The New Gastroenterologist

Introduction

The virtual space has created new opportunities for gastroenterology fellows, but direct conversations about education and career development on the national level have been limited. On Oct. 16, 2021, the American Gastroenterological Association and EndoscopyNow hosted an online Fellows Forum titled “Navigating New Frontiers of Training in Gastroenterology.” Close to 100 fellows attended and had the chance to listen to discussions from a national panel of faculty with expertise in medical education, ask candid questions, and share experiences in breakout rooms specific to their year of training. Reading materials were also provided, which are cited throughout this article. What follows is a rundown of the discussion and points of particular interest for fellows.

What do fellows value?

Dr. Laura Raffals kicked off the event by asking fellows to create word clouds related to their challenges (“Balance” was the most common answer) and joys (“Family”). These answers underscore that, when faced with pressures to be 100% at work and home, it is human connection, particularly family, that sustains us. Fellows, however, worried that spending time with family conflicted with spending time on GI training and that they would be perceived as “that person who always leaves early.”¹

Attendees discussed that “there are only 168 hours in a week,” (time is a zero-sum game), and it is important to be self-aware and honest about one’s personal values and commit the commensurate time and energy to those values. Consider personal development exercises.² Faculty have a crucial role in coaching fellows on time management based on personal values.³
 

Has COVID-19 reduced fellows’ endoscopic skills?

One brave attendee asked: Is this generation of fellows “weaker” because of limited scoping during the pandemic? Faculty discussed that, even prepandemic, it was “not all about quantity; the quality of exposure matters just as much.” From their perspective, prepared, goal-directed, and helpful fellows would maximize learning during endoscopy blocks (see below). Lawrence Schiller, MD, providing the long view, reassured fellows that with a proactive attitude it all evens out in the end.

Fellows reflected that, although social isolation and burnout were rampant, some individuals stepped up to do extra work, supported colleagues with personal or family health issues, and scoped COVID-positive patients if others could not. In future years, the pandemic will be seen as a case study for those in leadership positions. The decisions that health systems, administrators, and providers made will be remembered, as well as how algorithms for “practice as usual” changed.⁴

What fellows can do to maximize endoscopic learning (attendings’ perspective):

• Know the patient before the case. Prior endoscopy reports, patient comorbidities, and medical history including details like anticoagulation use or issues with anesthesia.
• Help the work flow (and reduce the attending’s stress level). Consent patients and complete preprocedure paperwork if possible.
• Come into the scope block with a plan. Example: “I want to get to the cecum. The attending can withdraw, and I will take out polyps we find.”
• Ask about decision-making. Example: “Why did you choose to place a clip over that polypectomy site?” or “Why did you choose that instrument and not the other?”
• Give feedback on problematic behavior. Attendings that treat fellows like burdens and undermine fellow scope time should be reported. Fellows may be concerned about being perceived as a “troublemaker,” but discussing these situations with program directors is a civic duty.

How can we improve diversity?

We cannot wait for, and must instead proactively recruit, diverse trainees, as well as create inclusive environments. Mentorship is key. However, recent work showing imbalances in gender of mentor-mentees and extra pressure on women mentors raises concerns about sustainability.^5,6 The panel suggested that interested fellows could engage students earlier in the pipeline, participate in community awareness and exposure programs, and dedicate education time to health equity.⁷ Fellows raised concerns about barriers for international medical graduates, which would require institutional and federal policy changes would to implement change.

How can fellows develop better practice patterns?

Sri Komanduri, MD, focused on complex endoscopic cases.⁸ Having live video, using polls, and listening to other attendings comment on cases was illuminating and sometimes humbling. The panel discussed that simulation labs could strongly enhance endoscopic skill training, but if unavailable, companies are often willing to sponsor events for teaching purposes.⁹ If training on specific topics is not offered at an institution, regional weekend courses are also an option.

Raman Muthusamy, MD, MS, discussed his philosophy towards endoscopic complications: be prepared and follow your instinct if something feels off. He and Dr. Ikuo Hirano emphasized the importance of following up with patients after a complication. The panel also suggested that fellows can build quality improvement experience by contributing to GI morbidity and mortality conferences or start them if not already offered.
 

Where is the future headed?

Amrita Sethi, MD, outlined the trend towards virtual platforms and getting the global GI community involved in education efforts. She pointed out the need for a gold standard on assessing competency in endoscopy. From a practice perspective, implementation of telemedicine in GI merits further study, as so far this technology has been attractive to providers and patients alike. Todd Baron, MD, stressed that newer technologies, including artificial intelligence, will not replace the endoscopist but may reduce the need for screening procedures and instead increase demand for specific diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. He used the examples of therapeutic applications of endoscopic ultrasound and the development of single-use duodenoscopes.

Concerns about transitioning from training to independent practice

During the third-year breakout session, fellows discussed anxieties about starting practice and living up to expectations: “What if it’s my first week and there’s something I can’t do?” Faculty recommended getting to know colleagues at a new institution, being confident in your training, and staying engaged with your own complications.¹⁰ Fellows described the surprising amount of time and energy they dedicated to the job search and got counseling from Dr. Schiller, who recommended defining what “success” and “satisfaction” look like (again, defining one’s values). He recommended that, for fellows looking at private practice positions, one should ask: How much autonomy do I want? How much business risk am I willing to accept? Fellows need more formal education on practice management and the “business side” of gastroenterology.¹¹

Conclusions

The 2021 AGA EndoscopyNow forum was unique in its discussion of issues impacting GI fellows. The forum revealed that worries about personal well-being, training quality, and future career prospects have affected fellows everywhere: you are not alone. Presentations and lively conversation between seasoned faculty who reflected on career development, education, and medical management demonstrate the importance of seeking advice from colleagues and mentorship. Based on this event, future sessions with conversations between faculty and fellows to assess needs and set priorities for directions in training would be welcome.

Dr. Liu is a gastroenterology fellow, Northwestern University, Chicago. The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References 

1. Katzka DA and Proctor DD. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(4):1147-8.

2. Sull D and Houlder D. Do Your Commitments Match Your Convictions? Harv Bus Rev. 2005 Jan 1. https://hbr.org/2005/01/do-your-commitments-match-your-convictions.

3. Keswani RN et al. Gastroenterology. 2020;159(1):26-9.

4. Sethi A et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18(8):1673-81.

5. Rabinowitz LG et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93(5):1047-56.e5.

6. Rabinowitz LG et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91(1):155-61.

7. Lee-Allen J, Shah BJ. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(6):1924-8.

8. Richter JM et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(3):348-52.

9. Muthusamy VR and Komanduri S. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Mar;17(4):580-3.

10. Liu H and Boyatzis RE. Front Psychol. 2021. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.685829.

11. Amann ST et al. “Words” to practice by: A guide to understand the business vernacular of a healthy practice. https://webfiles.gi.org/links/pm/TheHealthOfMyPracticeToolboxPMCommitteeToolbox.pdf.
 

Introduction

The virtual space has created new opportunities for gastroenterology fellows, but direct conversations about education and career development on the national level have been limited. On Oct. 16, 2021, the American Gastroenterological Association and EndoscopyNow hosted an online Fellows Forum titled “Navigating New Frontiers of Training in Gastroenterology.” Close to 100 fellows attended and had the chance to listen to discussions from a national panel of faculty with expertise in medical education, ask candid questions, and share experiences in breakout rooms specific to their year of training. Reading materials were also provided, which are cited throughout this article. What follows is a rundown of the discussion and points of particular interest for fellows.

What do fellows value?

Dr. Laura Raffals kicked off the event by asking fellows to create word clouds related to their challenges (“Balance” was the most common answer) and joys (“Family”). These answers underscore that, when faced with pressures to be 100% at work and home, it is human connection, particularly family, that sustains us. Fellows, however, worried that spending time with family conflicted with spending time on GI training and that they would be perceived as “that person who always leaves early.”¹

Attendees discussed that “there are only 168 hours in a week,” (time is a zero-sum game), and it is important to be self-aware and honest about one’s personal values and commit the commensurate time and energy to those values. Consider personal development exercises.² Faculty have a crucial role in coaching fellows on time management based on personal values.³
 

Has COVID-19 reduced fellows’ endoscopic skills?

One brave attendee asked: Is this generation of fellows “weaker” because of limited scoping during the pandemic? Faculty discussed that, even prepandemic, it was “not all about quantity; the quality of exposure matters just as much.” From their perspective, prepared, goal-directed, and helpful fellows would maximize learning during endoscopy blocks (see below). Lawrence Schiller, MD, providing the long view, reassured fellows that with a proactive attitude it all evens out in the end.

Fellows reflected that, although social isolation and burnout were rampant, some individuals stepped up to do extra work, supported colleagues with personal or family health issues, and scoped COVID-positive patients if others could not. In future years, the pandemic will be seen as a case study for those in leadership positions. The decisions that health systems, administrators, and providers made will be remembered, as well as how algorithms for “practice as usual” changed.⁴

What fellows can do to maximize endoscopic learning (attendings’ perspective):

• Know the patient before the case. Prior endoscopy reports, patient comorbidities, and medical history including details like anticoagulation use or issues with anesthesia.
• Help the work flow (and reduce the attending’s stress level). Consent patients and complete preprocedure paperwork if possible.
• Come into the scope block with a plan. Example: “I want to get to the cecum. The attending can withdraw, and I will take out polyps we find.”
• Ask about decision-making. Example: “Why did you choose to place a clip over that polypectomy site?” or “Why did you choose that instrument and not the other?”
• Give feedback on problematic behavior. Attendings that treat fellows like burdens and undermine fellow scope time should be reported. Fellows may be concerned about being perceived as a “troublemaker,” but discussing these situations with program directors is a civic duty.

How can we improve diversity?

We cannot wait for, and must instead proactively recruit, diverse trainees, as well as create inclusive environments. Mentorship is key. However, recent work showing imbalances in gender of mentor-mentees and extra pressure on women mentors raises concerns about sustainability.^5,6 The panel suggested that interested fellows could engage students earlier in the pipeline, participate in community awareness and exposure programs, and dedicate education time to health equity.⁷ Fellows raised concerns about barriers for international medical graduates, which would require institutional and federal policy changes would to implement change.

How can fellows develop better practice patterns?

Sri Komanduri, MD, focused on complex endoscopic cases.⁸ Having live video, using polls, and listening to other attendings comment on cases was illuminating and sometimes humbling. The panel discussed that simulation labs could strongly enhance endoscopic skill training, but if unavailable, companies are often willing to sponsor events for teaching purposes.⁹ If training on specific topics is not offered at an institution, regional weekend courses are also an option.

Raman Muthusamy, MD, MS, discussed his philosophy towards endoscopic complications: be prepared and follow your instinct if something feels off. He and Dr. Ikuo Hirano emphasized the importance of following up with patients after a complication. The panel also suggested that fellows can build quality improvement experience by contributing to GI morbidity and mortality conferences or start them if not already offered.
 

Where is the future headed?

Amrita Sethi, MD, outlined the trend towards virtual platforms and getting the global GI community involved in education efforts. She pointed out the need for a gold standard on assessing competency in endoscopy. From a practice perspective, implementation of telemedicine in GI merits further study, as so far this technology has been attractive to providers and patients alike. Todd Baron, MD, stressed that newer technologies, including artificial intelligence, will not replace the endoscopist but may reduce the need for screening procedures and instead increase demand for specific diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. He used the examples of therapeutic applications of endoscopic ultrasound and the development of single-use duodenoscopes.

Concerns about transitioning from training to independent practice

During the third-year breakout session, fellows discussed anxieties about starting practice and living up to expectations: “What if it’s my first week and there’s something I can’t do?” Faculty recommended getting to know colleagues at a new institution, being confident in your training, and staying engaged with your own complications.¹⁰ Fellows described the surprising amount of time and energy they dedicated to the job search and got counseling from Dr. Schiller, who recommended defining what “success” and “satisfaction” look like (again, defining one’s values). He recommended that, for fellows looking at private practice positions, one should ask: How much autonomy do I want? How much business risk am I willing to accept? Fellows need more formal education on practice management and the “business side” of gastroenterology.¹¹

Conclusions

The 2021 AGA EndoscopyNow forum was unique in its discussion of issues impacting GI fellows. The forum revealed that worries about personal well-being, training quality, and future career prospects have affected fellows everywhere: you are not alone. Presentations and lively conversation between seasoned faculty who reflected on career development, education, and medical management demonstrate the importance of seeking advice from colleagues and mentorship. Based on this event, future sessions with conversations between faculty and fellows to assess needs and set priorities for directions in training would be welcome.

Dr. Liu is a gastroenterology fellow, Northwestern University, Chicago. The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References 

1. Katzka DA and Proctor DD. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(4):1147-8.

2. Sull D and Houlder D. Do Your Commitments Match Your Convictions? Harv Bus Rev. 2005 Jan 1. https://hbr.org/2005/01/do-your-commitments-match-your-convictions.

3. Keswani RN et al. Gastroenterology. 2020;159(1):26-9.

4. Sethi A et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18(8):1673-81.

5. Rabinowitz LG et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93(5):1047-56.e5.

6. Rabinowitz LG et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91(1):155-61.

7. Lee-Allen J, Shah BJ. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(6):1924-8.

8. Richter JM et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(3):348-52.

9. Muthusamy VR and Komanduri S. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Mar;17(4):580-3.

10. Liu H and Boyatzis RE. Front Psychol. 2021. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.685829.

11. Amann ST et al. “Words” to practice by: A guide to understand the business vernacular of a healthy practice. https://webfiles.gi.org/links/pm/TheHealthOfMyPracticeToolboxPMCommitteeToolbox.pdf.
 

Introduction

The virtual space has created new opportunities for gastroenterology fellows, but direct conversations about education and career development on the national level have been limited. On Oct. 16, 2021, the American Gastroenterological Association and EndoscopyNow hosted an online Fellows Forum titled “Navigating New Frontiers of Training in Gastroenterology.” Close to 100 fellows attended and had the chance to listen to discussions from a national panel of faculty with expertise in medical education, ask candid questions, and share experiences in breakout rooms specific to their year of training. Reading materials were also provided, which are cited throughout this article. What follows is a rundown of the discussion and points of particular interest for fellows.

What do fellows value?

Dr. Laura Raffals kicked off the event by asking fellows to create word clouds related to their challenges (“Balance” was the most common answer) and joys (“Family”). These answers underscore that, when faced with pressures to be 100% at work and home, it is human connection, particularly family, that sustains us. Fellows, however, worried that spending time with family conflicted with spending time on GI training and that they would be perceived as “that person who always leaves early.”¹

Attendees discussed that “there are only 168 hours in a week,” (time is a zero-sum game), and it is important to be self-aware and honest about one’s personal values and commit the commensurate time and energy to those values. Consider personal development exercises.² Faculty have a crucial role in coaching fellows on time management based on personal values.³
 

Has COVID-19 reduced fellows’ endoscopic skills?

One brave attendee asked: Is this generation of fellows “weaker” because of limited scoping during the pandemic? Faculty discussed that, even prepandemic, it was “not all about quantity; the quality of exposure matters just as much.” From their perspective, prepared, goal-directed, and helpful fellows would maximize learning during endoscopy blocks (see below). Lawrence Schiller, MD, providing the long view, reassured fellows that with a proactive attitude it all evens out in the end.

Fellows reflected that, although social isolation and burnout were rampant, some individuals stepped up to do extra work, supported colleagues with personal or family health issues, and scoped COVID-positive patients if others could not. In future years, the pandemic will be seen as a case study for those in leadership positions. The decisions that health systems, administrators, and providers made will be remembered, as well as how algorithms for “practice as usual” changed.⁴

What fellows can do to maximize endoscopic learning (attendings’ perspective):

• Know the patient before the case. Prior endoscopy reports, patient comorbidities, and medical history including details like anticoagulation use or issues with anesthesia.
• Help the work flow (and reduce the attending’s stress level). Consent patients and complete preprocedure paperwork if possible.
• Come into the scope block with a plan. Example: “I want to get to the cecum. The attending can withdraw, and I will take out polyps we find.”
• Ask about decision-making. Example: “Why did you choose to place a clip over that polypectomy site?” or “Why did you choose that instrument and not the other?”
• Give feedback on problematic behavior. Attendings that treat fellows like burdens and undermine fellow scope time should be reported. Fellows may be concerned about being perceived as a “troublemaker,” but discussing these situations with program directors is a civic duty.

How can we improve diversity?

We cannot wait for, and must instead proactively recruit, diverse trainees, as well as create inclusive environments. Mentorship is key. However, recent work showing imbalances in gender of mentor-mentees and extra pressure on women mentors raises concerns about sustainability.^5,6 The panel suggested that interested fellows could engage students earlier in the pipeline, participate in community awareness and exposure programs, and dedicate education time to health equity.⁷ Fellows raised concerns about barriers for international medical graduates, which would require institutional and federal policy changes would to implement change.

How can fellows develop better practice patterns?

Sri Komanduri, MD, focused on complex endoscopic cases.⁸ Having live video, using polls, and listening to other attendings comment on cases was illuminating and sometimes humbling. The panel discussed that simulation labs could strongly enhance endoscopic skill training, but if unavailable, companies are often willing to sponsor events for teaching purposes.⁹ If training on specific topics is not offered at an institution, regional weekend courses are also an option.

Raman Muthusamy, MD, MS, discussed his philosophy towards endoscopic complications: be prepared and follow your instinct if something feels off. He and Dr. Ikuo Hirano emphasized the importance of following up with patients after a complication. The panel also suggested that fellows can build quality improvement experience by contributing to GI morbidity and mortality conferences or start them if not already offered.
 

Where is the future headed?

Amrita Sethi, MD, outlined the trend towards virtual platforms and getting the global GI community involved in education efforts. She pointed out the need for a gold standard on assessing competency in endoscopy. From a practice perspective, implementation of telemedicine in GI merits further study, as so far this technology has been attractive to providers and patients alike. Todd Baron, MD, stressed that newer technologies, including artificial intelligence, will not replace the endoscopist but may reduce the need for screening procedures and instead increase demand for specific diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. He used the examples of therapeutic applications of endoscopic ultrasound and the development of single-use duodenoscopes.

Concerns about transitioning from training to independent practice

During the third-year breakout session, fellows discussed anxieties about starting practice and living up to expectations: “What if it’s my first week and there’s something I can’t do?” Faculty recommended getting to know colleagues at a new institution, being confident in your training, and staying engaged with your own complications.¹⁰ Fellows described the surprising amount of time and energy they dedicated to the job search and got counseling from Dr. Schiller, who recommended defining what “success” and “satisfaction” look like (again, defining one’s values). He recommended that, for fellows looking at private practice positions, one should ask: How much autonomy do I want? How much business risk am I willing to accept? Fellows need more formal education on practice management and the “business side” of gastroenterology.¹¹

Conclusions

The 2021 AGA EndoscopyNow forum was unique in its discussion of issues impacting GI fellows. The forum revealed that worries about personal well-being, training quality, and future career prospects have affected fellows everywhere: you are not alone. Presentations and lively conversation between seasoned faculty who reflected on career development, education, and medical management demonstrate the importance of seeking advice from colleagues and mentorship. Based on this event, future sessions with conversations between faculty and fellows to assess needs and set priorities for directions in training would be welcome.

Dr. Liu is a gastroenterology fellow, Northwestern University, Chicago. The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References 

1. Katzka DA and Proctor DD. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(4):1147-8.

2. Sull D and Houlder D. Do Your Commitments Match Your Convictions? Harv Bus Rev. 2005 Jan 1. https://hbr.org/2005/01/do-your-commitments-match-your-convictions.

3. Keswani RN et al. Gastroenterology. 2020;159(1):26-9.

4. Sethi A et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18(8):1673-81.

5. Rabinowitz LG et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93(5):1047-56.e5.

6. Rabinowitz LG et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91(1):155-61.

7. Lee-Allen J, Shah BJ. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(6):1924-8.

8. Richter JM et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(3):348-52.

9. Muthusamy VR and Komanduri S. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Mar;17(4):580-3.

10. Liu H and Boyatzis RE. Front Psychol. 2021. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.685829.

11. Amann ST et al. “Words” to practice by: A guide to understand the business vernacular of a healthy practice. https://webfiles.gi.org/links/pm/TheHealthOfMyPracticeToolboxPMCommitteeToolbox.pdf.
 

Diverticular hemorrhage is the most common cause of colonic bleeding, accounting for 20%-65% of cases of severe lower intestinal bleeding in adults.¹ Urgent colonoscopy after purging the colon of blood, clots, and stool is the most accurate method of diagnosing and guiding treatment of definitive diverticular hemorrhage.^2-5 The diagnosis of definitive diverticular hemorrhage depends upon identification of some stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) in a single diverticulum (TIC), which can include active arterial bleeding, oozing, non-bleeding visible vessel, adherent clot, or flat spot.^2-4 Although other approaches, such as nuclear medicine scans and angiography of various types (CT, MRI, or standard angiography), for the early diagnosis of patients with severe hematochezia are utilized in many medical centers, only active bleeding can be detected by these techniques. However, as subsequently discussed, this SRH is documented in only 26% of definitive diverticular bleeds found on urgent colonoscopy, so diagnostic yields of these techniques will be low.^2-5

The diagnosis of patients with severe hematochezia and diverticulosis, as well as triage of all of them to specific medical, endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical management, is facilitated by an urgent endoscopic approach.^2-5 Patients who are diagnosed with definitive diverticular hemorrhage on colonoscopy represent about 30% of all true TIC bleeds when urgent colonoscopy is the management approach.^2-5 That is because approximately 50% of all patients with colon diverticulosis and first presentation of severe hematochezia have incidental diverticulosis; they have colonic diverticulosis, but another site of bleeding is identified as the cause of hemorrhage in the gastrointestinal tract.^2-4 Presumptive diverticular hemorrhage is diagnosed when colonic diverticulosis without TIC stigmata are found but no other GI bleeding source is found on colonoscopy, anoscopy, enteroscopy, or capsule endoscopy.^2-5 In our experience with urgent colonoscopy, the presumptive diverticular bleed group accounts for about 70% of patients with documented diverticular hemorrhage (e.g., not including incidental diverticulosis bleeds but combining subgroups of patients with either definitive or presumptive TIC diagnoses as documented TIC hemorrhage).

Clinical presentation

Patients with diverticular hemorrhage present with severe, painless large volume hematochezia. Hematochezia may be self-limited and spontaneously resolve in 75%-80% of all patients but with high rebleeding rates up to 40%.^5-7 Of all patients with diverticulosis, only about 3%-5% develop diverticular hemorrhage.⁸ Risk factors for diverticular hemorrhage include medications (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – NSAIDs, antiplatelet drugs, and anticoagulants) and other clinical factors, such as older age, low-fiber diet, and chronic constipation.^9,10 On urgent colonoscopy, more than 70% of diverticulosis in U.S. patients are located anatomically in the descending colon or more distally. In contrast, about 60% of definitive diverticular hemorrhage cases in our experience had diverticula with stigmata identified at or proximal to the splenic flexure.^2,4,11

Pathophysiology

Colonic diverticula are herniations of mucosa and submucosa with colonic arteries that penetrate the muscular wall. Bleeding can occur when there is asymmetric rupture of the vasa recta at either the base of the diverticulum or the neck.⁴ Thinning of the mucosa on the luminal surface (such as that resulting from impacted fecaliths and stool) can cause injury to the site of the penetrating vessels, resulting in hemorrhage.¹²

Initial management

Patients with acute, severe hematochezia should be triaged to an inpatient setting with a monitored bed. Admission to an intensive care unit should be considered for patients with hemodynamic instability, persistent bleeding, and/or significant comorbidities. Patients with TIC hemorrhage often require resuscitation with crystalloids and packed red blood cell transfusions for hemoglobin less than 8 g/dl.⁴ Unlike upper GI hemorrhage, which has been extensively reported on, data regarding a more restrictive transfusion threshold, compared with a liberal transfusion threshold, in lower intestinal bleeding are very limited. Correction of underlying coagulopathies is recommended but should be individualized, particularly in those patients on antithrombotic agents or with underlying bleeding disorders.

Urgent diagnosis and hemostasis

Urgent colonoscopy within 24 hours is the most accurate way to make a diagnosis of definitive diverticular hemorrhage and to effectively and safely treat them.^2-4,10,11 For patients with severe hematochezia, when the colonoscopy is either not available in a medical center or does not reveal the source of bleeding, nuclear scintigraphy or angiography (CT, MRI, or interventional radiology [IR]) are recommended. CT angiography may be particularly helpful to diagnose patients with hemodynamic instability who are suspected to have active TIC bleeding and are not able to complete a bowel preparation. However, these imaging techniques require active bleeding at the time of the study to be diagnostic. This SRH is also uncommon for definitive diverticular hemorrhage, so the diagnostic yield is usually quite low.^2-5,10,11 An additional limitation of scintigraphy and CT or MRI angiography is that, if active bleeding is found, some other type of treatment, such as colonoscopy, IR angiography, or surgery, will be required for definitive hemostasis.

For urgent colonoscopy, adequate colon preparation with a large volume preparation (6-8 liters of polyethylene glycol-based solution) is recommended to clear stool, blood, and clots to allow endoscopic visualization and localization of the bleeding source. Use of a nasogastric tube should be considered if the patient is unable to drink enough prep.^2-4,13 Additionally, administration of a prokinetic agent, such as Metoclopramide, may improve gastric emptying and tolerance of the prep. During colonoscopy, careful inspection of the colonic mucosa during insertion and withdrawal is important since lesions may bleed intermittently and SRH can be missed. An adult or pediatric colonoscope with a large working channel (at least 3.3 mm) is recommended to facilitate suctioning of blood clots and stool, as well as allow the passage of endoscopic hemostasis accessories. Targeted water-jet irrigation, an expert colonoscopist, a cap attachment, and adequate colon preparation are all predictors for improved diagnosis of definitive diverticular hemorrhage.^4,14

SRH in definitive TIC bleeds all have a high risk of TIC rebleeding,^2-4,10,11 including active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, adherent clot, and a flat spot (See Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Vivy T. Cusumano, Dr. Christopher L. Paiji, and Dr. Dennis M. Jensen

Based on CURE Hemostasis Group data of 118 definitive TIC bleeds, 26% had active bleeding, 24% had a nonbleeding visible vessel, 37% had an adherent clot, and 13% had a flat spot (with underlying arterial blood flow by Doppler probe monitoring).⁴ Approximately 50% of the SRH were found in the neck of the TIC and 50% at the base, with actively bleeding cases more often from the base. In CURE Doppler endoscopic probe studies, 90% of all stigmata had an underlying arterial blood flow detected with the Doppler probe.^4,10 The Doppler probe is reported to be very useful for risk stratification and to confirm obliteration of the arterial blood flow underlying SRH for definitive hemostasis.^4,10
 

Endoscopic treatment

Given high rates of rebleeding with medical management alone, definitive TIC hemorrhage can be effectively and safely treated with endoscopic therapies once SRH are localized.^4,10 Endoscopic therapies that have been reported in the literature include electrocoagulation, hemoclip, band ligation, and over-the-scope clip. Four-quadrant injection of 1:20,000 epinephrine around the SRH can improve visualization of SRH and provide temporary control of bleeding, but it should be combined with other modalities because of risk of rebleeding with epinephrine alone.¹⁵ Results from studies reporting rates of both early rebleeding (occurring within 30 days) and late rebleeding (occurring after 30 days) are listed in the Table.

Multipolar electrocoagulation (MPEC), which utilizes a focal electric current to generate heat, can coaptively coagulate small TIC arteries.¹⁶ For SRH in the neck of TIC, MPEC is effective for coaptive coagulation at a power of 12-15 watts in 1-2 second pulses with moderate laterally applied tamponade pressure. MPEC should be avoided for treating SRH at the TIC base because of lack of muscularis propria and higher risk of perforation.

Hemoclip therapy has been reported to be safe and efficacious in treatment of definitive TIC hemorrhage, by causing mechanical hemostasis with occlusion of the bleeding artery.¹⁶ Hemoclips are recommended to treat stigmata in the base of TICs and should be targeted on either side of visible vessel in order to occlude the artery underneath it.^4,10 With a cap on the tip of the colonoscope, suctioning can evert TICs, allowing more precise placement of hemoclip on SRH in the base of the TIC.¹⁷ Hemoclip retention rates vary with different models and can range from less than 7 days to more than 4 weeks. Hemoclips can also mark the site if early rebleeding occurs; then, reintervention (e.g., repeat endoscopy or angioembolization) is facilitated.

Another treatment is endoscopic band ligation, which provides mechanical hemostasis. Endoscopic band ligation has been reported to be efficacious for TIC hemorrhage.¹⁸ Suctioning the TIC with the SRH into the distal cap and deploying a band leads to obliteration of vessels and potentially necrosis and disappearance of banded TIC.¹⁶ This technique carries a risk of perforation because of the thin walls of TICs. This risk may be higher for right-sided colon lesions since an exvivo colon specimen study reported serosal entrapment and inclusion of muscularis propria postband ligation, both of which may result in ischemia of intestinal wall and delayed perforation.¹⁹

Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been reported in case series for treatment of definitive TIC hemorrhage. With a distal cap and large clip, suctioning can evert TICs and facilitate deployment over the SRH.20,21 OTSC can grasp an entire TIC with the SRH and obliterate the arterial blood flow with a single clip.^20,21 No complications have been reported yet for treatment of TIC hemorrhage. However, the OTSC system is relatively expensive when compared with other modalities.

After endoscopic treatment is performed, four-quadrant spot tattooing is recommended adjacent to the TIC with the SRH. This step will facilitate localization and treatment in the case of TIC rebleeding.^4,10

Outcomes following endoscopic treatment

Following endoscopic treatment, patients should be monitored for early and late rebleeding. In a pooled analysis of case series composed of 847 patients with TIC bleeding, among the 137 patients in which endoscopic hemostasis was initially achieved, early rebleeding occurred in 8% and late rebleeding occurred in 12% of patients.²² Risk factors for TIC rebleeding within 30 days were residual arterial blood flow following hemostasis and early reinitiation of antiplatelet agents.

Remote treatment of TIC hemorrhage distant from the SRH is a significant risk factor for early TIC rebleeding.4, 10 For example, using hemoclips to close the mouth of a TIC when active bleeding or an SRH is located in the TIC base often fails because arterial flow remains open in the base and the artery is larger there.^4,10 This example highlights the importance of focal obliteration of arterial blood flow underlying SRH in order to achieve definitive hemostasis.^4,10

Salvage treatments

For TIC hemorrhage that is not controlled by endoscopic therapy, transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) is recommended. If bleeding rate is high enough (at least 0.5 milliliters per minute) to be detected by angiography, TAE can serve as an effective method of diagnosis and immediate hemostasis.²³ However, the most common major complication of embolization is intestinal ischemia. The incidence of intestinal ischemia has been reported as high as 10%, with highest risk with embolization of at least three vasa recta.²⁴

Surgery is also recommended if TIC hemorrhage cannot be controlled with endoscopic therapy or TAE. Segmental colectomy is recommended if the bleeding site can be localized before surgery with colonoscopy or angiography resulting from significantly lower perioperative morbidity than subtotal colectomy.²⁵ However, subtotal colectomy may be necessary if preoperative localization of bleeding is unsuccessful.

There are very few reports of short- or long-term results that compare endoscopy, TAE, and surgery for management of TIC bleeding. However, a recent retrospective study reported better outcomes with endoscopic treatment of definitive TIC bleeding.²⁶ Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment had fewer RBC transfusions, shorter hospitalizations, and lower rates of postprocedure complications.
 

Management after cessation of hemorrhage

Medical management is important following an episode of TIC hemorrhage. A mainstay is daily fiber supplementation every morning and stool softener in the evening. Furthermore, patients are advised to drink an extra liter of fluids (not containing alcohol or caffeine) daily. By reducing colon transit time and increasing stool weight, these measures can help control constipation and prevent future complications of TIC disease.²⁷

Patients with recurrent TIC hemorrhage should undergo evaluation for elective surgery, provided they are appropriate surgical candidates. If preoperative localization of bleeding site is successful, segmental colectomy is preferred. Segmental resection is associated with significantly decreased rebleeding rate, with lower rates of morbidity compared with subtotal colectomy.³²

Chronic NSAIDs, aspirin, and antiplatelet drugs are risk factors for recurrent TIC hemorrhage, and avoiding these medications is recommended if possible.^33,34 Although anticoagulants have shown to be associated with increased risk of all-cause gastrointestinal bleeding, these agents have not been shown to increase risk of recurrent TIC hemorrhage in recent large retrospective studies. Since antiplatelet and anticoagulation agents serve to reduce risk of thromboembolic events, the clinician who recommended these medications should be consulted after a TIC bleed to re-evaluate whether these medications can be discontinued or reduced in dose.
 

Conclusion

The most effective way to diagnose and treat definitive TIC hemorrhage is to perform an urgent colonoscopy within 24 hours to identify and treat TIC SRH. This procedure requires thoroughly cleansing the colon first, as well as an experienced colonoscopist who can identify and treat TIC SRH to obliterate arterial blood flow underneath SRH and achieve definitive TIC hemostasis. Other approaches to early diagnosis include nuclear medicine scintigraphy or angiography (CT, MRI, or IR). However, these techniques can only detect active bleeding which is documented in only 26% of colonoscopically diagnosed definitive TIC hemorrhages. So, the expected diagnostic yield of these tests will be low. When urgent colonoscopy fails to make a diagnosis or TIC bleeding continues, TAE and/or surgery are recommended. After definitive hemostasis of TIC hemorrhage and for long term management, control of constipation and discontinuation of chronic NSAIDs and antiplatelet drugs (if possible) are recommended to prevent recurrent TIC hemorrhage.

Dr. Cusumano and Dr. Paiji are fellow physicians in the Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases at University of California Los Angeles. Dr. Jensen is a professor of medicine in Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases and is with the CURE Digestive Diseases Research Center at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Calif. All authors declare that they have no competing interests or disclosures.

References

1. Longstreth GF. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92(3):419-24.

2. Jensen DM et al. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2000;342(2):78-82.

3. Jensen DM et al. Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2001;3(4):192-8.

4. Jensen DM. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(11):1570-3.

5. Zuckerman GR et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1999;49(2):228-38.

6. Stollman N et al. Lancet. 2004;363(9409):631-9.

7. McGuire HH et al. Ann Surg. 1994;220(5):653-6.

8. McGuire HH et al. Ann Surg. 1972;175(6):847-55.

9. Strate LL et al. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatol. 2008;6(9):1004-10.

10. Jensen DM et al. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2016;83(2):416-23.

11. Jensen DM et al. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1997;7(3):477-98.

12. Maykel JA et al. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2004;17(3):195-204.

13. Green BT et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(11):2395-402.

14. Niikura R et al. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterol. 2015;49(3):e24-30.

15. Bloomfeld RS et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(8):2367-72.

16. Parsi MA,et al. VideoGIE. 2019;4(7):285-99.

17. Kaltenbach T et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatol. 2012;10(2):131-7.

18. Nakano K et al. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3(5):E529-33.

19. Barker KB et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2005;62(2):224-7.

20. Kaltenbach T et al. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2020;30(1):13-23.

21. Yamazaki K et al. VideoGIE. 2020;5(6):252-4.

22. Strate LL et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatol. 2010;8(4):333-43.

23. Evangelista et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(5):601-6.

24. Kodani M et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(6):824-30.

25. Mohammed et al. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2018;31(4):243-50.

26. Wongpongsalee T et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2020;91(6):AB471-2.

27. Böhm SK. Viszeralmedizin. 2015;31(2):84-94.

28. Prakash C et al. Endoscopy. 1999;31(6):460-3.

29. Yen EF et al. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 2008;53(9):2480-5.

30. Ishii N et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2012;75(2):382-7.

31. Nagata N et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2018;88(5):841-53.e4.

32. Parkes BM et al. Am Surg. 1993;59(10):676-8.

33. Vajravelu RK et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(5):1416-27.

34. Oakland K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17(7):1276-84.e3.

35. Yamada A et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(1):116-20.

36. Coleman CI et al. Int J Clin Pract. 2012;66(1):53-63.

37. Holster IL et al. Gastroenterology. 2013;145(1):105-12.e15.

Diverticular hemorrhage is the most common cause of colonic bleeding, accounting for 20%-65% of cases of severe lower intestinal bleeding in adults.¹ Urgent colonoscopy after purging the colon of blood, clots, and stool is the most accurate method of diagnosing and guiding treatment of definitive diverticular hemorrhage.^2-5 The diagnosis of definitive diverticular hemorrhage depends upon identification of some stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) in a single diverticulum (TIC), which can include active arterial bleeding, oozing, non-bleeding visible vessel, adherent clot, or flat spot.^2-4 Although other approaches, such as nuclear medicine scans and angiography of various types (CT, MRI, or standard angiography), for the early diagnosis of patients with severe hematochezia are utilized in many medical centers, only active bleeding can be detected by these techniques. However, as subsequently discussed, this SRH is documented in only 26% of definitive diverticular bleeds found on urgent colonoscopy, so diagnostic yields of these techniques will be low.^2-5

The diagnosis of patients with severe hematochezia and diverticulosis, as well as triage of all of them to specific medical, endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical management, is facilitated by an urgent endoscopic approach.^2-5 Patients who are diagnosed with definitive diverticular hemorrhage on colonoscopy represent about 30% of all true TIC bleeds when urgent colonoscopy is the management approach.^2-5 That is because approximately 50% of all patients with colon diverticulosis and first presentation of severe hematochezia have incidental diverticulosis; they have colonic diverticulosis, but another site of bleeding is identified as the cause of hemorrhage in the gastrointestinal tract.^2-4 Presumptive diverticular hemorrhage is diagnosed when colonic diverticulosis without TIC stigmata are found but no other GI bleeding source is found on colonoscopy, anoscopy, enteroscopy, or capsule endoscopy.^2-5 In our experience with urgent colonoscopy, the presumptive diverticular bleed group accounts for about 70% of patients with documented diverticular hemorrhage (e.g., not including incidental diverticulosis bleeds but combining subgroups of patients with either definitive or presumptive TIC diagnoses as documented TIC hemorrhage).

Clinical presentation

Patients with diverticular hemorrhage present with severe, painless large volume hematochezia. Hematochezia may be self-limited and spontaneously resolve in 75%-80% of all patients but with high rebleeding rates up to 40%.^5-7 Of all patients with diverticulosis, only about 3%-5% develop diverticular hemorrhage.⁸ Risk factors for diverticular hemorrhage include medications (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – NSAIDs, antiplatelet drugs, and anticoagulants) and other clinical factors, such as older age, low-fiber diet, and chronic constipation.^9,10 On urgent colonoscopy, more than 70% of diverticulosis in U.S. patients are located anatomically in the descending colon or more distally. In contrast, about 60% of definitive diverticular hemorrhage cases in our experience had diverticula with stigmata identified at or proximal to the splenic flexure.^2,4,11

Pathophysiology

Colonic diverticula are herniations of mucosa and submucosa with colonic arteries that penetrate the muscular wall. Bleeding can occur when there is asymmetric rupture of the vasa recta at either the base of the diverticulum or the neck.⁴ Thinning of the mucosa on the luminal surface (such as that resulting from impacted fecaliths and stool) can cause injury to the site of the penetrating vessels, resulting in hemorrhage.¹²

Initial management

Patients with acute, severe hematochezia should be triaged to an inpatient setting with a monitored bed. Admission to an intensive care unit should be considered for patients with hemodynamic instability, persistent bleeding, and/or significant comorbidities. Patients with TIC hemorrhage often require resuscitation with crystalloids and packed red blood cell transfusions for hemoglobin less than 8 g/dl.⁴ Unlike upper GI hemorrhage, which has been extensively reported on, data regarding a more restrictive transfusion threshold, compared with a liberal transfusion threshold, in lower intestinal bleeding are very limited. Correction of underlying coagulopathies is recommended but should be individualized, particularly in those patients on antithrombotic agents or with underlying bleeding disorders.

Urgent diagnosis and hemostasis

Urgent colonoscopy within 24 hours is the most accurate way to make a diagnosis of definitive diverticular hemorrhage and to effectively and safely treat them.^2-4,10,11 For patients with severe hematochezia, when the colonoscopy is either not available in a medical center or does not reveal the source of bleeding, nuclear scintigraphy or angiography (CT, MRI, or interventional radiology [IR]) are recommended. CT angiography may be particularly helpful to diagnose patients with hemodynamic instability who are suspected to have active TIC bleeding and are not able to complete a bowel preparation. However, these imaging techniques require active bleeding at the time of the study to be diagnostic. This SRH is also uncommon for definitive diverticular hemorrhage, so the diagnostic yield is usually quite low.^2-5,10,11 An additional limitation of scintigraphy and CT or MRI angiography is that, if active bleeding is found, some other type of treatment, such as colonoscopy, IR angiography, or surgery, will be required for definitive hemostasis.

For urgent colonoscopy, adequate colon preparation with a large volume preparation (6-8 liters of polyethylene glycol-based solution) is recommended to clear stool, blood, and clots to allow endoscopic visualization and localization of the bleeding source. Use of a nasogastric tube should be considered if the patient is unable to drink enough prep.^2-4,13 Additionally, administration of a prokinetic agent, such as Metoclopramide, may improve gastric emptying and tolerance of the prep. During colonoscopy, careful inspection of the colonic mucosa during insertion and withdrawal is important since lesions may bleed intermittently and SRH can be missed. An adult or pediatric colonoscope with a large working channel (at least 3.3 mm) is recommended to facilitate suctioning of blood clots and stool, as well as allow the passage of endoscopic hemostasis accessories. Targeted water-jet irrigation, an expert colonoscopist, a cap attachment, and adequate colon preparation are all predictors for improved diagnosis of definitive diverticular hemorrhage.^4,14

SRH in definitive TIC bleeds all have a high risk of TIC rebleeding,^2-4,10,11 including active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, adherent clot, and a flat spot (See Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Vivy T. Cusumano, Dr. Christopher L. Paiji, and Dr. Dennis M. Jensen

Based on CURE Hemostasis Group data of 118 definitive TIC bleeds, 26% had active bleeding, 24% had a nonbleeding visible vessel, 37% had an adherent clot, and 13% had a flat spot (with underlying arterial blood flow by Doppler probe monitoring).⁴ Approximately 50% of the SRH were found in the neck of the TIC and 50% at the base, with actively bleeding cases more often from the base. In CURE Doppler endoscopic probe studies, 90% of all stigmata had an underlying arterial blood flow detected with the Doppler probe.^4,10 The Doppler probe is reported to be very useful for risk stratification and to confirm obliteration of the arterial blood flow underlying SRH for definitive hemostasis.^4,10
 

Endoscopic treatment

Given high rates of rebleeding with medical management alone, definitive TIC hemorrhage can be effectively and safely treated with endoscopic therapies once SRH are localized.^4,10 Endoscopic therapies that have been reported in the literature include electrocoagulation, hemoclip, band ligation, and over-the-scope clip. Four-quadrant injection of 1:20,000 epinephrine around the SRH can improve visualization of SRH and provide temporary control of bleeding, but it should be combined with other modalities because of risk of rebleeding with epinephrine alone.¹⁵ Results from studies reporting rates of both early rebleeding (occurring within 30 days) and late rebleeding (occurring after 30 days) are listed in the Table.

Multipolar electrocoagulation (MPEC), which utilizes a focal electric current to generate heat, can coaptively coagulate small TIC arteries.¹⁶ For SRH in the neck of TIC, MPEC is effective for coaptive coagulation at a power of 12-15 watts in 1-2 second pulses with moderate laterally applied tamponade pressure. MPEC should be avoided for treating SRH at the TIC base because of lack of muscularis propria and higher risk of perforation.

Hemoclip therapy has been reported to be safe and efficacious in treatment of definitive TIC hemorrhage, by causing mechanical hemostasis with occlusion of the bleeding artery.¹⁶ Hemoclips are recommended to treat stigmata in the base of TICs and should be targeted on either side of visible vessel in order to occlude the artery underneath it.^4,10 With a cap on the tip of the colonoscope, suctioning can evert TICs, allowing more precise placement of hemoclip on SRH in the base of the TIC.¹⁷ Hemoclip retention rates vary with different models and can range from less than 7 days to more than 4 weeks. Hemoclips can also mark the site if early rebleeding occurs; then, reintervention (e.g., repeat endoscopy or angioembolization) is facilitated.

Another treatment is endoscopic band ligation, which provides mechanical hemostasis. Endoscopic band ligation has been reported to be efficacious for TIC hemorrhage.¹⁸ Suctioning the TIC with the SRH into the distal cap and deploying a band leads to obliteration of vessels and potentially necrosis and disappearance of banded TIC.¹⁶ This technique carries a risk of perforation because of the thin walls of TICs. This risk may be higher for right-sided colon lesions since an exvivo colon specimen study reported serosal entrapment and inclusion of muscularis propria postband ligation, both of which may result in ischemia of intestinal wall and delayed perforation.¹⁹

Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been reported in case series for treatment of definitive TIC hemorrhage. With a distal cap and large clip, suctioning can evert TICs and facilitate deployment over the SRH.20,21 OTSC can grasp an entire TIC with the SRH and obliterate the arterial blood flow with a single clip.^20,21 No complications have been reported yet for treatment of TIC hemorrhage. However, the OTSC system is relatively expensive when compared with other modalities.

After endoscopic treatment is performed, four-quadrant spot tattooing is recommended adjacent to the TIC with the SRH. This step will facilitate localization and treatment in the case of TIC rebleeding.^4,10

Outcomes following endoscopic treatment

Following endoscopic treatment, patients should be monitored for early and late rebleeding. In a pooled analysis of case series composed of 847 patients with TIC bleeding, among the 137 patients in which endoscopic hemostasis was initially achieved, early rebleeding occurred in 8% and late rebleeding occurred in 12% of patients.²² Risk factors for TIC rebleeding within 30 days were residual arterial blood flow following hemostasis and early reinitiation of antiplatelet agents.

Remote treatment of TIC hemorrhage distant from the SRH is a significant risk factor for early TIC rebleeding.4, 10 For example, using hemoclips to close the mouth of a TIC when active bleeding or an SRH is located in the TIC base often fails because arterial flow remains open in the base and the artery is larger there.^4,10 This example highlights the importance of focal obliteration of arterial blood flow underlying SRH in order to achieve definitive hemostasis.^4,10

Salvage treatments

For TIC hemorrhage that is not controlled by endoscopic therapy, transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) is recommended. If bleeding rate is high enough (at least 0.5 milliliters per minute) to be detected by angiography, TAE can serve as an effective method of diagnosis and immediate hemostasis.²³ However, the most common major complication of embolization is intestinal ischemia. The incidence of intestinal ischemia has been reported as high as 10%, with highest risk with embolization of at least three vasa recta.²⁴

Surgery is also recommended if TIC hemorrhage cannot be controlled with endoscopic therapy or TAE. Segmental colectomy is recommended if the bleeding site can be localized before surgery with colonoscopy or angiography resulting from significantly lower perioperative morbidity than subtotal colectomy.²⁵ However, subtotal colectomy may be necessary if preoperative localization of bleeding is unsuccessful.

There are very few reports of short- or long-term results that compare endoscopy, TAE, and surgery for management of TIC bleeding. However, a recent retrospective study reported better outcomes with endoscopic treatment of definitive TIC bleeding.²⁶ Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment had fewer RBC transfusions, shorter hospitalizations, and lower rates of postprocedure complications.
 

Management after cessation of hemorrhage

Medical management is important following an episode of TIC hemorrhage. A mainstay is daily fiber supplementation every morning and stool softener in the evening. Furthermore, patients are advised to drink an extra liter of fluids (not containing alcohol or caffeine) daily. By reducing colon transit time and increasing stool weight, these measures can help control constipation and prevent future complications of TIC disease.²⁷

Patients with recurrent TIC hemorrhage should undergo evaluation for elective surgery, provided they are appropriate surgical candidates. If preoperative localization of bleeding site is successful, segmental colectomy is preferred. Segmental resection is associated with significantly decreased rebleeding rate, with lower rates of morbidity compared with subtotal colectomy.³²

Chronic NSAIDs, aspirin, and antiplatelet drugs are risk factors for recurrent TIC hemorrhage, and avoiding these medications is recommended if possible.^33,34 Although anticoagulants have shown to be associated with increased risk of all-cause gastrointestinal bleeding, these agents have not been shown to increase risk of recurrent TIC hemorrhage in recent large retrospective studies. Since antiplatelet and anticoagulation agents serve to reduce risk of thromboembolic events, the clinician who recommended these medications should be consulted after a TIC bleed to re-evaluate whether these medications can be discontinued or reduced in dose.
 

Conclusion

The most effective way to diagnose and treat definitive TIC hemorrhage is to perform an urgent colonoscopy within 24 hours to identify and treat TIC SRH. This procedure requires thoroughly cleansing the colon first, as well as an experienced colonoscopist who can identify and treat TIC SRH to obliterate arterial blood flow underneath SRH and achieve definitive TIC hemostasis. Other approaches to early diagnosis include nuclear medicine scintigraphy or angiography (CT, MRI, or IR). However, these techniques can only detect active bleeding which is documented in only 26% of colonoscopically diagnosed definitive TIC hemorrhages. So, the expected diagnostic yield of these tests will be low. When urgent colonoscopy fails to make a diagnosis or TIC bleeding continues, TAE and/or surgery are recommended. After definitive hemostasis of TIC hemorrhage and for long term management, control of constipation and discontinuation of chronic NSAIDs and antiplatelet drugs (if possible) are recommended to prevent recurrent TIC hemorrhage.

Dr. Cusumano and Dr. Paiji are fellow physicians in the Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases at University of California Los Angeles. Dr. Jensen is a professor of medicine in Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases and is with the CURE Digestive Diseases Research Center at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Calif. All authors declare that they have no competing interests or disclosures.

References

1. Longstreth GF. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92(3):419-24.

2. Jensen DM et al. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2000;342(2):78-82.

3. Jensen DM et al. Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2001;3(4):192-8.

4. Jensen DM. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(11):1570-3.

5. Zuckerman GR et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1999;49(2):228-38.

6. Stollman N et al. Lancet. 2004;363(9409):631-9.

7. McGuire HH et al. Ann Surg. 1994;220(5):653-6.

8. McGuire HH et al. Ann Surg. 1972;175(6):847-55.

9. Strate LL et al. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatol. 2008;6(9):1004-10.

10. Jensen DM et al. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2016;83(2):416-23.

11. Jensen DM et al. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1997;7(3):477-98.

12. Maykel JA et al. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2004;17(3):195-204.

13. Green BT et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(11):2395-402.

14. Niikura R et al. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterol. 2015;49(3):e24-30.

15. Bloomfeld RS et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(8):2367-72.

16. Parsi MA,et al. VideoGIE. 2019;4(7):285-99.

17. Kaltenbach T et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatol. 2012;10(2):131-7.

18. Nakano K et al. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3(5):E529-33.

19. Barker KB et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2005;62(2):224-7.

20. Kaltenbach T et al. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2020;30(1):13-23.

21. Yamazaki K et al. VideoGIE. 2020;5(6):252-4.

22. Strate LL et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatol. 2010;8(4):333-43.

23. Evangelista et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(5):601-6.

24. Kodani M et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(6):824-30.

25. Mohammed et al. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2018;31(4):243-50.

26. Wongpongsalee T et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2020;91(6):AB471-2.

27. Böhm SK. Viszeralmedizin. 2015;31(2):84-94.

28. Prakash C et al. Endoscopy. 1999;31(6):460-3.

29. Yen EF et al. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 2008;53(9):2480-5.

30. Ishii N et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2012;75(2):382-7.

31. Nagata N et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2018;88(5):841-53.e4.

32. Parkes BM et al. Am Surg. 1993;59(10):676-8.

33. Vajravelu RK et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(5):1416-27.

34. Oakland K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17(7):1276-84.e3.

35. Yamada A et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(1):116-20.

36. Coleman CI et al. Int J Clin Pract. 2012;66(1):53-63.

37. Holster IL et al. Gastroenterology. 2013;145(1):105-12.e15.

Diverticular hemorrhage is the most common cause of colonic bleeding, accounting for 20%-65% of cases of severe lower intestinal bleeding in adults.¹ Urgent colonoscopy after purging the colon of blood, clots, and stool is the most accurate method of diagnosing and guiding treatment of definitive diverticular hemorrhage.^2-5 The diagnosis of definitive diverticular hemorrhage depends upon identification of some stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) in a single diverticulum (TIC), which can include active arterial bleeding, oozing, non-bleeding visible vessel, adherent clot, or flat spot.^2-4 Although other approaches, such as nuclear medicine scans and angiography of various types (CT, MRI, or standard angiography), for the early diagnosis of patients with severe hematochezia are utilized in many medical centers, only active bleeding can be detected by these techniques. However, as subsequently discussed, this SRH is documented in only 26% of definitive diverticular bleeds found on urgent colonoscopy, so diagnostic yields of these techniques will be low.^2-5

The diagnosis of patients with severe hematochezia and diverticulosis, as well as triage of all of them to specific medical, endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical management, is facilitated by an urgent endoscopic approach.^2-5 Patients who are diagnosed with definitive diverticular hemorrhage on colonoscopy represent about 30% of all true TIC bleeds when urgent colonoscopy is the management approach.^2-5 That is because approximately 50% of all patients with colon diverticulosis and first presentation of severe hematochezia have incidental diverticulosis; they have colonic diverticulosis, but another site of bleeding is identified as the cause of hemorrhage in the gastrointestinal tract.^2-4 Presumptive diverticular hemorrhage is diagnosed when colonic diverticulosis without TIC stigmata are found but no other GI bleeding source is found on colonoscopy, anoscopy, enteroscopy, or capsule endoscopy.^2-5 In our experience with urgent colonoscopy, the presumptive diverticular bleed group accounts for about 70% of patients with documented diverticular hemorrhage (e.g., not including incidental diverticulosis bleeds but combining subgroups of patients with either definitive or presumptive TIC diagnoses as documented TIC hemorrhage).

Clinical presentation

Patients with diverticular hemorrhage present with severe, painless large volume hematochezia. Hematochezia may be self-limited and spontaneously resolve in 75%-80% of all patients but with high rebleeding rates up to 40%.^5-7 Of all patients with diverticulosis, only about 3%-5% develop diverticular hemorrhage.⁸ Risk factors for diverticular hemorrhage include medications (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – NSAIDs, antiplatelet drugs, and anticoagulants) and other clinical factors, such as older age, low-fiber diet, and chronic constipation.^9,10 On urgent colonoscopy, more than 70% of diverticulosis in U.S. patients are located anatomically in the descending colon or more distally. In contrast, about 60% of definitive diverticular hemorrhage cases in our experience had diverticula with stigmata identified at or proximal to the splenic flexure.^2,4,11

Pathophysiology

Colonic diverticula are herniations of mucosa and submucosa with colonic arteries that penetrate the muscular wall. Bleeding can occur when there is asymmetric rupture of the vasa recta at either the base of the diverticulum or the neck.⁴ Thinning of the mucosa on the luminal surface (such as that resulting from impacted fecaliths and stool) can cause injury to the site of the penetrating vessels, resulting in hemorrhage.¹²

Initial management

Patients with acute, severe hematochezia should be triaged to an inpatient setting with a monitored bed. Admission to an intensive care unit should be considered for patients with hemodynamic instability, persistent bleeding, and/or significant comorbidities. Patients with TIC hemorrhage often require resuscitation with crystalloids and packed red blood cell transfusions for hemoglobin less than 8 g/dl.⁴ Unlike upper GI hemorrhage, which has been extensively reported on, data regarding a more restrictive transfusion threshold, compared with a liberal transfusion threshold, in lower intestinal bleeding are very limited. Correction of underlying coagulopathies is recommended but should be individualized, particularly in those patients on antithrombotic agents or with underlying bleeding disorders.

Urgent diagnosis and hemostasis

Urgent colonoscopy within 24 hours is the most accurate way to make a diagnosis of definitive diverticular hemorrhage and to effectively and safely treat them.^2-4,10,11 For patients with severe hematochezia, when the colonoscopy is either not available in a medical center or does not reveal the source of bleeding, nuclear scintigraphy or angiography (CT, MRI, or interventional radiology [IR]) are recommended. CT angiography may be particularly helpful to diagnose patients with hemodynamic instability who are suspected to have active TIC bleeding and are not able to complete a bowel preparation. However, these imaging techniques require active bleeding at the time of the study to be diagnostic. This SRH is also uncommon for definitive diverticular hemorrhage, so the diagnostic yield is usually quite low.^2-5,10,11 An additional limitation of scintigraphy and CT or MRI angiography is that, if active bleeding is found, some other type of treatment, such as colonoscopy, IR angiography, or surgery, will be required for definitive hemostasis.

For urgent colonoscopy, adequate colon preparation with a large volume preparation (6-8 liters of polyethylene glycol-based solution) is recommended to clear stool, blood, and clots to allow endoscopic visualization and localization of the bleeding source. Use of a nasogastric tube should be considered if the patient is unable to drink enough prep.^2-4,13 Additionally, administration of a prokinetic agent, such as Metoclopramide, may improve gastric emptying and tolerance of the prep. During colonoscopy, careful inspection of the colonic mucosa during insertion and withdrawal is important since lesions may bleed intermittently and SRH can be missed. An adult or pediatric colonoscope with a large working channel (at least 3.3 mm) is recommended to facilitate suctioning of blood clots and stool, as well as allow the passage of endoscopic hemostasis accessories. Targeted water-jet irrigation, an expert colonoscopist, a cap attachment, and adequate colon preparation are all predictors for improved diagnosis of definitive diverticular hemorrhage.^4,14

SRH in definitive TIC bleeds all have a high risk of TIC rebleeding,^2-4,10,11 including active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, adherent clot, and a flat spot (See Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Vivy T. Cusumano, Dr. Christopher L. Paiji, and Dr. Dennis M. Jensen

Based on CURE Hemostasis Group data of 118 definitive TIC bleeds, 26% had active bleeding, 24% had a nonbleeding visible vessel, 37% had an adherent clot, and 13% had a flat spot (with underlying arterial blood flow by Doppler probe monitoring).⁴ Approximately 50% of the SRH were found in the neck of the TIC and 50% at the base, with actively bleeding cases more often from the base. In CURE Doppler endoscopic probe studies, 90% of all stigmata had an underlying arterial blood flow detected with the Doppler probe.^4,10 The Doppler probe is reported to be very useful for risk stratification and to confirm obliteration of the arterial blood flow underlying SRH for definitive hemostasis.^4,10
 

Endoscopic treatment

Given high rates of rebleeding with medical management alone, definitive TIC hemorrhage can be effectively and safely treated with endoscopic therapies once SRH are localized.^4,10 Endoscopic therapies that have been reported in the literature include electrocoagulation, hemoclip, band ligation, and over-the-scope clip. Four-quadrant injection of 1:20,000 epinephrine around the SRH can improve visualization of SRH and provide temporary control of bleeding, but it should be combined with other modalities because of risk of rebleeding with epinephrine alone.¹⁵ Results from studies reporting rates of both early rebleeding (occurring within 30 days) and late rebleeding (occurring after 30 days) are listed in the Table.

Multipolar electrocoagulation (MPEC), which utilizes a focal electric current to generate heat, can coaptively coagulate small TIC arteries.¹⁶ For SRH in the neck of TIC, MPEC is effective for coaptive coagulation at a power of 12-15 watts in 1-2 second pulses with moderate laterally applied tamponade pressure. MPEC should be avoided for treating SRH at the TIC base because of lack of muscularis propria and higher risk of perforation.

Hemoclip therapy has been reported to be safe and efficacious in treatment of definitive TIC hemorrhage, by causing mechanical hemostasis with occlusion of the bleeding artery.¹⁶ Hemoclips are recommended to treat stigmata in the base of TICs and should be targeted on either side of visible vessel in order to occlude the artery underneath it.^4,10 With a cap on the tip of the colonoscope, suctioning can evert TICs, allowing more precise placement of hemoclip on SRH in the base of the TIC.¹⁷ Hemoclip retention rates vary with different models and can range from less than 7 days to more than 4 weeks. Hemoclips can also mark the site if early rebleeding occurs; then, reintervention (e.g., repeat endoscopy or angioembolization) is facilitated.

Another treatment is endoscopic band ligation, which provides mechanical hemostasis. Endoscopic band ligation has been reported to be efficacious for TIC hemorrhage.¹⁸ Suctioning the TIC with the SRH into the distal cap and deploying a band leads to obliteration of vessels and potentially necrosis and disappearance of banded TIC.¹⁶ This technique carries a risk of perforation because of the thin walls of TICs. This risk may be higher for right-sided colon lesions since an exvivo colon specimen study reported serosal entrapment and inclusion of muscularis propria postband ligation, both of which may result in ischemia of intestinal wall and delayed perforation.¹⁹

Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been reported in case series for treatment of definitive TIC hemorrhage. With a distal cap and large clip, suctioning can evert TICs and facilitate deployment over the SRH.20,21 OTSC can grasp an entire TIC with the SRH and obliterate the arterial blood flow with a single clip.^20,21 No complications have been reported yet for treatment of TIC hemorrhage. However, the OTSC system is relatively expensive when compared with other modalities.

After endoscopic treatment is performed, four-quadrant spot tattooing is recommended adjacent to the TIC with the SRH. This step will facilitate localization and treatment in the case of TIC rebleeding.^4,10

Outcomes following endoscopic treatment

Following endoscopic treatment, patients should be monitored for early and late rebleeding. In a pooled analysis of case series composed of 847 patients with TIC bleeding, among the 137 patients in which endoscopic hemostasis was initially achieved, early rebleeding occurred in 8% and late rebleeding occurred in 12% of patients.²² Risk factors for TIC rebleeding within 30 days were residual arterial blood flow following hemostasis and early reinitiation of antiplatelet agents.

Remote treatment of TIC hemorrhage distant from the SRH is a significant risk factor for early TIC rebleeding.4, 10 For example, using hemoclips to close the mouth of a TIC when active bleeding or an SRH is located in the TIC base often fails because arterial flow remains open in the base and the artery is larger there.^4,10 This example highlights the importance of focal obliteration of arterial blood flow underlying SRH in order to achieve definitive hemostasis.^4,10

Salvage treatments

For TIC hemorrhage that is not controlled by endoscopic therapy, transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) is recommended. If bleeding rate is high enough (at least 0.5 milliliters per minute) to be detected by angiography, TAE can serve as an effective method of diagnosis and immediate hemostasis.²³ However, the most common major complication of embolization is intestinal ischemia. The incidence of intestinal ischemia has been reported as high as 10%, with highest risk with embolization of at least three vasa recta.²⁴

Surgery is also recommended if TIC hemorrhage cannot be controlled with endoscopic therapy or TAE. Segmental colectomy is recommended if the bleeding site can be localized before surgery with colonoscopy or angiography resulting from significantly lower perioperative morbidity than subtotal colectomy.²⁵ However, subtotal colectomy may be necessary if preoperative localization of bleeding is unsuccessful.

There are very few reports of short- or long-term results that compare endoscopy, TAE, and surgery for management of TIC bleeding. However, a recent retrospective study reported better outcomes with endoscopic treatment of definitive TIC bleeding.²⁶ Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment had fewer RBC transfusions, shorter hospitalizations, and lower rates of postprocedure complications.
 

Management after cessation of hemorrhage

Medical management is important following an episode of TIC hemorrhage. A mainstay is daily fiber supplementation every morning and stool softener in the evening. Furthermore, patients are advised to drink an extra liter of fluids (not containing alcohol or caffeine) daily. By reducing colon transit time and increasing stool weight, these measures can help control constipation and prevent future complications of TIC disease.²⁷

Patients with recurrent TIC hemorrhage should undergo evaluation for elective surgery, provided they are appropriate surgical candidates. If preoperative localization of bleeding site is successful, segmental colectomy is preferred. Segmental resection is associated with significantly decreased rebleeding rate, with lower rates of morbidity compared with subtotal colectomy.³²

Chronic NSAIDs, aspirin, and antiplatelet drugs are risk factors for recurrent TIC hemorrhage, and avoiding these medications is recommended if possible.^33,34 Although anticoagulants have shown to be associated with increased risk of all-cause gastrointestinal bleeding, these agents have not been shown to increase risk of recurrent TIC hemorrhage in recent large retrospective studies. Since antiplatelet and anticoagulation agents serve to reduce risk of thromboembolic events, the clinician who recommended these medications should be consulted after a TIC bleed to re-evaluate whether these medications can be discontinued or reduced in dose.
 

Conclusion

The most effective way to diagnose and treat definitive TIC hemorrhage is to perform an urgent colonoscopy within 24 hours to identify and treat TIC SRH. This procedure requires thoroughly cleansing the colon first, as well as an experienced colonoscopist who can identify and treat TIC SRH to obliterate arterial blood flow underneath SRH and achieve definitive TIC hemostasis. Other approaches to early diagnosis include nuclear medicine scintigraphy or angiography (CT, MRI, or IR). However, these techniques can only detect active bleeding which is documented in only 26% of colonoscopically diagnosed definitive TIC hemorrhages. So, the expected diagnostic yield of these tests will be low. When urgent colonoscopy fails to make a diagnosis or TIC bleeding continues, TAE and/or surgery are recommended. After definitive hemostasis of TIC hemorrhage and for long term management, control of constipation and discontinuation of chronic NSAIDs and antiplatelet drugs (if possible) are recommended to prevent recurrent TIC hemorrhage.

Dr. Cusumano and Dr. Paiji are fellow physicians in the Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases at University of California Los Angeles. Dr. Jensen is a professor of medicine in Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases and is with the CURE Digestive Diseases Research Center at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Calif. All authors declare that they have no competing interests or disclosures.

References

1. Longstreth GF. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92(3):419-24.

2. Jensen DM et al. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2000;342(2):78-82.

3. Jensen DM et al. Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2001;3(4):192-8.

4. Jensen DM. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(11):1570-3.

5. Zuckerman GR et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1999;49(2):228-38.

6. Stollman N et al. Lancet. 2004;363(9409):631-9.

7. McGuire HH et al. Ann Surg. 1994;220(5):653-6.

8. McGuire HH et al. Ann Surg. 1972;175(6):847-55.

9. Strate LL et al. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatol. 2008;6(9):1004-10.

10. Jensen DM et al. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2016;83(2):416-23.

11. Jensen DM et al. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1997;7(3):477-98.

12. Maykel JA et al. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2004;17(3):195-204.

13. Green BT et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(11):2395-402.

14. Niikura R et al. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterol. 2015;49(3):e24-30.

15. Bloomfeld RS et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(8):2367-72.

16. Parsi MA,et al. VideoGIE. 2019;4(7):285-99.

17. Kaltenbach T et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatol. 2012;10(2):131-7.

18. Nakano K et al. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3(5):E529-33.

19. Barker KB et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2005;62(2):224-7.

20. Kaltenbach T et al. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2020;30(1):13-23.

21. Yamazaki K et al. VideoGIE. 2020;5(6):252-4.

22. Strate LL et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatol. 2010;8(4):333-43.

23. Evangelista et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(5):601-6.

24. Kodani M et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(6):824-30.

25. Mohammed et al. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2018;31(4):243-50.

26. Wongpongsalee T et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2020;91(6):AB471-2.

27. Böhm SK. Viszeralmedizin. 2015;31(2):84-94.

28. Prakash C et al. Endoscopy. 1999;31(6):460-3.

29. Yen EF et al. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 2008;53(9):2480-5.

30. Ishii N et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2012;75(2):382-7.

31. Nagata N et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2018;88(5):841-53.e4.

32. Parkes BM et al. Am Surg. 1993;59(10):676-8.

33. Vajravelu RK et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(5):1416-27.

34. Oakland K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17(7):1276-84.e3.

35. Yamada A et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(1):116-20.

36. Coleman CI et al. Int J Clin Pract. 2012;66(1):53-63.

37. Holster IL et al. Gastroenterology. 2013;145(1):105-12.e15.

Dear colleagues,

Welcome to the November edition of The New Gastroenterologist! Our fall newsletter features a particularly interesting compilation of articles. As the pandemic lingers on, we are forced to face the realities of coexisting with COVID-19 as the virus certainly seems to be here to stay.

To protect against ongoing risk of exposure, health care workers and other high-risk subsets of patients are now being offered booster shots. For our patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on immune-modifying therapies, there has always been a question of vaccine efficacy. Dr. Freddy Caldera and Dr. Trevor Schell (University of Wisconsin-Madison) shed some much needed light on recommendations on the COVID-19 vaccine for IBD patients.

In April of 2021, a federal rule was implemented mandating that patients have immediate and free access to their electronic health information – which includes all documentation from their health care providers. Some physicians have been concerned about this practice, namely how patients will respond and whether this will increase the burden on clinicians. Clearly, this issue is multifaceted: Dr. Sachin Shah (University of Chicago) discusses the ethical implications from a clinical standpoint, while attorney Valerie Guttman Koch (University of Houston Law Center, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago) shares a riveting legal perspective.

Colonic diverticular bleeding is the most common etiology of overt lower gastrointestinal bleeding and one of the most frequent consults we receive as gastroenterologists. However, even with the use of colonoscopy, obtaining a definitive diagnosis can often be difficult. Our “In Focus” feature for November, is an excellent piece written by Dr. Vivy Cusumano, Dr. Christopher Paiji, and Dr. Dennis Jensen (all with University of California, Los Angeles), detailing the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment.

Navigating pregnancy and parental leave during training is difficult. Drs. Joy Liu, Keith Summa, Ronak Patel, Erica Donnan, Amanda Guentner, and Leila Kia (all with Northwestern University) share their program’s experience, providing incredibly helpful and practical recommendations for both gastroenterology trainees and fellowship directors.

The Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists emerged against the backdrop of recent social and health care injustices. Dr. Kafayat Busari (Florida State University) and Dr. Alexandra Guillaume (Stony Brook University Hospital) discuss the critical importance and mission of this association and how it will help shape the field of gastroenterology in the years to come.

Medical pancreatology is a subspecialty that most gastroenterology fellows have little, if any, exposure to. In our post-fellowship pathways section, Dr. Sajan Nagpal (University of Chicago) details his own experiences in addition to discussing the important role of a medical pancreatologist within a gastroenterology division.

Lastly, our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Dr. Sanjay Sandhir (Dayton [Ohio] Gastroenterology), discusses the importance of education and screening for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.


Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago, Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition

Dear colleagues,

Welcome to the November edition of The New Gastroenterologist! Our fall newsletter features a particularly interesting compilation of articles. As the pandemic lingers on, we are forced to face the realities of coexisting with COVID-19 as the virus certainly seems to be here to stay.

To protect against ongoing risk of exposure, health care workers and other high-risk subsets of patients are now being offered booster shots. For our patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on immune-modifying therapies, there has always been a question of vaccine efficacy. Dr. Freddy Caldera and Dr. Trevor Schell (University of Wisconsin-Madison) shed some much needed light on recommendations on the COVID-19 vaccine for IBD patients.

In April of 2021, a federal rule was implemented mandating that patients have immediate and free access to their electronic health information – which includes all documentation from their health care providers. Some physicians have been concerned about this practice, namely how patients will respond and whether this will increase the burden on clinicians. Clearly, this issue is multifaceted: Dr. Sachin Shah (University of Chicago) discusses the ethical implications from a clinical standpoint, while attorney Valerie Guttman Koch (University of Houston Law Center, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago) shares a riveting legal perspective.

Colonic diverticular bleeding is the most common etiology of overt lower gastrointestinal bleeding and one of the most frequent consults we receive as gastroenterologists. However, even with the use of colonoscopy, obtaining a definitive diagnosis can often be difficult. Our “In Focus” feature for November, is an excellent piece written by Dr. Vivy Cusumano, Dr. Christopher Paiji, and Dr. Dennis Jensen (all with University of California, Los Angeles), detailing the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment.

Navigating pregnancy and parental leave during training is difficult. Drs. Joy Liu, Keith Summa, Ronak Patel, Erica Donnan, Amanda Guentner, and Leila Kia (all with Northwestern University) share their program’s experience, providing incredibly helpful and practical recommendations for both gastroenterology trainees and fellowship directors.

The Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists emerged against the backdrop of recent social and health care injustices. Dr. Kafayat Busari (Florida State University) and Dr. Alexandra Guillaume (Stony Brook University Hospital) discuss the critical importance and mission of this association and how it will help shape the field of gastroenterology in the years to come.

Medical pancreatology is a subspecialty that most gastroenterology fellows have little, if any, exposure to. In our post-fellowship pathways section, Dr. Sajan Nagpal (University of Chicago) details his own experiences in addition to discussing the important role of a medical pancreatologist within a gastroenterology division.

Lastly, our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Dr. Sanjay Sandhir (Dayton [Ohio] Gastroenterology), discusses the importance of education and screening for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.


Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago, Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition

Dear colleagues,

Welcome to the November edition of The New Gastroenterologist! Our fall newsletter features a particularly interesting compilation of articles. As the pandemic lingers on, we are forced to face the realities of coexisting with COVID-19 as the virus certainly seems to be here to stay.

To protect against ongoing risk of exposure, health care workers and other high-risk subsets of patients are now being offered booster shots. For our patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on immune-modifying therapies, there has always been a question of vaccine efficacy. Dr. Freddy Caldera and Dr. Trevor Schell (University of Wisconsin-Madison) shed some much needed light on recommendations on the COVID-19 vaccine for IBD patients.

In April of 2021, a federal rule was implemented mandating that patients have immediate and free access to their electronic health information – which includes all documentation from their health care providers. Some physicians have been concerned about this practice, namely how patients will respond and whether this will increase the burden on clinicians. Clearly, this issue is multifaceted: Dr. Sachin Shah (University of Chicago) discusses the ethical implications from a clinical standpoint, while attorney Valerie Guttman Koch (University of Houston Law Center, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago) shares a riveting legal perspective.

Colonic diverticular bleeding is the most common etiology of overt lower gastrointestinal bleeding and one of the most frequent consults we receive as gastroenterologists. However, even with the use of colonoscopy, obtaining a definitive diagnosis can often be difficult. Our “In Focus” feature for November, is an excellent piece written by Dr. Vivy Cusumano, Dr. Christopher Paiji, and Dr. Dennis Jensen (all with University of California, Los Angeles), detailing the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment.

Navigating pregnancy and parental leave during training is difficult. Drs. Joy Liu, Keith Summa, Ronak Patel, Erica Donnan, Amanda Guentner, and Leila Kia (all with Northwestern University) share their program’s experience, providing incredibly helpful and practical recommendations for both gastroenterology trainees and fellowship directors.

The Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists emerged against the backdrop of recent social and health care injustices. Dr. Kafayat Busari (Florida State University) and Dr. Alexandra Guillaume (Stony Brook University Hospital) discuss the critical importance and mission of this association and how it will help shape the field of gastroenterology in the years to come.

Medical pancreatology is a subspecialty that most gastroenterology fellows have little, if any, exposure to. In our post-fellowship pathways section, Dr. Sajan Nagpal (University of Chicago) details his own experiences in addition to discussing the important role of a medical pancreatologist within a gastroenterology division.

Lastly, our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Dr. Sanjay Sandhir (Dayton [Ohio] Gastroenterology), discusses the importance of education and screening for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.


Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago, Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition

New patient care resource: NASH Clinical Care Pathway

The American Gastroenterological Association – in collaboration with seven professional associations – assembled a multidisciplinary taskforce of 15 experts to develop an action plan to develop a nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) Clinical Care Pathway providing practical guidance across multiple disciplines of care. The guidance ranges from screening and diagnosis to management of individuals with NAFLD and NASH, as well as facilitating value-based, efficient, and safe care that is consistent with evidence-based guidelines. 

This clinical care pathway is intended to be applicable in any setting in which care for patients with NAFLD is provided, including primary care, endocrine, obesity medicine, and gastroenterology practices. 

Read the special report: Clinical Care Pathway for the Risk Stratification and Management of Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. 

To learn more about the development of this publication, visit NASH.gastro.org. 
 

GI societies push CMS for payment rules favorable for practices 

As part of our longstanding collaboration and ongoing efforts on critical policy and payment issues impacting GI clinicians, AGA, the American College of Gastroenterology, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy submitted comments on proposed 2022 Medicare payments to physicians, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and hospital outpatient departments to the CMS. We advocated for the following: 

Increased and more accurate valuation for peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and capsule endoscopy services. 

Continued flexibility and payment parity for telehealth and telephone services. 

Elimination of the secondary scalar for ASCs, which contributes to the widening differential in payments to ASCs compared to the hospital outpatient department. 

You can access our letter here. 

New patient care resource: NASH Clinical Care Pathway

The American Gastroenterological Association – in collaboration with seven professional associations – assembled a multidisciplinary taskforce of 15 experts to develop an action plan to develop a nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) Clinical Care Pathway providing practical guidance across multiple disciplines of care. The guidance ranges from screening and diagnosis to management of individuals with NAFLD and NASH, as well as facilitating value-based, efficient, and safe care that is consistent with evidence-based guidelines. 

This clinical care pathway is intended to be applicable in any setting in which care for patients with NAFLD is provided, including primary care, endocrine, obesity medicine, and gastroenterology practices. 

Read the special report: Clinical Care Pathway for the Risk Stratification and Management of Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. 

To learn more about the development of this publication, visit NASH.gastro.org. 
 

GI societies push CMS for payment rules favorable for practices 

As part of our longstanding collaboration and ongoing efforts on critical policy and payment issues impacting GI clinicians, AGA, the American College of Gastroenterology, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy submitted comments on proposed 2022 Medicare payments to physicians, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and hospital outpatient departments to the CMS. We advocated for the following: 

Increased and more accurate valuation for peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and capsule endoscopy services. 

Continued flexibility and payment parity for telehealth and telephone services. 

Elimination of the secondary scalar for ASCs, which contributes to the widening differential in payments to ASCs compared to the hospital outpatient department. 

You can access our letter here. 

New patient care resource: NASH Clinical Care Pathway

The American Gastroenterological Association – in collaboration with seven professional associations – assembled a multidisciplinary taskforce of 15 experts to develop an action plan to develop a nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) Clinical Care Pathway providing practical guidance across multiple disciplines of care. The guidance ranges from screening and diagnosis to management of individuals with NAFLD and NASH, as well as facilitating value-based, efficient, and safe care that is consistent with evidence-based guidelines. 

This clinical care pathway is intended to be applicable in any setting in which care for patients with NAFLD is provided, including primary care, endocrine, obesity medicine, and gastroenterology practices. 

Read the special report: Clinical Care Pathway for the Risk Stratification and Management of Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. 

To learn more about the development of this publication, visit NASH.gastro.org. 
 

GI societies push CMS for payment rules favorable for practices 

As part of our longstanding collaboration and ongoing efforts on critical policy and payment issues impacting GI clinicians, AGA, the American College of Gastroenterology, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy submitted comments on proposed 2022 Medicare payments to physicians, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and hospital outpatient departments to the CMS. We advocated for the following: 

Increased and more accurate valuation for peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and capsule endoscopy services. 

Continued flexibility and payment parity for telehealth and telephone services. 

Elimination of the secondary scalar for ASCs, which contributes to the widening differential in payments to ASCs compared to the hospital outpatient department. 

You can access our letter here. 

Gastroenterology

August 2021

How to perform a high-quality endoscopic submucosal dissection
Saito Y et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):405-10. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.051.



Comparative effectiveness of multiple different first-line treatment regimens for Helicobacter pylori infection: A network meta-analysis
Rokkas T et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):495-507.e4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.04.012.



The optimal age to stop endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus based on sex and comorbidity: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis
Omidvari AH et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):487-94.e4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.003.



Development and validation of test for “leaky gut” small intestinal and colonic permeability using sugars in healthy adults
Khoshbin K et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):463-75.e13. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.04.020.



September 2021

Pregnancy and the working gastroenterologist: Perceptions, realities, and systemic challenges
David YN et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):756-60. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.053.



New drugs on the horizon for functional and motility gastrointestinal disorders
Camilleri M. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):761-4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.04.079.



A randomized trial comparing the specific carbohydrate diet to a Mediterranean diet in adults with Crohn’s disease
Lewis JD et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):837-52.e9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.047.
 

How to promote career advancement and gender equity for women in gastroenterology: a multifaceted approach
Chua SG et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):792-7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.057.



October 2021

How to approach a patient with difficult-to-treat IBS
Chang L. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1092-8.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.07.034.



Early-age onset colorectal neoplasia in average-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Kolb JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1145-55.e12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.006.



Adalimumab subcutaneous in participants with ulcerative colitis (VARSITY)
Peyrin-Biroulet L et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1156-67.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.015.



Extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease: Current concepts, treatment, and implications for disease management
Rogler G et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1118-32. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.07.042.
 

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

August 2021

Health equity and telemedicine in gastroenterology and hepatology
Wegermann K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1516-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.024.



AGA Clinical Practice Update on evaluation and management of early complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery: Expert review
Kumbhari V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1531-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.03.020.



Clinical, pathology, genetic, and molecular features of colorectal tumors in adolescents and adults 25 years or younger
de Voer RM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1642-51.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.034.



Safety of tofacitinib in a real-world cohort of patients with ulcerative colitis
Deepak P et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1592-601.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.050.

September 2021

Association of adenoma detection rate and adenoma characteristics with colorectal cancer mortality after screening colonoscopy
Waldmann E et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Sep;19(9):1890-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.023.



Prevalence and characteristics of abdominal pain in the United States
Lakhoo K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Sep;19(9):1864-72.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.065.



Model using clinical and endoscopic characteristics identifies patients at risk for eosinophilic esophagitis according to updated diagnostic guidelines
Cotton CC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Sep;19(9):1824-34.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.068.



October 2021

A high-yield approach to effective endoscopy teaching and assessment
Huang HZ et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):1999-2001. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.07.013.



2021 E/M code changes: Forecasted impacts to gastroenterology practices
Francis DL et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2002-5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.07.008.



You can’t have one without the other: Innovation and ethical dilemmas in gastroenterology and hepatology
Couri T et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2015-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.05.024.



Psychiatric disorders in patients with a diagnosis of celiac disease during childhood from 1973 to 2016
Lebwohl B et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2093-101.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.08.018.



Mast cell and eosinophil counts in gastric and duodenal biopsy specimens from patients with and without eosinophilic gastroenteritis
Reed CC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2102-2111. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.08.013.
 

Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Sex differences in the exocrine pancreas and associated diseases
Wang M et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;12(2):427-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2021.04.005.



Mesenteric neural crest cells are the embryological basis of skip segment Hirschsprung’s disease
Yu Q et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;12(1):1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.12.010.



Helicobacter pylori–induced rev-erbα fosters gastric bacteria colonization by impairing host innate and adaptive defense
Mao MY et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;12(2):395-425. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2021.02.013.
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Staying (mentally) healthy: The impact of COVID-19 on personal and professional lives
Alkandari A et al. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(2):199-206. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.01.003.



Establishing new endoscopic programs in the unit pitfalls and tips for success
Siddiqui UD. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(3):263-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.03.002.



Chief of endoscopy: Specific challenges to leading the team and running the unit
Michelle A. Anderson MA et al. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(3):249-55. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.03.004.



Safety in endoscopy for patients and healthcare workers During the COVID-19 pandemic
Lui RN. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(2):170-178. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2020.10.004.

Gastroenterology

August 2021

How to perform a high-quality endoscopic submucosal dissection
Saito Y et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):405-10. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.051.



Comparative effectiveness of multiple different first-line treatment regimens for Helicobacter pylori infection: A network meta-analysis
Rokkas T et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):495-507.e4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.04.012.



The optimal age to stop endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus based on sex and comorbidity: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis
Omidvari AH et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):487-94.e4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.003.



Development and validation of test for “leaky gut” small intestinal and colonic permeability using sugars in healthy adults
Khoshbin K et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):463-75.e13. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.04.020.



September 2021

Pregnancy and the working gastroenterologist: Perceptions, realities, and systemic challenges
David YN et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):756-60. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.053.



New drugs on the horizon for functional and motility gastrointestinal disorders
Camilleri M. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):761-4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.04.079.



A randomized trial comparing the specific carbohydrate diet to a Mediterranean diet in adults with Crohn’s disease
Lewis JD et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):837-52.e9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.047.
 

How to promote career advancement and gender equity for women in gastroenterology: a multifaceted approach
Chua SG et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):792-7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.057.



October 2021

How to approach a patient with difficult-to-treat IBS
Chang L. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1092-8.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.07.034.



Early-age onset colorectal neoplasia in average-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Kolb JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1145-55.e12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.006.



Adalimumab subcutaneous in participants with ulcerative colitis (VARSITY)
Peyrin-Biroulet L et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1156-67.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.015.



Extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease: Current concepts, treatment, and implications for disease management
Rogler G et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1118-32. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.07.042.
 

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

August 2021

Health equity and telemedicine in gastroenterology and hepatology
Wegermann K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1516-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.024.



AGA Clinical Practice Update on evaluation and management of early complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery: Expert review
Kumbhari V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1531-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.03.020.



Clinical, pathology, genetic, and molecular features of colorectal tumors in adolescents and adults 25 years or younger
de Voer RM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1642-51.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.034.



Safety of tofacitinib in a real-world cohort of patients with ulcerative colitis
Deepak P et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1592-601.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.050.

September 2021

Association of adenoma detection rate and adenoma characteristics with colorectal cancer mortality after screening colonoscopy
Waldmann E et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Sep;19(9):1890-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.023.



Prevalence and characteristics of abdominal pain in the United States
Lakhoo K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Sep;19(9):1864-72.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.065.



Model using clinical and endoscopic characteristics identifies patients at risk for eosinophilic esophagitis according to updated diagnostic guidelines
Cotton CC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Sep;19(9):1824-34.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.068.



October 2021

A high-yield approach to effective endoscopy teaching and assessment
Huang HZ et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):1999-2001. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.07.013.



2021 E/M code changes: Forecasted impacts to gastroenterology practices
Francis DL et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2002-5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.07.008.



You can’t have one without the other: Innovation and ethical dilemmas in gastroenterology and hepatology
Couri T et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2015-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.05.024.



Psychiatric disorders in patients with a diagnosis of celiac disease during childhood from 1973 to 2016
Lebwohl B et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2093-101.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.08.018.



Mast cell and eosinophil counts in gastric and duodenal biopsy specimens from patients with and without eosinophilic gastroenteritis
Reed CC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2102-2111. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.08.013.
 

Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Sex differences in the exocrine pancreas and associated diseases
Wang M et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;12(2):427-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2021.04.005.



Mesenteric neural crest cells are the embryological basis of skip segment Hirschsprung’s disease
Yu Q et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;12(1):1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.12.010.



Helicobacter pylori–induced rev-erbα fosters gastric bacteria colonization by impairing host innate and adaptive defense
Mao MY et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;12(2):395-425. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2021.02.013.
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Staying (mentally) healthy: The impact of COVID-19 on personal and professional lives
Alkandari A et al. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(2):199-206. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.01.003.



Establishing new endoscopic programs in the unit pitfalls and tips for success
Siddiqui UD. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(3):263-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.03.002.



Chief of endoscopy: Specific challenges to leading the team and running the unit
Michelle A. Anderson MA et al. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(3):249-55. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.03.004.



Safety in endoscopy for patients and healthcare workers During the COVID-19 pandemic
Lui RN. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(2):170-178. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2020.10.004.

Gastroenterology

August 2021

How to perform a high-quality endoscopic submucosal dissection
Saito Y et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):405-10. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.051.



Comparative effectiveness of multiple different first-line treatment regimens for Helicobacter pylori infection: A network meta-analysis
Rokkas T et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):495-507.e4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.04.012.



The optimal age to stop endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus based on sex and comorbidity: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis
Omidvari AH et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):487-94.e4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.003.



Development and validation of test for “leaky gut” small intestinal and colonic permeability using sugars in healthy adults
Khoshbin K et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):463-75.e13. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.04.020.



September 2021

Pregnancy and the working gastroenterologist: Perceptions, realities, and systemic challenges
David YN et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):756-60. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.053.



New drugs on the horizon for functional and motility gastrointestinal disorders
Camilleri M. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):761-4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.04.079.



A randomized trial comparing the specific carbohydrate diet to a Mediterranean diet in adults with Crohn’s disease
Lewis JD et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):837-52.e9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.047.
 

How to promote career advancement and gender equity for women in gastroenterology: a multifaceted approach
Chua SG et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):792-7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.057.



October 2021

How to approach a patient with difficult-to-treat IBS
Chang L. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1092-8.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.07.034.



Early-age onset colorectal neoplasia in average-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Kolb JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1145-55.e12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.006.



Adalimumab subcutaneous in participants with ulcerative colitis (VARSITY)
Peyrin-Biroulet L et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1156-67.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.015.



Extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease: Current concepts, treatment, and implications for disease management
Rogler G et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Oct;161(4):1118-32. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.07.042.
 

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

August 2021

Health equity and telemedicine in gastroenterology and hepatology
Wegermann K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1516-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.024.



AGA Clinical Practice Update on evaluation and management of early complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery: Expert review
Kumbhari V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1531-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.03.020.



Clinical, pathology, genetic, and molecular features of colorectal tumors in adolescents and adults 25 years or younger
de Voer RM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1642-51.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.034.



Safety of tofacitinib in a real-world cohort of patients with ulcerative colitis
Deepak P et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;19(8):1592-601.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.050.

September 2021

Association of adenoma detection rate and adenoma characteristics with colorectal cancer mortality after screening colonoscopy
Waldmann E et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Sep;19(9):1890-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.023.



Prevalence and characteristics of abdominal pain in the United States
Lakhoo K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Sep;19(9):1864-72.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.065.



Model using clinical and endoscopic characteristics identifies patients at risk for eosinophilic esophagitis according to updated diagnostic guidelines
Cotton CC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Sep;19(9):1824-34.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.068.



October 2021

A high-yield approach to effective endoscopy teaching and assessment
Huang HZ et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):1999-2001. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.07.013.



2021 E/M code changes: Forecasted impacts to gastroenterology practices
Francis DL et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2002-5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.07.008.



You can’t have one without the other: Innovation and ethical dilemmas in gastroenterology and hepatology
Couri T et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2015-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.05.024.



Psychiatric disorders in patients with a diagnosis of celiac disease during childhood from 1973 to 2016
Lebwohl B et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2093-101.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.08.018.



Mast cell and eosinophil counts in gastric and duodenal biopsy specimens from patients with and without eosinophilic gastroenteritis
Reed CC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Oct;19(10):2102-2111. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.08.013.
 

Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Sex differences in the exocrine pancreas and associated diseases
Wang M et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;12(2):427-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2021.04.005.



Mesenteric neural crest cells are the embryological basis of skip segment Hirschsprung’s disease
Yu Q et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;12(1):1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.12.010.



Helicobacter pylori–induced rev-erbα fosters gastric bacteria colonization by impairing host innate and adaptive defense
Mao MY et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;12(2):395-425. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2021.02.013.
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Staying (mentally) healthy: The impact of COVID-19 on personal and professional lives
Alkandari A et al. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(2):199-206. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.01.003.



Establishing new endoscopic programs in the unit pitfalls and tips for success
Siddiqui UD. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(3):263-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.03.002.



Chief of endoscopy: Specific challenges to leading the team and running the unit
Michelle A. Anderson MA et al. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(3):249-55. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.03.004.



Safety in endoscopy for patients and healthcare workers During the COVID-19 pandemic
Lui RN. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(2):170-178. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2020.10.004.

Although described by the Greek physician Herophilos around 300 B.C., it was not until the 19th century that enzymes began to be isolated from pancreatic secretions and their digestive action described, and not until early in the 20th century that Banting, Macleod, and Best received the Nobel prize for purifying insulin from the pancreata of dogs. For centuries in between, the pancreas was considered to be just a ‘beautiful piece of flesh’ (kallikreas), the main role of which was to protect the blood vessels in the abdomen and to serve as a cushion to the stomach.¹ Certainly, the pancreas has come a long way since then but, like most other organs in the body, is oft ignored until it develops issues.

Like many other disorders in gastroenterology, pancreatic disorders were historically approached as mechanical or “plumbing” issues. As modern technology and innovation percolated through the world of endoscopy, a wide array of state-of-the-art tools were devised. Availability of newer “toys” and development of newer techniques also means that an ever-increasing curriculum has been squeezed into a generally single year of therapeutic endoscopy training, such that trainees can no longer limit themselves to learning only endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or intervening on pancreatic disease alone. Modern, subspecialized approaches to disease and economic considerations often dictate that the therapeutic endoscopist of today must perform a wide range of procedures besides ERCP and EUS, such as advanced resection using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), endoscopic bariatric procedures, and newer techniques and acronyms that continue to evolve on a regular basis. This leaves the therapeutic endoscopist with little time for outpatient management of many patients that don’t need interventional procedures but are often very complex and need ongoing, long-term follow-up. In addition, any clinic slots available for interventional endoscopists may be utilized by patients coming in to discuss complex procedures or for postprocedure follow-up. Endoscopic management is not the definitive treatment for most pancreatic disorders. In fact, as our knowledge of pancreatic disease has continued to evolve, endoscopic intervention is now required in a minority of cases. This subspecialized yet comprehensive space has allowed the medical pancreatologist, someone interested in pancreatic disease but not a therapeutic endoscopist, to flourish.

Role of the medical pancreatologist

Patient Care

As part of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary team that also includes an interventional gastroenterologist, pancreatic surgeon, transplant surgeon (in centers offering islet autotransplantation with total pancreatectomy), radiology, endocrinology, and GI pathologist, the medical pancreatologist helps lead the care of patients with pancreatic disorders, such as pancreatic cysts, acute and chronic pancreatitis (especially in cases where there is no role for active endoscopic intervention), autoimmune pancreatitis, indeterminate pancreatic masses, as well as screens high-risk patients for pancreatic cancer in conjunction with a genetic counselor. The medical pancreatologist often also serves as a bridge between various members of a large multidisciplinary team that, formally in the form of conferences or informally, discusses the management of complex patients, with each member available to help the other based on the patient’s most immediate clinical need at that time. A schematic showing how the medical pancreatologist collaborates with the therapeutic endoscopist is provided in Figure 1.

Courtesy Dr. Sajan Nagpal

Uzma Siddiqui, MD, director for the Center for Endoscopic Research and Technology (CERT) at the University of Chicago said, “The management of pancreatic diseases is often challenging. Surgeons and endoscopists can offer some treatments that focus on one aspect or symptom, but the medical pancreatologist brings focus to the patient as a whole and helps organize care. It is only with everyone’s combined efforts and the added perspective of the medical pancreatologist that we can provide the best care for our shared patients.”

David Xin, MD, MPH, a medical pancreatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, added, “I am often asked what it means to be a medical pancreatologist. What do I do if not EUS and ERCP? I provide longitudinal care, coordinate multidisciplinary management, assess nutritional status, optimize quality of life, and manage pain. But perhaps most importantly, I make myself available for patients who seek understanding and sympathy regarding their complex disease. I became a medical pancreatologist because my mentors during training helped me recognize how rewarding this career would be.”

Courstesy Dr. Sajan Nagpal

Having a dedicated medical pancreatology clinic has the potential to add a unique element to the training of gastroenterology fellows. In my own experience, besides fellows interested in medical pancreatology, even those interested in therapeutic endoscopy find it useful to rotate through the pancreas clinic and follow patients after or leading to their procedures, becoming comfortable with noninterventional pain management of patients with pancreatic disorders and risk stratification of pancreatic cystic lesions, and learning about the management of rare disorders such as autoimmune pancreatitis. Most importantly, this allows trainees to identify cases where endoscopic intervention may not offer definitive treatment for complex conditions such as pancreatic pain. Trainee-centered organizations such as the Collaborative Alliance for Pancreatic Education and Research (CAPER) enable trainees and young investigators to network with other physicians who are passionate about the pancreas and establish early research collaborations for current and future research endeavors that will help advance this field.

Research

Having a trained medical pancreatologist adds the possibility of adding a unique angle to ongoing research within a gastroenterology division, especially in collaboration with others. For example, during my fellowship training I was able to focus on histological changes in pancreatic islets of patients with pancreatic cancer that develop diabetes, compared with those that do not, in collaboration with a pathologist who focused on studying islet pathology and under the guidance of my mentor, Dr. Suresh Chari, a medical pancreatologist.² I was also part of other studies within the GI division with other medical pancreatologists, such as Dr. Santhi Vege and Dr. Shounak Majumder, who have continued to serve as career and research mentors.³ Collaborative, multicenter studies on pancreatic disease are also conducted by CAPER, the organization mentioned above. A list of potential collaborations for the fellow interested

in medical pancreatology is provided in Figure 3.

Courtesy Dr. Sajan Nagpal

Marketing considerations for the gastroenterology division

Having a medical pancreatologist in the team is not only attractive for referring physicians within an institution but is often a great asset from a marketing standpoint, especially for tertiary care academic centers and large community practices with a broad referral base. Given that there are a limited number of medical pancreatologists in the country, having one as part of the faculty can certainly provide a competitive edge to that center within the area, especially with an ever-increasing preference of patients for hyperspecialized care.

How to develop a career in medical pancreatology

Gastroenterology fellows often start their fellowships “undifferentiated” and try to get exposed to a wide variety of GI pathology, either through general GI clinics or as part of subspecialized clinics, as they attempt to decide how they want their careers to look down the line. Similar to other subspecialities, if a trainee has already decided to pursue medical pancreatology (as happened in my case), they should strongly consider ranking programs with available opportunities for research/clinic in medical pancreatology and ideally undergo an additional year of training. Fellows who decide during the course of their fellowship that they want to pursue a career in medical pancreatology should consider applying for a 4th year in the subject to not only obtain further training in the field but to also conduct research in the area and become more “marketable” as a person that could start a medical pancreatology program at their future academic or community position. Trainees interested in medical pancreatology should try to focus their time on long-term, clinical management of patients with pancreatic disorders, engaging a multidisciplinary team composed of interventional endoscopists, pancreatic surgeons, transplant surgeons (if total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplantation is available), radiology, addiction medicine (if available), endocrinology, and pathology. The list of places that offer a 4th year in medical pancreatology is increasing every year, and as of the writing of this article there are six programs that have this opportunity, which include:

• Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston
• Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
• University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Penn.

The CAPER website is also a great resource for education as well as for identifying potential medical pancreatology programs.

In summary, medical pancreatology is an evolving and rapidly growing career path for gastroenterology fellows interested in providing care to patients with pancreatic disease in close collaboration with multiple other subspecialties, especially therapeutic endoscopy and pancreatic surgery. The field is also ripe for fellows interested in clinical, translational, and basic science research related to pancreatic disorders.

Dr. Nagpal is assistant professor of medicine, director, pancreas clinic, University of Chicago. He had no conflicts to disclose.

References

1. Feldman M et al. “Sleisenger and Fordtran’s Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease,” 11th ed. (Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2021).

2. Nagpal SJS et al. Pancreatology. 2020 Jul;20(5):929-35.

3. Nagpal SJS et al. Pancreatology. 2019 Mar;19(2):290-5.

Although described by the Greek physician Herophilos around 300 B.C., it was not until the 19th century that enzymes began to be isolated from pancreatic secretions and their digestive action described, and not until early in the 20th century that Banting, Macleod, and Best received the Nobel prize for purifying insulin from the pancreata of dogs. For centuries in between, the pancreas was considered to be just a ‘beautiful piece of flesh’ (kallikreas), the main role of which was to protect the blood vessels in the abdomen and to serve as a cushion to the stomach.¹ Certainly, the pancreas has come a long way since then but, like most other organs in the body, is oft ignored until it develops issues.

Like many other disorders in gastroenterology, pancreatic disorders were historically approached as mechanical or “plumbing” issues. As modern technology and innovation percolated through the world of endoscopy, a wide array of state-of-the-art tools were devised. Availability of newer “toys” and development of newer techniques also means that an ever-increasing curriculum has been squeezed into a generally single year of therapeutic endoscopy training, such that trainees can no longer limit themselves to learning only endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or intervening on pancreatic disease alone. Modern, subspecialized approaches to disease and economic considerations often dictate that the therapeutic endoscopist of today must perform a wide range of procedures besides ERCP and EUS, such as advanced resection using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), endoscopic bariatric procedures, and newer techniques and acronyms that continue to evolve on a regular basis. This leaves the therapeutic endoscopist with little time for outpatient management of many patients that don’t need interventional procedures but are often very complex and need ongoing, long-term follow-up. In addition, any clinic slots available for interventional endoscopists may be utilized by patients coming in to discuss complex procedures or for postprocedure follow-up. Endoscopic management is not the definitive treatment for most pancreatic disorders. In fact, as our knowledge of pancreatic disease has continued to evolve, endoscopic intervention is now required in a minority of cases. This subspecialized yet comprehensive space has allowed the medical pancreatologist, someone interested in pancreatic disease but not a therapeutic endoscopist, to flourish.

Role of the medical pancreatologist

Patient Care

As part of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary team that also includes an interventional gastroenterologist, pancreatic surgeon, transplant surgeon (in centers offering islet autotransplantation with total pancreatectomy), radiology, endocrinology, and GI pathologist, the medical pancreatologist helps lead the care of patients with pancreatic disorders, such as pancreatic cysts, acute and chronic pancreatitis (especially in cases where there is no role for active endoscopic intervention), autoimmune pancreatitis, indeterminate pancreatic masses, as well as screens high-risk patients for pancreatic cancer in conjunction with a genetic counselor. The medical pancreatologist often also serves as a bridge between various members of a large multidisciplinary team that, formally in the form of conferences or informally, discusses the management of complex patients, with each member available to help the other based on the patient’s most immediate clinical need at that time. A schematic showing how the medical pancreatologist collaborates with the therapeutic endoscopist is provided in Figure 1.

Courtesy Dr. Sajan Nagpal

Uzma Siddiqui, MD, director for the Center for Endoscopic Research and Technology (CERT) at the University of Chicago said, “The management of pancreatic diseases is often challenging. Surgeons and endoscopists can offer some treatments that focus on one aspect or symptom, but the medical pancreatologist brings focus to the patient as a whole and helps organize care. It is only with everyone’s combined efforts and the added perspective of the medical pancreatologist that we can provide the best care for our shared patients.”

David Xin, MD, MPH, a medical pancreatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, added, “I am often asked what it means to be a medical pancreatologist. What do I do if not EUS and ERCP? I provide longitudinal care, coordinate multidisciplinary management, assess nutritional status, optimize quality of life, and manage pain. But perhaps most importantly, I make myself available for patients who seek understanding and sympathy regarding their complex disease. I became a medical pancreatologist because my mentors during training helped me recognize how rewarding this career would be.”

Courstesy Dr. Sajan Nagpal

Having a dedicated medical pancreatology clinic has the potential to add a unique element to the training of gastroenterology fellows. In my own experience, besides fellows interested in medical pancreatology, even those interested in therapeutic endoscopy find it useful to rotate through the pancreas clinic and follow patients after or leading to their procedures, becoming comfortable with noninterventional pain management of patients with pancreatic disorders and risk stratification of pancreatic cystic lesions, and learning about the management of rare disorders such as autoimmune pancreatitis. Most importantly, this allows trainees to identify cases where endoscopic intervention may not offer definitive treatment for complex conditions such as pancreatic pain. Trainee-centered organizations such as the Collaborative Alliance for Pancreatic Education and Research (CAPER) enable trainees and young investigators to network with other physicians who are passionate about the pancreas and establish early research collaborations for current and future research endeavors that will help advance this field.

Research

Having a trained medical pancreatologist adds the possibility of adding a unique angle to ongoing research within a gastroenterology division, especially in collaboration with others. For example, during my fellowship training I was able to focus on histological changes in pancreatic islets of patients with pancreatic cancer that develop diabetes, compared with those that do not, in collaboration with a pathologist who focused on studying islet pathology and under the guidance of my mentor, Dr. Suresh Chari, a medical pancreatologist.² I was also part of other studies within the GI division with other medical pancreatologists, such as Dr. Santhi Vege and Dr. Shounak Majumder, who have continued to serve as career and research mentors.³ Collaborative, multicenter studies on pancreatic disease are also conducted by CAPER, the organization mentioned above. A list of potential collaborations for the fellow interested

in medical pancreatology is provided in Figure 3.

Courtesy Dr. Sajan Nagpal

Marketing considerations for the gastroenterology division

Having a medical pancreatologist in the team is not only attractive for referring physicians within an institution but is often a great asset from a marketing standpoint, especially for tertiary care academic centers and large community practices with a broad referral base. Given that there are a limited number of medical pancreatologists in the country, having one as part of the faculty can certainly provide a competitive edge to that center within the area, especially with an ever-increasing preference of patients for hyperspecialized care.

How to develop a career in medical pancreatology

Gastroenterology fellows often start their fellowships “undifferentiated” and try to get exposed to a wide variety of GI pathology, either through general GI clinics or as part of subspecialized clinics, as they attempt to decide how they want their careers to look down the line. Similar to other subspecialities, if a trainee has already decided to pursue medical pancreatology (as happened in my case), they should strongly consider ranking programs with available opportunities for research/clinic in medical pancreatology and ideally undergo an additional year of training. Fellows who decide during the course of their fellowship that they want to pursue a career in medical pancreatology should consider applying for a 4th year in the subject to not only obtain further training in the field but to also conduct research in the area and become more “marketable” as a person that could start a medical pancreatology program at their future academic or community position. Trainees interested in medical pancreatology should try to focus their time on long-term, clinical management of patients with pancreatic disorders, engaging a multidisciplinary team composed of interventional endoscopists, pancreatic surgeons, transplant surgeons (if total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplantation is available), radiology, addiction medicine (if available), endocrinology, and pathology. The list of places that offer a 4th year in medical pancreatology is increasing every year, and as of the writing of this article there are six programs that have this opportunity, which include:

• Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston
• Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
• University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Penn.

The CAPER website is also a great resource for education as well as for identifying potential medical pancreatology programs.

In summary, medical pancreatology is an evolving and rapidly growing career path for gastroenterology fellows interested in providing care to patients with pancreatic disease in close collaboration with multiple other subspecialties, especially therapeutic endoscopy and pancreatic surgery. The field is also ripe for fellows interested in clinical, translational, and basic science research related to pancreatic disorders.

Dr. Nagpal is assistant professor of medicine, director, pancreas clinic, University of Chicago. He had no conflicts to disclose.

References

1. Feldman M et al. “Sleisenger and Fordtran’s Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease,” 11th ed. (Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2021).

2. Nagpal SJS et al. Pancreatology. 2020 Jul;20(5):929-35.

3. Nagpal SJS et al. Pancreatology. 2019 Mar;19(2):290-5.

Although described by the Greek physician Herophilos around 300 B.C., it was not until the 19th century that enzymes began to be isolated from pancreatic secretions and their digestive action described, and not until early in the 20th century that Banting, Macleod, and Best received the Nobel prize for purifying insulin from the pancreata of dogs. For centuries in between, the pancreas was considered to be just a ‘beautiful piece of flesh’ (kallikreas), the main role of which was to protect the blood vessels in the abdomen and to serve as a cushion to the stomach.¹ Certainly, the pancreas has come a long way since then but, like most other organs in the body, is oft ignored until it develops issues.

Like many other disorders in gastroenterology, pancreatic disorders were historically approached as mechanical or “plumbing” issues. As modern technology and innovation percolated through the world of endoscopy, a wide array of state-of-the-art tools were devised. Availability of newer “toys” and development of newer techniques also means that an ever-increasing curriculum has been squeezed into a generally single year of therapeutic endoscopy training, such that trainees can no longer limit themselves to learning only endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or intervening on pancreatic disease alone. Modern, subspecialized approaches to disease and economic considerations often dictate that the therapeutic endoscopist of today must perform a wide range of procedures besides ERCP and EUS, such as advanced resection using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), endoscopic bariatric procedures, and newer techniques and acronyms that continue to evolve on a regular basis. This leaves the therapeutic endoscopist with little time for outpatient management of many patients that don’t need interventional procedures but are often very complex and need ongoing, long-term follow-up. In addition, any clinic slots available for interventional endoscopists may be utilized by patients coming in to discuss complex procedures or for postprocedure follow-up. Endoscopic management is not the definitive treatment for most pancreatic disorders. In fact, as our knowledge of pancreatic disease has continued to evolve, endoscopic intervention is now required in a minority of cases. This subspecialized yet comprehensive space has allowed the medical pancreatologist, someone interested in pancreatic disease but not a therapeutic endoscopist, to flourish.

Role of the medical pancreatologist

Patient Care

As part of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary team that also includes an interventional gastroenterologist, pancreatic surgeon, transplant surgeon (in centers offering islet autotransplantation with total pancreatectomy), radiology, endocrinology, and GI pathologist, the medical pancreatologist helps lead the care of patients with pancreatic disorders, such as pancreatic cysts, acute and chronic pancreatitis (especially in cases where there is no role for active endoscopic intervention), autoimmune pancreatitis, indeterminate pancreatic masses, as well as screens high-risk patients for pancreatic cancer in conjunction with a genetic counselor. The medical pancreatologist often also serves as a bridge between various members of a large multidisciplinary team that, formally in the form of conferences or informally, discusses the management of complex patients, with each member available to help the other based on the patient’s most immediate clinical need at that time. A schematic showing how the medical pancreatologist collaborates with the therapeutic endoscopist is provided in Figure 1.

Courtesy Dr. Sajan Nagpal

Uzma Siddiqui, MD, director for the Center for Endoscopic Research and Technology (CERT) at the University of Chicago said, “The management of pancreatic diseases is often challenging. Surgeons and endoscopists can offer some treatments that focus on one aspect or symptom, but the medical pancreatologist brings focus to the patient as a whole and helps organize care. It is only with everyone’s combined efforts and the added perspective of the medical pancreatologist that we can provide the best care for our shared patients.”

David Xin, MD, MPH, a medical pancreatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, added, “I am often asked what it means to be a medical pancreatologist. What do I do if not EUS and ERCP? I provide longitudinal care, coordinate multidisciplinary management, assess nutritional status, optimize quality of life, and manage pain. But perhaps most importantly, I make myself available for patients who seek understanding and sympathy regarding their complex disease. I became a medical pancreatologist because my mentors during training helped me recognize how rewarding this career would be.”

Courstesy Dr. Sajan Nagpal

Having a dedicated medical pancreatology clinic has the potential to add a unique element to the training of gastroenterology fellows. In my own experience, besides fellows interested in medical pancreatology, even those interested in therapeutic endoscopy find it useful to rotate through the pancreas clinic and follow patients after or leading to their procedures, becoming comfortable with noninterventional pain management of patients with pancreatic disorders and risk stratification of pancreatic cystic lesions, and learning about the management of rare disorders such as autoimmune pancreatitis. Most importantly, this allows trainees to identify cases where endoscopic intervention may not offer definitive treatment for complex conditions such as pancreatic pain. Trainee-centered organizations such as the Collaborative Alliance for Pancreatic Education and Research (CAPER) enable trainees and young investigators to network with other physicians who are passionate about the pancreas and establish early research collaborations for current and future research endeavors that will help advance this field.

Research

Having a trained medical pancreatologist adds the possibility of adding a unique angle to ongoing research within a gastroenterology division, especially in collaboration with others. For example, during my fellowship training I was able to focus on histological changes in pancreatic islets of patients with pancreatic cancer that develop diabetes, compared with those that do not, in collaboration with a pathologist who focused on studying islet pathology and under the guidance of my mentor, Dr. Suresh Chari, a medical pancreatologist.² I was also part of other studies within the GI division with other medical pancreatologists, such as Dr. Santhi Vege and Dr. Shounak Majumder, who have continued to serve as career and research mentors.³ Collaborative, multicenter studies on pancreatic disease are also conducted by CAPER, the organization mentioned above. A list of potential collaborations for the fellow interested

in medical pancreatology is provided in Figure 3.

Courtesy Dr. Sajan Nagpal

Marketing considerations for the gastroenterology division

Having a medical pancreatologist in the team is not only attractive for referring physicians within an institution but is often a great asset from a marketing standpoint, especially for tertiary care academic centers and large community practices with a broad referral base. Given that there are a limited number of medical pancreatologists in the country, having one as part of the faculty can certainly provide a competitive edge to that center within the area, especially with an ever-increasing preference of patients for hyperspecialized care.

How to develop a career in medical pancreatology

Gastroenterology fellows often start their fellowships “undifferentiated” and try to get exposed to a wide variety of GI pathology, either through general GI clinics or as part of subspecialized clinics, as they attempt to decide how they want their careers to look down the line. Similar to other subspecialities, if a trainee has already decided to pursue medical pancreatology (as happened in my case), they should strongly consider ranking programs with available opportunities for research/clinic in medical pancreatology and ideally undergo an additional year of training. Fellows who decide during the course of their fellowship that they want to pursue a career in medical pancreatology should consider applying for a 4th year in the subject to not only obtain further training in the field but to also conduct research in the area and become more “marketable” as a person that could start a medical pancreatology program at their future academic or community position. Trainees interested in medical pancreatology should try to focus their time on long-term, clinical management of patients with pancreatic disorders, engaging a multidisciplinary team composed of interventional endoscopists, pancreatic surgeons, transplant surgeons (if total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplantation is available), radiology, addiction medicine (if available), endocrinology, and pathology. The list of places that offer a 4th year in medical pancreatology is increasing every year, and as of the writing of this article there are six programs that have this opportunity, which include:

• Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston
• Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
• University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Penn.

The CAPER website is also a great resource for education as well as for identifying potential medical pancreatology programs.

In summary, medical pancreatology is an evolving and rapidly growing career path for gastroenterology fellows interested in providing care to patients with pancreatic disease in close collaboration with multiple other subspecialties, especially therapeutic endoscopy and pancreatic surgery. The field is also ripe for fellows interested in clinical, translational, and basic science research related to pancreatic disorders.

Dr. Nagpal is assistant professor of medicine, director, pancreas clinic, University of Chicago. He had no conflicts to disclose.

References

1. Feldman M et al. “Sleisenger and Fordtran’s Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease,” 11th ed. (Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2021).

2. Nagpal SJS et al. Pancreatology. 2020 Jul;20(5):929-35.

3. Nagpal SJS et al. Pancreatology. 2019 Mar;19(2):290-5.

For the past 18 months, we’ve all been focused on defeating the COVID-19 pandemic and preparing for the effects of cancer screenings that were delayed or put off entirely. But COVID isn’t the only epidemic we’re facing in the United States. Obesity is the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States. and its related diseases account for $480.7 billion in direct health care costs, with an additional $1.24 trillion in indirect costs from lost economic productivity.

More than two in five Americans are obese and that number is predicted to grow to more than half of the U.S. population by 2030. Obesity is a risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), a buildup of fat in the liver with little or no inflammation or cell damage that affects one in three (30%-37%) of adults in the U.S.

NAFLD can progress to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which affects about 1 in 10 (8%-12%) of adults in the U.S. NASH is fat in the liver with inflammation and cell damage, and it can lead to fibrosis and liver failure. The number of patients we see with NALFD and NASH continues to rise and it’s taking its toll. One in five people who have NASH will have the disease progress to liver cirrhosis. NASH is expected to be the leading cause of liver transplant in the U.S. for the next 5 years.
 

Stemming the tide of NAFLD and NASH

The best way to fight NAFLD and NASH is to prevent it in the first place by maintaining a healthy weight and exercising most days of the week. In terms of diet, limiting sugar and eating a diet rich in vegetables, whole grains, and healthy fats can prevent the factors that lead to liver disease.

If this were easy, we wouldn’t be facing the obesity epidemic that is plaguing the United States. One of the issues is that medicine has only recognized obesity as a disease for less than 10 years. We aren’t trained in medical school, residencies, or fellowships in managing obesity, beyond advising people to exercise and eat right. We know this doesn’t work.

That’s why many independent GI groups are exploring comprehensive weight management programs that take a holistic approach to weight management involving a team of health care providers and educators helping patients gradually exercise more and eat healthy while providing a social support system to lose weight and keep it off.
 

The best way to educate is to listen first

As gastroenterologists, we see many obesity-related issues and have an opportunity to intervene before other more serious issues show up – like cancer, hypertension, and stroke. And educating the public and primary care physicians is key to ensuring that patients who are high risk are screened for liver disease.

Some GI practices leverage awareness events such as International NASH Day in June, or National Liver Cancer Awareness Month in October, to provide primary care physicians and patients with educational materials about making healthier choices and what options are available to screen for NAFLD and NASH.

While the awareness events offer a ready-made context for outreach, the physicians in my practice work year-round to provide information on liver disease. When patients are brought in for issues that may indicate future problems, we look for signs of chronic liver disease and educate them and their family members about liver disease and cirrhosis.

Discussions of weight are very personal, and it’s important to approach the conversation with sensitivity. It’s also good to understand as best as possible any cultural implications of discussing a person’s weight to ensure that the patient or their family members are not embarrassed by the discussion. I find that oftentimes the best approach is to listen to the patient and hear what factors are influencing their ability to exercise and eat healthy foods so that you can work together to find the best solution.

It’s also important to recognize that racial disparities exist in many aspects of NAFLD, including prevalence, severity, genetic predisposition, and overall chance of recovery. For instance, Hispanics and Asian Americans have a higher prevalence of NAFLD, compared with other ethnic and racial groups.
 

Early detection is key

Screenings have become a lot simpler and more convenient. There are alternatives to the painful, expensive liver biopsy. There are blood biomarker tests designed to assess liver fibrosis in patients. Specialized vibration-controlled transient elastography, such as Fibroscan, can measure scarring and fat buildup in the liver. And because it’s noninvasive, it doesn’t come with the same risks as a traditional liver biopsy. It also costs about four or five times less, which is important in this era of value-based care.

These simple tests can be reassuring, or they can lead down another path of treating the disease, but not being screened at all can come at a steep price. Severe fibrosis can lead to cirrhosis, a dangerous condition where the liver can no longer function correctly. NAFLD and NASH can also lead to liver cancer.

There are some medications that are in phase 2 and some in phase 3 clinical trials that aim to reduce fatty liver by cutting down fibrosis and steatosis, and there are other medications that can be used to help with weight loss. But the reality is that lifestyle changes are currently the best way to reverse NAFLD or stop it from progressing to NASH or cirrhosis.
 

Join an innovative practice

For the next 20 years, the obesity epidemic will be the biggest issue facing our society and a major focus of our cancer prevention efforts. Early-career physicians who are looking to join an independent GI practice should ask questions to determine whether the partners in the practice are taking a comprehensive approach to treating issues of obesity, NAFLD, NASH, and liver disease. Discuss what steps the practice takes to educate primary care physicians and their patients about the dangers of NAFLD and NASH.

We’re looking for early-career physicians who are entrepreneurial, not just for the sake of the practice, but because the future is in digital technologies and chronic care management, such as Chronwell, that help people maintain health through remote care and coaching. We want people who are thinking about fixing the problems of today and tomorrow with new technologies and scalable solutions. Through education and new screening and treatment options, we can ensure that fewer people develop serious liver disease or cancer.
 

Dr. Sanjay Sandhir is a practicing gastroenterologist at Dayton Gastroenterology, One GI in Ohio and is an executive committee member of the Digestive Health Physicians Association. He has no conflicts to declare.

For the past 18 months, we’ve all been focused on defeating the COVID-19 pandemic and preparing for the effects of cancer screenings that were delayed or put off entirely. But COVID isn’t the only epidemic we’re facing in the United States. Obesity is the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States. and its related diseases account for $480.7 billion in direct health care costs, with an additional $1.24 trillion in indirect costs from lost economic productivity.

More than two in five Americans are obese and that number is predicted to grow to more than half of the U.S. population by 2030. Obesity is a risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), a buildup of fat in the liver with little or no inflammation or cell damage that affects one in three (30%-37%) of adults in the U.S.

NAFLD can progress to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which affects about 1 in 10 (8%-12%) of adults in the U.S. NASH is fat in the liver with inflammation and cell damage, and it can lead to fibrosis and liver failure. The number of patients we see with NALFD and NASH continues to rise and it’s taking its toll. One in five people who have NASH will have the disease progress to liver cirrhosis. NASH is expected to be the leading cause of liver transplant in the U.S. for the next 5 years.
 

Stemming the tide of NAFLD and NASH

The best way to fight NAFLD and NASH is to prevent it in the first place by maintaining a healthy weight and exercising most days of the week. In terms of diet, limiting sugar and eating a diet rich in vegetables, whole grains, and healthy fats can prevent the factors that lead to liver disease.

If this were easy, we wouldn’t be facing the obesity epidemic that is plaguing the United States. One of the issues is that medicine has only recognized obesity as a disease for less than 10 years. We aren’t trained in medical school, residencies, or fellowships in managing obesity, beyond advising people to exercise and eat right. We know this doesn’t work.

That’s why many independent GI groups are exploring comprehensive weight management programs that take a holistic approach to weight management involving a team of health care providers and educators helping patients gradually exercise more and eat healthy while providing a social support system to lose weight and keep it off.
 

The best way to educate is to listen first

As gastroenterologists, we see many obesity-related issues and have an opportunity to intervene before other more serious issues show up – like cancer, hypertension, and stroke. And educating the public and primary care physicians is key to ensuring that patients who are high risk are screened for liver disease.

Some GI practices leverage awareness events such as International NASH Day in June, or National Liver Cancer Awareness Month in October, to provide primary care physicians and patients with educational materials about making healthier choices and what options are available to screen for NAFLD and NASH.

While the awareness events offer a ready-made context for outreach, the physicians in my practice work year-round to provide information on liver disease. When patients are brought in for issues that may indicate future problems, we look for signs of chronic liver disease and educate them and their family members about liver disease and cirrhosis.

Discussions of weight are very personal, and it’s important to approach the conversation with sensitivity. It’s also good to understand as best as possible any cultural implications of discussing a person’s weight to ensure that the patient or their family members are not embarrassed by the discussion. I find that oftentimes the best approach is to listen to the patient and hear what factors are influencing their ability to exercise and eat healthy foods so that you can work together to find the best solution.

It’s also important to recognize that racial disparities exist in many aspects of NAFLD, including prevalence, severity, genetic predisposition, and overall chance of recovery. For instance, Hispanics and Asian Americans have a higher prevalence of NAFLD, compared with other ethnic and racial groups.
 

Early detection is key

Screenings have become a lot simpler and more convenient. There are alternatives to the painful, expensive liver biopsy. There are blood biomarker tests designed to assess liver fibrosis in patients. Specialized vibration-controlled transient elastography, such as Fibroscan, can measure scarring and fat buildup in the liver. And because it’s noninvasive, it doesn’t come with the same risks as a traditional liver biopsy. It also costs about four or five times less, which is important in this era of value-based care.

These simple tests can be reassuring, or they can lead down another path of treating the disease, but not being screened at all can come at a steep price. Severe fibrosis can lead to cirrhosis, a dangerous condition where the liver can no longer function correctly. NAFLD and NASH can also lead to liver cancer.

There are some medications that are in phase 2 and some in phase 3 clinical trials that aim to reduce fatty liver by cutting down fibrosis and steatosis, and there are other medications that can be used to help with weight loss. But the reality is that lifestyle changes are currently the best way to reverse NAFLD or stop it from progressing to NASH or cirrhosis.
 

Join an innovative practice

For the next 20 years, the obesity epidemic will be the biggest issue facing our society and a major focus of our cancer prevention efforts. Early-career physicians who are looking to join an independent GI practice should ask questions to determine whether the partners in the practice are taking a comprehensive approach to treating issues of obesity, NAFLD, NASH, and liver disease. Discuss what steps the practice takes to educate primary care physicians and their patients about the dangers of NAFLD and NASH.

We’re looking for early-career physicians who are entrepreneurial, not just for the sake of the practice, but because the future is in digital technologies and chronic care management, such as Chronwell, that help people maintain health through remote care and coaching. We want people who are thinking about fixing the problems of today and tomorrow with new technologies and scalable solutions. Through education and new screening and treatment options, we can ensure that fewer people develop serious liver disease or cancer.
 

Dr. Sanjay Sandhir is a practicing gastroenterologist at Dayton Gastroenterology, One GI in Ohio and is an executive committee member of the Digestive Health Physicians Association. He has no conflicts to declare.

For the past 18 months, we’ve all been focused on defeating the COVID-19 pandemic and preparing for the effects of cancer screenings that were delayed or put off entirely. But COVID isn’t the only epidemic we’re facing in the United States. Obesity is the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States. and its related diseases account for $480.7 billion in direct health care costs, with an additional $1.24 trillion in indirect costs from lost economic productivity.

More than two in five Americans are obese and that number is predicted to grow to more than half of the U.S. population by 2030. Obesity is a risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), a buildup of fat in the liver with little or no inflammation or cell damage that affects one in three (30%-37%) of adults in the U.S.

NAFLD can progress to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which affects about 1 in 10 (8%-12%) of adults in the U.S. NASH is fat in the liver with inflammation and cell damage, and it can lead to fibrosis and liver failure. The number of patients we see with NALFD and NASH continues to rise and it’s taking its toll. One in five people who have NASH will have the disease progress to liver cirrhosis. NASH is expected to be the leading cause of liver transplant in the U.S. for the next 5 years.
 

Stemming the tide of NAFLD and NASH

The best way to fight NAFLD and NASH is to prevent it in the first place by maintaining a healthy weight and exercising most days of the week. In terms of diet, limiting sugar and eating a diet rich in vegetables, whole grains, and healthy fats can prevent the factors that lead to liver disease.

If this were easy, we wouldn’t be facing the obesity epidemic that is plaguing the United States. One of the issues is that medicine has only recognized obesity as a disease for less than 10 years. We aren’t trained in medical school, residencies, or fellowships in managing obesity, beyond advising people to exercise and eat right. We know this doesn’t work.

That’s why many independent GI groups are exploring comprehensive weight management programs that take a holistic approach to weight management involving a team of health care providers and educators helping patients gradually exercise more and eat healthy while providing a social support system to lose weight and keep it off.
 

The best way to educate is to listen first

As gastroenterologists, we see many obesity-related issues and have an opportunity to intervene before other more serious issues show up – like cancer, hypertension, and stroke. And educating the public and primary care physicians is key to ensuring that patients who are high risk are screened for liver disease.

Some GI practices leverage awareness events such as International NASH Day in June, or National Liver Cancer Awareness Month in October, to provide primary care physicians and patients with educational materials about making healthier choices and what options are available to screen for NAFLD and NASH.

While the awareness events offer a ready-made context for outreach, the physicians in my practice work year-round to provide information on liver disease. When patients are brought in for issues that may indicate future problems, we look for signs of chronic liver disease and educate them and their family members about liver disease and cirrhosis.

Discussions of weight are very personal, and it’s important to approach the conversation with sensitivity. It’s also good to understand as best as possible any cultural implications of discussing a person’s weight to ensure that the patient or their family members are not embarrassed by the discussion. I find that oftentimes the best approach is to listen to the patient and hear what factors are influencing their ability to exercise and eat healthy foods so that you can work together to find the best solution.

It’s also important to recognize that racial disparities exist in many aspects of NAFLD, including prevalence, severity, genetic predisposition, and overall chance of recovery. For instance, Hispanics and Asian Americans have a higher prevalence of NAFLD, compared with other ethnic and racial groups.
 

Early detection is key

Screenings have become a lot simpler and more convenient. There are alternatives to the painful, expensive liver biopsy. There are blood biomarker tests designed to assess liver fibrosis in patients. Specialized vibration-controlled transient elastography, such as Fibroscan, can measure scarring and fat buildup in the liver. And because it’s noninvasive, it doesn’t come with the same risks as a traditional liver biopsy. It also costs about four or five times less, which is important in this era of value-based care.

These simple tests can be reassuring, or they can lead down another path of treating the disease, but not being screened at all can come at a steep price. Severe fibrosis can lead to cirrhosis, a dangerous condition where the liver can no longer function correctly. NAFLD and NASH can also lead to liver cancer.

There are some medications that are in phase 2 and some in phase 3 clinical trials that aim to reduce fatty liver by cutting down fibrosis and steatosis, and there are other medications that can be used to help with weight loss. But the reality is that lifestyle changes are currently the best way to reverse NAFLD or stop it from progressing to NASH or cirrhosis.
 

Join an innovative practice

For the next 20 years, the obesity epidemic will be the biggest issue facing our society and a major focus of our cancer prevention efforts. Early-career physicians who are looking to join an independent GI practice should ask questions to determine whether the partners in the practice are taking a comprehensive approach to treating issues of obesity, NAFLD, NASH, and liver disease. Discuss what steps the practice takes to educate primary care physicians and their patients about the dangers of NAFLD and NASH.

We’re looking for early-career physicians who are entrepreneurial, not just for the sake of the practice, but because the future is in digital technologies and chronic care management, such as Chronwell, that help people maintain health through remote care and coaching. We want people who are thinking about fixing the problems of today and tomorrow with new technologies and scalable solutions. Through education and new screening and treatment options, we can ensure that fewer people develop serious liver disease or cancer.
 

Dr. Sanjay Sandhir is a practicing gastroenterologist at Dayton Gastroenterology, One GI in Ohio and is an executive committee member of the Digestive Health Physicians Association. He has no conflicts to declare.

Even a decade ago, the idea of providers sharing clinical notes with patients was almost unfathomable to most in medicine. We have since seen a sea change regarding the need for transparency in health care, leading to dramatic legislative and policy shifts in recent years.

On April 5, 2021, the federal program rule on Interoperability, Information Blocking, and ONC Health IT Certification took effect, which implemented a part of the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 requiring most of a patient’s electronic health information (EHI) be made easily accessible free of charge and “without delay.”¹

Included in this defined set of EHI, known as the United States Core Data for Interoperability, are eight types of clinical notes that must be shared with patients, including: progress notes, history and physical notes, consultation notes, discharge summary notes, procedure notes, laboratory report narratives, imaging narratives, and pathology report narratives. Many clinicians viewed this federally mandated transition to note sharing with patients with concern, fearing increased documentation burdens, needless patient anxiety, and inevitable deluge of follow-up questions and requests for chart corrections.

In reality, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) granted virtually all patients the right to review a paper copy of their medical records, including all clinical notes, way back in 1996. Practically speaking, though, the multiple steps required to formally make these requests kept most patients from regularly accessing their health information.

The 21st Century Cures Act streamlines and modernizes this process by requiring electronic access. Certain note types, including psychotherapy notes, are exempt from this requirement. As has always been true since HIPAA was enacted, exceptions may be used for circumstances in which a clinician holds a reasonable belief that blocking information is necessary to prevent harm to a patient or another person or to protect an individual’s privacy. By continuing to allow for these exceptions, clinicians maintain the autonomy to block sharing of notes in the rare, complex situations in which doing so may truly be harmful.

And while the legal requirement to share most clinical notes is new, there is already a wealth of evidence from the earliest adopters (part of the OpenNotes movement) affirming the significant benefits from this practice – for patients and providers – with few negative effects on workflows or documentation patterns.² Findings published as early as 2012, and regularly since then, among OpenNotes adopters from a diverse set of health care institutions have shown access to notes improves patient engagement, activation, and communication, as well as patient and clinician satisfaction.³

Still, providers may argue, shouldn’t clinical notes be a space where providers are free to articulate uncertainties, work through clinical reasoning, and share subtle observations about a patient’s presentation and findings with colleagues without having to worry about alarming patients who may lack the background to understand medical nuances?

It’s a fine balance in certain situations since we want to document our objective clinical assessments and prognoses without needlessly upsetting our patients, especially when considering a potentially life-changing diagnosis. How do we continue offering hope to our patients while still respecting their autonomy and sharing their health information with them? There is no uniform approach or standard playbook to follow since each patient and clinical circumstance is unique.

Fundamentally, sharing clinical notes is about granting access to one’s own health information, promoting patient activation and engagement, and making health care more patient centered. As a clinician, it’s important to frame the conversations we have with our patients so they are not surprised or caught off guard by what we have written in our notes. If you had a difficult or contentious conversation, document it objectively and without bias. If you are discussing obesity, substance abuse, or mental health, do so respectfully, supportively, and without judgment. If one of the reasons you are doing a CT scan is to rule out pancreatic cancer, it’s hard to argue that the patient does not deserve to know that beforehand.

The OpenNotes experience to date has consistently shown that patients benefit from direct discussions and transparency, which can even motivate difficult behavior changes.⁴ As clinicians, we may have to make minor changes in how we document, such as using less medical jargon and fewer abbreviations, but based on data from the longest tenured participants in OpenNotes, these adjustments do not add to documentation burdens.⁵ An activated patient who is reading their notes is an engaged patient, one who will often collaborate more in their own care, offer additional insights, and feel more empowered to take responsibility for their own health.⁶

When surveyed, patients report that access to their clinical notes helps them feel more in control of their health by understanding their medical conditions better, which makes them feel more prepared for their visits.4 Studies have shown that patients forget between 40%-80% of the information communicated during a visit, making clinical notes a valuable reminder and reference. Over 75% of patients in one study reported that reading notes helped them better understand the meaning of results and the rationale for referrals and tests, which led to greater follow-through with their treatment plans and follow-up appointments.³ A remarkable 99% of patients in the same study reported feeling the same or better about their physician after reading their notes.

Sharing notes with patients also makes care safer and more equitable. A written record of a visit serves as an important source of information about why a medicine is prescribed, a reminder about additions or changes to a regimen, and potential adverse effects of medications. In the first OpenNotes study, which had more than 100 primary care physicians and 20,000 patients, 60%-78% of patients with access to their notes reported improved medication adherence.² A later study reported similar benefits, particularly among patients who identify as racial or ethnic minorities, non-native English speakers, and those with a high school education or less. These findings may reflect increased trust that comes with a more collaborative relationship between providers and patients. Patients who can read their notes also show a willingness to review their medication lists and report discrepancies and errors, making their care safer still.⁷

Conclusion

The move to widespread shared notes, though prompted by a federal mandate, is a critical step forward in patient activation, engagement, and satisfaction. Importantly, there is a large body of evidence showing multiple benefits, including better communication and safer and more equitable care at sites that have already been sharing notes for over a decade. When surveyed, both patients and providers who have been participating in shared notes believe the practice should continue.

In April 2021, we began a massive natural experiment in the U.S. with ubiquitous sharing of clinical notes, one that will help us learn more about how best to make our patients’ health information accessible, meaningful, and most meaningful in improving their overall health and well-being. Sharing notes with our patients is at once relatively easy to implement but complex in its implications and represents a significant paradigm shift in medicine toward a safer, more patient-centered approach. The evidence to date has shown that embracing shared notes promotes greater patient activation and engagement, and with it a more transparent and collaborative relationship between providers and patients that could lead to transformative benefits to the quality of the care we can achieve together.

Dr. Shah is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics and associate chief medical information officer at University of Chicago Medicine. He has no disclosures

References

1. 21st Century Cures Act, HR 34, 114th Congress (2015). Accessed 2021 Sep 23. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34.

2. Delbanco T et al. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Oct;157(7):461-70.

3. Bell S et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Apr;26(4):262-70.

4. Walker J et al. J Med Internet Res. 2019 May. doi: 10.2196/13876.

5. DesRoches C et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1753.

6. Blease C et al. J Med Ethics. 2021 May. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107275.

7. DesRoches C et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jul 2;171(1):69-71.


 

Even a decade ago, the idea of providers sharing clinical notes with patients was almost unfathomable to most in medicine. We have since seen a sea change regarding the need for transparency in health care, leading to dramatic legislative and policy shifts in recent years.

On April 5, 2021, the federal program rule on Interoperability, Information Blocking, and ONC Health IT Certification took effect, which implemented a part of the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 requiring most of a patient’s electronic health information (EHI) be made easily accessible free of charge and “without delay.”¹

Included in this defined set of EHI, known as the United States Core Data for Interoperability, are eight types of clinical notes that must be shared with patients, including: progress notes, history and physical notes, consultation notes, discharge summary notes, procedure notes, laboratory report narratives, imaging narratives, and pathology report narratives. Many clinicians viewed this federally mandated transition to note sharing with patients with concern, fearing increased documentation burdens, needless patient anxiety, and inevitable deluge of follow-up questions and requests for chart corrections.

In reality, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) granted virtually all patients the right to review a paper copy of their medical records, including all clinical notes, way back in 1996. Practically speaking, though, the multiple steps required to formally make these requests kept most patients from regularly accessing their health information.

The 21st Century Cures Act streamlines and modernizes this process by requiring electronic access. Certain note types, including psychotherapy notes, are exempt from this requirement. As has always been true since HIPAA was enacted, exceptions may be used for circumstances in which a clinician holds a reasonable belief that blocking information is necessary to prevent harm to a patient or another person or to protect an individual’s privacy. By continuing to allow for these exceptions, clinicians maintain the autonomy to block sharing of notes in the rare, complex situations in which doing so may truly be harmful.

And while the legal requirement to share most clinical notes is new, there is already a wealth of evidence from the earliest adopters (part of the OpenNotes movement) affirming the significant benefits from this practice – for patients and providers – with few negative effects on workflows or documentation patterns.² Findings published as early as 2012, and regularly since then, among OpenNotes adopters from a diverse set of health care institutions have shown access to notes improves patient engagement, activation, and communication, as well as patient and clinician satisfaction.³

Still, providers may argue, shouldn’t clinical notes be a space where providers are free to articulate uncertainties, work through clinical reasoning, and share subtle observations about a patient’s presentation and findings with colleagues without having to worry about alarming patients who may lack the background to understand medical nuances?

It’s a fine balance in certain situations since we want to document our objective clinical assessments and prognoses without needlessly upsetting our patients, especially when considering a potentially life-changing diagnosis. How do we continue offering hope to our patients while still respecting their autonomy and sharing their health information with them? There is no uniform approach or standard playbook to follow since each patient and clinical circumstance is unique.

Fundamentally, sharing clinical notes is about granting access to one’s own health information, promoting patient activation and engagement, and making health care more patient centered. As a clinician, it’s important to frame the conversations we have with our patients so they are not surprised or caught off guard by what we have written in our notes. If you had a difficult or contentious conversation, document it objectively and without bias. If you are discussing obesity, substance abuse, or mental health, do so respectfully, supportively, and without judgment. If one of the reasons you are doing a CT scan is to rule out pancreatic cancer, it’s hard to argue that the patient does not deserve to know that beforehand.

The OpenNotes experience to date has consistently shown that patients benefit from direct discussions and transparency, which can even motivate difficult behavior changes.⁴ As clinicians, we may have to make minor changes in how we document, such as using less medical jargon and fewer abbreviations, but based on data from the longest tenured participants in OpenNotes, these adjustments do not add to documentation burdens.⁵ An activated patient who is reading their notes is an engaged patient, one who will often collaborate more in their own care, offer additional insights, and feel more empowered to take responsibility for their own health.⁶

When surveyed, patients report that access to their clinical notes helps them feel more in control of their health by understanding their medical conditions better, which makes them feel more prepared for their visits.4 Studies have shown that patients forget between 40%-80% of the information communicated during a visit, making clinical notes a valuable reminder and reference. Over 75% of patients in one study reported that reading notes helped them better understand the meaning of results and the rationale for referrals and tests, which led to greater follow-through with their treatment plans and follow-up appointments.³ A remarkable 99% of patients in the same study reported feeling the same or better about their physician after reading their notes.

Sharing notes with patients also makes care safer and more equitable. A written record of a visit serves as an important source of information about why a medicine is prescribed, a reminder about additions or changes to a regimen, and potential adverse effects of medications. In the first OpenNotes study, which had more than 100 primary care physicians and 20,000 patients, 60%-78% of patients with access to their notes reported improved medication adherence.² A later study reported similar benefits, particularly among patients who identify as racial or ethnic minorities, non-native English speakers, and those with a high school education or less. These findings may reflect increased trust that comes with a more collaborative relationship between providers and patients. Patients who can read their notes also show a willingness to review their medication lists and report discrepancies and errors, making their care safer still.⁷

Conclusion

The move to widespread shared notes, though prompted by a federal mandate, is a critical step forward in patient activation, engagement, and satisfaction. Importantly, there is a large body of evidence showing multiple benefits, including better communication and safer and more equitable care at sites that have already been sharing notes for over a decade. When surveyed, both patients and providers who have been participating in shared notes believe the practice should continue.

In April 2021, we began a massive natural experiment in the U.S. with ubiquitous sharing of clinical notes, one that will help us learn more about how best to make our patients’ health information accessible, meaningful, and most meaningful in improving their overall health and well-being. Sharing notes with our patients is at once relatively easy to implement but complex in its implications and represents a significant paradigm shift in medicine toward a safer, more patient-centered approach. The evidence to date has shown that embracing shared notes promotes greater patient activation and engagement, and with it a more transparent and collaborative relationship between providers and patients that could lead to transformative benefits to the quality of the care we can achieve together.

Dr. Shah is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics and associate chief medical information officer at University of Chicago Medicine. He has no disclosures

References

1. 21st Century Cures Act, HR 34, 114th Congress (2015). Accessed 2021 Sep 23. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34.

2. Delbanco T et al. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Oct;157(7):461-70.

3. Bell S et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Apr;26(4):262-70.

4. Walker J et al. J Med Internet Res. 2019 May. doi: 10.2196/13876.

5. DesRoches C et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1753.

6. Blease C et al. J Med Ethics. 2021 May. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107275.

7. DesRoches C et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jul 2;171(1):69-71.


 

Even a decade ago, the idea of providers sharing clinical notes with patients was almost unfathomable to most in medicine. We have since seen a sea change regarding the need for transparency in health care, leading to dramatic legislative and policy shifts in recent years.

On April 5, 2021, the federal program rule on Interoperability, Information Blocking, and ONC Health IT Certification took effect, which implemented a part of the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 requiring most of a patient’s electronic health information (EHI) be made easily accessible free of charge and “without delay.”¹

Included in this defined set of EHI, known as the United States Core Data for Interoperability, are eight types of clinical notes that must be shared with patients, including: progress notes, history and physical notes, consultation notes, discharge summary notes, procedure notes, laboratory report narratives, imaging narratives, and pathology report narratives. Many clinicians viewed this federally mandated transition to note sharing with patients with concern, fearing increased documentation burdens, needless patient anxiety, and inevitable deluge of follow-up questions and requests for chart corrections.

In reality, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) granted virtually all patients the right to review a paper copy of their medical records, including all clinical notes, way back in 1996. Practically speaking, though, the multiple steps required to formally make these requests kept most patients from regularly accessing their health information.

The 21st Century Cures Act streamlines and modernizes this process by requiring electronic access. Certain note types, including psychotherapy notes, are exempt from this requirement. As has always been true since HIPAA was enacted, exceptions may be used for circumstances in which a clinician holds a reasonable belief that blocking information is necessary to prevent harm to a patient or another person or to protect an individual’s privacy. By continuing to allow for these exceptions, clinicians maintain the autonomy to block sharing of notes in the rare, complex situations in which doing so may truly be harmful.

And while the legal requirement to share most clinical notes is new, there is already a wealth of evidence from the earliest adopters (part of the OpenNotes movement) affirming the significant benefits from this practice – for patients and providers – with few negative effects on workflows or documentation patterns.² Findings published as early as 2012, and regularly since then, among OpenNotes adopters from a diverse set of health care institutions have shown access to notes improves patient engagement, activation, and communication, as well as patient and clinician satisfaction.³

Still, providers may argue, shouldn’t clinical notes be a space where providers are free to articulate uncertainties, work through clinical reasoning, and share subtle observations about a patient’s presentation and findings with colleagues without having to worry about alarming patients who may lack the background to understand medical nuances?

It’s a fine balance in certain situations since we want to document our objective clinical assessments and prognoses without needlessly upsetting our patients, especially when considering a potentially life-changing diagnosis. How do we continue offering hope to our patients while still respecting their autonomy and sharing their health information with them? There is no uniform approach or standard playbook to follow since each patient and clinical circumstance is unique.

Fundamentally, sharing clinical notes is about granting access to one’s own health information, promoting patient activation and engagement, and making health care more patient centered. As a clinician, it’s important to frame the conversations we have with our patients so they are not surprised or caught off guard by what we have written in our notes. If you had a difficult or contentious conversation, document it objectively and without bias. If you are discussing obesity, substance abuse, or mental health, do so respectfully, supportively, and without judgment. If one of the reasons you are doing a CT scan is to rule out pancreatic cancer, it’s hard to argue that the patient does not deserve to know that beforehand.

The OpenNotes experience to date has consistently shown that patients benefit from direct discussions and transparency, which can even motivate difficult behavior changes.⁴ As clinicians, we may have to make minor changes in how we document, such as using less medical jargon and fewer abbreviations, but based on data from the longest tenured participants in OpenNotes, these adjustments do not add to documentation burdens.⁵ An activated patient who is reading their notes is an engaged patient, one who will often collaborate more in their own care, offer additional insights, and feel more empowered to take responsibility for their own health.⁶

When surveyed, patients report that access to their clinical notes helps them feel more in control of their health by understanding their medical conditions better, which makes them feel more prepared for their visits.4 Studies have shown that patients forget between 40%-80% of the information communicated during a visit, making clinical notes a valuable reminder and reference. Over 75% of patients in one study reported that reading notes helped them better understand the meaning of results and the rationale for referrals and tests, which led to greater follow-through with their treatment plans and follow-up appointments.³ A remarkable 99% of patients in the same study reported feeling the same or better about their physician after reading their notes.

Sharing notes with patients also makes care safer and more equitable. A written record of a visit serves as an important source of information about why a medicine is prescribed, a reminder about additions or changes to a regimen, and potential adverse effects of medications. In the first OpenNotes study, which had more than 100 primary care physicians and 20,000 patients, 60%-78% of patients with access to their notes reported improved medication adherence.² A later study reported similar benefits, particularly among patients who identify as racial or ethnic minorities, non-native English speakers, and those with a high school education or less. These findings may reflect increased trust that comes with a more collaborative relationship between providers and patients. Patients who can read their notes also show a willingness to review their medication lists and report discrepancies and errors, making their care safer still.⁷

Conclusion

The move to widespread shared notes, though prompted by a federal mandate, is a critical step forward in patient activation, engagement, and satisfaction. Importantly, there is a large body of evidence showing multiple benefits, including better communication and safer and more equitable care at sites that have already been sharing notes for over a decade. When surveyed, both patients and providers who have been participating in shared notes believe the practice should continue.

In April 2021, we began a massive natural experiment in the U.S. with ubiquitous sharing of clinical notes, one that will help us learn more about how best to make our patients’ health information accessible, meaningful, and most meaningful in improving their overall health and well-being. Sharing notes with our patients is at once relatively easy to implement but complex in its implications and represents a significant paradigm shift in medicine toward a safer, more patient-centered approach. The evidence to date has shown that embracing shared notes promotes greater patient activation and engagement, and with it a more transparent and collaborative relationship between providers and patients that could lead to transformative benefits to the quality of the care we can achieve together.

Dr. Shah is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics and associate chief medical information officer at University of Chicago Medicine. He has no disclosures

References

1. 21st Century Cures Act, HR 34, 114th Congress (2015). Accessed 2021 Sep 23. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34.

2. Delbanco T et al. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Oct;157(7):461-70.

3. Bell S et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Apr;26(4):262-70.

4. Walker J et al. J Med Internet Res. 2019 May. doi: 10.2196/13876.

5. DesRoches C et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1753.

6. Blease C et al. J Med Ethics. 2021 May. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107275.

7. DesRoches C et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jul 2;171(1):69-71.


 

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhuman.” – Martin Luther King Jr., March 25, 1966. ¹

This single disparity – health care injustice – too often results in needless mental anguish, physical suffering, or death. In the spring of 2020, at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the convergence of injustices in health care and policing led to the disproportionate preventable physical deaths of Black men and women. This became the watershed moment for 11 gastroenterologists and hepatologists who collectively grieved but heeded the call of social responsibility to form the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists.

The mission of ABGH is laser focused. It is to promote health equity in Black communities, advance science, and develop the careers of Black gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and scientists. The vision is to improve gastrointestinal health outcomes in Black communities; to develop the pipeline of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists given that currently only 4% in the United States identify as Black; to foster networking, mentoring, and sponsorship among Black students, clinical trainees, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists; and to promote the scholarship of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists.

Through community engagement, ABGH stands to empower the Black community with knowledge and choices, which inherently strengthens the physician-patient relationship. ABGH also exists to implement positive change in long term outcome statistics in Black communities. Black Americans are 20% more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 40% more likely to die from the disease. In addition to colorectal cancer, rates of esophageal squamous cancer, as well as cancer of the small bowel and pancreas, are highest in Black people.² Through scientific research and clinical care, we aim to eradicate digestive health disparities. 

Yet in this space, we know first-hand that, in the United States, the wellness of a community is not measured by the medical fitness of its members alone but also by the availability of equitable opportunities for fulfillment of nonmedical but health-impacting social needs. These needs, also known as social determinants of health, are made inaccessible to vulnerable populations because of systemic racism. Importantly, we recognize that dismantling racist systems is not a singular effort, nor are we pioneers in this work, but we look forward to executing health equity goals collaboratively with our fellow gastrointestinal national societies and other leading community and grassroots organizations.

The founders of ABGH are a distinctive group of practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists from across the United States with a strong track record in DEI work through their community, clinical, and research activities. The board of directors reflects only the depth of talent shared throughout the ABGH membership. The strength of the organization lies in its diverse and energetic constituents who all exemplify outstanding training and the readiness to redefine the standard of health care delivery to the Black community. From medical students to senior level gastroenterologists, we collectively embody a considerable momentum for formation of this organization at this point in our history.

ABGH fulfills a professional career development need for budding gastroenterologists not so readily available from other organizations. The compelling impact of representing the embodiment of what many of us were told we could not become is limitless. The personal and professional growth enabled by our networking and learning from each other is both motivating and empowering since, even after overcoming the obstacles needed to become a medical provider, Black professionals are often not afforded the bandwidth, range of emotion, and protection to reveal their specific needs. For this author personally, the ABGH provides a psychological safety that allows authentic self-identity without code-switching.³ Through this authenticity has arisen formidable strength, creativity, and productivity. The leadership and innovation cultivated in ABGH stands to benefit many generations to come, both within and outside the organization. 
 

Reflections from a junior member of ABGH: Dr. Kafayat Busari

My desire to pursue gastroenterology was bolstered by determination, curiosity, and passion, yet ironically was often met with skepticism by many in position to help advance this goal. Although projections of incertitude on members of a community that are often made to feel inadequate can diminish even the brightest of lights, conversely it can fuel the creation of an organization emboldened to specifically address GI-related health disparities. When I was a second-year internal medicine resident, I encountered a GI physician who told me GI “wasn’t something I wanted to do”—despite me expressing my interest.

Confused by the statement, I reached out to Renee L. Williams, MD, of NYU Langone Health, who I had met during my medical school training. She suggested I join a conference call later that week. On that call and the many that took place thereafter, I was introduced to Black gastroenterologists who are luminal disease experts, chair members, journal editors, transplant hepatologists, interventional endoscopists, researchers, and professors (in other words, GI professional leaders). My time on the initial call lasted perhaps less than 20 minutes, but the impact has been immeasurable. 

I was provided the emotional reassurance that GI was indeed for me and told “there’s always a seat, and if it feels like there’s not, we just need to get more chairs.” Little did I know, but those metaphorical chairs were being gathered so that I and other aspiring gastroenterologists will be able to sit comfortably at these tables one day. I was witnessing these GI professional leaders set in motion the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a pivotal component in the way I approach my career as a gastroenterologist. The experience reignited my mental determination to one day attain the level of success represented by the ABGH board members and to persevere in my quest to help redefine how Black medical students and residents serve their communities as physicians.

The creation of the ABGH could not have come at a better time in my training. In the wake of recent public protests for equity of African Americans within every institution (academia, housing, banks, policing, health care, and beyond), which were fundamentally built on racism, being a junior member of ABGH has not only given me a platform to speak my truth but has also provided me with tools to help others do so as well. As someone very passionate about research, primarily in colorectal cancer, I have been given an opportunity to connect with a dream team of mentors who have taken research ideas to new levels and have challenged me to dig deeper and expand my curiosity to investigate what still needs to be uncovered. It has created opportunity after opportunity for actively building relationships, leading to meaningful collaborations and the sharing of innovative ideas and discoveries. 

It is important to emphasize that ABGH is not an organization wanting to exclude themselves on the basis of ethnicity. ABGH is an example of how shared health goals within a medical discipline can be achieved when inclusion and equity is at the helm. ABGH led and represented events that raise awareness of diseases affecting all patients and aim to make the GI community more culturally competent. ABGH is future-oriented and embraces all members who align with the mission regardless of ethnicity, gender, orientation, or disability. The institution that is and will be the ABGH impresses upon me a feeling of excitement, gratitude, and humility. I look forward to continuing the mission created by the founding members and being to others what ABGH is to me. 

For more information on this organization, please visit blackingastro.org. 

Dr. Busari is a resident physician at Florida State University-SMH and a junior member of ABGH. Dr. Guillaume director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Center at Stony Brook (New York) University Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at the Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University. They have no disclosures.
 

References 

1. Galarneau C. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2018;29(1):5-8.

2. Ashktorab H et al. Gastroenterology. 2017 Oct;153(4):910-923.

3. Blanchard AK. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 10;384(23):e87.

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhuman.” – Martin Luther King Jr., March 25, 1966. ¹

This single disparity – health care injustice – too often results in needless mental anguish, physical suffering, or death. In the spring of 2020, at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the convergence of injustices in health care and policing led to the disproportionate preventable physical deaths of Black men and women. This became the watershed moment for 11 gastroenterologists and hepatologists who collectively grieved but heeded the call of social responsibility to form the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists.

The mission of ABGH is laser focused. It is to promote health equity in Black communities, advance science, and develop the careers of Black gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and scientists. The vision is to improve gastrointestinal health outcomes in Black communities; to develop the pipeline of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists given that currently only 4% in the United States identify as Black; to foster networking, mentoring, and sponsorship among Black students, clinical trainees, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists; and to promote the scholarship of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists.

Through community engagement, ABGH stands to empower the Black community with knowledge and choices, which inherently strengthens the physician-patient relationship. ABGH also exists to implement positive change in long term outcome statistics in Black communities. Black Americans are 20% more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 40% more likely to die from the disease. In addition to colorectal cancer, rates of esophageal squamous cancer, as well as cancer of the small bowel and pancreas, are highest in Black people.² Through scientific research and clinical care, we aim to eradicate digestive health disparities. 

Yet in this space, we know first-hand that, in the United States, the wellness of a community is not measured by the medical fitness of its members alone but also by the availability of equitable opportunities for fulfillment of nonmedical but health-impacting social needs. These needs, also known as social determinants of health, are made inaccessible to vulnerable populations because of systemic racism. Importantly, we recognize that dismantling racist systems is not a singular effort, nor are we pioneers in this work, but we look forward to executing health equity goals collaboratively with our fellow gastrointestinal national societies and other leading community and grassroots organizations.

The founders of ABGH are a distinctive group of practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists from across the United States with a strong track record in DEI work through their community, clinical, and research activities. The board of directors reflects only the depth of talent shared throughout the ABGH membership. The strength of the organization lies in its diverse and energetic constituents who all exemplify outstanding training and the readiness to redefine the standard of health care delivery to the Black community. From medical students to senior level gastroenterologists, we collectively embody a considerable momentum for formation of this organization at this point in our history.

ABGH fulfills a professional career development need for budding gastroenterologists not so readily available from other organizations. The compelling impact of representing the embodiment of what many of us were told we could not become is limitless. The personal and professional growth enabled by our networking and learning from each other is both motivating and empowering since, even after overcoming the obstacles needed to become a medical provider, Black professionals are often not afforded the bandwidth, range of emotion, and protection to reveal their specific needs. For this author personally, the ABGH provides a psychological safety that allows authentic self-identity without code-switching.³ Through this authenticity has arisen formidable strength, creativity, and productivity. The leadership and innovation cultivated in ABGH stands to benefit many generations to come, both within and outside the organization. 
 

Reflections from a junior member of ABGH: Dr. Kafayat Busari

My desire to pursue gastroenterology was bolstered by determination, curiosity, and passion, yet ironically was often met with skepticism by many in position to help advance this goal. Although projections of incertitude on members of a community that are often made to feel inadequate can diminish even the brightest of lights, conversely it can fuel the creation of an organization emboldened to specifically address GI-related health disparities. When I was a second-year internal medicine resident, I encountered a GI physician who told me GI “wasn’t something I wanted to do”—despite me expressing my interest.

Confused by the statement, I reached out to Renee L. Williams, MD, of NYU Langone Health, who I had met during my medical school training. She suggested I join a conference call later that week. On that call and the many that took place thereafter, I was introduced to Black gastroenterologists who are luminal disease experts, chair members, journal editors, transplant hepatologists, interventional endoscopists, researchers, and professors (in other words, GI professional leaders). My time on the initial call lasted perhaps less than 20 minutes, but the impact has been immeasurable. 

I was provided the emotional reassurance that GI was indeed for me and told “there’s always a seat, and if it feels like there’s not, we just need to get more chairs.” Little did I know, but those metaphorical chairs were being gathered so that I and other aspiring gastroenterologists will be able to sit comfortably at these tables one day. I was witnessing these GI professional leaders set in motion the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a pivotal component in the way I approach my career as a gastroenterologist. The experience reignited my mental determination to one day attain the level of success represented by the ABGH board members and to persevere in my quest to help redefine how Black medical students and residents serve their communities as physicians.

The creation of the ABGH could not have come at a better time in my training. In the wake of recent public protests for equity of African Americans within every institution (academia, housing, banks, policing, health care, and beyond), which were fundamentally built on racism, being a junior member of ABGH has not only given me a platform to speak my truth but has also provided me with tools to help others do so as well. As someone very passionate about research, primarily in colorectal cancer, I have been given an opportunity to connect with a dream team of mentors who have taken research ideas to new levels and have challenged me to dig deeper and expand my curiosity to investigate what still needs to be uncovered. It has created opportunity after opportunity for actively building relationships, leading to meaningful collaborations and the sharing of innovative ideas and discoveries. 

It is important to emphasize that ABGH is not an organization wanting to exclude themselves on the basis of ethnicity. ABGH is an example of how shared health goals within a medical discipline can be achieved when inclusion and equity is at the helm. ABGH led and represented events that raise awareness of diseases affecting all patients and aim to make the GI community more culturally competent. ABGH is future-oriented and embraces all members who align with the mission regardless of ethnicity, gender, orientation, or disability. The institution that is and will be the ABGH impresses upon me a feeling of excitement, gratitude, and humility. I look forward to continuing the mission created by the founding members and being to others what ABGH is to me. 

For more information on this organization, please visit blackingastro.org. 

Dr. Busari is a resident physician at Florida State University-SMH and a junior member of ABGH. Dr. Guillaume director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Center at Stony Brook (New York) University Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at the Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University. They have no disclosures.
 

References 

1. Galarneau C. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2018;29(1):5-8.

2. Ashktorab H et al. Gastroenterology. 2017 Oct;153(4):910-923.

3. Blanchard AK. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 10;384(23):e87.

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhuman.” – Martin Luther King Jr., March 25, 1966. ¹

This single disparity – health care injustice – too often results in needless mental anguish, physical suffering, or death. In the spring of 2020, at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the convergence of injustices in health care and policing led to the disproportionate preventable physical deaths of Black men and women. This became the watershed moment for 11 gastroenterologists and hepatologists who collectively grieved but heeded the call of social responsibility to form the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists.

The mission of ABGH is laser focused. It is to promote health equity in Black communities, advance science, and develop the careers of Black gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and scientists. The vision is to improve gastrointestinal health outcomes in Black communities; to develop the pipeline of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists given that currently only 4% in the United States identify as Black; to foster networking, mentoring, and sponsorship among Black students, clinical trainees, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists; and to promote the scholarship of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists.

Through community engagement, ABGH stands to empower the Black community with knowledge and choices, which inherently strengthens the physician-patient relationship. ABGH also exists to implement positive change in long term outcome statistics in Black communities. Black Americans are 20% more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 40% more likely to die from the disease. In addition to colorectal cancer, rates of esophageal squamous cancer, as well as cancer of the small bowel and pancreas, are highest in Black people.² Through scientific research and clinical care, we aim to eradicate digestive health disparities. 

Yet in this space, we know first-hand that, in the United States, the wellness of a community is not measured by the medical fitness of its members alone but also by the availability of equitable opportunities for fulfillment of nonmedical but health-impacting social needs. These needs, also known as social determinants of health, are made inaccessible to vulnerable populations because of systemic racism. Importantly, we recognize that dismantling racist systems is not a singular effort, nor are we pioneers in this work, but we look forward to executing health equity goals collaboratively with our fellow gastrointestinal national societies and other leading community and grassroots organizations.

The founders of ABGH are a distinctive group of practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists from across the United States with a strong track record in DEI work through their community, clinical, and research activities. The board of directors reflects only the depth of talent shared throughout the ABGH membership. The strength of the organization lies in its diverse and energetic constituents who all exemplify outstanding training and the readiness to redefine the standard of health care delivery to the Black community. From medical students to senior level gastroenterologists, we collectively embody a considerable momentum for formation of this organization at this point in our history.

ABGH fulfills a professional career development need for budding gastroenterologists not so readily available from other organizations. The compelling impact of representing the embodiment of what many of us were told we could not become is limitless. The personal and professional growth enabled by our networking and learning from each other is both motivating and empowering since, even after overcoming the obstacles needed to become a medical provider, Black professionals are often not afforded the bandwidth, range of emotion, and protection to reveal their specific needs. For this author personally, the ABGH provides a psychological safety that allows authentic self-identity without code-switching.³ Through this authenticity has arisen formidable strength, creativity, and productivity. The leadership and innovation cultivated in ABGH stands to benefit many generations to come, both within and outside the organization. 
 

Reflections from a junior member of ABGH: Dr. Kafayat Busari

My desire to pursue gastroenterology was bolstered by determination, curiosity, and passion, yet ironically was often met with skepticism by many in position to help advance this goal. Although projections of incertitude on members of a community that are often made to feel inadequate can diminish even the brightest of lights, conversely it can fuel the creation of an organization emboldened to specifically address GI-related health disparities. When I was a second-year internal medicine resident, I encountered a GI physician who told me GI “wasn’t something I wanted to do”—despite me expressing my interest.

Confused by the statement, I reached out to Renee L. Williams, MD, of NYU Langone Health, who I had met during my medical school training. She suggested I join a conference call later that week. On that call and the many that took place thereafter, I was introduced to Black gastroenterologists who are luminal disease experts, chair members, journal editors, transplant hepatologists, interventional endoscopists, researchers, and professors (in other words, GI professional leaders). My time on the initial call lasted perhaps less than 20 minutes, but the impact has been immeasurable. 

I was provided the emotional reassurance that GI was indeed for me and told “there’s always a seat, and if it feels like there’s not, we just need to get more chairs.” Little did I know, but those metaphorical chairs were being gathered so that I and other aspiring gastroenterologists will be able to sit comfortably at these tables one day. I was witnessing these GI professional leaders set in motion the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a pivotal component in the way I approach my career as a gastroenterologist. The experience reignited my mental determination to one day attain the level of success represented by the ABGH board members and to persevere in my quest to help redefine how Black medical students and residents serve their communities as physicians.

The creation of the ABGH could not have come at a better time in my training. In the wake of recent public protests for equity of African Americans within every institution (academia, housing, banks, policing, health care, and beyond), which were fundamentally built on racism, being a junior member of ABGH has not only given me a platform to speak my truth but has also provided me with tools to help others do so as well. As someone very passionate about research, primarily in colorectal cancer, I have been given an opportunity to connect with a dream team of mentors who have taken research ideas to new levels and have challenged me to dig deeper and expand my curiosity to investigate what still needs to be uncovered. It has created opportunity after opportunity for actively building relationships, leading to meaningful collaborations and the sharing of innovative ideas and discoveries. 

It is important to emphasize that ABGH is not an organization wanting to exclude themselves on the basis of ethnicity. ABGH is an example of how shared health goals within a medical discipline can be achieved when inclusion and equity is at the helm. ABGH led and represented events that raise awareness of diseases affecting all patients and aim to make the GI community more culturally competent. ABGH is future-oriented and embraces all members who align with the mission regardless of ethnicity, gender, orientation, or disability. The institution that is and will be the ABGH impresses upon me a feeling of excitement, gratitude, and humility. I look forward to continuing the mission created by the founding members and being to others what ABGH is to me. 

For more information on this organization, please visit blackingastro.org. 

Dr. Busari is a resident physician at Florida State University-SMH and a junior member of ABGH. Dr. Guillaume director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Center at Stony Brook (New York) University Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at the Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University. They have no disclosures.
 

References 

1. Galarneau C. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2018;29(1):5-8.

2. Ashktorab H et al. Gastroenterology. 2017 Oct;153(4):910-923.

3. Blanchard AK. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 10;384(23):e87.

In December 2019, cases of pulmonary infection secondary to a novel coronavirus, known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, were first identified in the city of Wuhan, China.

The clinical disease caused by the virus, COVID-19, has resulted in a worldwide pandemic that has portended significant morbidity and mortality throughout the United States. Three highly efficacious COVID-19 vaccines have received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration to help prevent COVID-19, all of which are effective at preventing severe COVID-19.^1-3 The Pfizer vaccine was given full FDA approval on Aug. 23, 2021.⁴

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are commonly treated with immune-modifying therapies that may increase their risk for serious and opportunistic infections. As such, there was concern at the beginning of the pandemic that patients with IBD may be at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and/or developing severe disease (that is, ICU-level care, mechanical ventilation, and/or death). There is evidence that the incidence of COVID-19 in the IBD population is similar to that of the general population.^5-7 Furthermore, most patients with IBD are not at increased risk of severe disease, including those on biologic therapies. Several studies demonstrated that those on corticosteroids are at increased risk of severe COVID-19, while those on other immune-modifying therapies such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) are not at increased risk.^5,7-10 Patients with IBD with other well-known risk factors for severe disease include comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

It is known that patients with IBD on certain immune-modifying therapies such as anti-TNFs, especially those on combination therapy, may have a blunted immune response to certain vaccines.¹¹ Neither patients with IBD nor patients on immunosuppressive therapy were included in phase 3 clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccine development, contributing to uncertainty regarding the safety and efficacy in our patient population. The risk of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in the IBD population has been found to be similar to that of the general population.¹² It has also been reported that those who have had reactions to injectable therapies in the past may safely be vaccinated against COVID-19.^13,14 With regard to vaccine efficacy, initial studies, including ICARUS, PREVENT-COVID, and CORALE-IBD, have demonstrated that patients with IBD do indeed mount a humoral immune response to the vaccine, including those on immune-modifying therapies.^15-17 Nonhumoral aspects of immunity, such as cell-mediated immunity, have not yet been thoroughly evaluated. In addition, the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 infection after vaccination is low in patients with IBD, including those on immune-modifying therapy.^14-18 While initial studies are reassuring that the vast majority of patients with IBD are able to mount a vaccine response, future studies are needed to determine the effects of immune-modifying therapy on sustained antibody concentrations and other correlates of immunity.

For those who received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, on Aug. 12, 2021, the FDA amended their EUA to allow for an additional dose in the initial vaccination series for certain immunocompromised individuals, specifically solid organ transplant recipients or those with conditions that make them equally immunocompromised.¹⁹ Based on evidence suggesting that certain solid organ transplant recipients do not mount an immune response after completing a two-dose series, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how to use vaccines, recommended that moderate to severely immunocompromised individuals should complete a three-dose series, with the third dose being given at least 28 days after the second dose.²⁰ This recommendation included those on high-dose corticosteroids defined as oral prednisone at least 20 mg/day, anti-TNFs and biosimilars, and antimetabolites such as azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and methotrexate.

It is worth noting that the role of the ACIP here was to consider the available evidence supporting the use of an additional dose and then make recommendations on which conditions may qualify; the ACIP was not able to provide recommendations for every disease state. At the time of writing this article, no recommendations have been made with regards to an additional dose of the Janssen vaccine. Likewise, in response to the ACIP recommendations, the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation recommended an additional dose for patients with IBD on immune-modifying therapies.^21,22

Less than one week after the EUA amendment for an additional dose, the Department of Health & Human Services announced that booster shots would likely become available to the general population as early as the week of Sept. 20, 2021 and starting 8 months after an individual’s second dose.²³ Here, it is worth noting that an additional dose is distinct from a booster. An additional dose (or third dose here) refers to the initial vaccination series and is given when the standard schedule is thought to be insufficient in a certain patient population. In contrast, a booster dose is administered when the initial and sufficient immunity gained from a primary vaccination series has likely dissipated. The HHS acknowledged that boosters would likely be needed for those who received the Janssen vaccine but noted that further data and recommendations would be forthcoming.

To summarize, COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in the IBD population, and patients should be vaccinated at the earliest opportunity regardless of concurrent therapies. For those that received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, the ACIP recommended an additional dose in the initial vaccination series to be given at least 28 days after the second dose for those that are immunosuppressed. This recommendation was largely based off of transplant data. Reassuringly, the available data demonstrates a humoral immune response to a two-dose vaccination series in patients with IBD, including those on immune-modifying therapies. The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation recommends that patients with IBD on immune-modifying therapy receive an additional dose (i.e., a three-dose series), which should be from the same manufacturer as the first two doses. In addition, at press time, HHS indicated that there will be a movement toward a booster dose for the general population in late September, which would also apply to patients with IBD. The ACIP has yet to comment on this change at the time of preparing this article, but the announcement indicated that a booster could be given “8 months after an individual’s second dose.” It is unclear how those who may receive a three-dose vaccination series will factor in, but it is possible that they would be eligible for a booster 8 months after their most recent dose. Gastroenterologists should also be aware that there is no role for serologic testing in the clinical setting because it has not been validated for such purposes and is primarily used in the research setting. Finally, it is paramount to emphasize that patients with IBD have historically had lower vaccination rates than the general population,²⁴ and we must take an active role in ensuring that our patients are immunized by addressing their concerns, communicating the risks of COVID-19 and the benefits of vaccination, providing information on how to get vaccinated, and strongly recommending vaccination.

• Patients with IBD should be vaccinated against COVID-19 regardless of concurrent therapies.
• Patients with IBD are not at increased risk of severe COVID-19.
• Patients with IBD, including those on immune-modifying therapies, mount a humoral immune response to the vaccine.
• Patients with IBD on immune-modifying therapies, who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, should receive a three-dose vaccination series, with the third dose at least 28 days after the second dose.
• Patients with IBD on biologic therapy can receive the third dose of the vaccine at any time point and should not interrupt biologic therapy.
• Boosters are likely to become available to the general public in September and would be given at least 8 months after an individual’s second dose.
• Recommendations regarding boosters for those who received a three-dose vaccination series are forthcoming.
• Recommendations regarding boosters and additional doses for those that received the Janssen vaccine are forthcoming.
• Gastroenterologists should take an active role in ensuring that their patients are vaccinated.

Dr. Schell is a second-year graduate student in the division of internal medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Dr. Caldera is an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology & hepatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Dr. Schell has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Caldera has received research support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi. He has been a consultant for Takeda, Arena Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Celgene.

References

1. Sadoff J et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(23):2187-201.

2. Baden LR et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(5):403-16.

3. Polack FP et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2603-15.

4. Johnson K et al. U.S. FDA aims to give full approval to Pfizer vaccine on Monday – NYT. Reuters. 2021 Aug 20. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-aims-give-full-nod-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-monday-new-york-times-2021-08-20/.

5. Allocca M et al. J Clin Med. 2020 Oct;9(11):3533.

6. Monteleone G and Ardizzone S. J Crohns Colitis. 2020 Sep;14(9):1334-6.

7. Papa A et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(10):1722-4.

8. Derikx LAAP et al. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2021 Apr 6;15(4):529-39.

9. Brenner EJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020;159(2):481-91.

10. Ungaro RC et al. Gut. 2021;70(4):725-32.

11. Caldera F et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2020;26(4):593-602.

12. Botwin GJ et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001342.

13. Squire JD et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021 Jul 27;27(8):1358-60.

14. Hadi YB et al. Gastroenterology. 2021. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.014.

15. Wong S-Y et al. Gastroenterology. 2021;161:715-8.

16. Kappelman MD et al. Gastroenterology. 2021. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.016.

17. Pozdnyakova V et al. Gastroenterology. 2021. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.08.014.

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

19. Food and Drug Administration. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Additional Vaccine Dose for Certain Immunocompromised Individuals. FDA News Release. 2021. Accessed 2021 Aug 18. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-additional-vaccine-dose-certain-immunocompromised.

20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 Vaccines for Moderately to Severely Immunocompromised People. 2021. Accessed 2021 Aug 18. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/immuno.html.

21. Allocca M et al. J Clin Med. 2020 Oct 31;9(11):3533.

22. Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. COVID-19 Vaccines: Position Statements. IBD & Coronavirus. 2021. Accessed 2021 Aug 20. https://www.crohnscolitisfoundation.org/coronavirus/vaccine-position-statements.

23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Joint Statement from HHS Public Health and Medical Experts on COVID-19 Booster Shots. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0818-covid-19-booster-shots.html.

24. Caldera F et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021;27(1):123-133.

In December 2019, cases of pulmonary infection secondary to a novel coronavirus, known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, were first identified in the city of Wuhan, China.

The clinical disease caused by the virus, COVID-19, has resulted in a worldwide pandemic that has portended significant morbidity and mortality throughout the United States. Three highly efficacious COVID-19 vaccines have received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration to help prevent COVID-19, all of which are effective at preventing severe COVID-19.^1-3 The Pfizer vaccine was given full FDA approval on Aug. 23, 2021.⁴

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are commonly treated with immune-modifying therapies that may increase their risk for serious and opportunistic infections. As such, there was concern at the beginning of the pandemic that patients with IBD may be at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and/or developing severe disease (that is, ICU-level care, mechanical ventilation, and/or death). There is evidence that the incidence of COVID-19 in the IBD population is similar to that of the general population.^5-7 Furthermore, most patients with IBD are not at increased risk of severe disease, including those on biologic therapies. Several studies demonstrated that those on corticosteroids are at increased risk of severe COVID-19, while those on other immune-modifying therapies such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) are not at increased risk.^5,7-10 Patients with IBD with other well-known risk factors for severe disease include comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

It is known that patients with IBD on certain immune-modifying therapies such as anti-TNFs, especially those on combination therapy, may have a blunted immune response to certain vaccines.¹¹ Neither patients with IBD nor patients on immunosuppressive therapy were included in phase 3 clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccine development, contributing to uncertainty regarding the safety and efficacy in our patient population. The risk of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in the IBD population has been found to be similar to that of the general population.¹² It has also been reported that those who have had reactions to injectable therapies in the past may safely be vaccinated against COVID-19.^13,14 With regard to vaccine efficacy, initial studies, including ICARUS, PREVENT-COVID, and CORALE-IBD, have demonstrated that patients with IBD do indeed mount a humoral immune response to the vaccine, including those on immune-modifying therapies.^15-17 Nonhumoral aspects of immunity, such as cell-mediated immunity, have not yet been thoroughly evaluated. In addition, the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 infection after vaccination is low in patients with IBD, including those on immune-modifying therapy.^14-18 While initial studies are reassuring that the vast majority of patients with IBD are able to mount a vaccine response, future studies are needed to determine the effects of immune-modifying therapy on sustained antibody concentrations and other correlates of immunity.

For those who received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, on Aug. 12, 2021, the FDA amended their EUA to allow for an additional dose in the initial vaccination series for certain immunocompromised individuals, specifically solid organ transplant recipients or those with conditions that make them equally immunocompromised.¹⁹ Based on evidence suggesting that certain solid organ transplant recipients do not mount an immune response after completing a two-dose series, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how to use vaccines, recommended that moderate to severely immunocompromised individuals should complete a three-dose series, with the third dose being given at least 28 days after the second dose.²⁰ This recommendation included those on high-dose corticosteroids defined as oral prednisone at least 20 mg/day, anti-TNFs and biosimilars, and antimetabolites such as azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and methotrexate.

It is worth noting that the role of the ACIP here was to consider the available evidence supporting the use of an additional dose and then make recommendations on which conditions may qualify; the ACIP was not able to provide recommendations for every disease state. At the time of writing this article, no recommendations have been made with regards to an additional dose of the Janssen vaccine. Likewise, in response to the ACIP recommendations, the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation recommended an additional dose for patients with IBD on immune-modifying therapies.^21,22

Less than one week after the EUA amendment for an additional dose, the Department of Health & Human Services announced that booster shots would likely become available to the general population as early as the week of Sept. 20, 2021 and starting 8 months after an individual’s second dose.²³ Here, it is worth noting that an additional dose is distinct from a booster. An additional dose (or third dose here) refers to the initial vaccination series and is given when the standard schedule is thought to be insufficient in a certain patient population. In contrast, a booster dose is administered when the initial and sufficient immunity gained from a primary vaccination series has likely dissipated. The HHS acknowledged that boosters would likely be needed for those who received the Janssen vaccine but noted that further data and recommendations would be forthcoming.

To summarize, COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in the IBD population, and patients should be vaccinated at the earliest opportunity regardless of concurrent therapies. For those that received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, the ACIP recommended an additional dose in the initial vaccination series to be given at least 28 days after the second dose for those that are immunosuppressed. This recommendation was largely based off of transplant data. Reassuringly, the available data demonstrates a humoral immune response to a two-dose vaccination series in patients with IBD, including those on immune-modifying therapies. The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation recommends that patients with IBD on immune-modifying therapy receive an additional dose (i.e., a three-dose series), which should be from the same manufacturer as the first two doses. In addition, at press time, HHS indicated that there will be a movement toward a booster dose for the general population in late September, which would also apply to patients with IBD. The ACIP has yet to comment on this change at the time of preparing this article, but the announcement indicated that a booster could be given “8 months after an individual’s second dose.” It is unclear how those who may receive a three-dose vaccination series will factor in, but it is possible that they would be eligible for a booster 8 months after their most recent dose. Gastroenterologists should also be aware that there is no role for serologic testing in the clinical setting because it has not been validated for such purposes and is primarily used in the research setting. Finally, it is paramount to emphasize that patients with IBD have historically had lower vaccination rates than the general population,²⁴ and we must take an active role in ensuring that our patients are immunized by addressing their concerns, communicating the risks of COVID-19 and the benefits of vaccination, providing information on how to get vaccinated, and strongly recommending vaccination.

• Patients with IBD should be vaccinated against COVID-19 regardless of concurrent therapies.
• Patients with IBD are not at increased risk of severe COVID-19.
• Patients with IBD, including those on immune-modifying therapies, mount a humoral immune response to the vaccine.
• Patients with IBD on immune-modifying therapies, who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, should receive a three-dose vaccination series, with the third dose at least 28 days after the second dose.
• Patients with IBD on biologic therapy can receive the third dose of the vaccine at any time point and should not interrupt biologic therapy.
• Boosters are likely to become available to the general public in September and would be given at least 8 months after an individual’s second dose.
• Recommendations regarding boosters for those who received a three-dose vaccination series are forthcoming.
• Recommendations regarding boosters and additional doses for those that received the Janssen vaccine are forthcoming.
• Gastroenterologists should take an active role in ensuring that their patients are vaccinated.

Dr. Schell is a second-year graduate student in the division of internal medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Dr. Caldera is an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology & hepatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Dr. Schell has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Caldera has received research support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi. He has been a consultant for Takeda, Arena Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Celgene.

References

1. Sadoff J et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(23):2187-201.

2. Baden LR et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(5):403-16.

3. Polack FP et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2603-15.

4. Johnson K et al. U.S. FDA aims to give full approval to Pfizer vaccine on Monday – NYT. Reuters. 2021 Aug 20. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-aims-give-full-nod-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-monday-new-york-times-2021-08-20/.

5. Allocca M et al. J Clin Med. 2020 Oct;9(11):3533.

6. Monteleone G and Ardizzone S. J Crohns Colitis. 2020 Sep;14(9):1334-6.

7. Papa A et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(10):1722-4.

8. Derikx LAAP et al. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2021 Apr 6;15(4):529-39.

9. Brenner EJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020;159(2):481-91.

10. Ungaro RC et al. Gut. 2021;70(4):725-32.

11. Caldera F et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2020;26(4):593-602.

12. Botwin GJ et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001342.

13. Squire JD et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021 Jul 27;27(8):1358-60.

14. Hadi YB et al. Gastroenterology. 2021. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.014.

15. Wong S-Y et al. Gastroenterology. 2021;161:715-8.

16. Kappelman MD et al. Gastroenterology. 2021. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.016.

17. Pozdnyakova V et al. Gastroenterology. 2021. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.08.014.

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

19. Food and Drug Administration. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Additional Vaccine Dose for Certain Immunocompromised Individuals. FDA News Release. 2021. Accessed 2021 Aug 18. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-additional-vaccine-dose-certain-immunocompromised.

20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 Vaccines for Moderately to Severely Immunocompromised People. 2021. Accessed 2021 Aug 18. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/immuno.html.

21. Allocca M et al. J Clin Med. 2020 Oct 31;9(11):3533.

22. Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. COVID-19 Vaccines: Position Statements. IBD & Coronavirus. 2021. Accessed 2021 Aug 20. https://www.crohnscolitisfoundation.org/coronavirus/vaccine-position-statements.

23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Joint Statement from HHS Public Health and Medical Experts on COVID-19 Booster Shots. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0818-covid-19-booster-shots.html.

24. Caldera F et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021;27(1):123-133.

In December 2019, cases of pulmonary infection secondary to a novel coronavirus, known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, were first identified in the city of Wuhan, China.

The clinical disease caused by the virus, COVID-19, has resulted in a worldwide pandemic that has portended significant morbidity and mortality throughout the United States. Three highly efficacious COVID-19 vaccines have received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration to help prevent COVID-19, all of which are effective at preventing severe COVID-19.^1-3 The Pfizer vaccine was given full FDA approval on Aug. 23, 2021.⁴

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are commonly treated with immune-modifying therapies that may increase their risk for serious and opportunistic infections. As such, there was concern at the beginning of the pandemic that patients with IBD may be at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and/or developing severe disease (that is, ICU-level care, mechanical ventilation, and/or death). There is evidence that the incidence of COVID-19 in the IBD population is similar to that of the general population.^5-7 Furthermore, most patients with IBD are not at increased risk of severe disease, including those on biologic therapies. Several studies demonstrated that those on corticosteroids are at increased risk of severe COVID-19, while those on other immune-modifying therapies such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) are not at increased risk.^5,7-10 Patients with IBD with other well-known risk factors for severe disease include comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

It is known that patients with IBD on certain immune-modifying therapies such as anti-TNFs, especially those on combination therapy, may have a blunted immune response to certain vaccines.¹¹ Neither patients with IBD nor patients on immunosuppressive therapy were included in phase 3 clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccine development, contributing to uncertainty regarding the safety and efficacy in our patient population. The risk of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in the IBD population has been found to be similar to that of the general population.¹² It has also been reported that those who have had reactions to injectable therapies in the past may safely be vaccinated against COVID-19.^13,14 With regard to vaccine efficacy, initial studies, including ICARUS, PREVENT-COVID, and CORALE-IBD, have demonstrated that patients with IBD do indeed mount a humoral immune response to the vaccine, including those on immune-modifying therapies.^15-17 Nonhumoral aspects of immunity, such as cell-mediated immunity, have not yet been thoroughly evaluated. In addition, the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 infection after vaccination is low in patients with IBD, including those on immune-modifying therapy.^14-18 While initial studies are reassuring that the vast majority of patients with IBD are able to mount a vaccine response, future studies are needed to determine the effects of immune-modifying therapy on sustained antibody concentrations and other correlates of immunity.

For those who received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, on Aug. 12, 2021, the FDA amended their EUA to allow for an additional dose in the initial vaccination series for certain immunocompromised individuals, specifically solid organ transplant recipients or those with conditions that make them equally immunocompromised.¹⁹ Based on evidence suggesting that certain solid organ transplant recipients do not mount an immune response after completing a two-dose series, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how to use vaccines, recommended that moderate to severely immunocompromised individuals should complete a three-dose series, with the third dose being given at least 28 days after the second dose.²⁰ This recommendation included those on high-dose corticosteroids defined as oral prednisone at least 20 mg/day, anti-TNFs and biosimilars, and antimetabolites such as azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and methotrexate.

It is worth noting that the role of the ACIP here was to consider the available evidence supporting the use of an additional dose and then make recommendations on which conditions may qualify; the ACIP was not able to provide recommendations for every disease state. At the time of writing this article, no recommendations have been made with regards to an additional dose of the Janssen vaccine. Likewise, in response to the ACIP recommendations, the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation recommended an additional dose for patients with IBD on immune-modifying therapies.^21,22

Less than one week after the EUA amendment for an additional dose, the Department of Health & Human Services announced that booster shots would likely become available to the general population as early as the week of Sept. 20, 2021 and starting 8 months after an individual’s second dose.²³ Here, it is worth noting that an additional dose is distinct from a booster. An additional dose (or third dose here) refers to the initial vaccination series and is given when the standard schedule is thought to be insufficient in a certain patient population. In contrast, a booster dose is administered when the initial and sufficient immunity gained from a primary vaccination series has likely dissipated. The HHS acknowledged that boosters would likely be needed for those who received the Janssen vaccine but noted that further data and recommendations would be forthcoming.

To summarize, COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in the IBD population, and patients should be vaccinated at the earliest opportunity regardless of concurrent therapies. For those that received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, the ACIP recommended an additional dose in the initial vaccination series to be given at least 28 days after the second dose for those that are immunosuppressed. This recommendation was largely based off of transplant data. Reassuringly, the available data demonstrates a humoral immune response to a two-dose vaccination series in patients with IBD, including those on immune-modifying therapies. The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation recommends that patients with IBD on immune-modifying therapy receive an additional dose (i.e., a three-dose series), which should be from the same manufacturer as the first two doses. In addition, at press time, HHS indicated that there will be a movement toward a booster dose for the general population in late September, which would also apply to patients with IBD. The ACIP has yet to comment on this change at the time of preparing this article, but the announcement indicated that a booster could be given “8 months after an individual’s second dose.” It is unclear how those who may receive a three-dose vaccination series will factor in, but it is possible that they would be eligible for a booster 8 months after their most recent dose. Gastroenterologists should also be aware that there is no role for serologic testing in the clinical setting because it has not been validated for such purposes and is primarily used in the research setting. Finally, it is paramount to emphasize that patients with IBD have historically had lower vaccination rates than the general population,²⁴ and we must take an active role in ensuring that our patients are immunized by addressing their concerns, communicating the risks of COVID-19 and the benefits of vaccination, providing information on how to get vaccinated, and strongly recommending vaccination.

• Patients with IBD should be vaccinated against COVID-19 regardless of concurrent therapies.
• Patients with IBD are not at increased risk of severe COVID-19.
• Patients with IBD, including those on immune-modifying therapies, mount a humoral immune response to the vaccine.
• Patients with IBD on immune-modifying therapies, who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, should receive a three-dose vaccination series, with the third dose at least 28 days after the second dose.
• Patients with IBD on biologic therapy can receive the third dose of the vaccine at any time point and should not interrupt biologic therapy.
• Boosters are likely to become available to the general public in September and would be given at least 8 months after an individual’s second dose.
• Recommendations regarding boosters for those who received a three-dose vaccination series are forthcoming.
• Recommendations regarding boosters and additional doses for those that received the Janssen vaccine are forthcoming.
• Gastroenterologists should take an active role in ensuring that their patients are vaccinated.

Dr. Schell is a second-year graduate student in the division of internal medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Dr. Caldera is an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology & hepatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Dr. Schell has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Caldera has received research support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi. He has been a consultant for Takeda, Arena Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Celgene.

References

1. Sadoff J et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(23):2187-201.

2. Baden LR et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(5):403-16.

3. Polack FP et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2603-15.

4. Johnson K et al. U.S. FDA aims to give full approval to Pfizer vaccine on Monday – NYT. Reuters. 2021 Aug 20. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-aims-give-full-nod-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-monday-new-york-times-2021-08-20/.

5. Allocca M et al. J Clin Med. 2020 Oct;9(11):3533.

6. Monteleone G and Ardizzone S. J Crohns Colitis. 2020 Sep;14(9):1334-6.

7. Papa A et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(10):1722-4.

8. Derikx LAAP et al. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2021 Apr 6;15(4):529-39.

9. Brenner EJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020;159(2):481-91.

10. Ungaro RC et al. Gut. 2021;70(4):725-32.

11. Caldera F et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2020;26(4):593-602.

12. Botwin GJ et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001342.

13. Squire JD et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021 Jul 27;27(8):1358-60.

14. Hadi YB et al. Gastroenterology. 2021. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.014.

15. Wong S-Y et al. Gastroenterology. 2021;161:715-8.

16. Kappelman MD et al. Gastroenterology. 2021. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.016.

17. Pozdnyakova V et al. Gastroenterology. 2021. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.08.014.

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

19. Food and Drug Administration. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Additional Vaccine Dose for Certain Immunocompromised Individuals. FDA News Release. 2021. Accessed 2021 Aug 18. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-additional-vaccine-dose-certain-immunocompromised.

20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 Vaccines for Moderately to Severely Immunocompromised People. 2021. Accessed 2021 Aug 18. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/immuno.html.

21. Allocca M et al. J Clin Med. 2020 Oct 31;9(11):3533.

22. Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. COVID-19 Vaccines: Position Statements. IBD & Coronavirus. 2021. Accessed 2021 Aug 20. https://www.crohnscolitisfoundation.org/coronavirus/vaccine-position-statements.

23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Joint Statement from HHS Public Health and Medical Experts on COVID-19 Booster Shots. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0818-covid-19-booster-shots.html.

24. Caldera F et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021;27(1):123-133.