Latest News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Diets high in packaged breads, cookies, and other highly processed grain products may raise the risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), while minimally processed grain products may offer some protection, a large study has found.

The sweeping analysis of 124,590 adults from 21 countries found that those eating at least 19 g of ultraprocessed grains a day were about twice as likely to be diagnosed with IBD as peers eating less than 9 g daily.

“Our study adds robust evidence from a large, diverse global cohort that frequent consumption of ultraprocessed grains is associated with an increased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease,” Neeraj Narula, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and associate professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study also “further clarifies that not all grains carry risk — minimally processed grains like fresh bread and rice were associated with lower risk even. These results build on and specify previous findings linking ultraprocessed foods more broadly to IBD,” Narula said.

The study was published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

Diet Matters to IBD Risk

According to the latest US data (2021-2023), ultraprocessed foods made up 62% of daily calories for young people and 53% for adults in 2021-2023.

The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study has followed participants aged 35-70 years for a median of nearly 13 years. At enrollment, volunteers completed country-specific food-frequency questionnaires, enabling researchers to quantify usual intake of more than 130 food items and track new cases of IBD reported at biennial follow-ups.

The researchers classified packaged breads, sweet breakfast cereals, crackers, pastries and ready-to-heat pizza or pasta as ultraprocessed grains because they are refined and typically contain additives such as emulsifiers and preservatives. Fresh bakery bread and plain rice were analyzed separately as minimally processed grain references.

During a median of 12.9 years, 605 participants developed IBD; 497 developed ulcerative colitis (UC) and 108 developed Crohn’s disease. 

Increased intake of ultraprocessed grains was associated with a higher risk for IBD, with hazard ratios (HR) of 2.08 for intake of ≥ 50 g/d and 1.37 for 19-50 g/d compared to intake of < 19 g/d. The increased risk was largely driven by a significantly increased risk for UC (HR, 2.46) and not Crohn’s disease (HR, 0.98).

Among the different ultraprocessed grain products, packaged bread stood out: Consuming ≥ 30 g/d of packaged bread (a little more than one slice) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk for IBD (HR, 2.11) compared to no intake of packaged bread.

In contrast, greater consumption of fresh bread was associated with a reduced risk of developing IBD (HR, 0.61 for ≥ 65 g/d and 0.45 for 16-65 g/d compared to < 16 g/d).

Increased intake of rice was also associated with a lower risk of developing IBD (HR, 0.63 for ≥ 1 serving/d and 0.99 for < 1 serving/d).

When the researchers widened the lens to all ultraprocessed foods — from sodas to salty snacks — the risk for IBD climbed further.

Participants eating at least five servings a day had nearly a fourfold greater odds of IBD than those eating fewer than one serving (HR, 3.95) — a finding consistent with other data from the PURE study cohort.

 

What to Tell Patients?

The authors acknowledged in their paper that it’s difficult — if not impossible — to completely avoid ultraprocessed food in the Western diet.

They said their findings support “public health strategies to promote consumption of whole and minimally processed foods while reducing the consumption of highly processed alternatives.”

“I tell my patients that emerging literature shows an association between ultraprocessed food intake and IBD risk, but it’s not yet clear whether simply cutting out those foods will improve disease activity once IBD is established,” Narula told GI & Hepatology News.

“However, I still encourage patients to reduce ultraprocessed foods and to follow a Mediterranean-style diet — focusing on minimally processed grains, fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and lean proteins — to support overall gut and general health,” Narula said.

Reached for comment, Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, associate professor of medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who wasn’t part of the study, said it “adds incrementally to the growing data on how ultraprocessed foods may affect the risk of IBD.”

“They (and others) have previously shown a link between general ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of IBD. Others have shown that some of this is mediated through refined grains. This study more specifically studies that question and demonstrates an association,” said Ananthkrishnan.

“This should not be used, however, to counsel patients. It does not study the impact of grain intake on patients with IBD. It may help inform population level preventive strategies (or in high-risk individuals) but requires more confirmation since there is significant heterogeneity between the various countries in this cohort. Countries that have high refined grain intake are also enriched in several other IBD risk factors (including genetics),” Ananthkrishnan told GI & Hepatology News.

The PURE study is an investigator-initiated study funded by the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. It received support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies. Narula declared receiving honoraria from Janssen, Abbvie, Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, Novartis, Iterative Health, Innomar Strategies, Fresinius Kabi, Amgen, Organon, Eli Lilly, and Ferring. Ananthkrishnan declared having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Diets high in packaged breads, cookies, and other highly processed grain products may raise the risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), while minimally processed grain products may offer some protection, a large study has found.

The sweeping analysis of 124,590 adults from 21 countries found that those eating at least 19 g of ultraprocessed grains a day were about twice as likely to be diagnosed with IBD as peers eating less than 9 g daily.

“Our study adds robust evidence from a large, diverse global cohort that frequent consumption of ultraprocessed grains is associated with an increased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease,” Neeraj Narula, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and associate professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study also “further clarifies that not all grains carry risk — minimally processed grains like fresh bread and rice were associated with lower risk even. These results build on and specify previous findings linking ultraprocessed foods more broadly to IBD,” Narula said.

The study was published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

Diet Matters to IBD Risk

According to the latest US data (2021-2023), ultraprocessed foods made up 62% of daily calories for young people and 53% for adults in 2021-2023.

The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study has followed participants aged 35-70 years for a median of nearly 13 years. At enrollment, volunteers completed country-specific food-frequency questionnaires, enabling researchers to quantify usual intake of more than 130 food items and track new cases of IBD reported at biennial follow-ups.

The researchers classified packaged breads, sweet breakfast cereals, crackers, pastries and ready-to-heat pizza or pasta as ultraprocessed grains because they are refined and typically contain additives such as emulsifiers and preservatives. Fresh bakery bread and plain rice were analyzed separately as minimally processed grain references.

During a median of 12.9 years, 605 participants developed IBD; 497 developed ulcerative colitis (UC) and 108 developed Crohn’s disease. 

Increased intake of ultraprocessed grains was associated with a higher risk for IBD, with hazard ratios (HR) of 2.08 for intake of ≥ 50 g/d and 1.37 for 19-50 g/d compared to intake of < 19 g/d. The increased risk was largely driven by a significantly increased risk for UC (HR, 2.46) and not Crohn’s disease (HR, 0.98).

Among the different ultraprocessed grain products, packaged bread stood out: Consuming ≥ 30 g/d of packaged bread (a little more than one slice) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk for IBD (HR, 2.11) compared to no intake of packaged bread.

In contrast, greater consumption of fresh bread was associated with a reduced risk of developing IBD (HR, 0.61 for ≥ 65 g/d and 0.45 for 16-65 g/d compared to < 16 g/d).

Increased intake of rice was also associated with a lower risk of developing IBD (HR, 0.63 for ≥ 1 serving/d and 0.99 for < 1 serving/d).

When the researchers widened the lens to all ultraprocessed foods — from sodas to salty snacks — the risk for IBD climbed further.

Participants eating at least five servings a day had nearly a fourfold greater odds of IBD than those eating fewer than one serving (HR, 3.95) — a finding consistent with other data from the PURE study cohort.

 

What to Tell Patients?

The authors acknowledged in their paper that it’s difficult — if not impossible — to completely avoid ultraprocessed food in the Western diet.

They said their findings support “public health strategies to promote consumption of whole and minimally processed foods while reducing the consumption of highly processed alternatives.”

“I tell my patients that emerging literature shows an association between ultraprocessed food intake and IBD risk, but it’s not yet clear whether simply cutting out those foods will improve disease activity once IBD is established,” Narula told GI & Hepatology News.

“However, I still encourage patients to reduce ultraprocessed foods and to follow a Mediterranean-style diet — focusing on minimally processed grains, fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and lean proteins — to support overall gut and general health,” Narula said.

Reached for comment, Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, associate professor of medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who wasn’t part of the study, said it “adds incrementally to the growing data on how ultraprocessed foods may affect the risk of IBD.”

“They (and others) have previously shown a link between general ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of IBD. Others have shown that some of this is mediated through refined grains. This study more specifically studies that question and demonstrates an association,” said Ananthkrishnan.

“This should not be used, however, to counsel patients. It does not study the impact of grain intake on patients with IBD. It may help inform population level preventive strategies (or in high-risk individuals) but requires more confirmation since there is significant heterogeneity between the various countries in this cohort. Countries that have high refined grain intake are also enriched in several other IBD risk factors (including genetics),” Ananthkrishnan told GI & Hepatology News.

The PURE study is an investigator-initiated study funded by the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. It received support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies. Narula declared receiving honoraria from Janssen, Abbvie, Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, Novartis, Iterative Health, Innomar Strategies, Fresinius Kabi, Amgen, Organon, Eli Lilly, and Ferring. Ananthkrishnan declared having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Diets high in packaged breads, cookies, and other highly processed grain products may raise the risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), while minimally processed grain products may offer some protection, a large study has found.

The sweeping analysis of 124,590 adults from 21 countries found that those eating at least 19 g of ultraprocessed grains a day were about twice as likely to be diagnosed with IBD as peers eating less than 9 g daily.

“Our study adds robust evidence from a large, diverse global cohort that frequent consumption of ultraprocessed grains is associated with an increased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease,” Neeraj Narula, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and associate professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study also “further clarifies that not all grains carry risk — minimally processed grains like fresh bread and rice were associated with lower risk even. These results build on and specify previous findings linking ultraprocessed foods more broadly to IBD,” Narula said.

The study was published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

Diet Matters to IBD Risk

According to the latest US data (2021-2023), ultraprocessed foods made up 62% of daily calories for young people and 53% for adults in 2021-2023.

The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study has followed participants aged 35-70 years for a median of nearly 13 years. At enrollment, volunteers completed country-specific food-frequency questionnaires, enabling researchers to quantify usual intake of more than 130 food items and track new cases of IBD reported at biennial follow-ups.

The researchers classified packaged breads, sweet breakfast cereals, crackers, pastries and ready-to-heat pizza or pasta as ultraprocessed grains because they are refined and typically contain additives such as emulsifiers and preservatives. Fresh bakery bread and plain rice were analyzed separately as minimally processed grain references.

During a median of 12.9 years, 605 participants developed IBD; 497 developed ulcerative colitis (UC) and 108 developed Crohn’s disease. 

Increased intake of ultraprocessed grains was associated with a higher risk for IBD, with hazard ratios (HR) of 2.08 for intake of ≥ 50 g/d and 1.37 for 19-50 g/d compared to intake of < 19 g/d. The increased risk was largely driven by a significantly increased risk for UC (HR, 2.46) and not Crohn’s disease (HR, 0.98).

Among the different ultraprocessed grain products, packaged bread stood out: Consuming ≥ 30 g/d of packaged bread (a little more than one slice) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk for IBD (HR, 2.11) compared to no intake of packaged bread.

In contrast, greater consumption of fresh bread was associated with a reduced risk of developing IBD (HR, 0.61 for ≥ 65 g/d and 0.45 for 16-65 g/d compared to < 16 g/d).

Increased intake of rice was also associated with a lower risk of developing IBD (HR, 0.63 for ≥ 1 serving/d and 0.99 for < 1 serving/d).

When the researchers widened the lens to all ultraprocessed foods — from sodas to salty snacks — the risk for IBD climbed further.

Participants eating at least five servings a day had nearly a fourfold greater odds of IBD than those eating fewer than one serving (HR, 3.95) — a finding consistent with other data from the PURE study cohort.

 

What to Tell Patients?

The authors acknowledged in their paper that it’s difficult — if not impossible — to completely avoid ultraprocessed food in the Western diet.

They said their findings support “public health strategies to promote consumption of whole and minimally processed foods while reducing the consumption of highly processed alternatives.”

“I tell my patients that emerging literature shows an association between ultraprocessed food intake and IBD risk, but it’s not yet clear whether simply cutting out those foods will improve disease activity once IBD is established,” Narula told GI & Hepatology News.

“However, I still encourage patients to reduce ultraprocessed foods and to follow a Mediterranean-style diet — focusing on minimally processed grains, fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and lean proteins — to support overall gut and general health,” Narula said.

Reached for comment, Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, associate professor of medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who wasn’t part of the study, said it “adds incrementally to the growing data on how ultraprocessed foods may affect the risk of IBD.”

“They (and others) have previously shown a link between general ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of IBD. Others have shown that some of this is mediated through refined grains. This study more specifically studies that question and demonstrates an association,” said Ananthkrishnan.

“This should not be used, however, to counsel patients. It does not study the impact of grain intake on patients with IBD. It may help inform population level preventive strategies (or in high-risk individuals) but requires more confirmation since there is significant heterogeneity between the various countries in this cohort. Countries that have high refined grain intake are also enriched in several other IBD risk factors (including genetics),” Ananthkrishnan told GI & Hepatology News.

The PURE study is an investigator-initiated study funded by the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. It received support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies. Narula declared receiving honoraria from Janssen, Abbvie, Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, Novartis, Iterative Health, Innomar Strategies, Fresinius Kabi, Amgen, Organon, Eli Lilly, and Ferring. Ananthkrishnan declared having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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