs at various doses may be considered and advised — and may reveal more clinical scenarios in which they can provide meaningful benefit,” Patel said. “Further investigations, including additional populations and novel indicators, as well as evaluating long-term safety data and cost-effectiveness, are warranted, as P-CABs are incorporated more broadly into clinical practice worldwide.”
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Liver Stiffness Measurement Predicts Long-Term Outcomes In Pediatric Biliary Atresia
according to investigators.
These findings suggest that LSM may serve as a noninvasive tool for risk stratification and treatment planning in this population, reported lead author Jean P. Molleston, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“Biliary atresia is frequently complicated by hepatic fibrosis with progression to cirrhosis and portal hypertension manifested by ascites, hepatopulmonary syndrome, and variceal bleeding,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “The ability to predict these outcomes can inform clinical decision-making.”
To this end, VCTE has been gaining increasing support in the pediatric setting.
“Advantages of VCTE over liver biopsy include convenience, cost, sampling bias, and risk,” the investigators wrote. “VCTE potentially allows (1) fibrosis estimation, (2) prediction of portal hypertension complications/survival, and (3) ability to noninvasively monitor liver stiffness as a fibrosis surrogate.”
The present multicenter study aimed to gauge the prognostic utility of VCTE among 254 patients, aged 21 years or younger, with biliary atresia. All patients had a valid baseline LSM, plus longitudinal clinical and laboratory data drawn from studies by the Childhood Liver Disease Research Network (ChiLDReN). Liver stiffness was assessed noninvasively with FibroScan devices, adhering to protocols that required at least 10 valid measurements and a variability of less than 30%.
The primary outcomes were survival with native liver (SNL), defined as the time to liver transplantation or death, and a composite measure of liver-related events, including the first occurrence of transplantation, death, ascites, variceal bleeding, or hepatopulmonary syndrome. Secondary outcomes focused on the trajectory of platelet decline, a marker of disease progression. The study also explored the relationship between baseline LSM and conventional biomarkers, including platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
LSM was a strong predictor of long-term outcomes. Specifically, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significant differences in 5-year SNL across LSM strata (P < .001). Children with LSM values less than 10 kPa had excellent 5-year SNL rates (LSM 10 to < 15 kPa, 88.9%; 95% CI, 75.1-95.3%), while those with LSM of at least 15 kPa exhibited substantially lower 5-year SNL (58.9%; 95% CI, 46.0-69.7%).
Similarly, event-free survival (EFS) rates declined as LSM values increased (P < .001). Participants with LSM less than 10 kPa had a 5-year EFS rate of 92.2% versus with 61.2% for those with LSM of at least 15 kPa.
LSM also predicted platelet decline. For every twofold increase in baseline LSM, platelet counts declined by an additional 4,000/mm3 per year (P < .001). This association was illustrated through predicted trajectories for participants with LSM values of 4, 7, 12, 18, and 42 kPa, corresponding to different percentiles of disease severity.
Cox proportional hazards analysis indicated that a two-fold increase in LSM was associated with a hazard ratio of 3.3 (P < .001) for liver transplant or death. While LSM had good discrimination on its own (C statistic = 0.83), it did not significantly improve predictive accuracy when added to models based on platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
“This noninvasive measurement could potentially be used to predict natural history, stratify patients for clinical trials, plan interventions, and provide anticipatory guidance,” Molleston and colleagues concluded. This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; Childhood Liver Disease Research Network; and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Grading liver stiffness using elastography is a widely utilized tool in adult populations, and its application is expanding in pediatric hepatology clinics. Clinicians incorporate liver stiffness measurements (LSM) alongside clinical findings and biochemical markers to noninvasively assess the degree of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. Molleston and colleagues leveraged the robust data from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases–supported network ChiLDReN and found that LSM in children with biliary atresia (BA) correlate with the progression to complications associated with portal hypertension and liver transplantation. While these findings are not unexpected, this compelling investigation accomplishes the important function of validating the utility of elastography in this cohort.
Prognosticating the timeline of complications stemming from biliary atresia is a central tenet of pediatric hepatology. Helping families understand what the future may hold for their child is critical in fostering long-term relationships between clinicians and caregivers. Furthermore, establishing clear expectations regarding follow-up care and monitoring is beneficial for both providers and patients. Of particular importance is minimizing the need for invasive procedures, such as liver biopsy, which, while relatively safe, remains burdensome and is rarely used to assess fibrosis in BA.
Pediatric hepatologists already consider multiple factors — including age at hepatoportoenterostomy, subsequent clearance of cholestasis, exam findings such as splenomegaly, and platelet count — to predict the clinical course of infants with BA. The addition of a data-driven approach to interpreting liver stiffness measurements represents a valuable new tool in this expanding repertoire, offering an encouraging prospect for both providers and families navigating the complexities of pediatric liver disease.
Aaron Bennett, MD, is a fellow in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. Elizabeth B. Rand, MD, is the medical director of the Liver Transplant Program, director of the Gastroenterology Fellowship Program, and director of the Advanced Transplant Hepatology Program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Grading liver stiffness using elastography is a widely utilized tool in adult populations, and its application is expanding in pediatric hepatology clinics. Clinicians incorporate liver stiffness measurements (LSM) alongside clinical findings and biochemical markers to noninvasively assess the degree of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. Molleston and colleagues leveraged the robust data from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases–supported network ChiLDReN and found that LSM in children with biliary atresia (BA) correlate with the progression to complications associated with portal hypertension and liver transplantation. While these findings are not unexpected, this compelling investigation accomplishes the important function of validating the utility of elastography in this cohort.
Prognosticating the timeline of complications stemming from biliary atresia is a central tenet of pediatric hepatology. Helping families understand what the future may hold for their child is critical in fostering long-term relationships between clinicians and caregivers. Furthermore, establishing clear expectations regarding follow-up care and monitoring is beneficial for both providers and patients. Of particular importance is minimizing the need for invasive procedures, such as liver biopsy, which, while relatively safe, remains burdensome and is rarely used to assess fibrosis in BA.
Pediatric hepatologists already consider multiple factors — including age at hepatoportoenterostomy, subsequent clearance of cholestasis, exam findings such as splenomegaly, and platelet count — to predict the clinical course of infants with BA. The addition of a data-driven approach to interpreting liver stiffness measurements represents a valuable new tool in this expanding repertoire, offering an encouraging prospect for both providers and families navigating the complexities of pediatric liver disease.
Aaron Bennett, MD, is a fellow in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. Elizabeth B. Rand, MD, is the medical director of the Liver Transplant Program, director of the Gastroenterology Fellowship Program, and director of the Advanced Transplant Hepatology Program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Grading liver stiffness using elastography is a widely utilized tool in adult populations, and its application is expanding in pediatric hepatology clinics. Clinicians incorporate liver stiffness measurements (LSM) alongside clinical findings and biochemical markers to noninvasively assess the degree of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. Molleston and colleagues leveraged the robust data from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases–supported network ChiLDReN and found that LSM in children with biliary atresia (BA) correlate with the progression to complications associated with portal hypertension and liver transplantation. While these findings are not unexpected, this compelling investigation accomplishes the important function of validating the utility of elastography in this cohort.
Prognosticating the timeline of complications stemming from biliary atresia is a central tenet of pediatric hepatology. Helping families understand what the future may hold for their child is critical in fostering long-term relationships between clinicians and caregivers. Furthermore, establishing clear expectations regarding follow-up care and monitoring is beneficial for both providers and patients. Of particular importance is minimizing the need for invasive procedures, such as liver biopsy, which, while relatively safe, remains burdensome and is rarely used to assess fibrosis in BA.
Pediatric hepatologists already consider multiple factors — including age at hepatoportoenterostomy, subsequent clearance of cholestasis, exam findings such as splenomegaly, and platelet count — to predict the clinical course of infants with BA. The addition of a data-driven approach to interpreting liver stiffness measurements represents a valuable new tool in this expanding repertoire, offering an encouraging prospect for both providers and families navigating the complexities of pediatric liver disease.
Aaron Bennett, MD, is a fellow in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. Elizabeth B. Rand, MD, is the medical director of the Liver Transplant Program, director of the Gastroenterology Fellowship Program, and director of the Advanced Transplant Hepatology Program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
according to investigators.
These findings suggest that LSM may serve as a noninvasive tool for risk stratification and treatment planning in this population, reported lead author Jean P. Molleston, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“Biliary atresia is frequently complicated by hepatic fibrosis with progression to cirrhosis and portal hypertension manifested by ascites, hepatopulmonary syndrome, and variceal bleeding,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “The ability to predict these outcomes can inform clinical decision-making.”
To this end, VCTE has been gaining increasing support in the pediatric setting.
“Advantages of VCTE over liver biopsy include convenience, cost, sampling bias, and risk,” the investigators wrote. “VCTE potentially allows (1) fibrosis estimation, (2) prediction of portal hypertension complications/survival, and (3) ability to noninvasively monitor liver stiffness as a fibrosis surrogate.”
The present multicenter study aimed to gauge the prognostic utility of VCTE among 254 patients, aged 21 years or younger, with biliary atresia. All patients had a valid baseline LSM, plus longitudinal clinical and laboratory data drawn from studies by the Childhood Liver Disease Research Network (ChiLDReN). Liver stiffness was assessed noninvasively with FibroScan devices, adhering to protocols that required at least 10 valid measurements and a variability of less than 30%.
The primary outcomes were survival with native liver (SNL), defined as the time to liver transplantation or death, and a composite measure of liver-related events, including the first occurrence of transplantation, death, ascites, variceal bleeding, or hepatopulmonary syndrome. Secondary outcomes focused on the trajectory of platelet decline, a marker of disease progression. The study also explored the relationship between baseline LSM and conventional biomarkers, including platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
LSM was a strong predictor of long-term outcomes. Specifically, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significant differences in 5-year SNL across LSM strata (P < .001). Children with LSM values less than 10 kPa had excellent 5-year SNL rates (LSM 10 to < 15 kPa, 88.9%; 95% CI, 75.1-95.3%), while those with LSM of at least 15 kPa exhibited substantially lower 5-year SNL (58.9%; 95% CI, 46.0-69.7%).
Similarly, event-free survival (EFS) rates declined as LSM values increased (P < .001). Participants with LSM less than 10 kPa had a 5-year EFS rate of 92.2% versus with 61.2% for those with LSM of at least 15 kPa.
LSM also predicted platelet decline. For every twofold increase in baseline LSM, platelet counts declined by an additional 4,000/mm3 per year (P < .001). This association was illustrated through predicted trajectories for participants with LSM values of 4, 7, 12, 18, and 42 kPa, corresponding to different percentiles of disease severity.
Cox proportional hazards analysis indicated that a two-fold increase in LSM was associated with a hazard ratio of 3.3 (P < .001) for liver transplant or death. While LSM had good discrimination on its own (C statistic = 0.83), it did not significantly improve predictive accuracy when added to models based on platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
“This noninvasive measurement could potentially be used to predict natural history, stratify patients for clinical trials, plan interventions, and provide anticipatory guidance,” Molleston and colleagues concluded. This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; Childhood Liver Disease Research Network; and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
according to investigators.
These findings suggest that LSM may serve as a noninvasive tool for risk stratification and treatment planning in this population, reported lead author Jean P. Molleston, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“Biliary atresia is frequently complicated by hepatic fibrosis with progression to cirrhosis and portal hypertension manifested by ascites, hepatopulmonary syndrome, and variceal bleeding,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “The ability to predict these outcomes can inform clinical decision-making.”
To this end, VCTE has been gaining increasing support in the pediatric setting.
“Advantages of VCTE over liver biopsy include convenience, cost, sampling bias, and risk,” the investigators wrote. “VCTE potentially allows (1) fibrosis estimation, (2) prediction of portal hypertension complications/survival, and (3) ability to noninvasively monitor liver stiffness as a fibrosis surrogate.”
The present multicenter study aimed to gauge the prognostic utility of VCTE among 254 patients, aged 21 years or younger, with biliary atresia. All patients had a valid baseline LSM, plus longitudinal clinical and laboratory data drawn from studies by the Childhood Liver Disease Research Network (ChiLDReN). Liver stiffness was assessed noninvasively with FibroScan devices, adhering to protocols that required at least 10 valid measurements and a variability of less than 30%.
The primary outcomes were survival with native liver (SNL), defined as the time to liver transplantation or death, and a composite measure of liver-related events, including the first occurrence of transplantation, death, ascites, variceal bleeding, or hepatopulmonary syndrome. Secondary outcomes focused on the trajectory of platelet decline, a marker of disease progression. The study also explored the relationship between baseline LSM and conventional biomarkers, including platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
LSM was a strong predictor of long-term outcomes. Specifically, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significant differences in 5-year SNL across LSM strata (P < .001). Children with LSM values less than 10 kPa had excellent 5-year SNL rates (LSM 10 to < 15 kPa, 88.9%; 95% CI, 75.1-95.3%), while those with LSM of at least 15 kPa exhibited substantially lower 5-year SNL (58.9%; 95% CI, 46.0-69.7%).
Similarly, event-free survival (EFS) rates declined as LSM values increased (P < .001). Participants with LSM less than 10 kPa had a 5-year EFS rate of 92.2% versus with 61.2% for those with LSM of at least 15 kPa.
LSM also predicted platelet decline. For every twofold increase in baseline LSM, platelet counts declined by an additional 4,000/mm3 per year (P < .001). This association was illustrated through predicted trajectories for participants with LSM values of 4, 7, 12, 18, and 42 kPa, corresponding to different percentiles of disease severity.
Cox proportional hazards analysis indicated that a two-fold increase in LSM was associated with a hazard ratio of 3.3 (P < .001) for liver transplant or death. While LSM had good discrimination on its own (C statistic = 0.83), it did not significantly improve predictive accuracy when added to models based on platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
“This noninvasive measurement could potentially be used to predict natural history, stratify patients for clinical trials, plan interventions, and provide anticipatory guidance,” Molleston and colleagues concluded. This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; Childhood Liver Disease Research Network; and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Lipophilic Statins May Protect Against HCC In Select Liver Disease Patients
according to investigators.
These findings also pave the way for new research into targeted therapies, personalized prevention strategies, and broader applications in high-risk populations, Erik Almazan, MD, and Raymond T. Chung, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, reported.
“Statins, metformin, and aspirin are low-cost medications often prescribed for the management of diseases associated with metabolic syndrome that have been associated with reduced HCC risk, the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Despite these findings, few studies have focused on populations in the US or without hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV).”
To address this knowledge gap, Almazan and Chung retrospectively analyzed data from 3,677 patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, drawn from the All of Us Controlled Tier Dataset v7, which spans May 2018 to July 2022.
Within this population, 94 patients had HCC, while 3,583 served as controls. Lipophilic statin use was compared with hydrophilic statins, metformin, and aspirin. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for confounders including age, sex, race, and the presence of HBV or HCV.
Participants in the HCC cohort were older (mean age, 64 vs 58 years), more likely to be male (64.1% vs 50.0%), and had higher rates of chronic HBV (9.6% vs 2.5%) and chronic HCV (36.2% vs. 20.5%) compared to controls (P ≤ .01).
As a class, lipophilic statins were associated with a 36% reduced risk of HCC (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.00; P < .05). Specifically, atorvastatin was associated with a 41% reduced risk (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.93; P = .02), while simvastatin was associated with a 54% reduced risk (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.97; P = .04).
In contrast, hydrophilic statins, such as pravastatin and rosuvastatin, showed no significant association with HCC risk. Similarly, no protective association was observed for metformin or aspirin.
These findings suggest that lipophilic statins could provide a practical and cost-effective strategy for HCC prevention, particularly in patients with metabolic syndrome or alcohol-related liver disease, according to Almazan and Chung. These high-risk groups often lack accessible and noninvasive prevention options, further highlighting the clinical relevance of these results.
The investigators proposed that the chemopreventive effects of lipophilic statins may be linked to their ability to passively diffuse into cells and modulate pathways involved in cancer development, such as the mevalonate pathway. These potential mechanisms remain poorly understood.
Almazan and Chung also pointed out several study limitations, including lack of granular data on statin doses and treatment duration, absence of serologic and imaging confirmation of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, and a study cohort drawn from populations historically underrepresented in medical research, potentially limiting generalizability to the broader US population.
“Nevertheless, we believe that our study adds valuable information to the literature on statin use and its association with HCC with data from a US-based sample inclusive of individuals with risk factors other than HBV and HCV,” the investigators wrote. “These results provide further support for trials (such as NCT05028829) evaluating the utility of lipophilic statins for chemoprevention in HCC for persons at risk.”This study was supported by various National Institutes of Health grants. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence continues to increase in the United States. Because of its poor prognosis and limited treatment options, prevention strategies are critically needed, yet there are no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for HCC prevention. In the United States, metabolic syndrome has a high prevalence and is a significant contributor to HCC burden. Many individuals with metabolic syndrome are eligible for statin therapy, which has been associated with HCC chemoprevention. Evidence suggests that lipophilic statins may be more effective chemopreventive agents than hydrophilic statins. However, previous studies have largely focused on populations with hepatitis C virus, making it unclear whether these findings are generalizable to individuals with other liver disease etiologies.
Our findings support the chemopreventive potential of lipophilic statins in patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, regardless of the underlying cause. If lipophilic statins are confirmed as effective chemopreventive agents, HCC prevention could begin in the primary care setting. For example, primary care providers treating patients with metabolic syndrome and an indication for statin therapy could select treatment with lipophilic statins over hydrophilic statins. This approach would be cost-effective, relatively simple to implement, and benefit many patients, including those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who are at higher risk.
Large-scale clinical trials and basic science studies are necessary to confirm the role of lipophilic statins in HCC prevention. Supporting precision medicine initiatives like the All of Us Research Program could help identify individuals most likely to benefit and address gaps in current HCC prevention strategies.
Erik Almazan, MD, is a resident physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Raymond T. Chung, MD, is director of the Hepatology and Liver Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. They have no conflicts to disclose.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence continues to increase in the United States. Because of its poor prognosis and limited treatment options, prevention strategies are critically needed, yet there are no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for HCC prevention. In the United States, metabolic syndrome has a high prevalence and is a significant contributor to HCC burden. Many individuals with metabolic syndrome are eligible for statin therapy, which has been associated with HCC chemoprevention. Evidence suggests that lipophilic statins may be more effective chemopreventive agents than hydrophilic statins. However, previous studies have largely focused on populations with hepatitis C virus, making it unclear whether these findings are generalizable to individuals with other liver disease etiologies.
Our findings support the chemopreventive potential of lipophilic statins in patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, regardless of the underlying cause. If lipophilic statins are confirmed as effective chemopreventive agents, HCC prevention could begin in the primary care setting. For example, primary care providers treating patients with metabolic syndrome and an indication for statin therapy could select treatment with lipophilic statins over hydrophilic statins. This approach would be cost-effective, relatively simple to implement, and benefit many patients, including those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who are at higher risk.
Large-scale clinical trials and basic science studies are necessary to confirm the role of lipophilic statins in HCC prevention. Supporting precision medicine initiatives like the All of Us Research Program could help identify individuals most likely to benefit and address gaps in current HCC prevention strategies.
Erik Almazan, MD, is a resident physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Raymond T. Chung, MD, is director of the Hepatology and Liver Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. They have no conflicts to disclose.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence continues to increase in the United States. Because of its poor prognosis and limited treatment options, prevention strategies are critically needed, yet there are no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for HCC prevention. In the United States, metabolic syndrome has a high prevalence and is a significant contributor to HCC burden. Many individuals with metabolic syndrome are eligible for statin therapy, which has been associated with HCC chemoprevention. Evidence suggests that lipophilic statins may be more effective chemopreventive agents than hydrophilic statins. However, previous studies have largely focused on populations with hepatitis C virus, making it unclear whether these findings are generalizable to individuals with other liver disease etiologies.
Our findings support the chemopreventive potential of lipophilic statins in patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, regardless of the underlying cause. If lipophilic statins are confirmed as effective chemopreventive agents, HCC prevention could begin in the primary care setting. For example, primary care providers treating patients with metabolic syndrome and an indication for statin therapy could select treatment with lipophilic statins over hydrophilic statins. This approach would be cost-effective, relatively simple to implement, and benefit many patients, including those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who are at higher risk.
Large-scale clinical trials and basic science studies are necessary to confirm the role of lipophilic statins in HCC prevention. Supporting precision medicine initiatives like the All of Us Research Program could help identify individuals most likely to benefit and address gaps in current HCC prevention strategies.
Erik Almazan, MD, is a resident physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Raymond T. Chung, MD, is director of the Hepatology and Liver Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. They have no conflicts to disclose.
according to investigators.
These findings also pave the way for new research into targeted therapies, personalized prevention strategies, and broader applications in high-risk populations, Erik Almazan, MD, and Raymond T. Chung, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, reported.
“Statins, metformin, and aspirin are low-cost medications often prescribed for the management of diseases associated with metabolic syndrome that have been associated with reduced HCC risk, the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Despite these findings, few studies have focused on populations in the US or without hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV).”
To address this knowledge gap, Almazan and Chung retrospectively analyzed data from 3,677 patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, drawn from the All of Us Controlled Tier Dataset v7, which spans May 2018 to July 2022.
Within this population, 94 patients had HCC, while 3,583 served as controls. Lipophilic statin use was compared with hydrophilic statins, metformin, and aspirin. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for confounders including age, sex, race, and the presence of HBV or HCV.
Participants in the HCC cohort were older (mean age, 64 vs 58 years), more likely to be male (64.1% vs 50.0%), and had higher rates of chronic HBV (9.6% vs 2.5%) and chronic HCV (36.2% vs. 20.5%) compared to controls (P ≤ .01).
As a class, lipophilic statins were associated with a 36% reduced risk of HCC (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.00; P < .05). Specifically, atorvastatin was associated with a 41% reduced risk (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.93; P = .02), while simvastatin was associated with a 54% reduced risk (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.97; P = .04).
In contrast, hydrophilic statins, such as pravastatin and rosuvastatin, showed no significant association with HCC risk. Similarly, no protective association was observed for metformin or aspirin.
These findings suggest that lipophilic statins could provide a practical and cost-effective strategy for HCC prevention, particularly in patients with metabolic syndrome or alcohol-related liver disease, according to Almazan and Chung. These high-risk groups often lack accessible and noninvasive prevention options, further highlighting the clinical relevance of these results.
The investigators proposed that the chemopreventive effects of lipophilic statins may be linked to their ability to passively diffuse into cells and modulate pathways involved in cancer development, such as the mevalonate pathway. These potential mechanisms remain poorly understood.
Almazan and Chung also pointed out several study limitations, including lack of granular data on statin doses and treatment duration, absence of serologic and imaging confirmation of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, and a study cohort drawn from populations historically underrepresented in medical research, potentially limiting generalizability to the broader US population.
“Nevertheless, we believe that our study adds valuable information to the literature on statin use and its association with HCC with data from a US-based sample inclusive of individuals with risk factors other than HBV and HCV,” the investigators wrote. “These results provide further support for trials (such as NCT05028829) evaluating the utility of lipophilic statins for chemoprevention in HCC for persons at risk.”This study was supported by various National Institutes of Health grants. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
according to investigators.
These findings also pave the way for new research into targeted therapies, personalized prevention strategies, and broader applications in high-risk populations, Erik Almazan, MD, and Raymond T. Chung, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, reported.
“Statins, metformin, and aspirin are low-cost medications often prescribed for the management of diseases associated with metabolic syndrome that have been associated with reduced HCC risk, the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Despite these findings, few studies have focused on populations in the US or without hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV).”
To address this knowledge gap, Almazan and Chung retrospectively analyzed data from 3,677 patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, drawn from the All of Us Controlled Tier Dataset v7, which spans May 2018 to July 2022.
Within this population, 94 patients had HCC, while 3,583 served as controls. Lipophilic statin use was compared with hydrophilic statins, metformin, and aspirin. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for confounders including age, sex, race, and the presence of HBV or HCV.
Participants in the HCC cohort were older (mean age, 64 vs 58 years), more likely to be male (64.1% vs 50.0%), and had higher rates of chronic HBV (9.6% vs 2.5%) and chronic HCV (36.2% vs. 20.5%) compared to controls (P ≤ .01).
As a class, lipophilic statins were associated with a 36% reduced risk of HCC (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.00; P < .05). Specifically, atorvastatin was associated with a 41% reduced risk (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.93; P = .02), while simvastatin was associated with a 54% reduced risk (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.97; P = .04).
In contrast, hydrophilic statins, such as pravastatin and rosuvastatin, showed no significant association with HCC risk. Similarly, no protective association was observed for metformin or aspirin.
These findings suggest that lipophilic statins could provide a practical and cost-effective strategy for HCC prevention, particularly in patients with metabolic syndrome or alcohol-related liver disease, according to Almazan and Chung. These high-risk groups often lack accessible and noninvasive prevention options, further highlighting the clinical relevance of these results.
The investigators proposed that the chemopreventive effects of lipophilic statins may be linked to their ability to passively diffuse into cells and modulate pathways involved in cancer development, such as the mevalonate pathway. These potential mechanisms remain poorly understood.
Almazan and Chung also pointed out several study limitations, including lack of granular data on statin doses and treatment duration, absence of serologic and imaging confirmation of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, and a study cohort drawn from populations historically underrepresented in medical research, potentially limiting generalizability to the broader US population.
“Nevertheless, we believe that our study adds valuable information to the literature on statin use and its association with HCC with data from a US-based sample inclusive of individuals with risk factors other than HBV and HCV,” the investigators wrote. “These results provide further support for trials (such as NCT05028829) evaluating the utility of lipophilic statins for chemoprevention in HCC for persons at risk.”This study was supported by various National Institutes of Health grants. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES