User login
Bringing HCC Patients Hope Through Trials, Advanced Treatments
For Reena Salgia, MD, the most rewarding part about working with patients with hepatocellular carcinoma is being there for their entire journey, thanks to advancements in treatment. “It brings a smile to my face just to think about it,” says Dr. Salgia, medical director of Henry Ford Health’s Liver Cancer Clinic in Detroit.
Hepatocellular carcinoma accounts for 80% of all liver cancer. When she first entered the field, Dr. Salgia often heard that survival rates 5 years after diagnosis were less than 10%. Over the last decade however, “I’ve seen an expansion in the procedural options that we offer these patients. We have an array of options both surgically as well as procedurally,” she said.
Especially over the last three to four years, “we’ve seen meaningful responses for patients with medications that we previously didn’t have in our toolbox. That’s really been exciting, along with continued involvement in clinical trials and being able to offer patients a number of different approaches to their care of liver cancer,” said Dr. Salgia.
A regular attendee and presenter at national GI meetings, Dr. Salgia participated in AGA’s Women’s Executive Leadership Conference in 2023. Her academic resume includes a long list of clinical trials to assess treatments for patients at different stages of hepatocellular carcinoma.
In an interview, she discussed the highlights of her career as a researcher and mentor of fellows, and how she guides and supports her transplant patients.
What drove you to pursue the field of hepatology and transplant hepatology?
I came across this field during my fourth year of medical school. I didn’t know anything about hepatology when I reached that stage and had the opportunity to do an elective. I just fell in love with the specialty. I liked the complex pathophysiology of liver disease, the long-term follow-up and care of patients. It appealed to the type of science that I had enjoyed back in college.
As I went into my GI fellowship training, I got to learn more about the field of transplant medicine. For instance, how you can take these patients who are incredibly ill, really at a very vulnerable point of their illness, and then offer them great hope and see their lives turn around afterwards. When I had the opportunity to see patients go from end stage liver disease to such significant improvement in their quality of life, and restoring their physical functioning beyond what we would’ve ever imagined when they were ill, it reaffirmed my interest in both hepatology as well as in transplant medicine.
How do you help those patients waiting on transplant lists for a liver?
We are intimately involved in their care all the way through their journey with liver disease, up until the time of physically getting the liver transplant, which is performed by our colleagues in transplant surgery. From the time they are transplanted, we are involved in their inpatient and outpatient post-transplant care. We’ve helped to get them on the transplant list with the work of the multidisciplinary team. If there are opportunities to help them understand their position on the list or obtaining exceptions—though that is done in a very objective fashion through the regulatory system—we help to guide them through that journey.
You’ve worked on many studies that involve treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma. Can you highlight a paper that yielded clinically significant benefits?
What really stands out the most to me was our site’s involvement in the IMbrave150 trial, which was published in 2020. This multicenter study made a big difference in the outcomes and treatments for patients, as it brought the adoption of first-line immunotherapy (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab) for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. I remember vividly the patients we had the opportunity to enroll in that trial – some who we continue to care for today. This stands out as one of the trials that I was involved in that had a lasting impact.
What were the clinical endpoints and key results of that trial?
The endpoint was to see an improvement in overall survival utilizing immunotherapy, compared with the prior standard of care then available, oral therapy. The results led to the adoption and FDA approval of immunotherapy in the first line setting for advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients.
What are some of the highlights of serving as director of Henry Ford’s fellowship program?
Education is my passion. I went into medical training feeling that at some point I would love to blend in teaching in a formal role. Becoming program director of the gastroenterology and hepatology fellowship at Henry Ford in 2018 was one of the most meaningful things that I’ve had the opportunity to do in my career. I get to see trainees who are at a very impressionable point of their journey go on to become gastroenterologists and then launch into their first job and really develop in this field. Seeing them come in day one, not knowing how to hold a scope or do a procedure on a patient of this nature, then quickly evolve over the first year and grow over three years to achieve this specialty training [is rewarding]. I’ve learned a lot from the fellows along the way. I think of them as an extension of my family. We have 15 fellows currently in our program and we’ll be growing this summer. So that’s really been a highlight of my career thus far.
What fears did you have to push past to get to where you are in your career?
I think that there have been a few. One is certainly the fear of making the wrong choice with your first career opportunity. I did choose to leave my comfort zone from where I had done my training. I met that with some fear, but also excitement for new opportunities of personal and professional growth.
Another fear is: Am I going to be able to be ambitious in this field? Can I pursue research, become a program director, and do things that my role models and mentors were able to achieve? There’s also the fear of being able to balance a busy work life with a busy home life and figuring out how to do both well and minimize the guilt on both sides. I have a family with two girls. They are definitely a top priority.
What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Helen Te, MD, a hepatologist at the University of Chicago. When I was a medical student there, I had the opportunity to work with her and saw her passion for this field. She really had so much enthusiasm for teaching and was a big part of why I started to fall in love with liver disease.
Karen Kim, MD, now the dean of Penn State College of Medicine, was one of my assigned mentors as a medical student. She helped me explore the fields where there were opportunities for residency and helped me make the decision to go into internal medicine, which often is a key deciding point for medical students. She was also a very influential teacher. The other individual who stands out is my fellowship program director, Hari Sree Conjeevaram, MD, MSc, at University of Michigan Health. He exhibited the qualities as an educator and program director that helped me recognize that education was something that I wanted to pursue in a formal fashion once I moved on in my career.
Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.
Likely taking a hike or go to a park with my family, enjoying the outdoors and spending time with them.
Lightning Round
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
Philanthropist
Favorite city in U.S. besides the one you live in?
Chicago
Place you most want to travel?
New Zealand
Favorite breakfast?
Avocado toast
Favorite ice cream flavor?
Cookies and cream
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
Two…or more
Cat person or dog person?
Dog
Texting or talking?
Talk
Favorite season?
Autumn
Favorite type of music?
Pop
Favorite movie genre?
Action
For Reena Salgia, MD, the most rewarding part about working with patients with hepatocellular carcinoma is being there for their entire journey, thanks to advancements in treatment. “It brings a smile to my face just to think about it,” says Dr. Salgia, medical director of Henry Ford Health’s Liver Cancer Clinic in Detroit.
Hepatocellular carcinoma accounts for 80% of all liver cancer. When she first entered the field, Dr. Salgia often heard that survival rates 5 years after diagnosis were less than 10%. Over the last decade however, “I’ve seen an expansion in the procedural options that we offer these patients. We have an array of options both surgically as well as procedurally,” she said.
Especially over the last three to four years, “we’ve seen meaningful responses for patients with medications that we previously didn’t have in our toolbox. That’s really been exciting, along with continued involvement in clinical trials and being able to offer patients a number of different approaches to their care of liver cancer,” said Dr. Salgia.
A regular attendee and presenter at national GI meetings, Dr. Salgia participated in AGA’s Women’s Executive Leadership Conference in 2023. Her academic resume includes a long list of clinical trials to assess treatments for patients at different stages of hepatocellular carcinoma.
In an interview, she discussed the highlights of her career as a researcher and mentor of fellows, and how she guides and supports her transplant patients.
What drove you to pursue the field of hepatology and transplant hepatology?
I came across this field during my fourth year of medical school. I didn’t know anything about hepatology when I reached that stage and had the opportunity to do an elective. I just fell in love with the specialty. I liked the complex pathophysiology of liver disease, the long-term follow-up and care of patients. It appealed to the type of science that I had enjoyed back in college.
As I went into my GI fellowship training, I got to learn more about the field of transplant medicine. For instance, how you can take these patients who are incredibly ill, really at a very vulnerable point of their illness, and then offer them great hope and see their lives turn around afterwards. When I had the opportunity to see patients go from end stage liver disease to such significant improvement in their quality of life, and restoring their physical functioning beyond what we would’ve ever imagined when they were ill, it reaffirmed my interest in both hepatology as well as in transplant medicine.
How do you help those patients waiting on transplant lists for a liver?
We are intimately involved in their care all the way through their journey with liver disease, up until the time of physically getting the liver transplant, which is performed by our colleagues in transplant surgery. From the time they are transplanted, we are involved in their inpatient and outpatient post-transplant care. We’ve helped to get them on the transplant list with the work of the multidisciplinary team. If there are opportunities to help them understand their position on the list or obtaining exceptions—though that is done in a very objective fashion through the regulatory system—we help to guide them through that journey.
You’ve worked on many studies that involve treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma. Can you highlight a paper that yielded clinically significant benefits?
What really stands out the most to me was our site’s involvement in the IMbrave150 trial, which was published in 2020. This multicenter study made a big difference in the outcomes and treatments for patients, as it brought the adoption of first-line immunotherapy (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab) for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. I remember vividly the patients we had the opportunity to enroll in that trial – some who we continue to care for today. This stands out as one of the trials that I was involved in that had a lasting impact.
What were the clinical endpoints and key results of that trial?
The endpoint was to see an improvement in overall survival utilizing immunotherapy, compared with the prior standard of care then available, oral therapy. The results led to the adoption and FDA approval of immunotherapy in the first line setting for advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients.
What are some of the highlights of serving as director of Henry Ford’s fellowship program?
Education is my passion. I went into medical training feeling that at some point I would love to blend in teaching in a formal role. Becoming program director of the gastroenterology and hepatology fellowship at Henry Ford in 2018 was one of the most meaningful things that I’ve had the opportunity to do in my career. I get to see trainees who are at a very impressionable point of their journey go on to become gastroenterologists and then launch into their first job and really develop in this field. Seeing them come in day one, not knowing how to hold a scope or do a procedure on a patient of this nature, then quickly evolve over the first year and grow over three years to achieve this specialty training [is rewarding]. I’ve learned a lot from the fellows along the way. I think of them as an extension of my family. We have 15 fellows currently in our program and we’ll be growing this summer. So that’s really been a highlight of my career thus far.
What fears did you have to push past to get to where you are in your career?
I think that there have been a few. One is certainly the fear of making the wrong choice with your first career opportunity. I did choose to leave my comfort zone from where I had done my training. I met that with some fear, but also excitement for new opportunities of personal and professional growth.
Another fear is: Am I going to be able to be ambitious in this field? Can I pursue research, become a program director, and do things that my role models and mentors were able to achieve? There’s also the fear of being able to balance a busy work life with a busy home life and figuring out how to do both well and minimize the guilt on both sides. I have a family with two girls. They are definitely a top priority.
What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Helen Te, MD, a hepatologist at the University of Chicago. When I was a medical student there, I had the opportunity to work with her and saw her passion for this field. She really had so much enthusiasm for teaching and was a big part of why I started to fall in love with liver disease.
Karen Kim, MD, now the dean of Penn State College of Medicine, was one of my assigned mentors as a medical student. She helped me explore the fields where there were opportunities for residency and helped me make the decision to go into internal medicine, which often is a key deciding point for medical students. She was also a very influential teacher. The other individual who stands out is my fellowship program director, Hari Sree Conjeevaram, MD, MSc, at University of Michigan Health. He exhibited the qualities as an educator and program director that helped me recognize that education was something that I wanted to pursue in a formal fashion once I moved on in my career.
Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.
Likely taking a hike or go to a park with my family, enjoying the outdoors and spending time with them.
Lightning Round
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
Philanthropist
Favorite city in U.S. besides the one you live in?
Chicago
Place you most want to travel?
New Zealand
Favorite breakfast?
Avocado toast
Favorite ice cream flavor?
Cookies and cream
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
Two…or more
Cat person or dog person?
Dog
Texting or talking?
Talk
Favorite season?
Autumn
Favorite type of music?
Pop
Favorite movie genre?
Action
For Reena Salgia, MD, the most rewarding part about working with patients with hepatocellular carcinoma is being there for their entire journey, thanks to advancements in treatment. “It brings a smile to my face just to think about it,” says Dr. Salgia, medical director of Henry Ford Health’s Liver Cancer Clinic in Detroit.
Hepatocellular carcinoma accounts for 80% of all liver cancer. When she first entered the field, Dr. Salgia often heard that survival rates 5 years after diagnosis were less than 10%. Over the last decade however, “I’ve seen an expansion in the procedural options that we offer these patients. We have an array of options both surgically as well as procedurally,” she said.
Especially over the last three to four years, “we’ve seen meaningful responses for patients with medications that we previously didn’t have in our toolbox. That’s really been exciting, along with continued involvement in clinical trials and being able to offer patients a number of different approaches to their care of liver cancer,” said Dr. Salgia.
A regular attendee and presenter at national GI meetings, Dr. Salgia participated in AGA’s Women’s Executive Leadership Conference in 2023. Her academic resume includes a long list of clinical trials to assess treatments for patients at different stages of hepatocellular carcinoma.
In an interview, she discussed the highlights of her career as a researcher and mentor of fellows, and how she guides and supports her transplant patients.
What drove you to pursue the field of hepatology and transplant hepatology?
I came across this field during my fourth year of medical school. I didn’t know anything about hepatology when I reached that stage and had the opportunity to do an elective. I just fell in love with the specialty. I liked the complex pathophysiology of liver disease, the long-term follow-up and care of patients. It appealed to the type of science that I had enjoyed back in college.
As I went into my GI fellowship training, I got to learn more about the field of transplant medicine. For instance, how you can take these patients who are incredibly ill, really at a very vulnerable point of their illness, and then offer them great hope and see their lives turn around afterwards. When I had the opportunity to see patients go from end stage liver disease to such significant improvement in their quality of life, and restoring their physical functioning beyond what we would’ve ever imagined when they were ill, it reaffirmed my interest in both hepatology as well as in transplant medicine.
How do you help those patients waiting on transplant lists for a liver?
We are intimately involved in their care all the way through their journey with liver disease, up until the time of physically getting the liver transplant, which is performed by our colleagues in transplant surgery. From the time they are transplanted, we are involved in their inpatient and outpatient post-transplant care. We’ve helped to get them on the transplant list with the work of the multidisciplinary team. If there are opportunities to help them understand their position on the list or obtaining exceptions—though that is done in a very objective fashion through the regulatory system—we help to guide them through that journey.
You’ve worked on many studies that involve treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma. Can you highlight a paper that yielded clinically significant benefits?
What really stands out the most to me was our site’s involvement in the IMbrave150 trial, which was published in 2020. This multicenter study made a big difference in the outcomes and treatments for patients, as it brought the adoption of first-line immunotherapy (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab) for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. I remember vividly the patients we had the opportunity to enroll in that trial – some who we continue to care for today. This stands out as one of the trials that I was involved in that had a lasting impact.
What were the clinical endpoints and key results of that trial?
The endpoint was to see an improvement in overall survival utilizing immunotherapy, compared with the prior standard of care then available, oral therapy. The results led to the adoption and FDA approval of immunotherapy in the first line setting for advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients.
What are some of the highlights of serving as director of Henry Ford’s fellowship program?
Education is my passion. I went into medical training feeling that at some point I would love to blend in teaching in a formal role. Becoming program director of the gastroenterology and hepatology fellowship at Henry Ford in 2018 was one of the most meaningful things that I’ve had the opportunity to do in my career. I get to see trainees who are at a very impressionable point of their journey go on to become gastroenterologists and then launch into their first job and really develop in this field. Seeing them come in day one, not knowing how to hold a scope or do a procedure on a patient of this nature, then quickly evolve over the first year and grow over three years to achieve this specialty training [is rewarding]. I’ve learned a lot from the fellows along the way. I think of them as an extension of my family. We have 15 fellows currently in our program and we’ll be growing this summer. So that’s really been a highlight of my career thus far.
What fears did you have to push past to get to where you are in your career?
I think that there have been a few. One is certainly the fear of making the wrong choice with your first career opportunity. I did choose to leave my comfort zone from where I had done my training. I met that with some fear, but also excitement for new opportunities of personal and professional growth.
Another fear is: Am I going to be able to be ambitious in this field? Can I pursue research, become a program director, and do things that my role models and mentors were able to achieve? There’s also the fear of being able to balance a busy work life with a busy home life and figuring out how to do both well and minimize the guilt on both sides. I have a family with two girls. They are definitely a top priority.
What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Helen Te, MD, a hepatologist at the University of Chicago. When I was a medical student there, I had the opportunity to work with her and saw her passion for this field. She really had so much enthusiasm for teaching and was a big part of why I started to fall in love with liver disease.
Karen Kim, MD, now the dean of Penn State College of Medicine, was one of my assigned mentors as a medical student. She helped me explore the fields where there were opportunities for residency and helped me make the decision to go into internal medicine, which often is a key deciding point for medical students. She was also a very influential teacher. The other individual who stands out is my fellowship program director, Hari Sree Conjeevaram, MD, MSc, at University of Michigan Health. He exhibited the qualities as an educator and program director that helped me recognize that education was something that I wanted to pursue in a formal fashion once I moved on in my career.
Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.
Likely taking a hike or go to a park with my family, enjoying the outdoors and spending time with them.
Lightning Round
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
Philanthropist
Favorite city in U.S. besides the one you live in?
Chicago
Place you most want to travel?
New Zealand
Favorite breakfast?
Avocado toast
Favorite ice cream flavor?
Cookies and cream
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
Two…or more
Cat person or dog person?
Dog
Texting or talking?
Talk
Favorite season?
Autumn
Favorite type of music?
Pop
Favorite movie genre?
Action
Giving the Smallest GI Transplant Patients a New Lease On Life
The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.
Everyday life for them is a challenge.
Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.
Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.
In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.
She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI?
I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.
And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills.
Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation?
I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.
Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work?
Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.
Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014.
Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?
Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant.
Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share?
One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming.
He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal.
He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him.
Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research?
I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.
I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Huge texter
Favorite junk food?
French fries
Cat or dog person?
Dog
Favorite ice cream?
Strawberry
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist
Best place you’ve traveled to?
Thailand
Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?
Too many
Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?
New York City
Favorite sport?
Tennis
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.
Everyday life for them is a challenge.
Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.
Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.
In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.
She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI?
I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.
And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills.
Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation?
I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.
Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work?
Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.
Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014.
Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?
Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant.
Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share?
One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming.
He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal.
He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him.
Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research?
I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.
I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Huge texter
Favorite junk food?
French fries
Cat or dog person?
Dog
Favorite ice cream?
Strawberry
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist
Best place you’ve traveled to?
Thailand
Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?
Too many
Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?
New York City
Favorite sport?
Tennis
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.
Everyday life for them is a challenge.
Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.
Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.
In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.
She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI?
I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.
And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills.
Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation?
I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.
Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work?
Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.
Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014.
Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?
Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant.
Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share?
One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming.
He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal.
He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him.
Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research?
I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.
I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Huge texter
Favorite junk food?
French fries
Cat or dog person?
Dog
Favorite ice cream?
Strawberry
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist
Best place you’ve traveled to?
Thailand
Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?
Too many
Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?
New York City
Favorite sport?
Tennis
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
SGLT2 Inhibition Promising for Patients With Cirrhosis and on Diuretics
, a large cohort study of more than 10,000 patients found.
Reporting in JAMA Network Open, Dian J. Chiang, MD, MPH, a section head of Hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland looked at the impact of these antihyperglycemic agents, also known as gliflozins, used in diabetes and kidney disease to block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidneys and causing more glucose to be excreted in the urine.
“Patients with cirrhosis were previously not included in SGLT2 inhibition clinical trials, and there is no large real-world evidence on the safety and effectiveness of this class of medication in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we decided to conduct the study to assess its safety and effectiveness,” Chiang told GI & Hepatology News.
The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of serious hepatic events, defined as ascites, varices, hyponatremia, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included variceal bleeding, paracentesis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, liver carcinoma, hypoglycemia, and all-cause hospitalizations.
The cohort consisted of 10,660 propensity-matched adult patients with cirrhosis from more than 120 healthcare organizations in the TriNetX database who were receiving furosemide and spironolactone from January 2013 to July 2021. Those also receiving SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 5330) were compared with a matched control group receiving diuretics only (n = 5330). The mean age of participants was 63.8 years, 57.8% were men, 66.3% were White individuals, and all were followed for 3 years.
The SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 32% lower incidence of serious liver events than the control group, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71; P < .001).
Secondary risk reductions in the intervention group were as follows:
- Hepatorenal syndrome: HR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56)
- Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65)
- Paracentesis: HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.50-0.60)
- Variceal bleeding: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84)
- Hypoglycemia: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62-0.91)
- All-cause hospitalizations: HR, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71)
The authors conjectured that SGLT2 inhibition might also benefit patients with other stages of liver disease. They pointed to a 2020 study in patients with diabetes, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and high baseline fibrosis that revealed a significant reduction in fibrosis after 12 months’ SGLT2 inhibition.
The study findings also align with those of another large propensity-matched cohort in which patients with type 2 diabetes and cirrhosis receiving metformin plus SGLT2 inhibition showed significantly lower 5-year mortality, decreased incidence of decompensated cirrhosis, and reduced hepatocellular carcinoma incidence compared with those taking metformin alone.
Prospective trials are needed to further evaluate safety and efficacy, however, the authors stressed. Future studies should specifically examine changes in sodium levels following SGLT2 inhibitor initiation, as well as the incidence of recurrent urinary tract infections and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, given that these are known adverse effects of this drug class. Additionally, research comparing different types and dosing regimens would provide valuable insights into optimizing treatment.
Commenting on the analysis but not participating in it, Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, a hepatologist at College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Phoenix, said the study was interesting but did not show the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality separately from other serious liver events, “so we do not know if SGLT2 inhibitor group was associated with lower mortality.”
It would be premature to conclude that using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis and ascites and on diuretics will decrease the need for liver transplant or significantly improve liver-related outcomes based on this study, Wijarnpreecha told GI & Hepatology News. “Moreover, we do not know the dose of diuretics or specific drugs and doses for SGLT2 inhibitors that were used in the study. Indications for using SGLT2 inhibitors are mainly from diabetes and heart failure, so this may not apply to those with cirrhosis without these two conditions as well.”
In addition, the etiology of cirrhosis in this database study is unknown. “Is it mainly from MASLD or alcohol or other conditions such as viral hepatitis or autoimmmunity? We need more thorough study to answer this question.” He also pointed out that the authors urged caution in using SGLT2 inhibitors in the context of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), which could be worsened with these agents. “This should be taken into consideration before starting medication in decompensated cirrhosis with HE,” Wijarnpreecha said.
In an accompanying commentary, Mohamed I. Elsaid, PhD, MPH, a biomedical informatics researcher and assistant professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, said that if confirmed, the findings could substantially improve cirrhosis care. “The signal is exciting but needs strong confirmation from large observational studies and prospective trials,” he wrote. “To turn promise into practice, the next wave of observational studies must embrace the target-trial emulation framework for bolstering firm causal conclusions and doubly robust learners that tease apart who benefits, who does not, and why.”
He added that head-to-head comparisons with the type 2 diabetes drugs known as incretin mimetics will clarify the best antihyperglycemic agents for different patient phenotypes. “With these advanced causal-inference approaches, repurposed type 2 diabetes therapies could shift cirrhosis management from reactive to proactive, improving quality of life and bending the mortality curve,” Elsaid wrote.
For Wijarnpreecha, important pending questions include the benefits of SGLT2 inhibition in cirrhosis without diabetes or heart failure “Can it be used to prevent cirrhosis in MASLD if we start at the early fibrosis stage in F0-F3?”
Chiang conceded that the study had limitations as it relied on 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases codes to define outcomes, which may not have captured the complexity of cirrhotic complications. “And the retrospective design may have introduced confounding, selection, and information bias, which could have impacted the results,” he said. “Future prospective studies may help confirm our findings.”
No specific funding was reported for this study. The study authors and Wijarnpreecha had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. Elsaid reported receiving research funding from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large cohort study of more than 10,000 patients found.
Reporting in JAMA Network Open, Dian J. Chiang, MD, MPH, a section head of Hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland looked at the impact of these antihyperglycemic agents, also known as gliflozins, used in diabetes and kidney disease to block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidneys and causing more glucose to be excreted in the urine.
“Patients with cirrhosis were previously not included in SGLT2 inhibition clinical trials, and there is no large real-world evidence on the safety and effectiveness of this class of medication in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we decided to conduct the study to assess its safety and effectiveness,” Chiang told GI & Hepatology News.
The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of serious hepatic events, defined as ascites, varices, hyponatremia, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included variceal bleeding, paracentesis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, liver carcinoma, hypoglycemia, and all-cause hospitalizations.
The cohort consisted of 10,660 propensity-matched adult patients with cirrhosis from more than 120 healthcare organizations in the TriNetX database who were receiving furosemide and spironolactone from January 2013 to July 2021. Those also receiving SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 5330) were compared with a matched control group receiving diuretics only (n = 5330). The mean age of participants was 63.8 years, 57.8% were men, 66.3% were White individuals, and all were followed for 3 years.
The SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 32% lower incidence of serious liver events than the control group, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71; P < .001).
Secondary risk reductions in the intervention group were as follows:
- Hepatorenal syndrome: HR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56)
- Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65)
- Paracentesis: HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.50-0.60)
- Variceal bleeding: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84)
- Hypoglycemia: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62-0.91)
- All-cause hospitalizations: HR, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71)
The authors conjectured that SGLT2 inhibition might also benefit patients with other stages of liver disease. They pointed to a 2020 study in patients with diabetes, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and high baseline fibrosis that revealed a significant reduction in fibrosis after 12 months’ SGLT2 inhibition.
The study findings also align with those of another large propensity-matched cohort in which patients with type 2 diabetes and cirrhosis receiving metformin plus SGLT2 inhibition showed significantly lower 5-year mortality, decreased incidence of decompensated cirrhosis, and reduced hepatocellular carcinoma incidence compared with those taking metformin alone.
Prospective trials are needed to further evaluate safety and efficacy, however, the authors stressed. Future studies should specifically examine changes in sodium levels following SGLT2 inhibitor initiation, as well as the incidence of recurrent urinary tract infections and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, given that these are known adverse effects of this drug class. Additionally, research comparing different types and dosing regimens would provide valuable insights into optimizing treatment.
Commenting on the analysis but not participating in it, Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, a hepatologist at College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Phoenix, said the study was interesting but did not show the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality separately from other serious liver events, “so we do not know if SGLT2 inhibitor group was associated with lower mortality.”
It would be premature to conclude that using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis and ascites and on diuretics will decrease the need for liver transplant or significantly improve liver-related outcomes based on this study, Wijarnpreecha told GI & Hepatology News. “Moreover, we do not know the dose of diuretics or specific drugs and doses for SGLT2 inhibitors that were used in the study. Indications for using SGLT2 inhibitors are mainly from diabetes and heart failure, so this may not apply to those with cirrhosis without these two conditions as well.”
In addition, the etiology of cirrhosis in this database study is unknown. “Is it mainly from MASLD or alcohol or other conditions such as viral hepatitis or autoimmmunity? We need more thorough study to answer this question.” He also pointed out that the authors urged caution in using SGLT2 inhibitors in the context of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), which could be worsened with these agents. “This should be taken into consideration before starting medication in decompensated cirrhosis with HE,” Wijarnpreecha said.
In an accompanying commentary, Mohamed I. Elsaid, PhD, MPH, a biomedical informatics researcher and assistant professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, said that if confirmed, the findings could substantially improve cirrhosis care. “The signal is exciting but needs strong confirmation from large observational studies and prospective trials,” he wrote. “To turn promise into practice, the next wave of observational studies must embrace the target-trial emulation framework for bolstering firm causal conclusions and doubly robust learners that tease apart who benefits, who does not, and why.”
He added that head-to-head comparisons with the type 2 diabetes drugs known as incretin mimetics will clarify the best antihyperglycemic agents for different patient phenotypes. “With these advanced causal-inference approaches, repurposed type 2 diabetes therapies could shift cirrhosis management from reactive to proactive, improving quality of life and bending the mortality curve,” Elsaid wrote.
For Wijarnpreecha, important pending questions include the benefits of SGLT2 inhibition in cirrhosis without diabetes or heart failure “Can it be used to prevent cirrhosis in MASLD if we start at the early fibrosis stage in F0-F3?”
Chiang conceded that the study had limitations as it relied on 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases codes to define outcomes, which may not have captured the complexity of cirrhotic complications. “And the retrospective design may have introduced confounding, selection, and information bias, which could have impacted the results,” he said. “Future prospective studies may help confirm our findings.”
No specific funding was reported for this study. The study authors and Wijarnpreecha had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. Elsaid reported receiving research funding from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large cohort study of more than 10,000 patients found.
Reporting in JAMA Network Open, Dian J. Chiang, MD, MPH, a section head of Hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland looked at the impact of these antihyperglycemic agents, also known as gliflozins, used in diabetes and kidney disease to block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidneys and causing more glucose to be excreted in the urine.
“Patients with cirrhosis were previously not included in SGLT2 inhibition clinical trials, and there is no large real-world evidence on the safety and effectiveness of this class of medication in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we decided to conduct the study to assess its safety and effectiveness,” Chiang told GI & Hepatology News.
The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of serious hepatic events, defined as ascites, varices, hyponatremia, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included variceal bleeding, paracentesis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, liver carcinoma, hypoglycemia, and all-cause hospitalizations.
The cohort consisted of 10,660 propensity-matched adult patients with cirrhosis from more than 120 healthcare organizations in the TriNetX database who were receiving furosemide and spironolactone from January 2013 to July 2021. Those also receiving SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 5330) were compared with a matched control group receiving diuretics only (n = 5330). The mean age of participants was 63.8 years, 57.8% were men, 66.3% were White individuals, and all were followed for 3 years.
The SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 32% lower incidence of serious liver events than the control group, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71; P < .001).
Secondary risk reductions in the intervention group were as follows:
- Hepatorenal syndrome: HR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56)
- Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65)
- Paracentesis: HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.50-0.60)
- Variceal bleeding: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84)
- Hypoglycemia: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62-0.91)
- All-cause hospitalizations: HR, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71)
The authors conjectured that SGLT2 inhibition might also benefit patients with other stages of liver disease. They pointed to a 2020 study in patients with diabetes, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and high baseline fibrosis that revealed a significant reduction in fibrosis after 12 months’ SGLT2 inhibition.
The study findings also align with those of another large propensity-matched cohort in which patients with type 2 diabetes and cirrhosis receiving metformin plus SGLT2 inhibition showed significantly lower 5-year mortality, decreased incidence of decompensated cirrhosis, and reduced hepatocellular carcinoma incidence compared with those taking metformin alone.
Prospective trials are needed to further evaluate safety and efficacy, however, the authors stressed. Future studies should specifically examine changes in sodium levels following SGLT2 inhibitor initiation, as well as the incidence of recurrent urinary tract infections and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, given that these are known adverse effects of this drug class. Additionally, research comparing different types and dosing regimens would provide valuable insights into optimizing treatment.
Commenting on the analysis but not participating in it, Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, a hepatologist at College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Phoenix, said the study was interesting but did not show the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality separately from other serious liver events, “so we do not know if SGLT2 inhibitor group was associated with lower mortality.”
It would be premature to conclude that using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis and ascites and on diuretics will decrease the need for liver transplant or significantly improve liver-related outcomes based on this study, Wijarnpreecha told GI & Hepatology News. “Moreover, we do not know the dose of diuretics or specific drugs and doses for SGLT2 inhibitors that were used in the study. Indications for using SGLT2 inhibitors are mainly from diabetes and heart failure, so this may not apply to those with cirrhosis without these two conditions as well.”
In addition, the etiology of cirrhosis in this database study is unknown. “Is it mainly from MASLD or alcohol or other conditions such as viral hepatitis or autoimmmunity? We need more thorough study to answer this question.” He also pointed out that the authors urged caution in using SGLT2 inhibitors in the context of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), which could be worsened with these agents. “This should be taken into consideration before starting medication in decompensated cirrhosis with HE,” Wijarnpreecha said.
In an accompanying commentary, Mohamed I. Elsaid, PhD, MPH, a biomedical informatics researcher and assistant professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, said that if confirmed, the findings could substantially improve cirrhosis care. “The signal is exciting but needs strong confirmation from large observational studies and prospective trials,” he wrote. “To turn promise into practice, the next wave of observational studies must embrace the target-trial emulation framework for bolstering firm causal conclusions and doubly robust learners that tease apart who benefits, who does not, and why.”
He added that head-to-head comparisons with the type 2 diabetes drugs known as incretin mimetics will clarify the best antihyperglycemic agents for different patient phenotypes. “With these advanced causal-inference approaches, repurposed type 2 diabetes therapies could shift cirrhosis management from reactive to proactive, improving quality of life and bending the mortality curve,” Elsaid wrote.
For Wijarnpreecha, important pending questions include the benefits of SGLT2 inhibition in cirrhosis without diabetes or heart failure “Can it be used to prevent cirrhosis in MASLD if we start at the early fibrosis stage in F0-F3?”
Chiang conceded that the study had limitations as it relied on 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases codes to define outcomes, which may not have captured the complexity of cirrhotic complications. “And the retrospective design may have introduced confounding, selection, and information bias, which could have impacted the results,” he said. “Future prospective studies may help confirm our findings.”
No specific funding was reported for this study. The study authors and Wijarnpreecha had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. Elsaid reported receiving research funding from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Augmenting DNA Damage by Chemotherapy With CDK7 Inhibition to Disrupt PARP Expression in Cholangiocarcinoma
Wegovy Approved for MASH With Fibrosis, No Cirrhosis
The once-weekly 2.4 mg semaglutide subcutaneous injection is given in conjunction with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity.
Among people living with overweight or obesity globally, 1 in 3 also have MASH.
The accelerated approval was based on part-one results from the ongoing two-part, phase-3 ESSENCE trial, in which Wegovy demonstrated a significant improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis, as well as resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of liver fibrosis, compared with placebo at week 72. Those results were published online in April in The New England Journal of Medicine.
For the trial, 800 participants were randomly assigned to either Wegovy (534 participants) or placebo (266 participants) in addition to lifestyle changes. The mean age was 56 years and the mean BMI was 34. Most patients were white individuals (67.5%) and women (57.1%), and 55.9% of the patients had type 2 diabetes; 250 patients (31.3%) had stage II fibrosis and 550 (68.8%) had stage III fibrosis. Participants were on stable doses of lipid-lowering, glucose-management, and weight-loss medications.
At week 72, the first primary endpoint showed 63% of the 534 people treated with Wegovy achieved resolution of steatohepatitis and no worsening of liver fibrosis compared with 34% of 266 individuals treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference.
The second primary endpoint showed 37% of people treated with Wegovy achieved improvement in liver fibrosis and no worsening of steatohepatitis compared with 22% of those treated with placebo, also a significant difference.
A confirmatory secondary endpoint at week 72 showed 33% of patients treated with Wegovy achieved both resolution of steatohepatitis and improvement in liver fibrosis compared with 16% of those treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference in response rate of 17%.
In addition, 83.5% of the patients in the semaglutide group maintained the target dose of 2.4 mg until week 72.
Wegovy is also indicated, along with diet and physical activity, to reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events in adults with known heart disease and with either obesity or overweight. It is also indicated for adults and children aged 12 years or older with obesity, and some adults with overweight who also have weight-related medical problems, to help them lose excess body weight and keep the weight off.
What’s Next for Wegovy?
In February 2025, Novo Nordisk filed for regulatory approval in the EU, followed by regulatory submission in Japan in May 2025. Also in May, the FDA accepted a filing application for oral semaglutide 25 mg.
Furthermore, “There’s an expected readout of part 2 of ESSENCE in 2029, which aims to demonstrate treatment with Wegovy lowers the risk of liver-related clinical events, compared to placebo, in patients with MASH and F2 or F3 fibrosis at week 240,” a Novo Nordisk spokesperson told GI & Hepatology News.
Although the company has the technology to produce semaglutide as a pill or tablet, she said, “the US launch of oral semaglutide for obesity will be contingent on portfolio prioritization and manufacturing capacity.” The company has not yet submitted the 50 mg oral semaglutide to regulatory authorities.
“The oral form requires more active pharmaceutical ingredient (API),” she noted. “Given that we have a fixed amount of API, the injectable form enables us to treat more patients. We are currently expanding our oral and injectable production capacities globally with the aim of serving as many patients as possible. It requires time to build, install, validate, and ramp-up these production processes.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The once-weekly 2.4 mg semaglutide subcutaneous injection is given in conjunction with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity.
Among people living with overweight or obesity globally, 1 in 3 also have MASH.
The accelerated approval was based on part-one results from the ongoing two-part, phase-3 ESSENCE trial, in which Wegovy demonstrated a significant improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis, as well as resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of liver fibrosis, compared with placebo at week 72. Those results were published online in April in The New England Journal of Medicine.
For the trial, 800 participants were randomly assigned to either Wegovy (534 participants) or placebo (266 participants) in addition to lifestyle changes. The mean age was 56 years and the mean BMI was 34. Most patients were white individuals (67.5%) and women (57.1%), and 55.9% of the patients had type 2 diabetes; 250 patients (31.3%) had stage II fibrosis and 550 (68.8%) had stage III fibrosis. Participants were on stable doses of lipid-lowering, glucose-management, and weight-loss medications.
At week 72, the first primary endpoint showed 63% of the 534 people treated with Wegovy achieved resolution of steatohepatitis and no worsening of liver fibrosis compared with 34% of 266 individuals treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference.
The second primary endpoint showed 37% of people treated with Wegovy achieved improvement in liver fibrosis and no worsening of steatohepatitis compared with 22% of those treated with placebo, also a significant difference.
A confirmatory secondary endpoint at week 72 showed 33% of patients treated with Wegovy achieved both resolution of steatohepatitis and improvement in liver fibrosis compared with 16% of those treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference in response rate of 17%.
In addition, 83.5% of the patients in the semaglutide group maintained the target dose of 2.4 mg until week 72.
Wegovy is also indicated, along with diet and physical activity, to reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events in adults with known heart disease and with either obesity or overweight. It is also indicated for adults and children aged 12 years or older with obesity, and some adults with overweight who also have weight-related medical problems, to help them lose excess body weight and keep the weight off.
What’s Next for Wegovy?
In February 2025, Novo Nordisk filed for regulatory approval in the EU, followed by regulatory submission in Japan in May 2025. Also in May, the FDA accepted a filing application for oral semaglutide 25 mg.
Furthermore, “There’s an expected readout of part 2 of ESSENCE in 2029, which aims to demonstrate treatment with Wegovy lowers the risk of liver-related clinical events, compared to placebo, in patients with MASH and F2 or F3 fibrosis at week 240,” a Novo Nordisk spokesperson told GI & Hepatology News.
Although the company has the technology to produce semaglutide as a pill or tablet, she said, “the US launch of oral semaglutide for obesity will be contingent on portfolio prioritization and manufacturing capacity.” The company has not yet submitted the 50 mg oral semaglutide to regulatory authorities.
“The oral form requires more active pharmaceutical ingredient (API),” she noted. “Given that we have a fixed amount of API, the injectable form enables us to treat more patients. We are currently expanding our oral and injectable production capacities globally with the aim of serving as many patients as possible. It requires time to build, install, validate, and ramp-up these production processes.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The once-weekly 2.4 mg semaglutide subcutaneous injection is given in conjunction with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity.
Among people living with overweight or obesity globally, 1 in 3 also have MASH.
The accelerated approval was based on part-one results from the ongoing two-part, phase-3 ESSENCE trial, in which Wegovy demonstrated a significant improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis, as well as resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of liver fibrosis, compared with placebo at week 72. Those results were published online in April in The New England Journal of Medicine.
For the trial, 800 participants were randomly assigned to either Wegovy (534 participants) or placebo (266 participants) in addition to lifestyle changes. The mean age was 56 years and the mean BMI was 34. Most patients were white individuals (67.5%) and women (57.1%), and 55.9% of the patients had type 2 diabetes; 250 patients (31.3%) had stage II fibrosis and 550 (68.8%) had stage III fibrosis. Participants were on stable doses of lipid-lowering, glucose-management, and weight-loss medications.
At week 72, the first primary endpoint showed 63% of the 534 people treated with Wegovy achieved resolution of steatohepatitis and no worsening of liver fibrosis compared with 34% of 266 individuals treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference.
The second primary endpoint showed 37% of people treated with Wegovy achieved improvement in liver fibrosis and no worsening of steatohepatitis compared with 22% of those treated with placebo, also a significant difference.
A confirmatory secondary endpoint at week 72 showed 33% of patients treated with Wegovy achieved both resolution of steatohepatitis and improvement in liver fibrosis compared with 16% of those treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference in response rate of 17%.
In addition, 83.5% of the patients in the semaglutide group maintained the target dose of 2.4 mg until week 72.
Wegovy is also indicated, along with diet and physical activity, to reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events in adults with known heart disease and with either obesity or overweight. It is also indicated for adults and children aged 12 years or older with obesity, and some adults with overweight who also have weight-related medical problems, to help them lose excess body weight and keep the weight off.
What’s Next for Wegovy?
In February 2025, Novo Nordisk filed for regulatory approval in the EU, followed by regulatory submission in Japan in May 2025. Also in May, the FDA accepted a filing application for oral semaglutide 25 mg.
Furthermore, “There’s an expected readout of part 2 of ESSENCE in 2029, which aims to demonstrate treatment with Wegovy lowers the risk of liver-related clinical events, compared to placebo, in patients with MASH and F2 or F3 fibrosis at week 240,” a Novo Nordisk spokesperson told GI & Hepatology News.
Although the company has the technology to produce semaglutide as a pill or tablet, she said, “the US launch of oral semaglutide for obesity will be contingent on portfolio prioritization and manufacturing capacity.” The company has not yet submitted the 50 mg oral semaglutide to regulatory authorities.
“The oral form requires more active pharmaceutical ingredient (API),” she noted. “Given that we have a fixed amount of API, the injectable form enables us to treat more patients. We are currently expanding our oral and injectable production capacities globally with the aim of serving as many patients as possible. It requires time to build, install, validate, and ramp-up these production processes.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Skip Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Upper GI Bleeding in Cirrhosis?
Pooled data from 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a high probability that no or shorter durations of antibiotic prophylaxis are not worse than longer durations in preventing death from any cause in these patients.
The findings suggest that recommendations for routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding “should be reassessed,” the authors said.
They acknowledged, however, that the studies were of low-to-moderate quality and higher quality randomized clinical trial data are needed.
The study, with first author Connor Prosty, MD, of McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Questionable Benefit?
Antibiotic prophylaxis became standard decades ago, when up to 60% of variceal bleeds were complicated by infections, which were thought to increase the risk for rebleeding and death.
Yet, the evidence to support the recommendation remains limited, and a recent RCT called into question the necessity of prophylaxis. The study showed no statistically significant difference in mortality or infection among patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis randomized to receive no prophylaxis compared to third-generation cephalosporin.
While generally perceived as safe, antibiotics have potential adverse effects and can select for resistant superinfections, Prosty and colleagues pointed out.
They also noted that shorter courses of antibiotics have been proven to be as good, if not better, than longer courses across numerous other infectious indications. Recommendations for primary and secondary antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis are being reassessed due to a weak evidence base, lack of mortality benefit, and potential for harm.
To revisit antibiotic prophylaxis for upper GI bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, Prosty and colleagues did a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 RCTs involving 1322 patients.
Two of the trials compared longer (5-7 days) with shorter (2-3 days) antibiotics, and 12 compared any antibiotic prophylaxis (1-10 days) to none.
The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 5% on the risk difference (RD) scale. Secondary outcomes included early rebleeding and bacterial infections.
Overall, shorter antibiotic durations (including none) had a 97.3% probability of noninferiority to longer durations for all-cause mortality (RD, 0.9%; 95% credible interval [CrI], -2.6% to 4.9%).
Shorter durations had a 73.8% probability of noninferiority for early rebleeding (RD, 2.9%; 95% CrI, -4.2% to 10.0%) but were associated with more study-defined bacterial infections (RD, 15.2%; 95% CrI, 5.0%-25.9%). However, the authors cited methodological concerns about the definitions of these infections in the included studies.
The probabilities of noninferiority of shorter durations for mortality, early rebleeding, and bacterial infections were higher in studies published after 2004.
Change Practice Now?
“Our findings re-open the discussion surrounding the long-standing and firmly held belief that antibiotic prophylaxis has a mortality benefit in patients with cirrhosis presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeds,” Prosty and colleagues wrote.
They cautioned, however, that the study quality was “low to moderate, bacterial infections were heterogeneously defined, and no studies reported adverse events. Higher-quality RCTs are needed to determine the benefit and optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in the modern era of advanced interventions.”
The authors of a commentary published with the study noted that management of upper GI bleeding in cirrhosis patients has “greatly improved” since the 1990s, when some of the trials included in the analysis were conducted.
Hepatologists Catherine Mezzacappa, MD, MPH, and Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, both at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, agree that it “may be time to revisit whether prophylactic antibiotics continue to provide benefit in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding, and if so, in which patients.”
They caution, however, that the current level of evidence is “inadequate to answer whether it is time to stop this practice, which has become the standard of care.
New trials for shorter duration and no antibiotic prophylaxis “should be designed in specific patient populations to compare sequelae of antibiotic prophylaxis, including subsequent infections and all-cause mortality,” Mezzacappa and Garcia-Tsao concluded.
The study received no specific funding. The authors and commentary writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pooled data from 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a high probability that no or shorter durations of antibiotic prophylaxis are not worse than longer durations in preventing death from any cause in these patients.
The findings suggest that recommendations for routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding “should be reassessed,” the authors said.
They acknowledged, however, that the studies were of low-to-moderate quality and higher quality randomized clinical trial data are needed.
The study, with first author Connor Prosty, MD, of McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Questionable Benefit?
Antibiotic prophylaxis became standard decades ago, when up to 60% of variceal bleeds were complicated by infections, which were thought to increase the risk for rebleeding and death.
Yet, the evidence to support the recommendation remains limited, and a recent RCT called into question the necessity of prophylaxis. The study showed no statistically significant difference in mortality or infection among patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis randomized to receive no prophylaxis compared to third-generation cephalosporin.
While generally perceived as safe, antibiotics have potential adverse effects and can select for resistant superinfections, Prosty and colleagues pointed out.
They also noted that shorter courses of antibiotics have been proven to be as good, if not better, than longer courses across numerous other infectious indications. Recommendations for primary and secondary antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis are being reassessed due to a weak evidence base, lack of mortality benefit, and potential for harm.
To revisit antibiotic prophylaxis for upper GI bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, Prosty and colleagues did a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 RCTs involving 1322 patients.
Two of the trials compared longer (5-7 days) with shorter (2-3 days) antibiotics, and 12 compared any antibiotic prophylaxis (1-10 days) to none.
The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 5% on the risk difference (RD) scale. Secondary outcomes included early rebleeding and bacterial infections.
Overall, shorter antibiotic durations (including none) had a 97.3% probability of noninferiority to longer durations for all-cause mortality (RD, 0.9%; 95% credible interval [CrI], -2.6% to 4.9%).
Shorter durations had a 73.8% probability of noninferiority for early rebleeding (RD, 2.9%; 95% CrI, -4.2% to 10.0%) but were associated with more study-defined bacterial infections (RD, 15.2%; 95% CrI, 5.0%-25.9%). However, the authors cited methodological concerns about the definitions of these infections in the included studies.
The probabilities of noninferiority of shorter durations for mortality, early rebleeding, and bacterial infections were higher in studies published after 2004.
Change Practice Now?
“Our findings re-open the discussion surrounding the long-standing and firmly held belief that antibiotic prophylaxis has a mortality benefit in patients with cirrhosis presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeds,” Prosty and colleagues wrote.
They cautioned, however, that the study quality was “low to moderate, bacterial infections were heterogeneously defined, and no studies reported adverse events. Higher-quality RCTs are needed to determine the benefit and optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in the modern era of advanced interventions.”
The authors of a commentary published with the study noted that management of upper GI bleeding in cirrhosis patients has “greatly improved” since the 1990s, when some of the trials included in the analysis were conducted.
Hepatologists Catherine Mezzacappa, MD, MPH, and Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, both at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, agree that it “may be time to revisit whether prophylactic antibiotics continue to provide benefit in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding, and if so, in which patients.”
They caution, however, that the current level of evidence is “inadequate to answer whether it is time to stop this practice, which has become the standard of care.
New trials for shorter duration and no antibiotic prophylaxis “should be designed in specific patient populations to compare sequelae of antibiotic prophylaxis, including subsequent infections and all-cause mortality,” Mezzacappa and Garcia-Tsao concluded.
The study received no specific funding. The authors and commentary writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pooled data from 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a high probability that no or shorter durations of antibiotic prophylaxis are not worse than longer durations in preventing death from any cause in these patients.
The findings suggest that recommendations for routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding “should be reassessed,” the authors said.
They acknowledged, however, that the studies were of low-to-moderate quality and higher quality randomized clinical trial data are needed.
The study, with first author Connor Prosty, MD, of McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Questionable Benefit?
Antibiotic prophylaxis became standard decades ago, when up to 60% of variceal bleeds were complicated by infections, which were thought to increase the risk for rebleeding and death.
Yet, the evidence to support the recommendation remains limited, and a recent RCT called into question the necessity of prophylaxis. The study showed no statistically significant difference in mortality or infection among patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis randomized to receive no prophylaxis compared to third-generation cephalosporin.
While generally perceived as safe, antibiotics have potential adverse effects and can select for resistant superinfections, Prosty and colleagues pointed out.
They also noted that shorter courses of antibiotics have been proven to be as good, if not better, than longer courses across numerous other infectious indications. Recommendations for primary and secondary antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis are being reassessed due to a weak evidence base, lack of mortality benefit, and potential for harm.
To revisit antibiotic prophylaxis for upper GI bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, Prosty and colleagues did a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 RCTs involving 1322 patients.
Two of the trials compared longer (5-7 days) with shorter (2-3 days) antibiotics, and 12 compared any antibiotic prophylaxis (1-10 days) to none.
The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 5% on the risk difference (RD) scale. Secondary outcomes included early rebleeding and bacterial infections.
Overall, shorter antibiotic durations (including none) had a 97.3% probability of noninferiority to longer durations for all-cause mortality (RD, 0.9%; 95% credible interval [CrI], -2.6% to 4.9%).
Shorter durations had a 73.8% probability of noninferiority for early rebleeding (RD, 2.9%; 95% CrI, -4.2% to 10.0%) but were associated with more study-defined bacterial infections (RD, 15.2%; 95% CrI, 5.0%-25.9%). However, the authors cited methodological concerns about the definitions of these infections in the included studies.
The probabilities of noninferiority of shorter durations for mortality, early rebleeding, and bacterial infections were higher in studies published after 2004.
Change Practice Now?
“Our findings re-open the discussion surrounding the long-standing and firmly held belief that antibiotic prophylaxis has a mortality benefit in patients with cirrhosis presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeds,” Prosty and colleagues wrote.
They cautioned, however, that the study quality was “low to moderate, bacterial infections were heterogeneously defined, and no studies reported adverse events. Higher-quality RCTs are needed to determine the benefit and optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in the modern era of advanced interventions.”
The authors of a commentary published with the study noted that management of upper GI bleeding in cirrhosis patients has “greatly improved” since the 1990s, when some of the trials included in the analysis were conducted.
Hepatologists Catherine Mezzacappa, MD, MPH, and Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, both at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, agree that it “may be time to revisit whether prophylactic antibiotics continue to provide benefit in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding, and if so, in which patients.”
They caution, however, that the current level of evidence is “inadequate to answer whether it is time to stop this practice, which has become the standard of care.
New trials for shorter duration and no antibiotic prophylaxis “should be designed in specific patient populations to compare sequelae of antibiotic prophylaxis, including subsequent infections and all-cause mortality,” Mezzacappa and Garcia-Tsao concluded.
The study received no specific funding. The authors and commentary writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Journal Highlights: May-July 2025
Esophagus/Motility
Nguyen AD, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Incorporating Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Into Esophageal Clinical Practice: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.05.011.
Hartnett DA, et al. Distribution of Esophageal Eosinophilia as a Predictor of Proton Pump Inhibitor Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.06.032.
Gyawali CP, et al. pH Impedance Monitoring on Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy Impacts Management Decisions in Proven GERD but not in Unproven GERD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.02.032.
Stomach
Wiklund AK, et al. Risk of Gastric Adenocarcinoma After Eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.239.
Sonaiya S, et al. Over-the-Scope Clip versus Standard Endoscopic Therapy as First-Line Intervention for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250935.
Colon
Hassan C, et al. Colon Cancer Screening, Surveillance, and Treatment: Novel Artificial Intelligence Driving Strategies in the Management of Colon Lesions. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.021.
Pancreas
Wilcox CM, et al; US Pancreatic Disease Study Group. Management of the Disconnected Pancreatic Duct in Pancreatic Necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.05.024.
Ghimire C, et al. The effect of advances in pancreatic cancer treatment in population mortality: A SEER-based study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100739.
Hepatology
Canivet CM, et al. Validation of the AASLD/EASL Multi-Step Screening Strategies for MASLD. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100747.
Miscellaneous
Chang L, et al. Gut Feelings: The Critical Role of Interoception in Obesity and Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.002.
Bashiri K, et al. Advancing Hemostatic Powder Technologies for Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Challenges and Solutions. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250940.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
Esophagus/Motility
Nguyen AD, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Incorporating Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Into Esophageal Clinical Practice: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.05.011.
Hartnett DA, et al. Distribution of Esophageal Eosinophilia as a Predictor of Proton Pump Inhibitor Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.06.032.
Gyawali CP, et al. pH Impedance Monitoring on Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy Impacts Management Decisions in Proven GERD but not in Unproven GERD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.02.032.
Stomach
Wiklund AK, et al. Risk of Gastric Adenocarcinoma After Eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.239.
Sonaiya S, et al. Over-the-Scope Clip versus Standard Endoscopic Therapy as First-Line Intervention for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250935.
Colon
Hassan C, et al. Colon Cancer Screening, Surveillance, and Treatment: Novel Artificial Intelligence Driving Strategies in the Management of Colon Lesions. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.021.
Pancreas
Wilcox CM, et al; US Pancreatic Disease Study Group. Management of the Disconnected Pancreatic Duct in Pancreatic Necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.05.024.
Ghimire C, et al. The effect of advances in pancreatic cancer treatment in population mortality: A SEER-based study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100739.
Hepatology
Canivet CM, et al. Validation of the AASLD/EASL Multi-Step Screening Strategies for MASLD. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100747.
Miscellaneous
Chang L, et al. Gut Feelings: The Critical Role of Interoception in Obesity and Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.002.
Bashiri K, et al. Advancing Hemostatic Powder Technologies for Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Challenges and Solutions. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250940.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
Esophagus/Motility
Nguyen AD, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Incorporating Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Into Esophageal Clinical Practice: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.05.011.
Hartnett DA, et al. Distribution of Esophageal Eosinophilia as a Predictor of Proton Pump Inhibitor Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.06.032.
Gyawali CP, et al. pH Impedance Monitoring on Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy Impacts Management Decisions in Proven GERD but not in Unproven GERD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.02.032.
Stomach
Wiklund AK, et al. Risk of Gastric Adenocarcinoma After Eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.239.
Sonaiya S, et al. Over-the-Scope Clip versus Standard Endoscopic Therapy as First-Line Intervention for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250935.
Colon
Hassan C, et al. Colon Cancer Screening, Surveillance, and Treatment: Novel Artificial Intelligence Driving Strategies in the Management of Colon Lesions. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.021.
Pancreas
Wilcox CM, et al; US Pancreatic Disease Study Group. Management of the Disconnected Pancreatic Duct in Pancreatic Necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.05.024.
Ghimire C, et al. The effect of advances in pancreatic cancer treatment in population mortality: A SEER-based study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100739.
Hepatology
Canivet CM, et al. Validation of the AASLD/EASL Multi-Step Screening Strategies for MASLD. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100747.
Miscellaneous
Chang L, et al. Gut Feelings: The Critical Role of Interoception in Obesity and Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.002.
Bashiri K, et al. Advancing Hemostatic Powder Technologies for Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Challenges and Solutions. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250940.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
Federal Government Funds Program for Hepatitis C Care and Cure
, according to an HHS press release.
The program, known as the Hepatitis C Elimination Initiative Pilot, will be administered by the Substance and Mental Health Administration. “This program is designed to support communities severely affected by homelessness and to gain insights on effective ways to identify patients, complete treatment, cure infections, and reduce reinfection by hepatitis C,” according to the press release.
The upfront investment in hepatitis C management is projected to not only save lives, but also to save community health care costs in the long-term, according to the press release.
“This is a vigorous pilot program that provides the first steps toward the large goal of eliminating hepatitis C in the United States population,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.
Hepatitis C affects more than two million individuals in the US, and is often complicated by social and medical issues such as homelessness, substance abuse, and mental health issues, said Schaffner. Fortunately, hepatitis C can be treated with oral medications that cure the chronic viral infection, thereby ending ongoing liver injury and interrupting person-to-person transmission of the virus by sharing needles, he said.
Given that the population most affected with hepatitis C also is often homeless, with possible mental health issues and sharing of needles for illicit drug use, challenges in reaching this population include assuring them that the care they receive though this and other programs is nonjudgemental and helpful, Schaffner told GI & Hepatology News.
The oral medications that now can cure the chronic hepatitis C viral infections must be taken over a period of weeks, and patients who lead socially disorganized lives often need assistance to assure that the medicine is taken as intended, so trained and sensitive personnel who are committed to helping this population are needed to make treatment programs succeed, he said.
Looking ahead, “the purpose of the pilot studies that will be funded by this program is to explore various approaches to determine which are more successful in bringing patients in to be evaluated and then to complete treatment,” Schaffner added.
State and community-based organizations are among the entities eligible to apply for the program. Potential applicants can find information about the program and application materials on the SAMSHA website.
Schaffner had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
, according to an HHS press release.
The program, known as the Hepatitis C Elimination Initiative Pilot, will be administered by the Substance and Mental Health Administration. “This program is designed to support communities severely affected by homelessness and to gain insights on effective ways to identify patients, complete treatment, cure infections, and reduce reinfection by hepatitis C,” according to the press release.
The upfront investment in hepatitis C management is projected to not only save lives, but also to save community health care costs in the long-term, according to the press release.
“This is a vigorous pilot program that provides the first steps toward the large goal of eliminating hepatitis C in the United States population,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.
Hepatitis C affects more than two million individuals in the US, and is often complicated by social and medical issues such as homelessness, substance abuse, and mental health issues, said Schaffner. Fortunately, hepatitis C can be treated with oral medications that cure the chronic viral infection, thereby ending ongoing liver injury and interrupting person-to-person transmission of the virus by sharing needles, he said.
Given that the population most affected with hepatitis C also is often homeless, with possible mental health issues and sharing of needles for illicit drug use, challenges in reaching this population include assuring them that the care they receive though this and other programs is nonjudgemental and helpful, Schaffner told GI & Hepatology News.
The oral medications that now can cure the chronic hepatitis C viral infections must be taken over a period of weeks, and patients who lead socially disorganized lives often need assistance to assure that the medicine is taken as intended, so trained and sensitive personnel who are committed to helping this population are needed to make treatment programs succeed, he said.
Looking ahead, “the purpose of the pilot studies that will be funded by this program is to explore various approaches to determine which are more successful in bringing patients in to be evaluated and then to complete treatment,” Schaffner added.
State and community-based organizations are among the entities eligible to apply for the program. Potential applicants can find information about the program and application materials on the SAMSHA website.
Schaffner had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
, according to an HHS press release.
The program, known as the Hepatitis C Elimination Initiative Pilot, will be administered by the Substance and Mental Health Administration. “This program is designed to support communities severely affected by homelessness and to gain insights on effective ways to identify patients, complete treatment, cure infections, and reduce reinfection by hepatitis C,” according to the press release.
The upfront investment in hepatitis C management is projected to not only save lives, but also to save community health care costs in the long-term, according to the press release.
“This is a vigorous pilot program that provides the first steps toward the large goal of eliminating hepatitis C in the United States population,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.
Hepatitis C affects more than two million individuals in the US, and is often complicated by social and medical issues such as homelessness, substance abuse, and mental health issues, said Schaffner. Fortunately, hepatitis C can be treated with oral medications that cure the chronic viral infection, thereby ending ongoing liver injury and interrupting person-to-person transmission of the virus by sharing needles, he said.
Given that the population most affected with hepatitis C also is often homeless, with possible mental health issues and sharing of needles for illicit drug use, challenges in reaching this population include assuring them that the care they receive though this and other programs is nonjudgemental and helpful, Schaffner told GI & Hepatology News.
The oral medications that now can cure the chronic hepatitis C viral infections must be taken over a period of weeks, and patients who lead socially disorganized lives often need assistance to assure that the medicine is taken as intended, so trained and sensitive personnel who are committed to helping this population are needed to make treatment programs succeed, he said.
Looking ahead, “the purpose of the pilot studies that will be funded by this program is to explore various approaches to determine which are more successful in bringing patients in to be evaluated and then to complete treatment,” Schaffner added.
State and community-based organizations are among the entities eligible to apply for the program. Potential applicants can find information about the program and application materials on the SAMSHA website.
Schaffner had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Most GI Service Chiefs Support POCUS Training, But Uptake Is Slow
, according to a national survey.
Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.
“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”
To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.
Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.
Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.
Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.
Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.
Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial.
Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds.
Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them.
Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.
“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway.
They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.
The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
, according to a national survey.
Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.
“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”
To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.
Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.
Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.
Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.
Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.
Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial.
Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds.
Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them.
Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.
“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway.
They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.
The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
, according to a national survey.
Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.
“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”
To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.
Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.
Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.
Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.
Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.
Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial.
Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds.
Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them.
Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.
“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway.
They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.
The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
Cirrhosis Mortality Prediction Boosted by Machine Learning
“This highly inclusive, representative, and globally derived model has been externally validated,” Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a crystal ball. It helps hospital teams, transplant centers, gastroenterology and intensive care unit services triage and prioritize patients more effectively.”
The study supporting the model, which Bajaj said “could be used at this stage,” was published online in Gastroenterology. The model is available for downloading at https://silveys.shinyapps.io/app_cleared/.
CLEARED Cohort Analyzed
Wide variations across the world regarding available resources, outpatient services, reasons for admission, and etiologies of cirrhosis can influence patient outcomes, according to Bajaj and colleagues. Therefore, they sought to use ML approaches to improve prognostication for all countries.
They analyzed admission-day data from the prospective Chronic Liver Disease Evolution And Registry for Events and Decompensation (CLEARED) consortium, which includes inpatients with cirrhosis enrolled from six continents. The analysis compared ML approaches with logistical regression to predict inpatient mortality.
The researchers performed internal validation (75/25 split) and subdivision using World-Bank income status: low/low-middle (L-LMIC), upper middle (UMIC), and high (HIC). They determined that the ML model with the best area-under-the-curve (AUC) would be externally validated in a US-Veteran cirrhosis inpatient population.
The CLEARED cohort included 7239 cirrhosis inpatients (mean age, 56 years; 64% men; median MELD-Na, 25) from 115 centers globally; 22.5% of centers belonged to LMICs, 41% to UMICs, and 34% to HICs.
A total of 808 patients (11.1%) died in the hospital.
Random-Forest analysis showed the best AUC (0.815) with high calibration. This was significantly better than parametric logistic regression (AUC, 0.774) and LASSO (AUC, 0.787) models.
Random-Forest also was better than logistic regression regardless of country income-level: HIC (AUC,0.806), UMIC (AUC, 0.867), and L-LMICs (AUC, 0.768).
Of the top 15 important variables selected from Random-Forest, admission for acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, high MELD-Na/white blood count, and not being in high income country were variables most predictive of mortality.
In contrast, higher albumin, hemoglobin, diuretic use on admission, viral etiology, and being in a high-income country were most protective.
The Random-Forest model was validated in 28,670 veterans (mean age, 67 years; 96% men; median MELD-Na,15), with an inpatient mortality of 4% (1158 patients).
The final Random-Forest model, using 48 of the 67 original covariates, attained a strong AUC of 0.859. A refit version using only the top 15 variables achieved a comparable AUC of 0.851.
Clinical Relevance
“Cirrhosis and resultant organ failures remain a dynamic and multidisciplinary problem,” Bajaj noted. “Machine learning techniques are one part of multi-faceted management strategy that is required in this population.”
If patients fall into the high-risk category, he said, “careful consultation with patients, families, and clinical teams is needed before providing information, including where this model was derived from. The results of these discussions could be instructive regarding decisions for transfer, more aggressive monitoring/ICU transfer, palliative care or transplant assessments.”
Meena B. Bansal, MD, system chief, Division of Liver Diseases, Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, called the tool “very promising.” However, she told GI & Hepatology News, “it was validated on a VA [Veterans Affairs] cohort, which is a bit different than the cohort of patients seen at Mount Sinai. Therefore, validation in more academic tertiary care medical centers with high volume liver transplant would be helpful.”
Furthermore, said Bansal, who was not involved in the study, “they excluded those that receiving a liver transplant, and while only a small number, this is an important limitation.”
Nevertheless, she added, “Artificial intelligence has great potential in predictive risk models and will likely be a tool that assists for risk stratification, clinical management, and hopefully improved clinical outcomes.”
This study was partly supported by a VA Merit review to Bajaj and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were reported by any author.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“This highly inclusive, representative, and globally derived model has been externally validated,” Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a crystal ball. It helps hospital teams, transplant centers, gastroenterology and intensive care unit services triage and prioritize patients more effectively.”
The study supporting the model, which Bajaj said “could be used at this stage,” was published online in Gastroenterology. The model is available for downloading at https://silveys.shinyapps.io/app_cleared/.
CLEARED Cohort Analyzed
Wide variations across the world regarding available resources, outpatient services, reasons for admission, and etiologies of cirrhosis can influence patient outcomes, according to Bajaj and colleagues. Therefore, they sought to use ML approaches to improve prognostication for all countries.
They analyzed admission-day data from the prospective Chronic Liver Disease Evolution And Registry for Events and Decompensation (CLEARED) consortium, which includes inpatients with cirrhosis enrolled from six continents. The analysis compared ML approaches with logistical regression to predict inpatient mortality.
The researchers performed internal validation (75/25 split) and subdivision using World-Bank income status: low/low-middle (L-LMIC), upper middle (UMIC), and high (HIC). They determined that the ML model with the best area-under-the-curve (AUC) would be externally validated in a US-Veteran cirrhosis inpatient population.
The CLEARED cohort included 7239 cirrhosis inpatients (mean age, 56 years; 64% men; median MELD-Na, 25) from 115 centers globally; 22.5% of centers belonged to LMICs, 41% to UMICs, and 34% to HICs.
A total of 808 patients (11.1%) died in the hospital.
Random-Forest analysis showed the best AUC (0.815) with high calibration. This was significantly better than parametric logistic regression (AUC, 0.774) and LASSO (AUC, 0.787) models.
Random-Forest also was better than logistic regression regardless of country income-level: HIC (AUC,0.806), UMIC (AUC, 0.867), and L-LMICs (AUC, 0.768).
Of the top 15 important variables selected from Random-Forest, admission for acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, high MELD-Na/white blood count, and not being in high income country were variables most predictive of mortality.
In contrast, higher albumin, hemoglobin, diuretic use on admission, viral etiology, and being in a high-income country were most protective.
The Random-Forest model was validated in 28,670 veterans (mean age, 67 years; 96% men; median MELD-Na,15), with an inpatient mortality of 4% (1158 patients).
The final Random-Forest model, using 48 of the 67 original covariates, attained a strong AUC of 0.859. A refit version using only the top 15 variables achieved a comparable AUC of 0.851.
Clinical Relevance
“Cirrhosis and resultant organ failures remain a dynamic and multidisciplinary problem,” Bajaj noted. “Machine learning techniques are one part of multi-faceted management strategy that is required in this population.”
If patients fall into the high-risk category, he said, “careful consultation with patients, families, and clinical teams is needed before providing information, including where this model was derived from. The results of these discussions could be instructive regarding decisions for transfer, more aggressive monitoring/ICU transfer, palliative care or transplant assessments.”
Meena B. Bansal, MD, system chief, Division of Liver Diseases, Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, called the tool “very promising.” However, she told GI & Hepatology News, “it was validated on a VA [Veterans Affairs] cohort, which is a bit different than the cohort of patients seen at Mount Sinai. Therefore, validation in more academic tertiary care medical centers with high volume liver transplant would be helpful.”
Furthermore, said Bansal, who was not involved in the study, “they excluded those that receiving a liver transplant, and while only a small number, this is an important limitation.”
Nevertheless, she added, “Artificial intelligence has great potential in predictive risk models and will likely be a tool that assists for risk stratification, clinical management, and hopefully improved clinical outcomes.”
This study was partly supported by a VA Merit review to Bajaj and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were reported by any author.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“This highly inclusive, representative, and globally derived model has been externally validated,” Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a crystal ball. It helps hospital teams, transplant centers, gastroenterology and intensive care unit services triage and prioritize patients more effectively.”
The study supporting the model, which Bajaj said “could be used at this stage,” was published online in Gastroenterology. The model is available for downloading at https://silveys.shinyapps.io/app_cleared/.
CLEARED Cohort Analyzed
Wide variations across the world regarding available resources, outpatient services, reasons for admission, and etiologies of cirrhosis can influence patient outcomes, according to Bajaj and colleagues. Therefore, they sought to use ML approaches to improve prognostication for all countries.
They analyzed admission-day data from the prospective Chronic Liver Disease Evolution And Registry for Events and Decompensation (CLEARED) consortium, which includes inpatients with cirrhosis enrolled from six continents. The analysis compared ML approaches with logistical regression to predict inpatient mortality.
The researchers performed internal validation (75/25 split) and subdivision using World-Bank income status: low/low-middle (L-LMIC), upper middle (UMIC), and high (HIC). They determined that the ML model with the best area-under-the-curve (AUC) would be externally validated in a US-Veteran cirrhosis inpatient population.
The CLEARED cohort included 7239 cirrhosis inpatients (mean age, 56 years; 64% men; median MELD-Na, 25) from 115 centers globally; 22.5% of centers belonged to LMICs, 41% to UMICs, and 34% to HICs.
A total of 808 patients (11.1%) died in the hospital.
Random-Forest analysis showed the best AUC (0.815) with high calibration. This was significantly better than parametric logistic regression (AUC, 0.774) and LASSO (AUC, 0.787) models.
Random-Forest also was better than logistic regression regardless of country income-level: HIC (AUC,0.806), UMIC (AUC, 0.867), and L-LMICs (AUC, 0.768).
Of the top 15 important variables selected from Random-Forest, admission for acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, high MELD-Na/white blood count, and not being in high income country were variables most predictive of mortality.
In contrast, higher albumin, hemoglobin, diuretic use on admission, viral etiology, and being in a high-income country were most protective.
The Random-Forest model was validated in 28,670 veterans (mean age, 67 years; 96% men; median MELD-Na,15), with an inpatient mortality of 4% (1158 patients).
The final Random-Forest model, using 48 of the 67 original covariates, attained a strong AUC of 0.859. A refit version using only the top 15 variables achieved a comparable AUC of 0.851.
Clinical Relevance
“Cirrhosis and resultant organ failures remain a dynamic and multidisciplinary problem,” Bajaj noted. “Machine learning techniques are one part of multi-faceted management strategy that is required in this population.”
If patients fall into the high-risk category, he said, “careful consultation with patients, families, and clinical teams is needed before providing information, including where this model was derived from. The results of these discussions could be instructive regarding decisions for transfer, more aggressive monitoring/ICU transfer, palliative care or transplant assessments.”
Meena B. Bansal, MD, system chief, Division of Liver Diseases, Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, called the tool “very promising.” However, she told GI & Hepatology News, “it was validated on a VA [Veterans Affairs] cohort, which is a bit different than the cohort of patients seen at Mount Sinai. Therefore, validation in more academic tertiary care medical centers with high volume liver transplant would be helpful.”
Furthermore, said Bansal, who was not involved in the study, “they excluded those that receiving a liver transplant, and while only a small number, this is an important limitation.”
Nevertheless, she added, “Artificial intelligence has great potential in predictive risk models and will likely be a tool that assists for risk stratification, clinical management, and hopefully improved clinical outcomes.”
This study was partly supported by a VA Merit review to Bajaj and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were reported by any author.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY