Mixed Topics

To the Editor:

Tylosis with esophageal cancer was first described by Howel-Evans et al¹ in 1958 in a family from Liverpool, England. The disease is inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion with a mutation in the tylosis with esophageal cancer gene, TOC.² The keratoderma associated with this syndrome has been reported to be focal in nature, painful, and primarily involving the plantar surfaces.³ Palmar involvement has been reported to manifest as calluses in patients who use their hands for manual labor.⁴ Oral leukoplakia also has been described in this syndrome⁵; however, long-term follow-up in one family demonstrated a benign course.⁶ Herein, we describe a case of painful tylosis in a patient with Howel-Evans syndrome who was successfully treated with acitretin.

A 50-year-old man presented to clinic for evaluation of hyperkeratosis of the palms and soles that began when he was a teenager. He reported the soles of the feet often were painful, especially without shoes (Figure, A). He used many over-the-counter emollients and tried both prescription and nonprescription keratolytics. At presentation, he was mechanically paring down some of the thickness of the calluses to decrease the pain.

We report a case of Howel-Evans keratoderma successfully managed with acitretin. In patients with painful keratoderma that is interfering with QOL, low-dose acitretin can be used to diminish these symptoms.

To the Editor:

Tylosis with esophageal cancer was first described by Howel-Evans et al¹ in 1958 in a family from Liverpool, England. The disease is inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion with a mutation in the tylosis with esophageal cancer gene, TOC.² The keratoderma associated with this syndrome has been reported to be focal in nature, painful, and primarily involving the plantar surfaces.³ Palmar involvement has been reported to manifest as calluses in patients who use their hands for manual labor.⁴ Oral leukoplakia also has been described in this syndrome⁵; however, long-term follow-up in one family demonstrated a benign course.⁶ Herein, we describe a case of painful tylosis in a patient with Howel-Evans syndrome who was successfully treated with acitretin.

A 50-year-old man presented to clinic for evaluation of hyperkeratosis of the palms and soles that began when he was a teenager. He reported the soles of the feet often were painful, especially without shoes (Figure, A). He used many over-the-counter emollients and tried both prescription and nonprescription keratolytics. At presentation, he was mechanically paring down some of the thickness of the calluses to decrease the pain.

We report a case of Howel-Evans keratoderma successfully managed with acitretin. In patients with painful keratoderma that is interfering with QOL, low-dose acitretin can be used to diminish these symptoms.

To the Editor:

Tylosis with esophageal cancer was first described by Howel-Evans et al¹ in 1958 in a family from Liverpool, England. The disease is inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion with a mutation in the tylosis with esophageal cancer gene, TOC.² The keratoderma associated with this syndrome has been reported to be focal in nature, painful, and primarily involving the plantar surfaces.³ Palmar involvement has been reported to manifest as calluses in patients who use their hands for manual labor.⁴ Oral leukoplakia also has been described in this syndrome⁵; however, long-term follow-up in one family demonstrated a benign course.⁶ Herein, we describe a case of painful tylosis in a patient with Howel-Evans syndrome who was successfully treated with acitretin.

A 50-year-old man presented to clinic for evaluation of hyperkeratosis of the palms and soles that began when he was a teenager. He reported the soles of the feet often were painful, especially without shoes (Figure, A). He used many over-the-counter emollients and tried both prescription and nonprescription keratolytics. At presentation, he was mechanically paring down some of the thickness of the calluses to decrease the pain.

We report a case of Howel-Evans keratoderma successfully managed with acitretin. In patients with painful keratoderma that is interfering with QOL, low-dose acitretin can be used to diminish these symptoms.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a poor prognosis and remains an important cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality.^1,2 Potentially curative interventions include surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation, and liver transplantation. However, the majority of patients are not eligible for these procedures because they are diagnosed at an advanced stage, when locoregional therapies are much more limited.^3,4 Although the kinase inhibitors sorafenib and lenvatinib are approved as first-line systemic treatment, at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Kansas City VA Medical Center (KCVAMC) in Missouri, nivolumab was used instead because of concerns for the tolerability of the kinase inhibitors. Locoregional therapies, resection, and transplantation options were either not appropriate or had been exhausted for these patients. The objective of this retrospective study was to determine the outcomes of those veteran patients in a small cohort.

Methods

The KCVAMC Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective chart review. Patients were selected from pharmacy records at KCVAMC. We identified all patients with a diagnosis of HCC who received nivolumab from January 2016 to December 2019. We then included only the patients that had nivolumab in the front-line setting for our final analysis. At the time of initiation of treatment, all patients were informed that immunotherapy was not approved for front-line treatment, but available evidence suggested that it would be easier to tolerate than sorafenib or lenvatinib. These patients were determined to be either ineligible for sorafenib or lenvatinib therapy or expected to tolerate it poorly, and hence they consented to the use of nivolumab. Tumor response and progression were assessed by the investigator according to iRECIST (Immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria.⁵ Data were obtained from retrospective health record review.

Results

Fourteen men received nivolumab in the front-line systemic therapy setting from January 2016 to December 2019 at KCVAMC. The median age was 63.5 years (range, 58-72 years), and the median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was 1. The Table highlights patient characteristics.

Of the 14 patients included in the review, 2 patients had a response to nivolumab (14.3%) and 1 patient had a complete response (7.1%). The median duration of immunotherapy was 4.5 months. Immunotherapy was discontinued due to disease progression in 10 patients and toxicity in 3 patients.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) from initiation of immunotherapy was 4 months; median overall survival (OS) was 8 months. The median time from diagnosis to survival was 41 months. Only 1 patient received a second-line treatment.

Incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicity was 35%. Three deaths resulted from auto-immune hepatitis (grade 5 toxicity), as well as 1 grade 3 skin toxicity, and 1 grade 4 liver toxicity.

Discussion

Immunotherapy has shown promise in patients with HCC based on the results of the KEYNOTE-224 and Checkmate-040 studies,^6,7 which led to an accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval of nivolumab and pembrolizumab for HCC following failure of first-line sorafenib.^8,9

Several clinical trials are evaluating front-line immunotherapy for HCC. The Checkmate 459 study demonstrated the median OS to be 16.4 months for nivolumab vs 14.7 months for sorafenib, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, tolerability of nivolumab was better than it was for sorafenib, thus positioning it as a potentially attractive first-line option.¹⁰ The GO30140 study evaluated atezolizumab and bevacizumab vs atezolizumab with results positive for a survival benefit in favor of combination.¹¹ This combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab vs sorafenib also has been evaluated in the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial. Results from this trial show statistically significant improvement in the coprimary endpoints of OS and PFS in patients who were treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab when compared with those who were treated with sorafenib. The median OS had not been reached for atezolizumab and bevacizumab vs 13.2 months for patients randomized to sorafenib, with a higher PFS and response rate also noted with combination treatment.¹²

The results from our study differed from the previous studies and raise concern for the applicability of these trials to a real-world population. For example, both the GO30140 and IMbrave150 excluded patients with untreated varices.^11,12 Both IMbrave150 and Checkmate 459 limited enrollment only to patients with a Child-Pugh A score for liver disease; 36% of the KCVAMC patients had a Child-Pugh B score. Three patients (21.4%) were homeless, 6 patients (42.8%) had substance abuse history and 5 patients (35.7%) had mental illness. Several psychosocial factors present in our patients, such as substance abuse, mental illness, and homelessness, would have excluded them from clinical trials. Our small cohort of patients, thus, represents a frail real-world population due to multiple medical and psychosocial comorbidities. Real-world experience with immunotherapy as second-line therapy after treatment with sorafenib has been reported, but this is the first reported real-world experience of immunotherapy in the front-line setting for HCC.^13,14

Large differences in sociodemographic status and health status exist between the veteran population and typical clinical trial populations. Veterans are predominantly male and older than a clinical trial population. Veterans are more likely to belong to a minority group, more likely to have lower level education and more likely to be poor than a clinical trial population. They are more likely to have poorer health status with higher number of medical conditions and psychosocial conditions.¹⁵

Limitations

We acknowledge several limitations to our study, such as the small number of patients and the retrospective single center nature of this study. Patients were older men with multiple psychosocial comorbitities like mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness. This cohort may not represent the non-VA population, but is an excellent representation of a frail, real-world veteran population.

Conclusions

Despite clinical trials showing the promise of immunotherapy as an attractive front-line systemic treatment option for HCC, our results show poor outcomes in a frail real-world population. In a cohort of patients who received immunotherapy as a front-line systemic treatment for HCC, results were poor with a response rate of 14.3%, a median PFS of 4 months, and a median OS of 8 months. We noted a significantly higher number of adverse effects, including 21% incidence of grade 5 hepatotoxicity. There remains an urgent need to develop more effective and safer therapies for this patient population as well as validation from larger real-world studies.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a poor prognosis and remains an important cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality.^1,2 Potentially curative interventions include surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation, and liver transplantation. However, the majority of patients are not eligible for these procedures because they are diagnosed at an advanced stage, when locoregional therapies are much more limited.^3,4 Although the kinase inhibitors sorafenib and lenvatinib are approved as first-line systemic treatment, at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Kansas City VA Medical Center (KCVAMC) in Missouri, nivolumab was used instead because of concerns for the tolerability of the kinase inhibitors. Locoregional therapies, resection, and transplantation options were either not appropriate or had been exhausted for these patients. The objective of this retrospective study was to determine the outcomes of those veteran patients in a small cohort.

Methods

The KCVAMC Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective chart review. Patients were selected from pharmacy records at KCVAMC. We identified all patients with a diagnosis of HCC who received nivolumab from January 2016 to December 2019. We then included only the patients that had nivolumab in the front-line setting for our final analysis. At the time of initiation of treatment, all patients were informed that immunotherapy was not approved for front-line treatment, but available evidence suggested that it would be easier to tolerate than sorafenib or lenvatinib. These patients were determined to be either ineligible for sorafenib or lenvatinib therapy or expected to tolerate it poorly, and hence they consented to the use of nivolumab. Tumor response and progression were assessed by the investigator according to iRECIST (Immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria.⁵ Data were obtained from retrospective health record review.

Results

Fourteen men received nivolumab in the front-line systemic therapy setting from January 2016 to December 2019 at KCVAMC. The median age was 63.5 years (range, 58-72 years), and the median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was 1. The Table highlights patient characteristics.

Of the 14 patients included in the review, 2 patients had a response to nivolumab (14.3%) and 1 patient had a complete response (7.1%). The median duration of immunotherapy was 4.5 months. Immunotherapy was discontinued due to disease progression in 10 patients and toxicity in 3 patients.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) from initiation of immunotherapy was 4 months; median overall survival (OS) was 8 months. The median time from diagnosis to survival was 41 months. Only 1 patient received a second-line treatment.

Incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicity was 35%. Three deaths resulted from auto-immune hepatitis (grade 5 toxicity), as well as 1 grade 3 skin toxicity, and 1 grade 4 liver toxicity.

Discussion

Immunotherapy has shown promise in patients with HCC based on the results of the KEYNOTE-224 and Checkmate-040 studies,^6,7 which led to an accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval of nivolumab and pembrolizumab for HCC following failure of first-line sorafenib.^8,9

Several clinical trials are evaluating front-line immunotherapy for HCC. The Checkmate 459 study demonstrated the median OS to be 16.4 months for nivolumab vs 14.7 months for sorafenib, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, tolerability of nivolumab was better than it was for sorafenib, thus positioning it as a potentially attractive first-line option.¹⁰ The GO30140 study evaluated atezolizumab and bevacizumab vs atezolizumab with results positive for a survival benefit in favor of combination.¹¹ This combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab vs sorafenib also has been evaluated in the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial. Results from this trial show statistically significant improvement in the coprimary endpoints of OS and PFS in patients who were treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab when compared with those who were treated with sorafenib. The median OS had not been reached for atezolizumab and bevacizumab vs 13.2 months for patients randomized to sorafenib, with a higher PFS and response rate also noted with combination treatment.¹²

The results from our study differed from the previous studies and raise concern for the applicability of these trials to a real-world population. For example, both the GO30140 and IMbrave150 excluded patients with untreated varices.^11,12 Both IMbrave150 and Checkmate 459 limited enrollment only to patients with a Child-Pugh A score for liver disease; 36% of the KCVAMC patients had a Child-Pugh B score. Three patients (21.4%) were homeless, 6 patients (42.8%) had substance abuse history and 5 patients (35.7%) had mental illness. Several psychosocial factors present in our patients, such as substance abuse, mental illness, and homelessness, would have excluded them from clinical trials. Our small cohort of patients, thus, represents a frail real-world population due to multiple medical and psychosocial comorbidities. Real-world experience with immunotherapy as second-line therapy after treatment with sorafenib has been reported, but this is the first reported real-world experience of immunotherapy in the front-line setting for HCC.^13,14

Large differences in sociodemographic status and health status exist between the veteran population and typical clinical trial populations. Veterans are predominantly male and older than a clinical trial population. Veterans are more likely to belong to a minority group, more likely to have lower level education and more likely to be poor than a clinical trial population. They are more likely to have poorer health status with higher number of medical conditions and psychosocial conditions.¹⁵

Limitations

We acknowledge several limitations to our study, such as the small number of patients and the retrospective single center nature of this study. Patients were older men with multiple psychosocial comorbitities like mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness. This cohort may not represent the non-VA population, but is an excellent representation of a frail, real-world veteran population.

Conclusions

Despite clinical trials showing the promise of immunotherapy as an attractive front-line systemic treatment option for HCC, our results show poor outcomes in a frail real-world population. In a cohort of patients who received immunotherapy as a front-line systemic treatment for HCC, results were poor with a response rate of 14.3%, a median PFS of 4 months, and a median OS of 8 months. We noted a significantly higher number of adverse effects, including 21% incidence of grade 5 hepatotoxicity. There remains an urgent need to develop more effective and safer therapies for this patient population as well as validation from larger real-world studies.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a poor prognosis and remains an important cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality.^1,2 Potentially curative interventions include surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation, and liver transplantation. However, the majority of patients are not eligible for these procedures because they are diagnosed at an advanced stage, when locoregional therapies are much more limited.^3,4 Although the kinase inhibitors sorafenib and lenvatinib are approved as first-line systemic treatment, at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Kansas City VA Medical Center (KCVAMC) in Missouri, nivolumab was used instead because of concerns for the tolerability of the kinase inhibitors. Locoregional therapies, resection, and transplantation options were either not appropriate or had been exhausted for these patients. The objective of this retrospective study was to determine the outcomes of those veteran patients in a small cohort.

Methods

The KCVAMC Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective chart review. Patients were selected from pharmacy records at KCVAMC. We identified all patients with a diagnosis of HCC who received nivolumab from January 2016 to December 2019. We then included only the patients that had nivolumab in the front-line setting for our final analysis. At the time of initiation of treatment, all patients were informed that immunotherapy was not approved for front-line treatment, but available evidence suggested that it would be easier to tolerate than sorafenib or lenvatinib. These patients were determined to be either ineligible for sorafenib or lenvatinib therapy or expected to tolerate it poorly, and hence they consented to the use of nivolumab. Tumor response and progression were assessed by the investigator according to iRECIST (Immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria.⁵ Data were obtained from retrospective health record review.

Results

Fourteen men received nivolumab in the front-line systemic therapy setting from January 2016 to December 2019 at KCVAMC. The median age was 63.5 years (range, 58-72 years), and the median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was 1. The Table highlights patient characteristics.

Of the 14 patients included in the review, 2 patients had a response to nivolumab (14.3%) and 1 patient had a complete response (7.1%). The median duration of immunotherapy was 4.5 months. Immunotherapy was discontinued due to disease progression in 10 patients and toxicity in 3 patients.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) from initiation of immunotherapy was 4 months; median overall survival (OS) was 8 months. The median time from diagnosis to survival was 41 months. Only 1 patient received a second-line treatment.

Incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicity was 35%. Three deaths resulted from auto-immune hepatitis (grade 5 toxicity), as well as 1 grade 3 skin toxicity, and 1 grade 4 liver toxicity.

Discussion

Immunotherapy has shown promise in patients with HCC based on the results of the KEYNOTE-224 and Checkmate-040 studies,^6,7 which led to an accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval of nivolumab and pembrolizumab for HCC following failure of first-line sorafenib.^8,9

Several clinical trials are evaluating front-line immunotherapy for HCC. The Checkmate 459 study demonstrated the median OS to be 16.4 months for nivolumab vs 14.7 months for sorafenib, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, tolerability of nivolumab was better than it was for sorafenib, thus positioning it as a potentially attractive first-line option.¹⁰ The GO30140 study evaluated atezolizumab and bevacizumab vs atezolizumab with results positive for a survival benefit in favor of combination.¹¹ This combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab vs sorafenib also has been evaluated in the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial. Results from this trial show statistically significant improvement in the coprimary endpoints of OS and PFS in patients who were treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab when compared with those who were treated with sorafenib. The median OS had not been reached for atezolizumab and bevacizumab vs 13.2 months for patients randomized to sorafenib, with a higher PFS and response rate also noted with combination treatment.¹²

The results from our study differed from the previous studies and raise concern for the applicability of these trials to a real-world population. For example, both the GO30140 and IMbrave150 excluded patients with untreated varices.^11,12 Both IMbrave150 and Checkmate 459 limited enrollment only to patients with a Child-Pugh A score for liver disease; 36% of the KCVAMC patients had a Child-Pugh B score. Three patients (21.4%) were homeless, 6 patients (42.8%) had substance abuse history and 5 patients (35.7%) had mental illness. Several psychosocial factors present in our patients, such as substance abuse, mental illness, and homelessness, would have excluded them from clinical trials. Our small cohort of patients, thus, represents a frail real-world population due to multiple medical and psychosocial comorbidities. Real-world experience with immunotherapy as second-line therapy after treatment with sorafenib has been reported, but this is the first reported real-world experience of immunotherapy in the front-line setting for HCC.^13,14

Large differences in sociodemographic status and health status exist between the veteran population and typical clinical trial populations. Veterans are predominantly male and older than a clinical trial population. Veterans are more likely to belong to a minority group, more likely to have lower level education and more likely to be poor than a clinical trial population. They are more likely to have poorer health status with higher number of medical conditions and psychosocial conditions.¹⁵

Limitations

We acknowledge several limitations to our study, such as the small number of patients and the retrospective single center nature of this study. Patients were older men with multiple psychosocial comorbitities like mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness. This cohort may not represent the non-VA population, but is an excellent representation of a frail, real-world veteran population.

Conclusions

Despite clinical trials showing the promise of immunotherapy as an attractive front-line systemic treatment option for HCC, our results show poor outcomes in a frail real-world population. In a cohort of patients who received immunotherapy as a front-line systemic treatment for HCC, results were poor with a response rate of 14.3%, a median PFS of 4 months, and a median OS of 8 months. We noted a significantly higher number of adverse effects, including 21% incidence of grade 5 hepatotoxicity. There remains an urgent need to develop more effective and safer therapies for this patient population as well as validation from larger real-world studies.

Preemptive monitoring and treatment of cytomegalovirus infections in CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients who receive organs from CMV-positive donors appears to be better at preventing infections than a viral prophylaxis strategy, according to infectious disease and organ transplant specialists.

In a study published in JAMA that may have gotten scant notice because of its publication during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at the University of Pittsburgh and other transplant centers reported results of a randomized clinical trial comparing the two CMV management strategies, and found that the incidence of CMV disease was significantly lower for patients who were started on valganciclovir when asymptomatic CMV viremia was detected, compared with patients on antiviral prophylaxis with valganciclovir.

The study “is a significant game changer for the field of transplantation,” commented Michael G. Ison, MD, professor of infectious diseases and organ transplantation at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Ison discussed the study and its implications during a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials presented virtually during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In the trial, Nina Singh, MD, and colleagues randomly assigned 100 CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients to receive preemptive therapy, in which patients underwent weekly testing for 100 days with a highly sensitive real-time plasma polymerase chain reaction assay for CMV. If viremia at any level was detected, the patients received oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily until two consecutive tests performed 1 week apart came back negative.

The remaining 105 patients were randomly assigned to 100 days of oral prophylaxis with 900 mg valganciclovir twice daily, started within 10 days of transplant.
 

CMV disease incidence lower

The incidence of CMV disease within 12 months of transplants, the primary outcome, was 9% in the preemptive therapy group, compared with 19% in the prophylaxis group (P = .04)

The difference between the groups was largely accounted for by a reduction in disease onset beyond 100 days in the preemptive therapy group (6% vs. 17%, respectively, P = .01)

There were no significant differences in secondary endpoints of rejection, opportunistic infections, graft loss because of retransplantation, neutropenia, or receipt of one or more doses of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor for the management of neutropenia.

At 1-year follow-up, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 15% in the preemptive therapy group, and 19% in the prophylaxis group; the difference was not statistically significant.

“While most transplant centers utilize universal prophylaxis, I think that this study really suggests that preemptive monitoring, if it can be safely accomplished at your center, may be of the greatest benefit to your patients,” Dr. Ison said.

He noted that Singh et al. also looked in an exploratory analysis at CMV-specific immunity and observed that patients assigned to preemptive therapy “clearly had better CMV-specific immunity, whether CD4 or CD8 cells, and had higher lymphocyte numbers than those patients that had received universal prophylaxis.”

In a comment, Sarah Doernberg, MD, from the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that “exploratory analysis of CMV-specific immune responses suggested increased CMV-specific immunity in those in the preemptive group, a finding that warrants further study. The feasibility of adopting reliable preemptive monitoring must be considered as individual centers ponder adopting this approach.”

Dr. Doernberg moderated the session where Dr. Ison discussed the data, but was not involved in the research.

The study by Singh et al. was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Singh reported research grants from NIH. Dr. Ison disclosed research support and paid consultation for several companies. Dr. Doernberg disclosed consulting for Basilea and Genentech.

Preemptive monitoring and treatment of cytomegalovirus infections in CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients who receive organs from CMV-positive donors appears to be better at preventing infections than a viral prophylaxis strategy, according to infectious disease and organ transplant specialists.

In a study published in JAMA that may have gotten scant notice because of its publication during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at the University of Pittsburgh and other transplant centers reported results of a randomized clinical trial comparing the two CMV management strategies, and found that the incidence of CMV disease was significantly lower for patients who were started on valganciclovir when asymptomatic CMV viremia was detected, compared with patients on antiviral prophylaxis with valganciclovir.

The study “is a significant game changer for the field of transplantation,” commented Michael G. Ison, MD, professor of infectious diseases and organ transplantation at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Ison discussed the study and its implications during a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials presented virtually during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In the trial, Nina Singh, MD, and colleagues randomly assigned 100 CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients to receive preemptive therapy, in which patients underwent weekly testing for 100 days with a highly sensitive real-time plasma polymerase chain reaction assay for CMV. If viremia at any level was detected, the patients received oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily until two consecutive tests performed 1 week apart came back negative.

The remaining 105 patients were randomly assigned to 100 days of oral prophylaxis with 900 mg valganciclovir twice daily, started within 10 days of transplant.
 

CMV disease incidence lower

The incidence of CMV disease within 12 months of transplants, the primary outcome, was 9% in the preemptive therapy group, compared with 19% in the prophylaxis group (P = .04)

The difference between the groups was largely accounted for by a reduction in disease onset beyond 100 days in the preemptive therapy group (6% vs. 17%, respectively, P = .01)

There were no significant differences in secondary endpoints of rejection, opportunistic infections, graft loss because of retransplantation, neutropenia, or receipt of one or more doses of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor for the management of neutropenia.

At 1-year follow-up, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 15% in the preemptive therapy group, and 19% in the prophylaxis group; the difference was not statistically significant.

“While most transplant centers utilize universal prophylaxis, I think that this study really suggests that preemptive monitoring, if it can be safely accomplished at your center, may be of the greatest benefit to your patients,” Dr. Ison said.

He noted that Singh et al. also looked in an exploratory analysis at CMV-specific immunity and observed that patients assigned to preemptive therapy “clearly had better CMV-specific immunity, whether CD4 or CD8 cells, and had higher lymphocyte numbers than those patients that had received universal prophylaxis.”

In a comment, Sarah Doernberg, MD, from the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that “exploratory analysis of CMV-specific immune responses suggested increased CMV-specific immunity in those in the preemptive group, a finding that warrants further study. The feasibility of adopting reliable preemptive monitoring must be considered as individual centers ponder adopting this approach.”

Dr. Doernberg moderated the session where Dr. Ison discussed the data, but was not involved in the research.

The study by Singh et al. was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Singh reported research grants from NIH. Dr. Ison disclosed research support and paid consultation for several companies. Dr. Doernberg disclosed consulting for Basilea and Genentech.

Preemptive monitoring and treatment of cytomegalovirus infections in CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients who receive organs from CMV-positive donors appears to be better at preventing infections than a viral prophylaxis strategy, according to infectious disease and organ transplant specialists.

In a study published in JAMA that may have gotten scant notice because of its publication during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at the University of Pittsburgh and other transplant centers reported results of a randomized clinical trial comparing the two CMV management strategies, and found that the incidence of CMV disease was significantly lower for patients who were started on valganciclovir when asymptomatic CMV viremia was detected, compared with patients on antiviral prophylaxis with valganciclovir.

The study “is a significant game changer for the field of transplantation,” commented Michael G. Ison, MD, professor of infectious diseases and organ transplantation at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Ison discussed the study and its implications during a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials presented virtually during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In the trial, Nina Singh, MD, and colleagues randomly assigned 100 CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients to receive preemptive therapy, in which patients underwent weekly testing for 100 days with a highly sensitive real-time plasma polymerase chain reaction assay for CMV. If viremia at any level was detected, the patients received oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily until two consecutive tests performed 1 week apart came back negative.

The remaining 105 patients were randomly assigned to 100 days of oral prophylaxis with 900 mg valganciclovir twice daily, started within 10 days of transplant.
 

CMV disease incidence lower

The incidence of CMV disease within 12 months of transplants, the primary outcome, was 9% in the preemptive therapy group, compared with 19% in the prophylaxis group (P = .04)

The difference between the groups was largely accounted for by a reduction in disease onset beyond 100 days in the preemptive therapy group (6% vs. 17%, respectively, P = .01)

There were no significant differences in secondary endpoints of rejection, opportunistic infections, graft loss because of retransplantation, neutropenia, or receipt of one or more doses of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor for the management of neutropenia.

At 1-year follow-up, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 15% in the preemptive therapy group, and 19% in the prophylaxis group; the difference was not statistically significant.

“While most transplant centers utilize universal prophylaxis, I think that this study really suggests that preemptive monitoring, if it can be safely accomplished at your center, may be of the greatest benefit to your patients,” Dr. Ison said.

He noted that Singh et al. also looked in an exploratory analysis at CMV-specific immunity and observed that patients assigned to preemptive therapy “clearly had better CMV-specific immunity, whether CD4 or CD8 cells, and had higher lymphocyte numbers than those patients that had received universal prophylaxis.”

In a comment, Sarah Doernberg, MD, from the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that “exploratory analysis of CMV-specific immune responses suggested increased CMV-specific immunity in those in the preemptive group, a finding that warrants further study. The feasibility of adopting reliable preemptive monitoring must be considered as individual centers ponder adopting this approach.”

Dr. Doernberg moderated the session where Dr. Ison discussed the data, but was not involved in the research.

The study by Singh et al. was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Singh reported research grants from NIH. Dr. Ison disclosed research support and paid consultation for several companies. Dr. Doernberg disclosed consulting for Basilea and Genentech.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

[email protected]

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

[email protected]

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

[email protected]

Background: Occupational burnout is more prevalent among physicians than among the general population, and physician burnout is associated with several negative clinical outcomes. However, little is known about the economic cost of this widespread issue.

Dr. Suojanen is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Background: Occupational burnout is more prevalent among physicians than among the general population, and physician burnout is associated with several negative clinical outcomes. However, little is known about the economic cost of this widespread issue.

Dr. Suojanen is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Background: Occupational burnout is more prevalent among physicians than among the general population, and physician burnout is associated with several negative clinical outcomes. However, little is known about the economic cost of this widespread issue.

Dr. Suojanen is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Dear colleagues,

I’m excited to introduce the November issue of The New Gastroenterologist – the last edition of 2020 features a fantastic line-up of articles! As the year comes to a close, we reflect on what has certainly been an interesting year, defined by a set of unique challenges we have faced as a nation and as a specialty.

AGA Institute

The fellowship recruitment season is one that has looked starkly different as interviews have converted to a virtual format. Dr. Wissam Khan, Dr. Nada Al Masalmeh, Dr. Stephanie Judd, and Dr. Diane Levine (Wayne State University) compile a helpful list of tips and tricks on proper interview etiquette in the new era of web-based interviews.

Financial planning in the face of a pandemic is a formidable task – Jonathan Tudor (Fidelity Investments) offers valuable advice for gastroenterologists on how to remain secure in your finances even in uncertain circumstances.

This quarter’s “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Yutaka Tomizawa (University of Washington), is a comprehensive piece elucidating the role of gastroenterologists in the management of gastric cancer. The article reviews the individual risk factors that exist for gastric cancer and provides guidance on how to stratify patients accordingly, which is critical in the ethnically diverse population of the United States.

Keeping a procedure log during fellowship can seem daunting and cumbersome, but it is important. Dr. Houman Rezaizadeh (University of Connecticut) shares his program’s experience with the AGA Procedure Log, a convenient online tracking tool, which can provide accurate and secure documentation of endoscopic procedures performed throughout fellowship.

Dr. Nazia Hasan (North Bay Health Care) and Dr. Allison Schulman (University of Michigan) broach an incredibly important topic: the paucity of women in interventional endoscopy. Dr. Hasan and Dr. Shulman candidly discuss the barriers women face in pursuing this subspecialty and offer practical solutions on how to approach these challenges – a piece that will surely resonate with many young gastroenterologists.

We wrap up our first year of TNG’s ethics series with two cases discussing the utilization of cannabis therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Dr. Jami Kinnucan (University of Michigan) and Dr. Arun Swaminath (Lenox Hill Hospital) systematically review existing data on the efficacy of cannabis use in IBD, the risks associated with therapy, and legal implications for both physicians and patients.

Also in this issue is a high-yield clinical review on the endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections by Dr. Robert Moran and Dr. Joseph Elmunzer (Medical University of South Carolina). Dr. Manol Jovani (Johns Hopkins) teaches us about confounding – a critical concept to keep in mind when evaluating any manuscript. Lastly, our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Dr. Mehul Lalani (US Digestive), reviews how quality measures and initiatives are tracked and implemented in private practice.

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

Stay well,

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

Dear colleagues,

I’m excited to introduce the November issue of The New Gastroenterologist – the last edition of 2020 features a fantastic line-up of articles! As the year comes to a close, we reflect on what has certainly been an interesting year, defined by a set of unique challenges we have faced as a nation and as a specialty.

AGA Institute

The fellowship recruitment season is one that has looked starkly different as interviews have converted to a virtual format. Dr. Wissam Khan, Dr. Nada Al Masalmeh, Dr. Stephanie Judd, and Dr. Diane Levine (Wayne State University) compile a helpful list of tips and tricks on proper interview etiquette in the new era of web-based interviews.

Financial planning in the face of a pandemic is a formidable task – Jonathan Tudor (Fidelity Investments) offers valuable advice for gastroenterologists on how to remain secure in your finances even in uncertain circumstances.

This quarter’s “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Yutaka Tomizawa (University of Washington), is a comprehensive piece elucidating the role of gastroenterologists in the management of gastric cancer. The article reviews the individual risk factors that exist for gastric cancer and provides guidance on how to stratify patients accordingly, which is critical in the ethnically diverse population of the United States.

Keeping a procedure log during fellowship can seem daunting and cumbersome, but it is important. Dr. Houman Rezaizadeh (University of Connecticut) shares his program’s experience with the AGA Procedure Log, a convenient online tracking tool, which can provide accurate and secure documentation of endoscopic procedures performed throughout fellowship.

Dr. Nazia Hasan (North Bay Health Care) and Dr. Allison Schulman (University of Michigan) broach an incredibly important topic: the paucity of women in interventional endoscopy. Dr. Hasan and Dr. Shulman candidly discuss the barriers women face in pursuing this subspecialty and offer practical solutions on how to approach these challenges – a piece that will surely resonate with many young gastroenterologists.

We wrap up our first year of TNG’s ethics series with two cases discussing the utilization of cannabis therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Dr. Jami Kinnucan (University of Michigan) and Dr. Arun Swaminath (Lenox Hill Hospital) systematically review existing data on the efficacy of cannabis use in IBD, the risks associated with therapy, and legal implications for both physicians and patients.

Also in this issue is a high-yield clinical review on the endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections by Dr. Robert Moran and Dr. Joseph Elmunzer (Medical University of South Carolina). Dr. Manol Jovani (Johns Hopkins) teaches us about confounding – a critical concept to keep in mind when evaluating any manuscript. Lastly, our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Dr. Mehul Lalani (US Digestive), reviews how quality measures and initiatives are tracked and implemented in private practice.

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

Stay well,

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

Dear colleagues,

I’m excited to introduce the November issue of The New Gastroenterologist – the last edition of 2020 features a fantastic line-up of articles! As the year comes to a close, we reflect on what has certainly been an interesting year, defined by a set of unique challenges we have faced as a nation and as a specialty.

AGA Institute

The fellowship recruitment season is one that has looked starkly different as interviews have converted to a virtual format. Dr. Wissam Khan, Dr. Nada Al Masalmeh, Dr. Stephanie Judd, and Dr. Diane Levine (Wayne State University) compile a helpful list of tips and tricks on proper interview etiquette in the new era of web-based interviews.

Financial planning in the face of a pandemic is a formidable task – Jonathan Tudor (Fidelity Investments) offers valuable advice for gastroenterologists on how to remain secure in your finances even in uncertain circumstances.

This quarter’s “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Yutaka Tomizawa (University of Washington), is a comprehensive piece elucidating the role of gastroenterologists in the management of gastric cancer. The article reviews the individual risk factors that exist for gastric cancer and provides guidance on how to stratify patients accordingly, which is critical in the ethnically diverse population of the United States.

Keeping a procedure log during fellowship can seem daunting and cumbersome, but it is important. Dr. Houman Rezaizadeh (University of Connecticut) shares his program’s experience with the AGA Procedure Log, a convenient online tracking tool, which can provide accurate and secure documentation of endoscopic procedures performed throughout fellowship.

Dr. Nazia Hasan (North Bay Health Care) and Dr. Allison Schulman (University of Michigan) broach an incredibly important topic: the paucity of women in interventional endoscopy. Dr. Hasan and Dr. Shulman candidly discuss the barriers women face in pursuing this subspecialty and offer practical solutions on how to approach these challenges – a piece that will surely resonate with many young gastroenterologists.

We wrap up our first year of TNG’s ethics series with two cases discussing the utilization of cannabis therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Dr. Jami Kinnucan (University of Michigan) and Dr. Arun Swaminath (Lenox Hill Hospital) systematically review existing data on the efficacy of cannabis use in IBD, the risks associated with therapy, and legal implications for both physicians and patients.

Also in this issue is a high-yield clinical review on the endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections by Dr. Robert Moran and Dr. Joseph Elmunzer (Medical University of South Carolina). Dr. Manol Jovani (Johns Hopkins) teaches us about confounding – a critical concept to keep in mind when evaluating any manuscript. Lastly, our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Dr. Mehul Lalani (US Digestive), reviews how quality measures and initiatives are tracked and implemented in private practice.

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

Stay well,

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

When this editorial is published, we will know the results of the national election (hopefully) and whether there will be a smooth transition of power. We should know whether the Affordable Care Act will remain intact, and we will have indications about the impact of a COVID/flu combination. Health care will never be the same.

According to a recent Medscape survey, 62% of U.S. physicians saw a reduction of monthly income (12% saw a reduction of over 70%) in the first 6 months of this year. Almost a third of the physician workforce is contemplating retirement earlier than anticipated. As worrisome, according to a JAMA article (Aug 4, 2020;324:510-3) the United States saw a 35% increase in excess deaths because of non-COVID etiologies, an indication of health care deferral and avoidance. We all are scrambling to catch up and accommodate an enormous demand.

We are witnessing a “K” shaped recovery for both individuals and GI practices. If your health care is covered by Medicare, you own a mortgage-free home and your wealth is based on a balanced equity/bond portfolio, then all of your assets increased in value compared to last year’s peak valuations. For the other 90% of Americans, the recovery is modest, neutral, or more often nonexistent. Gastroenterologists who work in academic centers or large health systems did not lose income this year and were protected by billion-dollar credit lines and cash-on-hand accounts from robust days available to these entities. Independent practices (critically dependent on monthly cash flow) were decimated, furthering the trend towards consolidation, retirement, and acquisitions. With the new CMS E/M valuations we will see further reduction in procedural reimbursement.

Our postpandemic world will be dramatically different from pre-COVID times. However, disruption always precipitates innovation. Challenges are great but opportunities are clearly evident for those willing to risk.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

When this editorial is published, we will know the results of the national election (hopefully) and whether there will be a smooth transition of power. We should know whether the Affordable Care Act will remain intact, and we will have indications about the impact of a COVID/flu combination. Health care will never be the same.

According to a recent Medscape survey, 62% of U.S. physicians saw a reduction of monthly income (12% saw a reduction of over 70%) in the first 6 months of this year. Almost a third of the physician workforce is contemplating retirement earlier than anticipated. As worrisome, according to a JAMA article (Aug 4, 2020;324:510-3) the United States saw a 35% increase in excess deaths because of non-COVID etiologies, an indication of health care deferral and avoidance. We all are scrambling to catch up and accommodate an enormous demand.

We are witnessing a “K” shaped recovery for both individuals and GI practices. If your health care is covered by Medicare, you own a mortgage-free home and your wealth is based on a balanced equity/bond portfolio, then all of your assets increased in value compared to last year’s peak valuations. For the other 90% of Americans, the recovery is modest, neutral, or more often nonexistent. Gastroenterologists who work in academic centers or large health systems did not lose income this year and were protected by billion-dollar credit lines and cash-on-hand accounts from robust days available to these entities. Independent practices (critically dependent on monthly cash flow) were decimated, furthering the trend towards consolidation, retirement, and acquisitions. With the new CMS E/M valuations we will see further reduction in procedural reimbursement.

Our postpandemic world will be dramatically different from pre-COVID times. However, disruption always precipitates innovation. Challenges are great but opportunities are clearly evident for those willing to risk.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

When this editorial is published, we will know the results of the national election (hopefully) and whether there will be a smooth transition of power. We should know whether the Affordable Care Act will remain intact, and we will have indications about the impact of a COVID/flu combination. Health care will never be the same.

According to a recent Medscape survey, 62% of U.S. physicians saw a reduction of monthly income (12% saw a reduction of over 70%) in the first 6 months of this year. Almost a third of the physician workforce is contemplating retirement earlier than anticipated. As worrisome, according to a JAMA article (Aug 4, 2020;324:510-3) the United States saw a 35% increase in excess deaths because of non-COVID etiologies, an indication of health care deferral and avoidance. We all are scrambling to catch up and accommodate an enormous demand.

We are witnessing a “K” shaped recovery for both individuals and GI practices. If your health care is covered by Medicare, you own a mortgage-free home and your wealth is based on a balanced equity/bond portfolio, then all of your assets increased in value compared to last year’s peak valuations. For the other 90% of Americans, the recovery is modest, neutral, or more often nonexistent. Gastroenterologists who work in academic centers or large health systems did not lose income this year and were protected by billion-dollar credit lines and cash-on-hand accounts from robust days available to these entities. Independent practices (critically dependent on monthly cash flow) were decimated, furthering the trend towards consolidation, retirement, and acquisitions. With the new CMS E/M valuations we will see further reduction in procedural reimbursement.

Our postpandemic world will be dramatically different from pre-COVID times. However, disruption always precipitates innovation. Challenges are great but opportunities are clearly evident for those willing to risk.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

The Food and Drug Administration has approved 0.5% lotion formulation of ivermectin (Sklice) as an over-the-counter treatment for head lice infestation in patients aged 6 months and older.

Ivermectin was approved as a prescription treatment for head lice in February 2012, according to an FDA press release, and is now approved as an over-the-counter treatment through an “Rx-to-OTC” switch process. The approval was granted to Arbor Pharmaceuticals.

The expanded approval for ivermectin increases access to effective care for head lice, which is estimated to affect between 6 million and 12 million children each year in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The Rx-to-OTC switch process aims to promote public health by increasing consumer access to drugs that would otherwise only be available by prescription,” Theresa Michele, MD, acting director of the Office of Nonprescription Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

The FDA also noted in the press release that “Sklice, and its active ingredient ivermectin, have not been shown to be safe or effective for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 and they are not FDA-approved for this use.”

The drug is approved only for treating head lice, and should be used on the scalp and dry hair, according to the labeling. In the wake of the approval, ivermectin will no longer be available as a prescription drug, according to the FDA, and patients currently using prescription versions should contact their health care providers.

An Rx-to-OTC switch is contingent on the manufacturer’s data showing that the drug is safe and effective when used as directed. In addition, “the manufacturer must show that consumers can understand how to use the drug safely and effectively without the supervision of a health care professional,” according to the FDA.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved 0.5% lotion formulation of ivermectin (Sklice) as an over-the-counter treatment for head lice infestation in patients aged 6 months and older.

Ivermectin was approved as a prescription treatment for head lice in February 2012, according to an FDA press release, and is now approved as an over-the-counter treatment through an “Rx-to-OTC” switch process. The approval was granted to Arbor Pharmaceuticals.

The expanded approval for ivermectin increases access to effective care for head lice, which is estimated to affect between 6 million and 12 million children each year in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The Rx-to-OTC switch process aims to promote public health by increasing consumer access to drugs that would otherwise only be available by prescription,” Theresa Michele, MD, acting director of the Office of Nonprescription Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

The FDA also noted in the press release that “Sklice, and its active ingredient ivermectin, have not been shown to be safe or effective for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 and they are not FDA-approved for this use.”

The drug is approved only for treating head lice, and should be used on the scalp and dry hair, according to the labeling. In the wake of the approval, ivermectin will no longer be available as a prescription drug, according to the FDA, and patients currently using prescription versions should contact their health care providers.

An Rx-to-OTC switch is contingent on the manufacturer’s data showing that the drug is safe and effective when used as directed. In addition, “the manufacturer must show that consumers can understand how to use the drug safely and effectively without the supervision of a health care professional,” according to the FDA.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved 0.5% lotion formulation of ivermectin (Sklice) as an over-the-counter treatment for head lice infestation in patients aged 6 months and older.

Ivermectin was approved as a prescription treatment for head lice in February 2012, according to an FDA press release, and is now approved as an over-the-counter treatment through an “Rx-to-OTC” switch process. The approval was granted to Arbor Pharmaceuticals.

The expanded approval for ivermectin increases access to effective care for head lice, which is estimated to affect between 6 million and 12 million children each year in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The Rx-to-OTC switch process aims to promote public health by increasing consumer access to drugs that would otherwise only be available by prescription,” Theresa Michele, MD, acting director of the Office of Nonprescription Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

The FDA also noted in the press release that “Sklice, and its active ingredient ivermectin, have not been shown to be safe or effective for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 and they are not FDA-approved for this use.”

The drug is approved only for treating head lice, and should be used on the scalp and dry hair, according to the labeling. In the wake of the approval, ivermectin will no longer be available as a prescription drug, according to the FDA, and patients currently using prescription versions should contact their health care providers.

An Rx-to-OTC switch is contingent on the manufacturer’s data showing that the drug is safe and effective when used as directed. In addition, “the manufacturer must show that consumers can understand how to use the drug safely and effectively without the supervision of a health care professional,” according to the FDA.

Answer: Celiac hepatitis

Endoscopic biopsy of this severely scalloped duodenal mucosa demonstrated characteristic findings of gluten-sensitive enteropathy, or celiac disease. Celiac disease involvement of the liver is a common extraintestinal manifestation of this immune-mediated disorder, termed celiac hepatitis. Celiac hepatitis affects 40% of adults with celiac disease.¹ The pathogenesis is poorly understood, but posited to be related to autoimmunity or toxin-mediated liver injury in the setting of gluten exposure, gut permeability, chronic inflammation, and host susceptibility, among other mechanisms.^1-3

Clinical manifestations of celiac hepatitis range from unexplained enzyme elevations in the absence of known liver disease to autoimmune hepatitis to hepatic steatosis, and even cirrhosis.¹ The initial presentation can also be elevated liver enzymes in the setting of known celiac disease, without known hepatic disease. Histology of the liver is similarly variable, from a mild or a chronic hepatitis to steatohepatitis and even fibrosis.² Elevated transaminases less than five times the upper limit of normal when found at celiac diagnosis suggest celiac hepatitis, and do not require further workup.¹ For these individuals, response to a gluten-free diet should be monitored and liver chemistries should be repeated at 6–12 months. Persistently elevated aminotransferases should prompt further workup.¹ Generally, enzyme elevation and even the histologic appearance of the liver improve after implementation of a gluten-free diet, although not all.² In celiac hepatitis associated with autoimmune liver disease, immunosuppression may be required in addition to abstaining from gluten.³ Our patient was found to have a tissue transglutaminase level > 100 U/mL (normal, < 4 U/mL). He began a gluten-free diet guided by a nutritionist 4 weeks ago, with rapid improvement in abdominal symptoms, and will be followed to ensure normalization of liver enzymes, which can take up to 1 year.
 

References

1. Rubio-Tapia A, Murray JA. Liver involvement in celiac disease. Minerva Med. 2008;99:595-604.

2. Majumdar K, Sakhuja P, Puri AS, et al. Coeliac disease and the liver: spectrum of liver histology, serology and treatment response at a tertiary referral centre. J Clin Pathol. 2018;71:412-9.

3. Marciano F, Savoia M, Vajro P. Celiac disease-related hepatic injury: insights into associated conditions and underlying pathomechanisms. Dig Liver Dis. 2016;48:112-9.
 

[email protected]

Answer: Celiac hepatitis

Endoscopic biopsy of this severely scalloped duodenal mucosa demonstrated characteristic findings of gluten-sensitive enteropathy, or celiac disease. Celiac disease involvement of the liver is a common extraintestinal manifestation of this immune-mediated disorder, termed celiac hepatitis. Celiac hepatitis affects 40% of adults with celiac disease.¹ The pathogenesis is poorly understood, but posited to be related to autoimmunity or toxin-mediated liver injury in the setting of gluten exposure, gut permeability, chronic inflammation, and host susceptibility, among other mechanisms.^1-3

Clinical manifestations of celiac hepatitis range from unexplained enzyme elevations in the absence of known liver disease to autoimmune hepatitis to hepatic steatosis, and even cirrhosis.¹ The initial presentation can also be elevated liver enzymes in the setting of known celiac disease, without known hepatic disease. Histology of the liver is similarly variable, from a mild or a chronic hepatitis to steatohepatitis and even fibrosis.² Elevated transaminases less than five times the upper limit of normal when found at celiac diagnosis suggest celiac hepatitis, and do not require further workup.¹ For these individuals, response to a gluten-free diet should be monitored and liver chemistries should be repeated at 6–12 months. Persistently elevated aminotransferases should prompt further workup.¹ Generally, enzyme elevation and even the histologic appearance of the liver improve after implementation of a gluten-free diet, although not all.² In celiac hepatitis associated with autoimmune liver disease, immunosuppression may be required in addition to abstaining from gluten.³ Our patient was found to have a tissue transglutaminase level > 100 U/mL (normal, < 4 U/mL). He began a gluten-free diet guided by a nutritionist 4 weeks ago, with rapid improvement in abdominal symptoms, and will be followed to ensure normalization of liver enzymes, which can take up to 1 year.
 

References

1. Rubio-Tapia A, Murray JA. Liver involvement in celiac disease. Minerva Med. 2008;99:595-604.

2. Majumdar K, Sakhuja P, Puri AS, et al. Coeliac disease and the liver: spectrum of liver histology, serology and treatment response at a tertiary referral centre. J Clin Pathol. 2018;71:412-9.

3. Marciano F, Savoia M, Vajro P. Celiac disease-related hepatic injury: insights into associated conditions and underlying pathomechanisms. Dig Liver Dis. 2016;48:112-9.
 

[email protected]

Answer: Celiac hepatitis

Endoscopic biopsy of this severely scalloped duodenal mucosa demonstrated characteristic findings of gluten-sensitive enteropathy, or celiac disease. Celiac disease involvement of the liver is a common extraintestinal manifestation of this immune-mediated disorder, termed celiac hepatitis. Celiac hepatitis affects 40% of adults with celiac disease.¹ The pathogenesis is poorly understood, but posited to be related to autoimmunity or toxin-mediated liver injury in the setting of gluten exposure, gut permeability, chronic inflammation, and host susceptibility, among other mechanisms.^1-3

Clinical manifestations of celiac hepatitis range from unexplained enzyme elevations in the absence of known liver disease to autoimmune hepatitis to hepatic steatosis, and even cirrhosis.¹ The initial presentation can also be elevated liver enzymes in the setting of known celiac disease, without known hepatic disease. Histology of the liver is similarly variable, from a mild or a chronic hepatitis to steatohepatitis and even fibrosis.² Elevated transaminases less than five times the upper limit of normal when found at celiac diagnosis suggest celiac hepatitis, and do not require further workup.¹ For these individuals, response to a gluten-free diet should be monitored and liver chemistries should be repeated at 6–12 months. Persistently elevated aminotransferases should prompt further workup.¹ Generally, enzyme elevation and even the histologic appearance of the liver improve after implementation of a gluten-free diet, although not all.² In celiac hepatitis associated with autoimmune liver disease, immunosuppression may be required in addition to abstaining from gluten.³ Our patient was found to have a tissue transglutaminase level > 100 U/mL (normal, < 4 U/mL). He began a gluten-free diet guided by a nutritionist 4 weeks ago, with rapid improvement in abdominal symptoms, and will be followed to ensure normalization of liver enzymes, which can take up to 1 year.
 

References

1. Rubio-Tapia A, Murray JA. Liver involvement in celiac disease. Minerva Med. 2008;99:595-604.

2. Majumdar K, Sakhuja P, Puri AS, et al. Coeliac disease and the liver: spectrum of liver histology, serology and treatment response at a tertiary referral centre. J Clin Pathol. 2018;71:412-9.

3. Marciano F, Savoia M, Vajro P. Celiac disease-related hepatic injury: insights into associated conditions and underlying pathomechanisms. Dig Liver Dis. 2016;48:112-9.
 

[email protected]