Carolyn Crist

As people turn their clocks back an hour on November 3 to mark the end of daylight saving time and return to standard time, they should remain aware of their sleep health and of potential risks associated with shifts in sleep patterns, according to a University of Calgary psychology professor who researches circadian cycles.

Notably, previous studies have shown that the twice-yearly time change is associated with increases in car accidents and workplace injuries, as well as heart attacks and strokes, owing to disrupted sleep, said Michael Antle, PhD, head of the psychology department and member of the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

In an interview, Antle explained the science behind the health risks associated with time changes, offered tips to prepare for the shift, and discussed scientists’ suggestion to move to year-round standard time. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Why is it important to pay attention to circadian rhythms?

Circadian rhythms are patterns of physiologic and behavioral changes that affect everything inside the body and everything we do, including when hormones are secreted, digestive juices are ready to digest, and growth hormones are released at night. The body is a carefully coordinated orchestra, and everything has to happen at the right time.

When we start messing with those rhythms, that’s when states of disease start coming on and we don’t feel well. You’ve probably experienced it — when you try to stay up late, eat at the wrong times, or have jet lag. Flying across one or two time zones is usually tolerable, but if you fly across the world, it can be profound and make you feel bad, even up to a week. Similar shifts happen with the time changes.

How do the time changes affect health risks?

The wintertime change is generally more tolerable, and you’ll hear people talk about “gaining an hour” of sleep. It’s better than that, because we’re realigning our social clocks — such as our work schedules and school schedules — with daylight. We tend to go to bed relative to the sun but wake up based on when our boss says to be at our desk, so an earlier sunset helps us to fall asleep earlier and is healthier for our body.

In the spring, the opposite happens, and the time change affects us much more than just one bad night of sleep. For some people, it can feel like losing an hour of sleep every day for weeks, and that abrupt change can lead to car accidents, workplace injuries, heart attacks, and strokes. Our body experiences extra strain when we’re not awake and ready for the day.

What does your research show?

Most of my work focuses on preclinical models to understand what’s going on in the brain and body. Because we can’t study this ethically in humans, we learn a lot from animal models, especially mice. In a recent study looking at mild circadian disruption — where we raised mice on days that were about 75 minutes shorter — we saw they started developing diabetes, heart disease, and insulin resistance within in a few months, or about the time they were a young adult.

Oftentimes, people think about their sleep rhythm as an arbitrary choice, but in fact, it does affect your health. We know that if your human circadian clock runs slow, morning light can help fix that and reset it, whereas evening light moves us in the other direction and makes it harder to get up in the morning. 

Some people want to switch to one year-round time. What do you advocate? 

In most cases, the standard time (or winter time) is the more natural time that fits better with our body cycle. If we follow a time where we get up before sunrise or have a later sunset, then it’s linked to more social jet lag, where people are less attentive at work, don’t learn as well at school, and have more accidents.

Instead of picking what sounds good or chasing the name — such as “daylight saving time” — we need to think about the right time for us and our circadian clock. Some places, such as Maine in the United States, would actually fit better with the Atlantic time zone or the Maritime provinces in Canada, whereas some parts of Alberta are geographically west of Los Angeles based on longitude and would fit better with the Pacific time zone. Sticking with a year-round daylight saving time in some cities in Alberta would mean people wouldn’t see the sun until 10:30 AM in the winter, which is really late and could affect activities such as skiing and hockey.

The Canadian Society for Chronobiology advocates for year-round standard time to align our social clocks with our biological clocks. Sleep and circadian rhythm experts in the US and globally have issued similar position statements.

What tips do you suggest to help people adjust their circadian clocks in November?

For people who know their bodies and that it will affect them more, give yourself extra time. If your schedule permits, plan ahead and change your clocks sooner, especially if you’re able to do so over the weekend. Don’t rush around while tired — rushing when you’re not ready leads to those increased accidents on the road or on the job. Know that the sun will still be mismatched for a bit and your body clock will take time to adjust, so you might feel out of sorts for a few days.

Antle reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As people turn their clocks back an hour on November 3 to mark the end of daylight saving time and return to standard time, they should remain aware of their sleep health and of potential risks associated with shifts in sleep patterns, according to a University of Calgary psychology professor who researches circadian cycles.

Notably, previous studies have shown that the twice-yearly time change is associated with increases in car accidents and workplace injuries, as well as heart attacks and strokes, owing to disrupted sleep, said Michael Antle, PhD, head of the psychology department and member of the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

In an interview, Antle explained the science behind the health risks associated with time changes, offered tips to prepare for the shift, and discussed scientists’ suggestion to move to year-round standard time. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Why is it important to pay attention to circadian rhythms?

Circadian rhythms are patterns of physiologic and behavioral changes that affect everything inside the body and everything we do, including when hormones are secreted, digestive juices are ready to digest, and growth hormones are released at night. The body is a carefully coordinated orchestra, and everything has to happen at the right time.

When we start messing with those rhythms, that’s when states of disease start coming on and we don’t feel well. You’ve probably experienced it — when you try to stay up late, eat at the wrong times, or have jet lag. Flying across one or two time zones is usually tolerable, but if you fly across the world, it can be profound and make you feel bad, even up to a week. Similar shifts happen with the time changes.

How do the time changes affect health risks?

The wintertime change is generally more tolerable, and you’ll hear people talk about “gaining an hour” of sleep. It’s better than that, because we’re realigning our social clocks — such as our work schedules and school schedules — with daylight. We tend to go to bed relative to the sun but wake up based on when our boss says to be at our desk, so an earlier sunset helps us to fall asleep earlier and is healthier for our body.

In the spring, the opposite happens, and the time change affects us much more than just one bad night of sleep. For some people, it can feel like losing an hour of sleep every day for weeks, and that abrupt change can lead to car accidents, workplace injuries, heart attacks, and strokes. Our body experiences extra strain when we’re not awake and ready for the day.

What does your research show?

Most of my work focuses on preclinical models to understand what’s going on in the brain and body. Because we can’t study this ethically in humans, we learn a lot from animal models, especially mice. In a recent study looking at mild circadian disruption — where we raised mice on days that were about 75 minutes shorter — we saw they started developing diabetes, heart disease, and insulin resistance within in a few months, or about the time they were a young adult.

Oftentimes, people think about their sleep rhythm as an arbitrary choice, but in fact, it does affect your health. We know that if your human circadian clock runs slow, morning light can help fix that and reset it, whereas evening light moves us in the other direction and makes it harder to get up in the morning. 

Some people want to switch to one year-round time. What do you advocate? 

In most cases, the standard time (or winter time) is the more natural time that fits better with our body cycle. If we follow a time where we get up before sunrise or have a later sunset, then it’s linked to more social jet lag, where people are less attentive at work, don’t learn as well at school, and have more accidents.

Instead of picking what sounds good or chasing the name — such as “daylight saving time” — we need to think about the right time for us and our circadian clock. Some places, such as Maine in the United States, would actually fit better with the Atlantic time zone or the Maritime provinces in Canada, whereas some parts of Alberta are geographically west of Los Angeles based on longitude and would fit better with the Pacific time zone. Sticking with a year-round daylight saving time in some cities in Alberta would mean people wouldn’t see the sun until 10:30 AM in the winter, which is really late and could affect activities such as skiing and hockey.

The Canadian Society for Chronobiology advocates for year-round standard time to align our social clocks with our biological clocks. Sleep and circadian rhythm experts in the US and globally have issued similar position statements.

What tips do you suggest to help people adjust their circadian clocks in November?

For people who know their bodies and that it will affect them more, give yourself extra time. If your schedule permits, plan ahead and change your clocks sooner, especially if you’re able to do so over the weekend. Don’t rush around while tired — rushing when you’re not ready leads to those increased accidents on the road or on the job. Know that the sun will still be mismatched for a bit and your body clock will take time to adjust, so you might feel out of sorts for a few days.

Antle reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As people turn their clocks back an hour on November 3 to mark the end of daylight saving time and return to standard time, they should remain aware of their sleep health and of potential risks associated with shifts in sleep patterns, according to a University of Calgary psychology professor who researches circadian cycles.

Notably, previous studies have shown that the twice-yearly time change is associated with increases in car accidents and workplace injuries, as well as heart attacks and strokes, owing to disrupted sleep, said Michael Antle, PhD, head of the psychology department and member of the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

In an interview, Antle explained the science behind the health risks associated with time changes, offered tips to prepare for the shift, and discussed scientists’ suggestion to move to year-round standard time. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Why is it important to pay attention to circadian rhythms?

Circadian rhythms are patterns of physiologic and behavioral changes that affect everything inside the body and everything we do, including when hormones are secreted, digestive juices are ready to digest, and growth hormones are released at night. The body is a carefully coordinated orchestra, and everything has to happen at the right time.

When we start messing with those rhythms, that’s when states of disease start coming on and we don’t feel well. You’ve probably experienced it — when you try to stay up late, eat at the wrong times, or have jet lag. Flying across one or two time zones is usually tolerable, but if you fly across the world, it can be profound and make you feel bad, even up to a week. Similar shifts happen with the time changes.

How do the time changes affect health risks?

The wintertime change is generally more tolerable, and you’ll hear people talk about “gaining an hour” of sleep. It’s better than that, because we’re realigning our social clocks — such as our work schedules and school schedules — with daylight. We tend to go to bed relative to the sun but wake up based on when our boss says to be at our desk, so an earlier sunset helps us to fall asleep earlier and is healthier for our body.

In the spring, the opposite happens, and the time change affects us much more than just one bad night of sleep. For some people, it can feel like losing an hour of sleep every day for weeks, and that abrupt change can lead to car accidents, workplace injuries, heart attacks, and strokes. Our body experiences extra strain when we’re not awake and ready for the day.

What does your research show?

Most of my work focuses on preclinical models to understand what’s going on in the brain and body. Because we can’t study this ethically in humans, we learn a lot from animal models, especially mice. In a recent study looking at mild circadian disruption — where we raised mice on days that were about 75 minutes shorter — we saw they started developing diabetes, heart disease, and insulin resistance within in a few months, or about the time they were a young adult.

Oftentimes, people think about their sleep rhythm as an arbitrary choice, but in fact, it does affect your health. We know that if your human circadian clock runs slow, morning light can help fix that and reset it, whereas evening light moves us in the other direction and makes it harder to get up in the morning. 

Some people want to switch to one year-round time. What do you advocate? 

In most cases, the standard time (or winter time) is the more natural time that fits better with our body cycle. If we follow a time where we get up before sunrise or have a later sunset, then it’s linked to more social jet lag, where people are less attentive at work, don’t learn as well at school, and have more accidents.

Instead of picking what sounds good or chasing the name — such as “daylight saving time” — we need to think about the right time for us and our circadian clock. Some places, such as Maine in the United States, would actually fit better with the Atlantic time zone or the Maritime provinces in Canada, whereas some parts of Alberta are geographically west of Los Angeles based on longitude and would fit better with the Pacific time zone. Sticking with a year-round daylight saving time in some cities in Alberta would mean people wouldn’t see the sun until 10:30 AM in the winter, which is really late and could affect activities such as skiing and hockey.

The Canadian Society for Chronobiology advocates for year-round standard time to align our social clocks with our biological clocks. Sleep and circadian rhythm experts in the US and globally have issued similar position statements.

What tips do you suggest to help people adjust their circadian clocks in November?

For people who know their bodies and that it will affect them more, give yourself extra time. If your schedule permits, plan ahead and change your clocks sooner, especially if you’re able to do so over the weekend. Don’t rush around while tired — rushing when you’re not ready leads to those increased accidents on the road or on the job. Know that the sun will still be mismatched for a bit and your body clock will take time to adjust, so you might feel out of sorts for a few days.

Antle reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Low-volume bowel preparation is noninferior in adequacy to standard-volume prep in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Patients who received MoviPrep (2L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid) reported higher tolerability and willingness to repeat colonoscopy preparation in the future than those taking GoLYTELY (4L of polyethylene glycol and electrolytes). In addition, the rates of electrolyte abnormalities and acute kidney injury were low and similar between the two groups.

Yale School of Medicine

“Bowel preparation remains a challenge in the inpatient setting, where 20%-50% of all colonoscopies can have inadequate bowel preparation,” said lead author Karen Xiao, MD, assistant professor in the section of digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Previous studies have indicated that low-volume (2L), split-dose preparations are noninferior to high-volume (4L), split-dose regimens, and patients generally prefer low-volume options, she said. However, the current standard of care for inpatients continues to include high-volume polyethylene glycol electrocyte lavage, which may be less tolerable.

“Similar to prior studies, our study supports that MoviPrep may be a suitable alternative to traditional high-volume bowel preparation in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy,” she said.

In a single-blind, multi-site, randomized controlled trial, Xiao and colleagues in the Yale–New Haven Health System randomly assigned inpatients undergoing colonoscopy to MoviPrep or GoLYTELY between January 2022 and July 2024. They excluded patients with prior small or large bowel resection, foreign body removal, or medical contraindications, such as obstruction, pregnancy, phenylketonuria, or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.

After bowel prep but before colonoscopy, patients took the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey. Colonoscopies were then recorded, and videos were scored by a single-blinded central reviewer. The primary outcome included the adequacy of bowel prep as defined by a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of 6 or higher, with each segment scoring 2 or higher.

In the final analysis, 202 patients received MoviPrep and 210 received GoLYTELY. In both groups, the average age was 62; about 60% were men; and 66% were White, about 22% Black, and 13%-15% Hispanic. About 65% of patients in both arms had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3, with another 20% in each group having an ASA score of 4, “reflective of a sicker inpatient population,” Xiao said.

Inpatient colonoscopy was indicated for gastrointestinal bleeding (55%), diarrhea (15%-20%), abnormal imaging (10%-13%), inflammatory bowel disease (4%), or other (35%-41%). Patients could have more than one indication for colonoscopy.

Overall, bowel preparation was scored as adequate in 111 patients with MoviPrep (55%) and 111 patients with GoLYTELY (52.9%), and was inadequate in 91 patients with MoviPrep (45%) and 99 patients with GoLYTELY (47.1%). With a rate difference of 2.1% and a P value of .007, MoviPrep was considered noninferior to GoLYTELY for adequate bowel preparation.

In terms of secondary outcomes, there wasn’t a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with a median stay of 6 days. Similarly, there were no differences in the rates of adverse events, including acute kidney injury and electrolyte abnormalities, with rates ranging from 1% to 9%. MoviPrep patients were slightly more likely to need additional bowel prep but also had a slightly shorter time to colonoscopy.
 

Ease of Use Is a Plus

On the basis of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey, there wasn’t a difference between the groups in how much bowel prep solution was left in the bottle. However, more than twice as many patients who took MoviPrep said the prep was “easy,” and more MoviPrep patients called it “acceptable,” whereas more GoLYTELY patients said prep was “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult.”

In addition, significantly more MoviPrep patients (49.7% vs 33.7%) said they were “mostly willing” to drink the same prep again if they needed another colonoscopy in the future, while more GoLYTELY patients said they were “somewhat willing” (44.7% vs 34.6%) or “not willing at all” (21.6% vs 15.7%).

“Bowel prep, particularly in hospitals, is important because we do it so often. When you think about what our patients in the hospital are going through, they’re very sick and often have multiple comorbidities, so how can we give them a bowel prep that is safe for them, easiest for them, easy for our nursing staff who are experiencing shortages, and as good as the traditional bowel prep,” said the session’s moderator, Amy Oxentenko, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Mayo Clinic

“Here we’ve seen great data that we can provide half the volume of the prep, still get amazing results in terms of adequacy of preparation, and the patients had a better experience,” said Oxentenko, the incoming ACG president. “That’s important because they likely may need another colonoscopy in the future, and we would hate for the bowel prep in the hospital to potentially dissuade them from a future colonoscopy.”

Future studies could stratify patients on the basis of colonoscopy indication or patient history, including conditions such as chronic constipation or neurogenic bowel, where some patients may still need a high-volume prep, Oxentenko said.

“Also, in the hospital setting, we don’t always know when a patient is going to the endoscopy suite due to other patient cases that may get prolonged or pushed in,” she said. “So how do you time the second dose of the split dose in anticipation of when that patient will go to the endoscopy suite to maintain that great preparation with a smaller volume prep?”

The study was awarded the ACG Governors Award for Excellence in Clinical Research (Trainee). Xiao and Oxentenko reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Low-volume bowel preparation is noninferior in adequacy to standard-volume prep in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Patients who received MoviPrep (2L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid) reported higher tolerability and willingness to repeat colonoscopy preparation in the future than those taking GoLYTELY (4L of polyethylene glycol and electrolytes). In addition, the rates of electrolyte abnormalities and acute kidney injury were low and similar between the two groups.

Yale School of Medicine

“Bowel preparation remains a challenge in the inpatient setting, where 20%-50% of all colonoscopies can have inadequate bowel preparation,” said lead author Karen Xiao, MD, assistant professor in the section of digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Previous studies have indicated that low-volume (2L), split-dose preparations are noninferior to high-volume (4L), split-dose regimens, and patients generally prefer low-volume options, she said. However, the current standard of care for inpatients continues to include high-volume polyethylene glycol electrocyte lavage, which may be less tolerable.

“Similar to prior studies, our study supports that MoviPrep may be a suitable alternative to traditional high-volume bowel preparation in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy,” she said.

In a single-blind, multi-site, randomized controlled trial, Xiao and colleagues in the Yale–New Haven Health System randomly assigned inpatients undergoing colonoscopy to MoviPrep or GoLYTELY between January 2022 and July 2024. They excluded patients with prior small or large bowel resection, foreign body removal, or medical contraindications, such as obstruction, pregnancy, phenylketonuria, or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.

After bowel prep but before colonoscopy, patients took the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey. Colonoscopies were then recorded, and videos were scored by a single-blinded central reviewer. The primary outcome included the adequacy of bowel prep as defined by a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of 6 or higher, with each segment scoring 2 or higher.

In the final analysis, 202 patients received MoviPrep and 210 received GoLYTELY. In both groups, the average age was 62; about 60% were men; and 66% were White, about 22% Black, and 13%-15% Hispanic. About 65% of patients in both arms had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3, with another 20% in each group having an ASA score of 4, “reflective of a sicker inpatient population,” Xiao said.

Inpatient colonoscopy was indicated for gastrointestinal bleeding (55%), diarrhea (15%-20%), abnormal imaging (10%-13%), inflammatory bowel disease (4%), or other (35%-41%). Patients could have more than one indication for colonoscopy.

Overall, bowel preparation was scored as adequate in 111 patients with MoviPrep (55%) and 111 patients with GoLYTELY (52.9%), and was inadequate in 91 patients with MoviPrep (45%) and 99 patients with GoLYTELY (47.1%). With a rate difference of 2.1% and a P value of .007, MoviPrep was considered noninferior to GoLYTELY for adequate bowel preparation.

In terms of secondary outcomes, there wasn’t a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with a median stay of 6 days. Similarly, there were no differences in the rates of adverse events, including acute kidney injury and electrolyte abnormalities, with rates ranging from 1% to 9%. MoviPrep patients were slightly more likely to need additional bowel prep but also had a slightly shorter time to colonoscopy.
 

Ease of Use Is a Plus

On the basis of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey, there wasn’t a difference between the groups in how much bowel prep solution was left in the bottle. However, more than twice as many patients who took MoviPrep said the prep was “easy,” and more MoviPrep patients called it “acceptable,” whereas more GoLYTELY patients said prep was “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult.”

In addition, significantly more MoviPrep patients (49.7% vs 33.7%) said they were “mostly willing” to drink the same prep again if they needed another colonoscopy in the future, while more GoLYTELY patients said they were “somewhat willing” (44.7% vs 34.6%) or “not willing at all” (21.6% vs 15.7%).

“Bowel prep, particularly in hospitals, is important because we do it so often. When you think about what our patients in the hospital are going through, they’re very sick and often have multiple comorbidities, so how can we give them a bowel prep that is safe for them, easiest for them, easy for our nursing staff who are experiencing shortages, and as good as the traditional bowel prep,” said the session’s moderator, Amy Oxentenko, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Mayo Clinic

“Here we’ve seen great data that we can provide half the volume of the prep, still get amazing results in terms of adequacy of preparation, and the patients had a better experience,” said Oxentenko, the incoming ACG president. “That’s important because they likely may need another colonoscopy in the future, and we would hate for the bowel prep in the hospital to potentially dissuade them from a future colonoscopy.”

Future studies could stratify patients on the basis of colonoscopy indication or patient history, including conditions such as chronic constipation or neurogenic bowel, where some patients may still need a high-volume prep, Oxentenko said.

“Also, in the hospital setting, we don’t always know when a patient is going to the endoscopy suite due to other patient cases that may get prolonged or pushed in,” she said. “So how do you time the second dose of the split dose in anticipation of when that patient will go to the endoscopy suite to maintain that great preparation with a smaller volume prep?”

The study was awarded the ACG Governors Award for Excellence in Clinical Research (Trainee). Xiao and Oxentenko reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Low-volume bowel preparation is noninferior in adequacy to standard-volume prep in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Patients who received MoviPrep (2L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid) reported higher tolerability and willingness to repeat colonoscopy preparation in the future than those taking GoLYTELY (4L of polyethylene glycol and electrolytes). In addition, the rates of electrolyte abnormalities and acute kidney injury were low and similar between the two groups.

Yale School of Medicine

“Bowel preparation remains a challenge in the inpatient setting, where 20%-50% of all colonoscopies can have inadequate bowel preparation,” said lead author Karen Xiao, MD, assistant professor in the section of digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Previous studies have indicated that low-volume (2L), split-dose preparations are noninferior to high-volume (4L), split-dose regimens, and patients generally prefer low-volume options, she said. However, the current standard of care for inpatients continues to include high-volume polyethylene glycol electrocyte lavage, which may be less tolerable.

“Similar to prior studies, our study supports that MoviPrep may be a suitable alternative to traditional high-volume bowel preparation in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy,” she said.

In a single-blind, multi-site, randomized controlled trial, Xiao and colleagues in the Yale–New Haven Health System randomly assigned inpatients undergoing colonoscopy to MoviPrep or GoLYTELY between January 2022 and July 2024. They excluded patients with prior small or large bowel resection, foreign body removal, or medical contraindications, such as obstruction, pregnancy, phenylketonuria, or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.

After bowel prep but before colonoscopy, patients took the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey. Colonoscopies were then recorded, and videos were scored by a single-blinded central reviewer. The primary outcome included the adequacy of bowel prep as defined by a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of 6 or higher, with each segment scoring 2 or higher.

In the final analysis, 202 patients received MoviPrep and 210 received GoLYTELY. In both groups, the average age was 62; about 60% were men; and 66% were White, about 22% Black, and 13%-15% Hispanic. About 65% of patients in both arms had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3, with another 20% in each group having an ASA score of 4, “reflective of a sicker inpatient population,” Xiao said.

Inpatient colonoscopy was indicated for gastrointestinal bleeding (55%), diarrhea (15%-20%), abnormal imaging (10%-13%), inflammatory bowel disease (4%), or other (35%-41%). Patients could have more than one indication for colonoscopy.

Overall, bowel preparation was scored as adequate in 111 patients with MoviPrep (55%) and 111 patients with GoLYTELY (52.9%), and was inadequate in 91 patients with MoviPrep (45%) and 99 patients with GoLYTELY (47.1%). With a rate difference of 2.1% and a P value of .007, MoviPrep was considered noninferior to GoLYTELY for adequate bowel preparation.

In terms of secondary outcomes, there wasn’t a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with a median stay of 6 days. Similarly, there were no differences in the rates of adverse events, including acute kidney injury and electrolyte abnormalities, with rates ranging from 1% to 9%. MoviPrep patients were slightly more likely to need additional bowel prep but also had a slightly shorter time to colonoscopy.
 

Ease of Use Is a Plus

On the basis of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey, there wasn’t a difference between the groups in how much bowel prep solution was left in the bottle. However, more than twice as many patients who took MoviPrep said the prep was “easy,” and more MoviPrep patients called it “acceptable,” whereas more GoLYTELY patients said prep was “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult.”

In addition, significantly more MoviPrep patients (49.7% vs 33.7%) said they were “mostly willing” to drink the same prep again if they needed another colonoscopy in the future, while more GoLYTELY patients said they were “somewhat willing” (44.7% vs 34.6%) or “not willing at all” (21.6% vs 15.7%).

“Bowel prep, particularly in hospitals, is important because we do it so often. When you think about what our patients in the hospital are going through, they’re very sick and often have multiple comorbidities, so how can we give them a bowel prep that is safe for them, easiest for them, easy for our nursing staff who are experiencing shortages, and as good as the traditional bowel prep,” said the session’s moderator, Amy Oxentenko, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Mayo Clinic

“Here we’ve seen great data that we can provide half the volume of the prep, still get amazing results in terms of adequacy of preparation, and the patients had a better experience,” said Oxentenko, the incoming ACG president. “That’s important because they likely may need another colonoscopy in the future, and we would hate for the bowel prep in the hospital to potentially dissuade them from a future colonoscopy.”

Future studies could stratify patients on the basis of colonoscopy indication or patient history, including conditions such as chronic constipation or neurogenic bowel, where some patients may still need a high-volume prep, Oxentenko said.

“Also, in the hospital setting, we don’t always know when a patient is going to the endoscopy suite due to other patient cases that may get prolonged or pushed in,” she said. “So how do you time the second dose of the split dose in anticipation of when that patient will go to the endoscopy suite to maintain that great preparation with a smaller volume prep?”

The study was awarded the ACG Governors Award for Excellence in Clinical Research (Trainee). Xiao and Oxentenko reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In Canada, switching to a one-dose, gender-neutral vaccination program for human papillomavirus (HPV) could use vaccine doses more efficiently and prevent a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program, according to a new modeling analysis.

If vaccine protection remains high during the ages of peak sexual activity, all one-dose vaccination options are projected to be “substantially more efficient” than two-dose programs, even in the most pessimistic scenarios, the study authors wrote.

In addition, the scenarios projected the elimination of cervical cancer in Canada between 2032 and 2040. HPV can also lead to oral, throat, and penile cancers, and most are preventable through vaccination.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted HPV vaccination in Canada, particularly among vulnerable population subgroups,” said study author Chantal Sauvageau, MD, a consultant in infectious diseases at the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec and associate professor of social and preventive medicine at the University of Laval, Quebec City, Canada.

Switching to one-dose vaccination would offer potential economic savings and programmatic flexibility, she added. The change also could enable investments aimed at increasing vaccination rates in regions where coverage is suboptimal, as well as in subgroups with a high HPV burden. Such initiatives could mitigate the pandemic’s impact on health programs and reduce inequalities.

The study was published online in CMAJ.
 

Vaccination Program Changes

Globally, countries have been investigating whether to shift from a two-dose to a one-dose HPV vaccine strategy since the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization issued a single-dose recommendation in 2022.

In July, Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) updated its guidelines to recommend the single-dose approach for ages 9-20 years. The change aligns Canada with 35 other countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom. Canada›s vaccine advisory group still recommends two doses for ages 21-26 years and three doses for patients who are immunocompromised or have HIV.

To help inform new NACI policies, Sauvageau and colleagues modeled several one-dose and two-dose strategies using HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infections and diseases. They looked at vaccination programs in Quebec, which has a high HPV vaccine coverage rate of around 85%, and Ontario, which has lower coverage of around 65%.

For one-dose programs, the researchers analyzed noninferior (98% efficacy) and pessimistic (90% efficacy) scenarios and different average vaccine duration periods, including lifelong, 30-year, and 25-year coverage. They compared the scenarios with a two-dose program with 98% efficacy and lifelong duration, estimating the relative reduction in HPV-16 infection and cervical cancer incidence and the number of doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case.

Overall, the model projected that gender-neutral HPV vaccine programs with either two doses or a noninferior one dose would nearly eliminate HPV-16 infection by 2040-2045 in Quebec and reduce infection by more than 90% in Ontario. Under a one-dose strategy with 90% vaccine efficacy, rebounds in HPV-16 infection would start more than 25-30 years after a switch to a lower-dose strategy, thus providing time for officials to detect any signs of waning efficacy and change policies, if needed, the authors wrote.

In addition, the model projected that a noninferior one-dose, gender-neutral HPV vaccination program would avert a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program. The reduction would be about 60% in Quebec and 55% in Ontario, compared with no vaccination. Under the most pessimistic scenario with 25-year vaccine duration, a one-dose program would be slightly less effective in averting cancer: about 3% lower than a two-dose program over 100 years.

All one-dose scenarios were projected to lead to the elimination of cervical cancer in 8-16 years — at fewer than four cervical cancer cases per 100,000 female-years.

One-dose programs would also lead to more efficient use of vaccine doses, with about 800-1000 doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case in a one-dose program and more than 10,000 incremental doses needed to prevent one additional cervical cancer case in a two-dose program.
 

What Next?

In Canada, the HPV vaccine is authorized for patients aged 9-45 years. Current immunization coverage among adolescents and young adults varies across provinces and falls below the national target of 90%. In its July 2024 update, NACI estimated that 76% of 14-year-olds of both genders received at least one vaccine dose and that 67% received two doses in 2023. Vaccine uptake was slightly higher among girls than boys.

To boost the coverage rate, shifting to a one-dose schedule could appeal to young people, as well as maintain vaccination efficacy.

“When you look at the studies that have been published worldwide, the effectiveness of one dose of the HPV vaccine is actually quite high,” said Caroline Quach-Thanh, MD, professor of microbiology, infectious diseases, immunology, and pediatrics at the University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Quach-Thanh, who wasn’t involved with this study, previously served as NACI chair and now serves as chair of the Quebec Immunization Committee.

“In terms of prevention of HPV infections that may lead to cancer, whether you give one dose or two doses basically gives you the same amount of protection,” she said.

However, not all physicians agree about the switch in vaccination approaches. In early October, the Federation of Medical Women of Canada released a report with 12 recommendations to increase HPV vaccination rates, including a call for healthcare providers to continue with multidose immunization schedules for now.

“Vaccination is the most powerful action we can take in preventing HPV-related cancers. Canada is falling behind, but we can get back on track if we act quickly,” said Vivien Brown, MD, chair of the group’s HPV Immunization Task Force, chair and cofounder of HPV Prevention Week in Canada, and a past president of the federation.

After the NACI update in July, the task force evaluated the risks and benefits of a single-dose vaccine regimen, she said. They concluded that a multidose schedule should continue at this time because of its proven effectiveness.

“Until more research on the efficacy of a single-dose schedule becomes available, healthcare providers and public health agencies should continue to offer patients a multidose schedule,” said Brown. “This is the only way to ensure individuals are protected against HPV infection and cancer over the long term.”

The study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Canadian Immunization Research Network. Sauvageau, Quach-Thanh, and Brown declared no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In Canada, switching to a one-dose, gender-neutral vaccination program for human papillomavirus (HPV) could use vaccine doses more efficiently and prevent a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program, according to a new modeling analysis.

If vaccine protection remains high during the ages of peak sexual activity, all one-dose vaccination options are projected to be “substantially more efficient” than two-dose programs, even in the most pessimistic scenarios, the study authors wrote.

In addition, the scenarios projected the elimination of cervical cancer in Canada between 2032 and 2040. HPV can also lead to oral, throat, and penile cancers, and most are preventable through vaccination.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted HPV vaccination in Canada, particularly among vulnerable population subgroups,” said study author Chantal Sauvageau, MD, a consultant in infectious diseases at the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec and associate professor of social and preventive medicine at the University of Laval, Quebec City, Canada.

Switching to one-dose vaccination would offer potential economic savings and programmatic flexibility, she added. The change also could enable investments aimed at increasing vaccination rates in regions where coverage is suboptimal, as well as in subgroups with a high HPV burden. Such initiatives could mitigate the pandemic’s impact on health programs and reduce inequalities.

The study was published online in CMAJ.
 

Vaccination Program Changes

Globally, countries have been investigating whether to shift from a two-dose to a one-dose HPV vaccine strategy since the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization issued a single-dose recommendation in 2022.

In July, Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) updated its guidelines to recommend the single-dose approach for ages 9-20 years. The change aligns Canada with 35 other countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom. Canada›s vaccine advisory group still recommends two doses for ages 21-26 years and three doses for patients who are immunocompromised or have HIV.

To help inform new NACI policies, Sauvageau and colleagues modeled several one-dose and two-dose strategies using HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infections and diseases. They looked at vaccination programs in Quebec, which has a high HPV vaccine coverage rate of around 85%, and Ontario, which has lower coverage of around 65%.

For one-dose programs, the researchers analyzed noninferior (98% efficacy) and pessimistic (90% efficacy) scenarios and different average vaccine duration periods, including lifelong, 30-year, and 25-year coverage. They compared the scenarios with a two-dose program with 98% efficacy and lifelong duration, estimating the relative reduction in HPV-16 infection and cervical cancer incidence and the number of doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case.

Overall, the model projected that gender-neutral HPV vaccine programs with either two doses or a noninferior one dose would nearly eliminate HPV-16 infection by 2040-2045 in Quebec and reduce infection by more than 90% in Ontario. Under a one-dose strategy with 90% vaccine efficacy, rebounds in HPV-16 infection would start more than 25-30 years after a switch to a lower-dose strategy, thus providing time for officials to detect any signs of waning efficacy and change policies, if needed, the authors wrote.

In addition, the model projected that a noninferior one-dose, gender-neutral HPV vaccination program would avert a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program. The reduction would be about 60% in Quebec and 55% in Ontario, compared with no vaccination. Under the most pessimistic scenario with 25-year vaccine duration, a one-dose program would be slightly less effective in averting cancer: about 3% lower than a two-dose program over 100 years.

All one-dose scenarios were projected to lead to the elimination of cervical cancer in 8-16 years — at fewer than four cervical cancer cases per 100,000 female-years.

One-dose programs would also lead to more efficient use of vaccine doses, with about 800-1000 doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case in a one-dose program and more than 10,000 incremental doses needed to prevent one additional cervical cancer case in a two-dose program.
 

What Next?

In Canada, the HPV vaccine is authorized for patients aged 9-45 years. Current immunization coverage among adolescents and young adults varies across provinces and falls below the national target of 90%. In its July 2024 update, NACI estimated that 76% of 14-year-olds of both genders received at least one vaccine dose and that 67% received two doses in 2023. Vaccine uptake was slightly higher among girls than boys.

To boost the coverage rate, shifting to a one-dose schedule could appeal to young people, as well as maintain vaccination efficacy.

“When you look at the studies that have been published worldwide, the effectiveness of one dose of the HPV vaccine is actually quite high,” said Caroline Quach-Thanh, MD, professor of microbiology, infectious diseases, immunology, and pediatrics at the University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Quach-Thanh, who wasn’t involved with this study, previously served as NACI chair and now serves as chair of the Quebec Immunization Committee.

“In terms of prevention of HPV infections that may lead to cancer, whether you give one dose or two doses basically gives you the same amount of protection,” she said.

However, not all physicians agree about the switch in vaccination approaches. In early October, the Federation of Medical Women of Canada released a report with 12 recommendations to increase HPV vaccination rates, including a call for healthcare providers to continue with multidose immunization schedules for now.

“Vaccination is the most powerful action we can take in preventing HPV-related cancers. Canada is falling behind, but we can get back on track if we act quickly,” said Vivien Brown, MD, chair of the group’s HPV Immunization Task Force, chair and cofounder of HPV Prevention Week in Canada, and a past president of the federation.

After the NACI update in July, the task force evaluated the risks and benefits of a single-dose vaccine regimen, she said. They concluded that a multidose schedule should continue at this time because of its proven effectiveness.

“Until more research on the efficacy of a single-dose schedule becomes available, healthcare providers and public health agencies should continue to offer patients a multidose schedule,” said Brown. “This is the only way to ensure individuals are protected against HPV infection and cancer over the long term.”

The study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Canadian Immunization Research Network. Sauvageau, Quach-Thanh, and Brown declared no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In Canada, switching to a one-dose, gender-neutral vaccination program for human papillomavirus (HPV) could use vaccine doses more efficiently and prevent a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program, according to a new modeling analysis.

If vaccine protection remains high during the ages of peak sexual activity, all one-dose vaccination options are projected to be “substantially more efficient” than two-dose programs, even in the most pessimistic scenarios, the study authors wrote.

In addition, the scenarios projected the elimination of cervical cancer in Canada between 2032 and 2040. HPV can also lead to oral, throat, and penile cancers, and most are preventable through vaccination.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted HPV vaccination in Canada, particularly among vulnerable population subgroups,” said study author Chantal Sauvageau, MD, a consultant in infectious diseases at the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec and associate professor of social and preventive medicine at the University of Laval, Quebec City, Canada.

Switching to one-dose vaccination would offer potential economic savings and programmatic flexibility, she added. The change also could enable investments aimed at increasing vaccination rates in regions where coverage is suboptimal, as well as in subgroups with a high HPV burden. Such initiatives could mitigate the pandemic’s impact on health programs and reduce inequalities.

The study was published online in CMAJ.
 

Vaccination Program Changes

Globally, countries have been investigating whether to shift from a two-dose to a one-dose HPV vaccine strategy since the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization issued a single-dose recommendation in 2022.

In July, Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) updated its guidelines to recommend the single-dose approach for ages 9-20 years. The change aligns Canada with 35 other countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom. Canada›s vaccine advisory group still recommends two doses for ages 21-26 years and three doses for patients who are immunocompromised or have HIV.

To help inform new NACI policies, Sauvageau and colleagues modeled several one-dose and two-dose strategies using HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infections and diseases. They looked at vaccination programs in Quebec, which has a high HPV vaccine coverage rate of around 85%, and Ontario, which has lower coverage of around 65%.

For one-dose programs, the researchers analyzed noninferior (98% efficacy) and pessimistic (90% efficacy) scenarios and different average vaccine duration periods, including lifelong, 30-year, and 25-year coverage. They compared the scenarios with a two-dose program with 98% efficacy and lifelong duration, estimating the relative reduction in HPV-16 infection and cervical cancer incidence and the number of doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case.

Overall, the model projected that gender-neutral HPV vaccine programs with either two doses or a noninferior one dose would nearly eliminate HPV-16 infection by 2040-2045 in Quebec and reduce infection by more than 90% in Ontario. Under a one-dose strategy with 90% vaccine efficacy, rebounds in HPV-16 infection would start more than 25-30 years after a switch to a lower-dose strategy, thus providing time for officials to detect any signs of waning efficacy and change policies, if needed, the authors wrote.

In addition, the model projected that a noninferior one-dose, gender-neutral HPV vaccination program would avert a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program. The reduction would be about 60% in Quebec and 55% in Ontario, compared with no vaccination. Under the most pessimistic scenario with 25-year vaccine duration, a one-dose program would be slightly less effective in averting cancer: about 3% lower than a two-dose program over 100 years.

All one-dose scenarios were projected to lead to the elimination of cervical cancer in 8-16 years — at fewer than four cervical cancer cases per 100,000 female-years.

One-dose programs would also lead to more efficient use of vaccine doses, with about 800-1000 doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case in a one-dose program and more than 10,000 incremental doses needed to prevent one additional cervical cancer case in a two-dose program.
 

What Next?

In Canada, the HPV vaccine is authorized for patients aged 9-45 years. Current immunization coverage among adolescents and young adults varies across provinces and falls below the national target of 90%. In its July 2024 update, NACI estimated that 76% of 14-year-olds of both genders received at least one vaccine dose and that 67% received two doses in 2023. Vaccine uptake was slightly higher among girls than boys.

To boost the coverage rate, shifting to a one-dose schedule could appeal to young people, as well as maintain vaccination efficacy.

“When you look at the studies that have been published worldwide, the effectiveness of one dose of the HPV vaccine is actually quite high,” said Caroline Quach-Thanh, MD, professor of microbiology, infectious diseases, immunology, and pediatrics at the University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Quach-Thanh, who wasn’t involved with this study, previously served as NACI chair and now serves as chair of the Quebec Immunization Committee.

“In terms of prevention of HPV infections that may lead to cancer, whether you give one dose or two doses basically gives you the same amount of protection,” she said.

However, not all physicians agree about the switch in vaccination approaches. In early October, the Federation of Medical Women of Canada released a report with 12 recommendations to increase HPV vaccination rates, including a call for healthcare providers to continue with multidose immunization schedules for now.

“Vaccination is the most powerful action we can take in preventing HPV-related cancers. Canada is falling behind, but we can get back on track if we act quickly,” said Vivien Brown, MD, chair of the group’s HPV Immunization Task Force, chair and cofounder of HPV Prevention Week in Canada, and a past president of the federation.

After the NACI update in July, the task force evaluated the risks and benefits of a single-dose vaccine regimen, she said. They concluded that a multidose schedule should continue at this time because of its proven effectiveness.

“Until more research on the efficacy of a single-dose schedule becomes available, healthcare providers and public health agencies should continue to offer patients a multidose schedule,” said Brown. “This is the only way to ensure individuals are protected against HPV infection and cancer over the long term.”

The study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Canadian Immunization Research Network. Sauvageau, Quach-Thanh, and Brown declared no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first blood-based test to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

The FDA’s approval of Shield (Guardant Health) marks a notable achievement, as individuals at average risk now have the option to receive a simple blood test for CRC screening, starting at age 45.

“No one has an excuse anymore not to be screened,” said John Marshall, MD, director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of Gastrointestinal Cancers and chief medical officer of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

The approval was based on findings from the ECLIPSE study, which reported that Shield had 83% sensitivity for CRC and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, though only 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions.

While an exciting option, the test has its pros and cons.

A major plus for Shield is it provides a noninvasive, convenient way for patients to be screened for CRC, especially among the approximately 30% Americans who are either not being screened or not up to date with their screening.

The bad news, however, is that it does a poor job of detecting precancerous lesions. This could snowball if patients decide to replace a colonoscopy — which helps both detect and prevent CRC — with the blood test.

This news organization spoke to experts across three core specialties involved in the screening and treatment of CRC — primary care, gastroenterology, and oncology — to better understand both the potential value and potential pitfalls of this new option.

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

David Lieberman, MD, gastroenterologist and professor emeritus at Oregon Health & Science University: Detecting circulating-free DNA associated with CRC in blood is a major scientific breakthrough. The ease of blood testing will appeal to patients and providers.

Folasade May, MD, director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at the University of California, Los Angeles: The FDA approval means that we continue to broaden the scope of available tools to help reduce the impact of this largely preventable disease.

Dr. Marshall: Colonoscopy is still the gold standard, but we have to recognize that not everyone does it. And that not everyone wants to send their poop in the mail (with a stool-based test). Now there are no more excuses.

Alan Venook, MD, gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco: Although it’s good to have a blood test that’s approved for CRC screening, I don’t think it moves the bar much in terms of screening. I worry about it overpromising and under-delivering. If it could find polyps or premalignant lesions, that would make a big difference; however, at 13%, that doesn’t really register, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Kenny Lin, MD, a family physician at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health: I see this test as a good option for the 30% people of CRC screening age who are either not being screened or out of date for screening. I’m a little concerned about the people who are already getting recommended screening and may try to switch to this option.

William Golden, MD, internist and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas: On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 2. It’s expensive ($900 per test without insurance). It’s also not sensitive for early cancers, which would be its main value. Frankly, there are better strategies to get patients engaged.
 

What do you see as the pros and cons of this test?

Dr. Lin: The pros are that it’s very convenient for patients, and it’s especially easy for physicians if they have a lab in their office and can avoid a referral where patients may never get the test. However, the data I saw were disappointing, with sensitivity and specificity falling short of the stool-based Cologuard test, which is also not invasive and less likely to miss early cancers, precancerous lesions, and polyps.

Dr. Lieberman: A major con is the detection rate of only 13% for advanced precancerous lesions, which means that this test is not likely to result in much cancer prevention. There is good evidence that if advanced precancerous lesions are detected and removed, many — if not most — CRCs can be prevented.

Dr. Marshall: Another issue is the potential for a false-positive result (which occurs for 1 in every 10 tests). With this result, you would do a scope but can’t find what’s going on. This is a big deal. It’s the first of the blood tests that will be used for cancer screening, and it could be scary for a patient to receive a positive result but not be able to figure out where it’s coming from.
 

Will you be recommending this test or relying on its results?

Dr. Lieberman: Patients need to understand that the blood test is inferior to every other screening test and, if selected, would result in less protection against developing CRC or dying from CRC than other screening tests. But models suggest that this test will perform better than no screening. Therefore, it is reasonable to offer the test to individuals who decline any other form of screening.

Dr. May: I will do what I’ve always done — after the FDA approval, I wait for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to endorse it. If it does, then I feel it’s my responsibility to tell my patients about all the options they have and stay up to date on how the tests perform, what the pros and cons are, and what reliable information will help patients make the best decision.

Dr. Venook: No, but I could potentially see us moving it into surveillance mode, where CRC survivors or patients undergoing therapy could take it, which might give us a unique second bite of the apple. The test could potentially be of value in identifying early relapse or recurrence, which might give us a heads-up or jump start on follow-up.
 

Are you concerned that patients won’t return for a colonoscopy after a positive result?

Dr. Golden: This concern is relevant for all tests, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT), but I’ve found that if the patient is willing to do the initial test and it comes back positive, most are willing to do the follow-up. Of course, some folks have issues with this, but now we’ll have a marker in their medical records and can re-engage them through outreach.

Dr. Lieberman: I am concerned that a patient who previously declined to have a colonoscopy may not follow up an abnormal blood test with a colonoscopy. If this occurs, it will render a blood test program ineffective for those patients. Patients should be told upfront that if the test is abnormal, a colonoscopy would be recommended.

Dr. May: This is a big concern that I have. We already have two-step screening processes with FIT, Cologuard, and CT colonography, and strong data show there is attrition. All doctors and companies will need to make it clear that if patients have an abnormal test result, they must undergo a colonoscopy. We must have activated and involved systems of patient follow-up and navigation.

Dr. Lin: I already have some concerns, given that some patients with positive FIT tests don’t get timely follow-up. I see it in my own practice where we call patients to get a colonoscopy, but they don’t take it seriously or their initial counseling wasn’t clear about the possibility of needing a follow-up colonoscopy. If people aren’t being screened for whatever reason in the first place and they get a positive result on the Shield blood test, they might be even less likely to get the necessary follow-up testing afterward.
 

What might this mean for insurance coverage and costs for patients?

Dr. May: This is an important question because if we don’t have equal access, we create or widen disparities. For insurers to cover Shield, it’ll need to be endorsed by major medical societies, including USPSTF. But what will happen in the beginning is that wealthy patients who can pay out of pocket will use it, while lower-income individuals won’t have access until insurers cover it.

Dr. Golden: I could do 70 (or more) FIT tests for the cost of this one blood test. A FIT test should be offered first. We’re advising the Medicaid program that physicians should be required to explain why a patient doesn’t want a FIT test, prior to covering this blood test.

Dr. Venook: It’s too early to say. Although it’s approved, we now have to look at the monetization factor. At the end of the day, we still need a colonoscopy. The science is impressive, but it doesn’t mean we need to spend $900 doing a blood test.

Dr. Lin: I could see the coverage trajectory being similar to that for Cologuard, which had little coverage when it came out 10 years ago, but eventually, Medicare and commercial coverage happened. With Shield, initially, there will be some coverage gaps, especially with commercial insurance, and I can see insurance companies having concerns, especially because the test is expensive compared with other tests and the return isn’t well known. It could also be a waste of money if people with positive tests don’t receive follow-up colonoscopies.
 

What else would you like to share that people may not have considered?

Dr. Marshall: These tests could pick up other genes from other cancers. My worry is that people could have another cancer detected but not find it on a colonoscopy and think the blood test must be wrong. Or they’ll do a scan, which could lead to more scans and tests.

Dr. Golden: This test has received a lot of attention and coverage that didn’t discuss other screening options, limitations, or nuances. Let’s face it — we’ll see lots of TV ads about it, but once we start dealing with the total cost of care and alternate payment models, it’s going to be hard for this test to find a niche.

Dr. Venook: This test has only been validated in a population of ages 45 years or older, which is the conventional screening population. We desperately need something that can work in younger people, where CRC rates are increasing. I’d like to see the research move in that direction.

Dr. Lin: I thought it was unique that the FDA Advisory Panel clearly stated this was better than nothing but also should be used as second-line screening. The agency took pains to say this is not a colonoscopy or even equivalent to the fecal tests in use. But they appropriately did approve it because a lot of people aren’t getting anything at all, which is the biggest problem with CRC screening.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first blood-based test to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

The FDA’s approval of Shield (Guardant Health) marks a notable achievement, as individuals at average risk now have the option to receive a simple blood test for CRC screening, starting at age 45.

“No one has an excuse anymore not to be screened,” said John Marshall, MD, director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of Gastrointestinal Cancers and chief medical officer of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

The approval was based on findings from the ECLIPSE study, which reported that Shield had 83% sensitivity for CRC and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, though only 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions.

While an exciting option, the test has its pros and cons.

A major plus for Shield is it provides a noninvasive, convenient way for patients to be screened for CRC, especially among the approximately 30% Americans who are either not being screened or not up to date with their screening.

The bad news, however, is that it does a poor job of detecting precancerous lesions. This could snowball if patients decide to replace a colonoscopy — which helps both detect and prevent CRC — with the blood test.

This news organization spoke to experts across three core specialties involved in the screening and treatment of CRC — primary care, gastroenterology, and oncology — to better understand both the potential value and potential pitfalls of this new option.

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

David Lieberman, MD, gastroenterologist and professor emeritus at Oregon Health & Science University: Detecting circulating-free DNA associated with CRC in blood is a major scientific breakthrough. The ease of blood testing will appeal to patients and providers.

Folasade May, MD, director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at the University of California, Los Angeles: The FDA approval means that we continue to broaden the scope of available tools to help reduce the impact of this largely preventable disease.

Dr. Marshall: Colonoscopy is still the gold standard, but we have to recognize that not everyone does it. And that not everyone wants to send their poop in the mail (with a stool-based test). Now there are no more excuses.

Alan Venook, MD, gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco: Although it’s good to have a blood test that’s approved for CRC screening, I don’t think it moves the bar much in terms of screening. I worry about it overpromising and under-delivering. If it could find polyps or premalignant lesions, that would make a big difference; however, at 13%, that doesn’t really register, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Kenny Lin, MD, a family physician at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health: I see this test as a good option for the 30% people of CRC screening age who are either not being screened or out of date for screening. I’m a little concerned about the people who are already getting recommended screening and may try to switch to this option.

William Golden, MD, internist and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas: On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 2. It’s expensive ($900 per test without insurance). It’s also not sensitive for early cancers, which would be its main value. Frankly, there are better strategies to get patients engaged.
 

What do you see as the pros and cons of this test?

Dr. Lin: The pros are that it’s very convenient for patients, and it’s especially easy for physicians if they have a lab in their office and can avoid a referral where patients may never get the test. However, the data I saw were disappointing, with sensitivity and specificity falling short of the stool-based Cologuard test, which is also not invasive and less likely to miss early cancers, precancerous lesions, and polyps.

Dr. Lieberman: A major con is the detection rate of only 13% for advanced precancerous lesions, which means that this test is not likely to result in much cancer prevention. There is good evidence that if advanced precancerous lesions are detected and removed, many — if not most — CRCs can be prevented.

Dr. Marshall: Another issue is the potential for a false-positive result (which occurs for 1 in every 10 tests). With this result, you would do a scope but can’t find what’s going on. This is a big deal. It’s the first of the blood tests that will be used for cancer screening, and it could be scary for a patient to receive a positive result but not be able to figure out where it’s coming from.
 

Will you be recommending this test or relying on its results?

Dr. Lieberman: Patients need to understand that the blood test is inferior to every other screening test and, if selected, would result in less protection against developing CRC or dying from CRC than other screening tests. But models suggest that this test will perform better than no screening. Therefore, it is reasonable to offer the test to individuals who decline any other form of screening.

Dr. May: I will do what I’ve always done — after the FDA approval, I wait for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to endorse it. If it does, then I feel it’s my responsibility to tell my patients about all the options they have and stay up to date on how the tests perform, what the pros and cons are, and what reliable information will help patients make the best decision.

Dr. Venook: No, but I could potentially see us moving it into surveillance mode, where CRC survivors or patients undergoing therapy could take it, which might give us a unique second bite of the apple. The test could potentially be of value in identifying early relapse or recurrence, which might give us a heads-up or jump start on follow-up.
 

Are you concerned that patients won’t return for a colonoscopy after a positive result?

Dr. Golden: This concern is relevant for all tests, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT), but I’ve found that if the patient is willing to do the initial test and it comes back positive, most are willing to do the follow-up. Of course, some folks have issues with this, but now we’ll have a marker in their medical records and can re-engage them through outreach.

Dr. Lieberman: I am concerned that a patient who previously declined to have a colonoscopy may not follow up an abnormal blood test with a colonoscopy. If this occurs, it will render a blood test program ineffective for those patients. Patients should be told upfront that if the test is abnormal, a colonoscopy would be recommended.

Dr. May: This is a big concern that I have. We already have two-step screening processes with FIT, Cologuard, and CT colonography, and strong data show there is attrition. All doctors and companies will need to make it clear that if patients have an abnormal test result, they must undergo a colonoscopy. We must have activated and involved systems of patient follow-up and navigation.

Dr. Lin: I already have some concerns, given that some patients with positive FIT tests don’t get timely follow-up. I see it in my own practice where we call patients to get a colonoscopy, but they don’t take it seriously or their initial counseling wasn’t clear about the possibility of needing a follow-up colonoscopy. If people aren’t being screened for whatever reason in the first place and they get a positive result on the Shield blood test, they might be even less likely to get the necessary follow-up testing afterward.
 

What might this mean for insurance coverage and costs for patients?

Dr. May: This is an important question because if we don’t have equal access, we create or widen disparities. For insurers to cover Shield, it’ll need to be endorsed by major medical societies, including USPSTF. But what will happen in the beginning is that wealthy patients who can pay out of pocket will use it, while lower-income individuals won’t have access until insurers cover it.

Dr. Golden: I could do 70 (or more) FIT tests for the cost of this one blood test. A FIT test should be offered first. We’re advising the Medicaid program that physicians should be required to explain why a patient doesn’t want a FIT test, prior to covering this blood test.

Dr. Venook: It’s too early to say. Although it’s approved, we now have to look at the monetization factor. At the end of the day, we still need a colonoscopy. The science is impressive, but it doesn’t mean we need to spend $900 doing a blood test.

Dr. Lin: I could see the coverage trajectory being similar to that for Cologuard, which had little coverage when it came out 10 years ago, but eventually, Medicare and commercial coverage happened. With Shield, initially, there will be some coverage gaps, especially with commercial insurance, and I can see insurance companies having concerns, especially because the test is expensive compared with other tests and the return isn’t well known. It could also be a waste of money if people with positive tests don’t receive follow-up colonoscopies.
 

What else would you like to share that people may not have considered?

Dr. Marshall: These tests could pick up other genes from other cancers. My worry is that people could have another cancer detected but not find it on a colonoscopy and think the blood test must be wrong. Or they’ll do a scan, which could lead to more scans and tests.

Dr. Golden: This test has received a lot of attention and coverage that didn’t discuss other screening options, limitations, or nuances. Let’s face it — we’ll see lots of TV ads about it, but once we start dealing with the total cost of care and alternate payment models, it’s going to be hard for this test to find a niche.

Dr. Venook: This test has only been validated in a population of ages 45 years or older, which is the conventional screening population. We desperately need something that can work in younger people, where CRC rates are increasing. I’d like to see the research move in that direction.

Dr. Lin: I thought it was unique that the FDA Advisory Panel clearly stated this was better than nothing but also should be used as second-line screening. The agency took pains to say this is not a colonoscopy or even equivalent to the fecal tests in use. But they appropriately did approve it because a lot of people aren’t getting anything at all, which is the biggest problem with CRC screening.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first blood-based test to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

The FDA’s approval of Shield (Guardant Health) marks a notable achievement, as individuals at average risk now have the option to receive a simple blood test for CRC screening, starting at age 45.

“No one has an excuse anymore not to be screened,” said John Marshall, MD, director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of Gastrointestinal Cancers and chief medical officer of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

The approval was based on findings from the ECLIPSE study, which reported that Shield had 83% sensitivity for CRC and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, though only 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions.

While an exciting option, the test has its pros and cons.

A major plus for Shield is it provides a noninvasive, convenient way for patients to be screened for CRC, especially among the approximately 30% Americans who are either not being screened or not up to date with their screening.

The bad news, however, is that it does a poor job of detecting precancerous lesions. This could snowball if patients decide to replace a colonoscopy — which helps both detect and prevent CRC — with the blood test.

This news organization spoke to experts across three core specialties involved in the screening and treatment of CRC — primary care, gastroenterology, and oncology — to better understand both the potential value and potential pitfalls of this new option.

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

David Lieberman, MD, gastroenterologist and professor emeritus at Oregon Health & Science University: Detecting circulating-free DNA associated with CRC in blood is a major scientific breakthrough. The ease of blood testing will appeal to patients and providers.

Folasade May, MD, director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at the University of California, Los Angeles: The FDA approval means that we continue to broaden the scope of available tools to help reduce the impact of this largely preventable disease.

Dr. Marshall: Colonoscopy is still the gold standard, but we have to recognize that not everyone does it. And that not everyone wants to send their poop in the mail (with a stool-based test). Now there are no more excuses.

Alan Venook, MD, gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco: Although it’s good to have a blood test that’s approved for CRC screening, I don’t think it moves the bar much in terms of screening. I worry about it overpromising and under-delivering. If it could find polyps or premalignant lesions, that would make a big difference; however, at 13%, that doesn’t really register, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Kenny Lin, MD, a family physician at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health: I see this test as a good option for the 30% people of CRC screening age who are either not being screened or out of date for screening. I’m a little concerned about the people who are already getting recommended screening and may try to switch to this option.

William Golden, MD, internist and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas: On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 2. It’s expensive ($900 per test without insurance). It’s also not sensitive for early cancers, which would be its main value. Frankly, there are better strategies to get patients engaged.
 

What do you see as the pros and cons of this test?

Dr. Lin: The pros are that it’s very convenient for patients, and it’s especially easy for physicians if they have a lab in their office and can avoid a referral where patients may never get the test. However, the data I saw were disappointing, with sensitivity and specificity falling short of the stool-based Cologuard test, which is also not invasive and less likely to miss early cancers, precancerous lesions, and polyps.

Dr. Lieberman: A major con is the detection rate of only 13% for advanced precancerous lesions, which means that this test is not likely to result in much cancer prevention. There is good evidence that if advanced precancerous lesions are detected and removed, many — if not most — CRCs can be prevented.

Dr. Marshall: Another issue is the potential for a false-positive result (which occurs for 1 in every 10 tests). With this result, you would do a scope but can’t find what’s going on. This is a big deal. It’s the first of the blood tests that will be used for cancer screening, and it could be scary for a patient to receive a positive result but not be able to figure out where it’s coming from.
 

Will you be recommending this test or relying on its results?

Dr. Lieberman: Patients need to understand that the blood test is inferior to every other screening test and, if selected, would result in less protection against developing CRC or dying from CRC than other screening tests. But models suggest that this test will perform better than no screening. Therefore, it is reasonable to offer the test to individuals who decline any other form of screening.

Dr. May: I will do what I’ve always done — after the FDA approval, I wait for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to endorse it. If it does, then I feel it’s my responsibility to tell my patients about all the options they have and stay up to date on how the tests perform, what the pros and cons are, and what reliable information will help patients make the best decision.

Dr. Venook: No, but I could potentially see us moving it into surveillance mode, where CRC survivors or patients undergoing therapy could take it, which might give us a unique second bite of the apple. The test could potentially be of value in identifying early relapse or recurrence, which might give us a heads-up or jump start on follow-up.
 

Are you concerned that patients won’t return for a colonoscopy after a positive result?

Dr. Golden: This concern is relevant for all tests, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT), but I’ve found that if the patient is willing to do the initial test and it comes back positive, most are willing to do the follow-up. Of course, some folks have issues with this, but now we’ll have a marker in their medical records and can re-engage them through outreach.

Dr. Lieberman: I am concerned that a patient who previously declined to have a colonoscopy may not follow up an abnormal blood test with a colonoscopy. If this occurs, it will render a blood test program ineffective for those patients. Patients should be told upfront that if the test is abnormal, a colonoscopy would be recommended.

Dr. May: This is a big concern that I have. We already have two-step screening processes with FIT, Cologuard, and CT colonography, and strong data show there is attrition. All doctors and companies will need to make it clear that if patients have an abnormal test result, they must undergo a colonoscopy. We must have activated and involved systems of patient follow-up and navigation.

Dr. Lin: I already have some concerns, given that some patients with positive FIT tests don’t get timely follow-up. I see it in my own practice where we call patients to get a colonoscopy, but they don’t take it seriously or their initial counseling wasn’t clear about the possibility of needing a follow-up colonoscopy. If people aren’t being screened for whatever reason in the first place and they get a positive result on the Shield blood test, they might be even less likely to get the necessary follow-up testing afterward.
 

What might this mean for insurance coverage and costs for patients?

Dr. May: This is an important question because if we don’t have equal access, we create or widen disparities. For insurers to cover Shield, it’ll need to be endorsed by major medical societies, including USPSTF. But what will happen in the beginning is that wealthy patients who can pay out of pocket will use it, while lower-income individuals won’t have access until insurers cover it.

Dr. Golden: I could do 70 (or more) FIT tests for the cost of this one blood test. A FIT test should be offered first. We’re advising the Medicaid program that physicians should be required to explain why a patient doesn’t want a FIT test, prior to covering this blood test.

Dr. Venook: It’s too early to say. Although it’s approved, we now have to look at the monetization factor. At the end of the day, we still need a colonoscopy. The science is impressive, but it doesn’t mean we need to spend $900 doing a blood test.

Dr. Lin: I could see the coverage trajectory being similar to that for Cologuard, which had little coverage when it came out 10 years ago, but eventually, Medicare and commercial coverage happened. With Shield, initially, there will be some coverage gaps, especially with commercial insurance, and I can see insurance companies having concerns, especially because the test is expensive compared with other tests and the return isn’t well known. It could also be a waste of money if people with positive tests don’t receive follow-up colonoscopies.
 

What else would you like to share that people may not have considered?

Dr. Marshall: These tests could pick up other genes from other cancers. My worry is that people could have another cancer detected but not find it on a colonoscopy and think the blood test must be wrong. Or they’ll do a scan, which could lead to more scans and tests.

Dr. Golden: This test has received a lot of attention and coverage that didn’t discuss other screening options, limitations, or nuances. Let’s face it — we’ll see lots of TV ads about it, but once we start dealing with the total cost of care and alternate payment models, it’s going to be hard for this test to find a niche.

Dr. Venook: This test has only been validated in a population of ages 45 years or older, which is the conventional screening population. We desperately need something that can work in younger people, where CRC rates are increasing. I’d like to see the research move in that direction.

Dr. Lin: I thought it was unique that the FDA Advisory Panel clearly stated this was better than nothing but also should be used as second-line screening. The agency took pains to say this is not a colonoscopy or even equivalent to the fecal tests in use. But they appropriately did approve it because a lot of people aren’t getting anything at all, which is the biggest problem with CRC screening.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy increase in coming years, gastroenterologists must think about ways to improve performance across the procedure continuum.

According to several experts who spoke at the American Gastroenterological Association’s Postgraduate Course this spring, which was offered at Digestive Disease Week (DDW), gastroenterologists can take these five steps to improve their performance: Addressing poor bowel prep, improving polyp detection, following the best intervals for polyp surveillance, reducing the environmental impact of gastrointestinal (GI) practice, and implementing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for efficiency and quality.
 

Addressing Poor Prep

To improve bowel preparation rates, clinicians may consider identifying those at high risk for inadequate prep, which could include known risk factors such as age, body mass index, inpatient status, constipation, tobacco use, and hypertension. However, other variables tend to serve as bigger predictors of inadequate prep, such as the patient’s status regarding cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, diabetes, opioid use, gastroparesis, tricyclics, and colorectal surgery.

Although several prediction models are based on some of these factors — looking at comorbidities, antidepressant use, constipation, and prior abdominal or pelvic surgery — the data don’t indicate whether knowing about or addressing these risks actually leads to better bowel prep, said Brian Jacobson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of program development for gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Instead, the biggest return-on-investment option is to maximize prep for all patients, he said, especially since every patient has at least some risk of poor prep, either due to the required diet changes, medication considerations, or purgative solution and timing.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

Adenoma detection rates (ADR) can be highly variable due to different techniques, technical skills, pattern recognition, interpretation, and experience. New adjunct and AI-based tools can help improve ADR, especially if clinicians want to improve, receive training, and use best-practice techniques.

“In colonoscopy, it’s tricky because it’s not just a blood test or an x-ray. There’s really a lot of technique involved, both cognitive awareness and pattern recognition, as well as our technical skills,” said Tonya Kaltenbach, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco and director of advanced endoscopy at the San Francisco VA Health Care System in San Francisco.

For instance, multiple tools and techniques may be needed in real time to interpret a lesion, such as washing, retroflexing, and using better lighting, while paying attention to alerts and noting areas for further inspection and resection.

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer’s recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy provide valuable information and rationale for how to determine surveillance intervals for patients. However, clinicians still may be unsure what to recommend for some patients — or tell them to come back too soon, leading to unnecessary colonoscopy. 

For instance, a 47-year-old woman who presents for her initial screening and has a single 6-mm polyp, which pathology returns as a single adenoma may be considered to be at average risk and suggested to return in 7-10 years. The guidelines seem more obvious for patients with one or two adenomas under 10 mm removed en bloc. 

However, once the case details shift into gray areas and include three or four adenomas between 10 and 20 mm, or piecemeal removal, clinicians may differ on their recommendations, said Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of endoscopy for Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. At DDW 2024, Dr. Keswani presented several case examples, often finding various audience opinions.

Reducing Environmental Effects

In recent waste audits of endoscopy rooms, providers generate 1-3 kg of waste per procedure, which would fill 117 soccer fields to a depth of 1 m, based on 18 million procedures in the United States per year. This waste comes from procedure-related equipment, administration, medications, travel of patients and staff, and infrastructure with systems such as air conditioning. Taking steps toward a green practice can reduce waste and the carbon footprint of healthcare.

“When we think about improving colonoscopy performance, the goal is to prevent colon cancer death, but when we expand that, we have to apply sustainable practices as a domain of quality,” said Heiko Pohl, MD, professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire, and a gastroenterologist at White River Junction VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont.

The GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability suggests a 5-year initiative to improve sustainability and reduce waste across seven domains — clinical setting, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy.

AI for Quality And Efficiency

Moving forward, AI tools will likely become more popular in various parts of GI practice, by assisting with documentation, spotting polyps, tracking mucosal surfaces, providing optical histopathology, and supervising performance through high-quality feedback.

“Endoscopy has reached the limits of human visual capacity, where seeing more pixels won’t necessarily improve clinical diagnosis. What’s next for elevating the care of patients really is AI,” said Jason B. Samarasena, MD, professor of medicine and program director of the interventional endoscopy training program at the University of California Irvine in Irvine, California.

As practices adopt AI-based systems, however, clinicians should be cautious about a false sense of comfort or “alarm fatigue” if bounding boxes become distracting. Instead, new tools need to be adopted as a “physician-AI hybrid,” with the endoscopist in mind, particularly if helpful for performing a better exam by watching withdrawal time or endoscope slippage.

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy increase in coming years, gastroenterologists must think about ways to improve performance across the procedure continuum.

According to several experts who spoke at the American Gastroenterological Association’s Postgraduate Course this spring, which was offered at Digestive Disease Week (DDW), gastroenterologists can take these five steps to improve their performance: Addressing poor bowel prep, improving polyp detection, following the best intervals for polyp surveillance, reducing the environmental impact of gastrointestinal (GI) practice, and implementing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for efficiency and quality.
 

Addressing Poor Prep

To improve bowel preparation rates, clinicians may consider identifying those at high risk for inadequate prep, which could include known risk factors such as age, body mass index, inpatient status, constipation, tobacco use, and hypertension. However, other variables tend to serve as bigger predictors of inadequate prep, such as the patient’s status regarding cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, diabetes, opioid use, gastroparesis, tricyclics, and colorectal surgery.

Although several prediction models are based on some of these factors — looking at comorbidities, antidepressant use, constipation, and prior abdominal or pelvic surgery — the data don’t indicate whether knowing about or addressing these risks actually leads to better bowel prep, said Brian Jacobson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of program development for gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Instead, the biggest return-on-investment option is to maximize prep for all patients, he said, especially since every patient has at least some risk of poor prep, either due to the required diet changes, medication considerations, or purgative solution and timing.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

Adenoma detection rates (ADR) can be highly variable due to different techniques, technical skills, pattern recognition, interpretation, and experience. New adjunct and AI-based tools can help improve ADR, especially if clinicians want to improve, receive training, and use best-practice techniques.

“In colonoscopy, it’s tricky because it’s not just a blood test or an x-ray. There’s really a lot of technique involved, both cognitive awareness and pattern recognition, as well as our technical skills,” said Tonya Kaltenbach, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco and director of advanced endoscopy at the San Francisco VA Health Care System in San Francisco.

For instance, multiple tools and techniques may be needed in real time to interpret a lesion, such as washing, retroflexing, and using better lighting, while paying attention to alerts and noting areas for further inspection and resection.

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer’s recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy provide valuable information and rationale for how to determine surveillance intervals for patients. However, clinicians still may be unsure what to recommend for some patients — or tell them to come back too soon, leading to unnecessary colonoscopy. 

For instance, a 47-year-old woman who presents for her initial screening and has a single 6-mm polyp, which pathology returns as a single adenoma may be considered to be at average risk and suggested to return in 7-10 years. The guidelines seem more obvious for patients with one or two adenomas under 10 mm removed en bloc. 

However, once the case details shift into gray areas and include three or four adenomas between 10 and 20 mm, or piecemeal removal, clinicians may differ on their recommendations, said Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of endoscopy for Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. At DDW 2024, Dr. Keswani presented several case examples, often finding various audience opinions.

Reducing Environmental Effects

In recent waste audits of endoscopy rooms, providers generate 1-3 kg of waste per procedure, which would fill 117 soccer fields to a depth of 1 m, based on 18 million procedures in the United States per year. This waste comes from procedure-related equipment, administration, medications, travel of patients and staff, and infrastructure with systems such as air conditioning. Taking steps toward a green practice can reduce waste and the carbon footprint of healthcare.

“When we think about improving colonoscopy performance, the goal is to prevent colon cancer death, but when we expand that, we have to apply sustainable practices as a domain of quality,” said Heiko Pohl, MD, professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire, and a gastroenterologist at White River Junction VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont.

The GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability suggests a 5-year initiative to improve sustainability and reduce waste across seven domains — clinical setting, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy.

AI for Quality And Efficiency

Moving forward, AI tools will likely become more popular in various parts of GI practice, by assisting with documentation, spotting polyps, tracking mucosal surfaces, providing optical histopathology, and supervising performance through high-quality feedback.

“Endoscopy has reached the limits of human visual capacity, where seeing more pixels won’t necessarily improve clinical diagnosis. What’s next for elevating the care of patients really is AI,” said Jason B. Samarasena, MD, professor of medicine and program director of the interventional endoscopy training program at the University of California Irvine in Irvine, California.

As practices adopt AI-based systems, however, clinicians should be cautious about a false sense of comfort or “alarm fatigue” if bounding boxes become distracting. Instead, new tools need to be adopted as a “physician-AI hybrid,” with the endoscopist in mind, particularly if helpful for performing a better exam by watching withdrawal time or endoscope slippage.

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy increase in coming years, gastroenterologists must think about ways to improve performance across the procedure continuum.

According to several experts who spoke at the American Gastroenterological Association’s Postgraduate Course this spring, which was offered at Digestive Disease Week (DDW), gastroenterologists can take these five steps to improve their performance: Addressing poor bowel prep, improving polyp detection, following the best intervals for polyp surveillance, reducing the environmental impact of gastrointestinal (GI) practice, and implementing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for efficiency and quality.
 

Addressing Poor Prep

To improve bowel preparation rates, clinicians may consider identifying those at high risk for inadequate prep, which could include known risk factors such as age, body mass index, inpatient status, constipation, tobacco use, and hypertension. However, other variables tend to serve as bigger predictors of inadequate prep, such as the patient’s status regarding cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, diabetes, opioid use, gastroparesis, tricyclics, and colorectal surgery.

Although several prediction models are based on some of these factors — looking at comorbidities, antidepressant use, constipation, and prior abdominal or pelvic surgery — the data don’t indicate whether knowing about or addressing these risks actually leads to better bowel prep, said Brian Jacobson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of program development for gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Instead, the biggest return-on-investment option is to maximize prep for all patients, he said, especially since every patient has at least some risk of poor prep, either due to the required diet changes, medication considerations, or purgative solution and timing.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

Adenoma detection rates (ADR) can be highly variable due to different techniques, technical skills, pattern recognition, interpretation, and experience. New adjunct and AI-based tools can help improve ADR, especially if clinicians want to improve, receive training, and use best-practice techniques.

“In colonoscopy, it’s tricky because it’s not just a blood test or an x-ray. There’s really a lot of technique involved, both cognitive awareness and pattern recognition, as well as our technical skills,” said Tonya Kaltenbach, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco and director of advanced endoscopy at the San Francisco VA Health Care System in San Francisco.

For instance, multiple tools and techniques may be needed in real time to interpret a lesion, such as washing, retroflexing, and using better lighting, while paying attention to alerts and noting areas for further inspection and resection.

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer’s recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy provide valuable information and rationale for how to determine surveillance intervals for patients. However, clinicians still may be unsure what to recommend for some patients — or tell them to come back too soon, leading to unnecessary colonoscopy. 

For instance, a 47-year-old woman who presents for her initial screening and has a single 6-mm polyp, which pathology returns as a single adenoma may be considered to be at average risk and suggested to return in 7-10 years. The guidelines seem more obvious for patients with one or two adenomas under 10 mm removed en bloc. 

However, once the case details shift into gray areas and include three or four adenomas between 10 and 20 mm, or piecemeal removal, clinicians may differ on their recommendations, said Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of endoscopy for Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. At DDW 2024, Dr. Keswani presented several case examples, often finding various audience opinions.

Reducing Environmental Effects

In recent waste audits of endoscopy rooms, providers generate 1-3 kg of waste per procedure, which would fill 117 soccer fields to a depth of 1 m, based on 18 million procedures in the United States per year. This waste comes from procedure-related equipment, administration, medications, travel of patients and staff, and infrastructure with systems such as air conditioning. Taking steps toward a green practice can reduce waste and the carbon footprint of healthcare.

“When we think about improving colonoscopy performance, the goal is to prevent colon cancer death, but when we expand that, we have to apply sustainable practices as a domain of quality,” said Heiko Pohl, MD, professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire, and a gastroenterologist at White River Junction VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont.

The GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability suggests a 5-year initiative to improve sustainability and reduce waste across seven domains — clinical setting, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy.

AI for Quality And Efficiency

Moving forward, AI tools will likely become more popular in various parts of GI practice, by assisting with documentation, spotting polyps, tracking mucosal surfaces, providing optical histopathology, and supervising performance through high-quality feedback.

“Endoscopy has reached the limits of human visual capacity, where seeing more pixels won’t necessarily improve clinical diagnosis. What’s next for elevating the care of patients really is AI,” said Jason B. Samarasena, MD, professor of medicine and program director of the interventional endoscopy training program at the University of California Irvine in Irvine, California.

As practices adopt AI-based systems, however, clinicians should be cautious about a false sense of comfort or “alarm fatigue” if bounding boxes become distracting. Instead, new tools need to be adopted as a “physician-AI hybrid,” with the endoscopist in mind, particularly if helpful for performing a better exam by watching withdrawal time or endoscope slippage.

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with endoscopy, the Baveno VI criteria present a noninvasive and cost-effective method to detect high-risk varices in patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, according to new research.

Although upper gastrointestinal endoscopy continues to be the gold standard for detecting varices, the Baveno VI criteria combine liver stiffness and platelet count values to rule out high-risk varices, which can save on endoscopy costs.

“The Baveno VI criteria can reduce the need for endoscopies in patients with cirrhosis, but it is important to ascertain if they are also cost-effective,” said senior author Emmanuel Tsochatzis, MD, professor of hepatology at the University College London Institute for Liver and Digestive Health and Royal Free Hospital in London.

Andrew McConnell/EASL

“Our findings confirm that the application of these criteria is highly cost-effective, and given the fact that they are also safe, should be considered for widespread implementation,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Baveno VI Criteria Analysis

On the basis of the Baveno VI Consensus, endoscopy screening can be avoided in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who have a platelet count > 150,000/mm³ and a liver stiffness measurement < 20 kPa. 

In addition, expanded Baveno VI criteria have suggested optimized cut-off values to avoid even more endoscopies — at a platelet value of > 110,000/mm³ and a liver stiffness < 25 kPa.

Previous research indicates that the expanded criteria could avoid double the number of endoscopies, the authors wrote, with a risk of missing high-risk varices in 1.6% of patients with the criteria and 0.6% of overall study participants. Both criteria have been validated in large groups of patients with compensated cirrhosis of different etiologies, but the cost-effectiveness hasn’t been analyzed.

Dr. Tsochatzis and colleagues created an analytical decision model to estimate the costs and benefits of using the Baveno VI criteria as compared with endoscopy as the standard of care among a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The research team looked at costs and clinical outcomes based on the United Kingdom National Health Service perspective at 1 year from diagnosis and then estimated the expected costs and outcomes at 5 years and 20 years, including factors such as liver disease progression and variceal bleeding.

As part of the model, the Baveno VI criteria were implemented at annual screenings with targeted endoscopy for patients who met the criteria, as compared with endoscopy as a biannual screening using esophagogastroduodenoscopy for everyone.

In general, the Baveno VI criteria were cost-effective compared with endoscopy in all analyses, including all time points, as well as deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The cost of using the criteria was £67 per patient, as compared with £411 per patient for esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

For the 1000 patients, the criteria produced 0.16 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient at an incremental cost of £326, or about $443, over 5 years. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £2081, or $2830, per additional QALY gained.

In addition, the incremental net monetary benefit of the Baveno VI criteria was £2808, or $3819, over 5 years per patient.

The results were also consistent and cost-effective in Canada and Spain using relevant cost inputs from those countries. In Canada, the ICER per QALY estimates were €3535, or $3712, over 5 years and €4610, or $4841, over 20 years. In Spain, the ICER per QALY estimates were €1966, or $2064, over 5 years and €2225, or $2336, over 20 years.
 

Baveno VI Considerations

Despite the small risk of false negatives, the Baveno VI criteria could avoid unnecessary endoscopies and provide significant cost savings, the study authors wrote.

“It should be mentioned, however, that sparing endoscopies could result in missing the incidental detection of esophageal and gastric cancers, particularly in patients with higher risk, such as those who misuse alcohol,” Dr. Tsochatzis said.

Future studies could investigate ways to broaden the applicability of the Baveno VI criteria to other patient subgroups, identify optimal cut-off points, and incorporate patients with systemic therapies.

“Baveno VI criteria can be safely used to avoid endoscopy in a substantial proportion of patients with compensated cirrhosis,” said Wayne Bai, MBChB, a gastroenterologist at Waikato Hospital and the University of Auckland in New Zealand.

Dr. Bai, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the Baveno VI criteria and participated in Baveno VII criteria meetings. In an analysis of more than two dozen studies, he and colleagues found that the Baveno VI criteria had a pooled 99% negative predictive value for ruling out high-risk varices and weren’t affected by the cause of cirrhosis. However, expanding the criteria had suboptimal performance in some cases.

Waikato Hospital

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with endoscopy, the Baveno VI criteria present a noninvasive and cost-effective method to detect high-risk varices in patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, according to new research.

Although upper gastrointestinal endoscopy continues to be the gold standard for detecting varices, the Baveno VI criteria combine liver stiffness and platelet count values to rule out high-risk varices, which can save on endoscopy costs.

“The Baveno VI criteria can reduce the need for endoscopies in patients with cirrhosis, but it is important to ascertain if they are also cost-effective,” said senior author Emmanuel Tsochatzis, MD, professor of hepatology at the University College London Institute for Liver and Digestive Health and Royal Free Hospital in London.

Andrew McConnell/EASL

“Our findings confirm that the application of these criteria is highly cost-effective, and given the fact that they are also safe, should be considered for widespread implementation,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Baveno VI Criteria Analysis

On the basis of the Baveno VI Consensus, endoscopy screening can be avoided in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who have a platelet count > 150,000/mm³ and a liver stiffness measurement < 20 kPa. 

In addition, expanded Baveno VI criteria have suggested optimized cut-off values to avoid even more endoscopies — at a platelet value of > 110,000/mm³ and a liver stiffness < 25 kPa.

Previous research indicates that the expanded criteria could avoid double the number of endoscopies, the authors wrote, with a risk of missing high-risk varices in 1.6% of patients with the criteria and 0.6% of overall study participants. Both criteria have been validated in large groups of patients with compensated cirrhosis of different etiologies, but the cost-effectiveness hasn’t been analyzed.

Dr. Tsochatzis and colleagues created an analytical decision model to estimate the costs and benefits of using the Baveno VI criteria as compared with endoscopy as the standard of care among a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The research team looked at costs and clinical outcomes based on the United Kingdom National Health Service perspective at 1 year from diagnosis and then estimated the expected costs and outcomes at 5 years and 20 years, including factors such as liver disease progression and variceal bleeding.

As part of the model, the Baveno VI criteria were implemented at annual screenings with targeted endoscopy for patients who met the criteria, as compared with endoscopy as a biannual screening using esophagogastroduodenoscopy for everyone.

In general, the Baveno VI criteria were cost-effective compared with endoscopy in all analyses, including all time points, as well as deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The cost of using the criteria was £67 per patient, as compared with £411 per patient for esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

For the 1000 patients, the criteria produced 0.16 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient at an incremental cost of £326, or about $443, over 5 years. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £2081, or $2830, per additional QALY gained.

In addition, the incremental net monetary benefit of the Baveno VI criteria was £2808, or $3819, over 5 years per patient.

The results were also consistent and cost-effective in Canada and Spain using relevant cost inputs from those countries. In Canada, the ICER per QALY estimates were €3535, or $3712, over 5 years and €4610, or $4841, over 20 years. In Spain, the ICER per QALY estimates were €1966, or $2064, over 5 years and €2225, or $2336, over 20 years.
 

Baveno VI Considerations

Despite the small risk of false negatives, the Baveno VI criteria could avoid unnecessary endoscopies and provide significant cost savings, the study authors wrote.

“It should be mentioned, however, that sparing endoscopies could result in missing the incidental detection of esophageal and gastric cancers, particularly in patients with higher risk, such as those who misuse alcohol,” Dr. Tsochatzis said.

Future studies could investigate ways to broaden the applicability of the Baveno VI criteria to other patient subgroups, identify optimal cut-off points, and incorporate patients with systemic therapies.

“Baveno VI criteria can be safely used to avoid endoscopy in a substantial proportion of patients with compensated cirrhosis,” said Wayne Bai, MBChB, a gastroenterologist at Waikato Hospital and the University of Auckland in New Zealand.

Dr. Bai, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the Baveno VI criteria and participated in Baveno VII criteria meetings. In an analysis of more than two dozen studies, he and colleagues found that the Baveno VI criteria had a pooled 99% negative predictive value for ruling out high-risk varices and weren’t affected by the cause of cirrhosis. However, expanding the criteria had suboptimal performance in some cases.

Waikato Hospital

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with endoscopy, the Baveno VI criteria present a noninvasive and cost-effective method to detect high-risk varices in patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, according to new research.

Although upper gastrointestinal endoscopy continues to be the gold standard for detecting varices, the Baveno VI criteria combine liver stiffness and platelet count values to rule out high-risk varices, which can save on endoscopy costs.

“The Baveno VI criteria can reduce the need for endoscopies in patients with cirrhosis, but it is important to ascertain if they are also cost-effective,” said senior author Emmanuel Tsochatzis, MD, professor of hepatology at the University College London Institute for Liver and Digestive Health and Royal Free Hospital in London.

Andrew McConnell/EASL

“Our findings confirm that the application of these criteria is highly cost-effective, and given the fact that they are also safe, should be considered for widespread implementation,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Baveno VI Criteria Analysis

On the basis of the Baveno VI Consensus, endoscopy screening can be avoided in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who have a platelet count > 150,000/mm³ and a liver stiffness measurement < 20 kPa. 

In addition, expanded Baveno VI criteria have suggested optimized cut-off values to avoid even more endoscopies — at a platelet value of > 110,000/mm³ and a liver stiffness < 25 kPa.

Previous research indicates that the expanded criteria could avoid double the number of endoscopies, the authors wrote, with a risk of missing high-risk varices in 1.6% of patients with the criteria and 0.6% of overall study participants. Both criteria have been validated in large groups of patients with compensated cirrhosis of different etiologies, but the cost-effectiveness hasn’t been analyzed.

Dr. Tsochatzis and colleagues created an analytical decision model to estimate the costs and benefits of using the Baveno VI criteria as compared with endoscopy as the standard of care among a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The research team looked at costs and clinical outcomes based on the United Kingdom National Health Service perspective at 1 year from diagnosis and then estimated the expected costs and outcomes at 5 years and 20 years, including factors such as liver disease progression and variceal bleeding.

As part of the model, the Baveno VI criteria were implemented at annual screenings with targeted endoscopy for patients who met the criteria, as compared with endoscopy as a biannual screening using esophagogastroduodenoscopy for everyone.

In general, the Baveno VI criteria were cost-effective compared with endoscopy in all analyses, including all time points, as well as deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The cost of using the criteria was £67 per patient, as compared with £411 per patient for esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

For the 1000 patients, the criteria produced 0.16 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient at an incremental cost of £326, or about $443, over 5 years. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £2081, or $2830, per additional QALY gained.

In addition, the incremental net monetary benefit of the Baveno VI criteria was £2808, or $3819, over 5 years per patient.

The results were also consistent and cost-effective in Canada and Spain using relevant cost inputs from those countries. In Canada, the ICER per QALY estimates were €3535, or $3712, over 5 years and €4610, or $4841, over 20 years. In Spain, the ICER per QALY estimates were €1966, or $2064, over 5 years and €2225, or $2336, over 20 years.
 

Baveno VI Considerations

Despite the small risk of false negatives, the Baveno VI criteria could avoid unnecessary endoscopies and provide significant cost savings, the study authors wrote.

“It should be mentioned, however, that sparing endoscopies could result in missing the incidental detection of esophageal and gastric cancers, particularly in patients with higher risk, such as those who misuse alcohol,” Dr. Tsochatzis said.

Future studies could investigate ways to broaden the applicability of the Baveno VI criteria to other patient subgroups, identify optimal cut-off points, and incorporate patients with systemic therapies.

“Baveno VI criteria can be safely used to avoid endoscopy in a substantial proportion of patients with compensated cirrhosis,” said Wayne Bai, MBChB, a gastroenterologist at Waikato Hospital and the University of Auckland in New Zealand.

Dr. Bai, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the Baveno VI criteria and participated in Baveno VII criteria meetings. In an analysis of more than two dozen studies, he and colleagues found that the Baveno VI criteria had a pooled 99% negative predictive value for ruling out high-risk varices and weren’t affected by the cause of cirrhosis. However, expanding the criteria had suboptimal performance in some cases.

Waikato Hospital

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When parents are perceived as distracted by their phones or other technology during social or family interactions, it can affect the mental health of children between ages 9 and 11 years, according to a new study based in Canada.

In fact, this parental “technoference” is associated with higher levels of inattention and hyperactivity symptoms later in the child’s development, the researchers found.

“We hear a lot about children’s and adolescents’ screen time in the media, but we forget that parents are also on their screens a lot. In fact, past research shows that when parents are with their children, they spend 1 in 3 minutes on a screen,” said lead author Audrey-Ann Deneault, PhD, assistant professor of social psychology at the University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

“We’ve all experienced moments when we’re on the phone and not hearing someone call us or don’t notice something happening right before our eyes,” she said. “We think that’s why it’s important to look at technoference. When parents use screens, they are more likely to miss when their child needs them.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Analyzing Parental Technoference

As part of the All Our Families study, Dr. Deneault and colleagues analyzed a cohort of mothers and 1303 emerging adolescents between ages 9 and 11 years in Calgary, with the aim of understanding long-term associations between perceived parental interruptions (or technoference) and their children’s mental health.

Women were recruited during pregnancy between May 2008 and December 2010. For this study, the adolescents were assessed three times — at ages 9 years (in 2020), 10 years (in 2021), and 11 years (in 2021 and 2022). The mothers gave consent for their children to participate, and the children gave assent as well.

During the assessments, the adolescents completed questionnaires about their perceptions of parental technoference and their mental health symptoms, such as anxiety, depression, inattention, and hyperactivity. The study focused on the magnitude of effect sizes rather than statistical significance.

Overall, higher levels of anxiety symptoms at ages 9 and 10 years were prospectively associated with higher levels of perceived parental technoference at ages 10 and 11 years. The effect size was small.

In addition, higher levels of perceived parental technoference at ages 9 and 10 years were prospectively associated with higher levels of hyperactivity at ages 10 and 11 years and higher levels of inattention at age 11 years. There were no significant differences by gender.

“Technoference and youth mental health interact in complex ways. We found that when emerging adolescents have higher rates of anxiety, this can prompt parents to engage in more technoference,” Dr. Deneault said. “This latter bit highlights that parents may be struggling when their youths have mental health difficulties.”
 

Considering Healthy Changes

The findings call for a multitiered approach, Dr. Deneault said, in which adolescents and parents receive support related to mental health concerns, technology use, and healthy parent-child interactions.

“The key takeaway is that parents’ screen time matters and should begin to be a part of the conversation when we think about child and adolescent mental health,” she said.

Future research should look at the direction of associations between adolescent mental health and parental technoference, as well as underlying mechanisms, specific activities linked to technoference, and different age groups and stages of development, the study authors wrote.

“As a society, we need to understand how parents’ use of technology can interfere or not with youths’ mental health,” said Nicole Letourneau, PhD, a research professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and community health sciences focused on parent and child health at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Dr. Letourneau, who wasn’t involved in this study, has researched the effects of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes. She and her colleagues found that parents recognized changes in their child’s behavior.

“Parental support is important for healthy development, and if parents are distracted by their devices, they can miss important but subtle cues that youth are using to signal their needs,” she said. “Given the troubling rise in youth mental health problems, we need to understand potential contributors so we can offer ways to reduce risks and promote youth mental health.”

Communication with parents should be considered as well. For instance, healthcare providers can address the positive and negative aspects of technology use.

“There is enough research out now that we should be more concerned than we currently are about how parents’ own technology habits might influence child and teen well-being. Yet, taking an overall negative lens to parent technology and smartphone habits may not prove very fruitful,” said Brandon McDaniel, PhD, a senior research scientist at the Parkview Mirro Center for Research & Innovation in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Dr. McDaniel, who also wasn’t involved with this study, has researched technoference and associations with child behavior problems, as well as parents’ desires to change phone use. He noted that parents may use their devices for positive reasons, such as finding support from others, regulating their own emotions, and escaping from stress, so they can be more emotionally available for their children soon after using their phone.

“Many parents already feel an immense amount of guilt surrounding smartphone use in the presence of their child,” he said. “I suggest that practitioners address parent technology use in ways that validate parents in their positive uses of technology while helping them identify areas of their tech habits that may be counterproductive for their own or their child’s health and mental health.”

The All Our Families study was supported by an Alberta Innovates–Health Solutions Interdisciplinary Team Grant and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation. The current analysis received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, a Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development COVID-19 grant, an Alberta Innovates grant, and a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship. Dr. Deneault, Dr. Letourneau, and Dr. McDaniel reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When parents are perceived as distracted by their phones or other technology during social or family interactions, it can affect the mental health of children between ages 9 and 11 years, according to a new study based in Canada.

In fact, this parental “technoference” is associated with higher levels of inattention and hyperactivity symptoms later in the child’s development, the researchers found.

“We hear a lot about children’s and adolescents’ screen time in the media, but we forget that parents are also on their screens a lot. In fact, past research shows that when parents are with their children, they spend 1 in 3 minutes on a screen,” said lead author Audrey-Ann Deneault, PhD, assistant professor of social psychology at the University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

“We’ve all experienced moments when we’re on the phone and not hearing someone call us or don’t notice something happening right before our eyes,” she said. “We think that’s why it’s important to look at technoference. When parents use screens, they are more likely to miss when their child needs them.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Analyzing Parental Technoference

As part of the All Our Families study, Dr. Deneault and colleagues analyzed a cohort of mothers and 1303 emerging adolescents between ages 9 and 11 years in Calgary, with the aim of understanding long-term associations between perceived parental interruptions (or technoference) and their children’s mental health.

Women were recruited during pregnancy between May 2008 and December 2010. For this study, the adolescents were assessed three times — at ages 9 years (in 2020), 10 years (in 2021), and 11 years (in 2021 and 2022). The mothers gave consent for their children to participate, and the children gave assent as well.

During the assessments, the adolescents completed questionnaires about their perceptions of parental technoference and their mental health symptoms, such as anxiety, depression, inattention, and hyperactivity. The study focused on the magnitude of effect sizes rather than statistical significance.

Overall, higher levels of anxiety symptoms at ages 9 and 10 years were prospectively associated with higher levels of perceived parental technoference at ages 10 and 11 years. The effect size was small.

In addition, higher levels of perceived parental technoference at ages 9 and 10 years were prospectively associated with higher levels of hyperactivity at ages 10 and 11 years and higher levels of inattention at age 11 years. There were no significant differences by gender.

“Technoference and youth mental health interact in complex ways. We found that when emerging adolescents have higher rates of anxiety, this can prompt parents to engage in more technoference,” Dr. Deneault said. “This latter bit highlights that parents may be struggling when their youths have mental health difficulties.”
 

Considering Healthy Changes

The findings call for a multitiered approach, Dr. Deneault said, in which adolescents and parents receive support related to mental health concerns, technology use, and healthy parent-child interactions.

“The key takeaway is that parents’ screen time matters and should begin to be a part of the conversation when we think about child and adolescent mental health,” she said.

Future research should look at the direction of associations between adolescent mental health and parental technoference, as well as underlying mechanisms, specific activities linked to technoference, and different age groups and stages of development, the study authors wrote.

“As a society, we need to understand how parents’ use of technology can interfere or not with youths’ mental health,” said Nicole Letourneau, PhD, a research professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and community health sciences focused on parent and child health at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Dr. Letourneau, who wasn’t involved in this study, has researched the effects of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes. She and her colleagues found that parents recognized changes in their child’s behavior.

“Parental support is important for healthy development, and if parents are distracted by their devices, they can miss important but subtle cues that youth are using to signal their needs,” she said. “Given the troubling rise in youth mental health problems, we need to understand potential contributors so we can offer ways to reduce risks and promote youth mental health.”

Communication with parents should be considered as well. For instance, healthcare providers can address the positive and negative aspects of technology use.

“There is enough research out now that we should be more concerned than we currently are about how parents’ own technology habits might influence child and teen well-being. Yet, taking an overall negative lens to parent technology and smartphone habits may not prove very fruitful,” said Brandon McDaniel, PhD, a senior research scientist at the Parkview Mirro Center for Research & Innovation in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Dr. McDaniel, who also wasn’t involved with this study, has researched technoference and associations with child behavior problems, as well as parents’ desires to change phone use. He noted that parents may use their devices for positive reasons, such as finding support from others, regulating their own emotions, and escaping from stress, so they can be more emotionally available for their children soon after using their phone.

“Many parents already feel an immense amount of guilt surrounding smartphone use in the presence of their child,” he said. “I suggest that practitioners address parent technology use in ways that validate parents in their positive uses of technology while helping them identify areas of their tech habits that may be counterproductive for their own or their child’s health and mental health.”

The All Our Families study was supported by an Alberta Innovates–Health Solutions Interdisciplinary Team Grant and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation. The current analysis received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, a Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development COVID-19 grant, an Alberta Innovates grant, and a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship. Dr. Deneault, Dr. Letourneau, and Dr. McDaniel reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When parents are perceived as distracted by their phones or other technology during social or family interactions, it can affect the mental health of children between ages 9 and 11 years, according to a new study based in Canada.

In fact, this parental “technoference” is associated with higher levels of inattention and hyperactivity symptoms later in the child’s development, the researchers found.

“We hear a lot about children’s and adolescents’ screen time in the media, but we forget that parents are also on their screens a lot. In fact, past research shows that when parents are with their children, they spend 1 in 3 minutes on a screen,” said lead author Audrey-Ann Deneault, PhD, assistant professor of social psychology at the University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

“We’ve all experienced moments when we’re on the phone and not hearing someone call us or don’t notice something happening right before our eyes,” she said. “We think that’s why it’s important to look at technoference. When parents use screens, they are more likely to miss when their child needs them.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Analyzing Parental Technoference

As part of the All Our Families study, Dr. Deneault and colleagues analyzed a cohort of mothers and 1303 emerging adolescents between ages 9 and 11 years in Calgary, with the aim of understanding long-term associations between perceived parental interruptions (or technoference) and their children’s mental health.

Women were recruited during pregnancy between May 2008 and December 2010. For this study, the adolescents were assessed three times — at ages 9 years (in 2020), 10 years (in 2021), and 11 years (in 2021 and 2022). The mothers gave consent for their children to participate, and the children gave assent as well.

During the assessments, the adolescents completed questionnaires about their perceptions of parental technoference and their mental health symptoms, such as anxiety, depression, inattention, and hyperactivity. The study focused on the magnitude of effect sizes rather than statistical significance.

Overall, higher levels of anxiety symptoms at ages 9 and 10 years were prospectively associated with higher levels of perceived parental technoference at ages 10 and 11 years. The effect size was small.

In addition, higher levels of perceived parental technoference at ages 9 and 10 years were prospectively associated with higher levels of hyperactivity at ages 10 and 11 years and higher levels of inattention at age 11 years. There were no significant differences by gender.

“Technoference and youth mental health interact in complex ways. We found that when emerging adolescents have higher rates of anxiety, this can prompt parents to engage in more technoference,” Dr. Deneault said. “This latter bit highlights that parents may be struggling when their youths have mental health difficulties.”
 

Considering Healthy Changes

The findings call for a multitiered approach, Dr. Deneault said, in which adolescents and parents receive support related to mental health concerns, technology use, and healthy parent-child interactions.

“The key takeaway is that parents’ screen time matters and should begin to be a part of the conversation when we think about child and adolescent mental health,” she said.

Future research should look at the direction of associations between adolescent mental health and parental technoference, as well as underlying mechanisms, specific activities linked to technoference, and different age groups and stages of development, the study authors wrote.

“As a society, we need to understand how parents’ use of technology can interfere or not with youths’ mental health,” said Nicole Letourneau, PhD, a research professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and community health sciences focused on parent and child health at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Dr. Letourneau, who wasn’t involved in this study, has researched the effects of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes. She and her colleagues found that parents recognized changes in their child’s behavior.

“Parental support is important for healthy development, and if parents are distracted by their devices, they can miss important but subtle cues that youth are using to signal their needs,” she said. “Given the troubling rise in youth mental health problems, we need to understand potential contributors so we can offer ways to reduce risks and promote youth mental health.”

Communication with parents should be considered as well. For instance, healthcare providers can address the positive and negative aspects of technology use.

“There is enough research out now that we should be more concerned than we currently are about how parents’ own technology habits might influence child and teen well-being. Yet, taking an overall negative lens to parent technology and smartphone habits may not prove very fruitful,” said Brandon McDaniel, PhD, a senior research scientist at the Parkview Mirro Center for Research & Innovation in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Dr. McDaniel, who also wasn’t involved with this study, has researched technoference and associations with child behavior problems, as well as parents’ desires to change phone use. He noted that parents may use their devices for positive reasons, such as finding support from others, regulating their own emotions, and escaping from stress, so they can be more emotionally available for their children soon after using their phone.

“Many parents already feel an immense amount of guilt surrounding smartphone use in the presence of their child,” he said. “I suggest that practitioners address parent technology use in ways that validate parents in their positive uses of technology while helping them identify areas of their tech habits that may be counterproductive for their own or their child’s health and mental health.”

The All Our Families study was supported by an Alberta Innovates–Health Solutions Interdisciplinary Team Grant and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation. The current analysis received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, a Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development COVID-19 grant, an Alberta Innovates grant, and a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship. Dr. Deneault, Dr. Letourneau, and Dr. McDaniel reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have distinct clinical, serologic, and genetic associations that reveal underlying mechanisms and indicate targets for new or existing drugs, according to a recent study.

For instance, antinuclear cytoplastic antibody is associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in Crohn’s disease, and CPEB4 genetic variation is associated with skin manifestations.

“Up to 40% of people with IBD suffer with symptoms from inflammation that occurs outside the gut, particularly affecting the liver, skin, and joints. These symptoms can often have a bigger impact on quality of life than the gut inflammation itself and can actually be life-threatening,” said senior author Dermot McGovern, MD, PhD, AGAF, director of translational medicine at the F. Widjaja Foundation Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Immunobiology Research Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

“With the advances in therapies for IBD, including availability of gut-selective agents, treatment choices often incorporate whether a patient has one of these manifestations or not,” he said. “We need to understand who is at increased risk of these and why.”

The study was published in Gastroenterology .
 

Analyzing Associations

Dr. McGovern and colleagues analyzed data for 12,083 unrelated European ancestry IBD cases with presence or absence of EIMs across four cohorts in the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center IBD Research Repository, National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases IBD Genetics Consortium, Sinai Helmsley Alliance for Research Excellence Consortium, and Risk Stratification and Identification of Immunogenetic and Microbial Markers of Rapid Disease Progression in Children with Crohn’s Disease.

In particular, the researchers looked at EIM phenotypes such as ankylosing spondylitis and sacroiliitis, PSC, peripheral arthritis, and skin and ocular manifestations. They analyzed clinical and serologic parameters through regression analyses using a mixed-effects model, as well as within-case logistic regression for genetic associations.

Overall, 14% of patients had at least one EIM. Contrary to previous reports, only 2% had multiple EIMs, and most co-occurrences were negatively correlated. Nearly all EIMs were more common in Crohn’s disease, except for PSC, which was more common in ulcerative colitis.

In general, EIMs occurred more often in women, particularly with Crohn’s disease and colonic disease location, and in patients who required surgery. Jewish ancestry was associated with psoriasis and overall skin manifestations.

Smoking increased the risk for multiple EIMs, except for PSC, where there appeared to be a “protective” effect. Older age at diagnosis and a family history of IBD were associated with increased risk for certain EIMs as well.

In addition, the research team noted multiple serologic associations, such as immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgA, perinuclear antinuclear cytoplastic antibodies, and anti–Pseudomonas fluorescens–associated sequences with any EIM, as well as particular associations with PSC, such as anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies and anti-flagellin.

There were also genome-wide significant associations within the major histocompatibility complex and CPEB4. Genetic associations implicated tumor necrosis factor, Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription, and interleukin 6 as potential targets for EIMs.

“We are working with colleagues across the world to increase the sample size, as we believe there is more to find,” Dr. McGovern said. “Importantly, this includes non-European ancestry subjects, as there is an urgent need to increase the diversity of populations we study so advances in clinical care are available to all communities.”
 

Considering Target Therapies

As medicine becomes more specialized, physicians should remember to consider the whole patient while choosing treatment strategies.

“Sometimes doctors wear blinders to the whole person, and it’s important to be aware of a holistic approach, where a gastroenterologist also asks about potential joint inflammation or a rheumatologist asks about bowel inflammation,” said David Rubin, MD, AGAF, chief of the Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at the University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago.

Dr. Rubin, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched and published on EIMs in IBD. He and colleagues analyzed the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of EIMs to better understand possibilities for disease management.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have distinct clinical, serologic, and genetic associations that reveal underlying mechanisms and indicate targets for new or existing drugs, according to a recent study.

For instance, antinuclear cytoplastic antibody is associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in Crohn’s disease, and CPEB4 genetic variation is associated with skin manifestations.

“Up to 40% of people with IBD suffer with symptoms from inflammation that occurs outside the gut, particularly affecting the liver, skin, and joints. These symptoms can often have a bigger impact on quality of life than the gut inflammation itself and can actually be life-threatening,” said senior author Dermot McGovern, MD, PhD, AGAF, director of translational medicine at the F. Widjaja Foundation Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Immunobiology Research Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

“With the advances in therapies for IBD, including availability of gut-selective agents, treatment choices often incorporate whether a patient has one of these manifestations or not,” he said. “We need to understand who is at increased risk of these and why.”

The study was published in Gastroenterology .
 

Analyzing Associations

Dr. McGovern and colleagues analyzed data for 12,083 unrelated European ancestry IBD cases with presence or absence of EIMs across four cohorts in the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center IBD Research Repository, National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases IBD Genetics Consortium, Sinai Helmsley Alliance for Research Excellence Consortium, and Risk Stratification and Identification of Immunogenetic and Microbial Markers of Rapid Disease Progression in Children with Crohn’s Disease.

In particular, the researchers looked at EIM phenotypes such as ankylosing spondylitis and sacroiliitis, PSC, peripheral arthritis, and skin and ocular manifestations. They analyzed clinical and serologic parameters through regression analyses using a mixed-effects model, as well as within-case logistic regression for genetic associations.

Overall, 14% of patients had at least one EIM. Contrary to previous reports, only 2% had multiple EIMs, and most co-occurrences were negatively correlated. Nearly all EIMs were more common in Crohn’s disease, except for PSC, which was more common in ulcerative colitis.

In general, EIMs occurred more often in women, particularly with Crohn’s disease and colonic disease location, and in patients who required surgery. Jewish ancestry was associated with psoriasis and overall skin manifestations.

Smoking increased the risk for multiple EIMs, except for PSC, where there appeared to be a “protective” effect. Older age at diagnosis and a family history of IBD were associated with increased risk for certain EIMs as well.

In addition, the research team noted multiple serologic associations, such as immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgA, perinuclear antinuclear cytoplastic antibodies, and anti–Pseudomonas fluorescens–associated sequences with any EIM, as well as particular associations with PSC, such as anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies and anti-flagellin.

There were also genome-wide significant associations within the major histocompatibility complex and CPEB4. Genetic associations implicated tumor necrosis factor, Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription, and interleukin 6 as potential targets for EIMs.

“We are working with colleagues across the world to increase the sample size, as we believe there is more to find,” Dr. McGovern said. “Importantly, this includes non-European ancestry subjects, as there is an urgent need to increase the diversity of populations we study so advances in clinical care are available to all communities.”
 

Considering Target Therapies

As medicine becomes more specialized, physicians should remember to consider the whole patient while choosing treatment strategies.

“Sometimes doctors wear blinders to the whole person, and it’s important to be aware of a holistic approach, where a gastroenterologist also asks about potential joint inflammation or a rheumatologist asks about bowel inflammation,” said David Rubin, MD, AGAF, chief of the Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at the University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago.

Dr. Rubin, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched and published on EIMs in IBD. He and colleagues analyzed the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of EIMs to better understand possibilities for disease management.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have distinct clinical, serologic, and genetic associations that reveal underlying mechanisms and indicate targets for new or existing drugs, according to a recent study.

For instance, antinuclear cytoplastic antibody is associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in Crohn’s disease, and CPEB4 genetic variation is associated with skin manifestations.

“Up to 40% of people with IBD suffer with symptoms from inflammation that occurs outside the gut, particularly affecting the liver, skin, and joints. These symptoms can often have a bigger impact on quality of life than the gut inflammation itself and can actually be life-threatening,” said senior author Dermot McGovern, MD, PhD, AGAF, director of translational medicine at the F. Widjaja Foundation Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Immunobiology Research Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

“With the advances in therapies for IBD, including availability of gut-selective agents, treatment choices often incorporate whether a patient has one of these manifestations or not,” he said. “We need to understand who is at increased risk of these and why.”

The study was published in Gastroenterology .
 

Analyzing Associations

Dr. McGovern and colleagues analyzed data for 12,083 unrelated European ancestry IBD cases with presence or absence of EIMs across four cohorts in the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center IBD Research Repository, National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases IBD Genetics Consortium, Sinai Helmsley Alliance for Research Excellence Consortium, and Risk Stratification and Identification of Immunogenetic and Microbial Markers of Rapid Disease Progression in Children with Crohn’s Disease.

In particular, the researchers looked at EIM phenotypes such as ankylosing spondylitis and sacroiliitis, PSC, peripheral arthritis, and skin and ocular manifestations. They analyzed clinical and serologic parameters through regression analyses using a mixed-effects model, as well as within-case logistic regression for genetic associations.

Overall, 14% of patients had at least one EIM. Contrary to previous reports, only 2% had multiple EIMs, and most co-occurrences were negatively correlated. Nearly all EIMs were more common in Crohn’s disease, except for PSC, which was more common in ulcerative colitis.

In general, EIMs occurred more often in women, particularly with Crohn’s disease and colonic disease location, and in patients who required surgery. Jewish ancestry was associated with psoriasis and overall skin manifestations.

Smoking increased the risk for multiple EIMs, except for PSC, where there appeared to be a “protective” effect. Older age at diagnosis and a family history of IBD were associated with increased risk for certain EIMs as well.

In addition, the research team noted multiple serologic associations, such as immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgA, perinuclear antinuclear cytoplastic antibodies, and anti–Pseudomonas fluorescens–associated sequences with any EIM, as well as particular associations with PSC, such as anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies and anti-flagellin.

There were also genome-wide significant associations within the major histocompatibility complex and CPEB4. Genetic associations implicated tumor necrosis factor, Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription, and interleukin 6 as potential targets for EIMs.

“We are working with colleagues across the world to increase the sample size, as we believe there is more to find,” Dr. McGovern said. “Importantly, this includes non-European ancestry subjects, as there is an urgent need to increase the diversity of populations we study so advances in clinical care are available to all communities.”
 

Considering Target Therapies

As medicine becomes more specialized, physicians should remember to consider the whole patient while choosing treatment strategies.

“Sometimes doctors wear blinders to the whole person, and it’s important to be aware of a holistic approach, where a gastroenterologist also asks about potential joint inflammation or a rheumatologist asks about bowel inflammation,” said David Rubin, MD, AGAF, chief of the Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at the University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago.

Dr. Rubin, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched and published on EIMs in IBD. He and colleagues analyzed the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of EIMs to better understand possibilities for disease management.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard method for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and removing precancerous polyps.

The recommended age for CRC screening in the United States spans 45-75 years, with the benefits of colonoscopy diminishing considerably after this point.

Older adults are much more likely to experience complications before, during, and after a colonoscopy. Bowel preps can cause dehydration or electrolyte problems in some, while bleeding and bowel perforation can occur perioperatively, and pulmonary or cardiovascular complications may arise postoperatively.

These risks often outweigh the benefits of catching a precancerous lesion or early-stage cancer, especially given the low rates of advanced neoplasia and CRC detected from screening and surveillance after age 75. Yet the research overall suggests that more than half of older individuals continue to receive screening and surveillance colonoscopies outside the recommended screening window.

So is there a point in time when a person is too old to receive a colonoscopy? The answer is not always clear-cut, but life expectancy should be a key consideration.

“Taking the most extreme example, if you have 6 months to live, finding early-stage cancer is not going to help you,” Michael Rothberg, MD, vice chair for research at Cleveland Clinic’s Medical Institute and director of the Center for Value-Based Care Research, told Medscape Medical News.

For those with more time, the benefits of continued screening and surveillance may outweigh the risks, but when that balance shifts from helpful to not helpful remains inexact, Dr. Rothberg noted.

What’s Recommended?

In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the CRC screening threshold to age 45, recommending all adults aged between 45 and 75 years receive screening.

For those aged between 76 and 85 years, the USPSTF upheld its 2016 recommendation of selective screening, noting that the “net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small” and should be determined on an individual basis. The USPSTF, however, did not provide recommendations on surveillance colonoscopies among those with previously identified polyps.

In November 2023, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) issued a clinical practice update that provided advice on risk stratification for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance. For adults older than 75 years specifically, the AGA recommended that the decision to continue CRC screening or perform post-polypectomy surveillance be based on risks, benefits, comorbidities, and screening history and decided on a case-by-case basis.

For instance, previously unscreened patients without comorbidities could benefit from screening beyond age 75 — up to age 80 for men and 90 for women — while those who have had regular colonoscopies, per recommended guidelines, but severe comorbidities that may limit life expectancy could stop sooner, even by age 65.

Although an individualized approach leaves room for variation, it’s essential to consider life expectancy and the time it takes for a polyp to progress to CRC, as well as the risks associated with the procedure itself. Certain older adults are “less likely to live long enough to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy, due to competing, non-CRC mortality risks,” and clinicians should discuss these risks with their patients, the experts explained.
 

When to Stop Screening Colonoscopies

Research shows that screening colonoscopies continue well after the recommended stop age.

A 2023 JAMA Internal Medicine study found, for instance, that a large proportion of screening colonoscopies occurred among the 7067 patients who were 75 years and older with a life expectancy < 10 years. Overall, 30% of patients aged between 76 and 80 years with a limited life expectancy had a colonoscopy. That percentage increased to 71% for those aged 81-85 years and to 100% for those older than 85 years.

But the benefits of screening were minimal. Overall, colonoscopies detected advanced neoplasia in 5.4% of patients aged 76-80 years, 6.2% of those aged 81-85 years, and 9.5% of those older than 85 years. Only 15 patients (0.2%) had CRC detected via colonoscopy, five of whom underwent cancer treatment. Of those five, four had a life expectancy ≥ 10 years, and one had a life expectancy < 10 years.

At the same time, adverse events requiring hospitalization were common 10 days post-colonoscopy (13.58 per 1000), and the risk for hospitalization increased with age.

“For all kinds of screening, we’re not that comfortable in America with the idea that people are eventually going to die, but as you get older, the potential benefits for screening decrease,” study author Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

In general, life expectancy provides a good predictor of whether people should continue screening or receive treatment following a CRC diagnosis.

Patients aged 76-80 years in good health, for instance, could benefit from screening and, potentially, treatment, Dr. Rothberg said. And “if doctors don’t feel comfortable or confident about predicting life expectancy, taking comorbid illnesses into account can be helpful, especially for that age range.”
 

Weighing Surveillance Benefits

Surveillance colonoscopy is often recommended post-polypectomy to reduce the risk for CRC. But even in this higher-risk population, those older than 75 years may not benefit.

Recent evidence indicates that those with a history of one or two adenomas less than 1 cm in size have only a slightly (1.3-fold) increased risk for incident CRC — and no significant increased risk for fatal CRC.

Another recent study found that detecting CRC at surveillance colonoscopy was rare among older adults. In surveillance colonoscopies performed among 9601 individuals aged 70-85 years with prior adenomas, 12% had advanced neoplasia detected, and only 0.3% had CRC detected.

Similar rates of advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) were reported in another recent analysis of more than 9800 adults older than 65 years receiving surveillance colonoscopies.

Despite the low rates of polyp and CRC detection, nearly 90% of patients with recommendation information available received advice to return for a future colonoscopy. Even among patients with no polyps or small ones, almost 60% who had life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return.

Although someone with prior adenomas has a higher risk for CRC, that doesn’t tell the whole story for an individual patient, Samir Gupta, MD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of California San Diego, and co-lead of the Cancer Control Program at Moores Cancer Center, told this news organization. For older adults, it’s vital to consider the competing risks and how much time it might take for CRC to develop.

At Digestive Disease Week in May, Dr. Gupta presented new research that looked at cumulative risk among patients aged 75 years and older with prior precancerous polyps vs prior normal colonoscopies. Although those with prior adenomas had a higher risk for CRC overall, their cumulative CRC risk was low — about 0.3% at 5 years and 0.8% at 10 years. Cumulative CRC deaths were even lower — 0.2% at 5 years and 0.7% at 10 years — while the risk of dying from something other than CRC was 20% at 5 years and 40% at 10 years.

“What this means to me is that patients who are 75 and older should think really carefully about whether they want to do surveillance,” said Dr. Gupta, who coauthored the AGA’s clinical practice update. “Someone who is very healthy and doesn’t have obvious medical problems can look at that risk for developing colon cancer and the risk of dying and make a decision about whether there’s enough concern to go ahead with surveillance.”

Those with competing health priorities, on other hand, should likely concentrate on those instead, he said, and feel reassured that even if they choose not to do surveillance, they’re probably not doing themselves any harm.

“The bottom line is that referring older adults or frail adults for surveillance colonoscopy shouldn’t be a rubber stamp or check-the-box action,” Dr. Gupta said. “We need to think about it carefully and give ourselves — as clinicians and patients — the room to decide that it may not need to take high priority.”
 

What to Tell Patients

Overall, older adults who have had prior colonoscopies, no or low-risk polyps, and low CRC risk will likely face greater risks from the procedure than benefits.

“The more invasive the screening the test, the more dangerous it could be,” Dr. Rothberg noted.

Many patients, however, are open to stopping and often trust their primary care provider in the decision-making process, said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. “But the systems we have in place don’t optimally support that decision-making at the time it matters most.”

For example, at a prior colonoscopy, a gastroenterologist may recommend surveillance again in 5-7 years. But in the interim, the patient could have new medications or develop comorbidities and other health issues. Rather than defer to the gastroenterologist’s recommendations from years ago, clinicians and patients can reassess the pros and cons of screening or surveillance based on current circumstances, Dr. Calderwood said.

“There should be lines of communication and systems of support to allow primary care providers to decide whether it is still needed,” she said.

While some may be ready to stop, other patients are going to continue to want and ask about CRC screening or surveillance, Dr. Rothberg said.

In these instances, communication style matters.

“You don’t want to tell a patient that they’re not going to be screened because they’re not going to live long enough to benefit,” Dr. Rothberg said.

However, steering people toward less invasive tests or telling them it’s important to give other health problems priority may be more sensitive ways to communicate that it’s time to ramp down or halt screening.

“Sometimes when you say you’re going to stop cancer screening, older adults misperceive that you’re giving up on them,” Dr. Gupta said. “We spend 30-40 years driving home the message that prevention and screening are important, and then it feels like we’re taking it away, so we need to find the best way to discuss it and make the choice that’s comfortable for them.”

Dr. Rothberg, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. Calderwood disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard method for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and removing precancerous polyps.

The recommended age for CRC screening in the United States spans 45-75 years, with the benefits of colonoscopy diminishing considerably after this point.

Older adults are much more likely to experience complications before, during, and after a colonoscopy. Bowel preps can cause dehydration or electrolyte problems in some, while bleeding and bowel perforation can occur perioperatively, and pulmonary or cardiovascular complications may arise postoperatively.

These risks often outweigh the benefits of catching a precancerous lesion or early-stage cancer, especially given the low rates of advanced neoplasia and CRC detected from screening and surveillance after age 75. Yet the research overall suggests that more than half of older individuals continue to receive screening and surveillance colonoscopies outside the recommended screening window.

So is there a point in time when a person is too old to receive a colonoscopy? The answer is not always clear-cut, but life expectancy should be a key consideration.

“Taking the most extreme example, if you have 6 months to live, finding early-stage cancer is not going to help you,” Michael Rothberg, MD, vice chair for research at Cleveland Clinic’s Medical Institute and director of the Center for Value-Based Care Research, told Medscape Medical News.

For those with more time, the benefits of continued screening and surveillance may outweigh the risks, but when that balance shifts from helpful to not helpful remains inexact, Dr. Rothberg noted.

What’s Recommended?

In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the CRC screening threshold to age 45, recommending all adults aged between 45 and 75 years receive screening.

For those aged between 76 and 85 years, the USPSTF upheld its 2016 recommendation of selective screening, noting that the “net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small” and should be determined on an individual basis. The USPSTF, however, did not provide recommendations on surveillance colonoscopies among those with previously identified polyps.

In November 2023, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) issued a clinical practice update that provided advice on risk stratification for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance. For adults older than 75 years specifically, the AGA recommended that the decision to continue CRC screening or perform post-polypectomy surveillance be based on risks, benefits, comorbidities, and screening history and decided on a case-by-case basis.

For instance, previously unscreened patients without comorbidities could benefit from screening beyond age 75 — up to age 80 for men and 90 for women — while those who have had regular colonoscopies, per recommended guidelines, but severe comorbidities that may limit life expectancy could stop sooner, even by age 65.

Although an individualized approach leaves room for variation, it’s essential to consider life expectancy and the time it takes for a polyp to progress to CRC, as well as the risks associated with the procedure itself. Certain older adults are “less likely to live long enough to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy, due to competing, non-CRC mortality risks,” and clinicians should discuss these risks with their patients, the experts explained.
 

When to Stop Screening Colonoscopies

Research shows that screening colonoscopies continue well after the recommended stop age.

A 2023 JAMA Internal Medicine study found, for instance, that a large proportion of screening colonoscopies occurred among the 7067 patients who were 75 years and older with a life expectancy < 10 years. Overall, 30% of patients aged between 76 and 80 years with a limited life expectancy had a colonoscopy. That percentage increased to 71% for those aged 81-85 years and to 100% for those older than 85 years.

But the benefits of screening were minimal. Overall, colonoscopies detected advanced neoplasia in 5.4% of patients aged 76-80 years, 6.2% of those aged 81-85 years, and 9.5% of those older than 85 years. Only 15 patients (0.2%) had CRC detected via colonoscopy, five of whom underwent cancer treatment. Of those five, four had a life expectancy ≥ 10 years, and one had a life expectancy < 10 years.

At the same time, adverse events requiring hospitalization were common 10 days post-colonoscopy (13.58 per 1000), and the risk for hospitalization increased with age.

“For all kinds of screening, we’re not that comfortable in America with the idea that people are eventually going to die, but as you get older, the potential benefits for screening decrease,” study author Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

In general, life expectancy provides a good predictor of whether people should continue screening or receive treatment following a CRC diagnosis.

Patients aged 76-80 years in good health, for instance, could benefit from screening and, potentially, treatment, Dr. Rothberg said. And “if doctors don’t feel comfortable or confident about predicting life expectancy, taking comorbid illnesses into account can be helpful, especially for that age range.”
 

Weighing Surveillance Benefits

Surveillance colonoscopy is often recommended post-polypectomy to reduce the risk for CRC. But even in this higher-risk population, those older than 75 years may not benefit.

Recent evidence indicates that those with a history of one or two adenomas less than 1 cm in size have only a slightly (1.3-fold) increased risk for incident CRC — and no significant increased risk for fatal CRC.

Another recent study found that detecting CRC at surveillance colonoscopy was rare among older adults. In surveillance colonoscopies performed among 9601 individuals aged 70-85 years with prior adenomas, 12% had advanced neoplasia detected, and only 0.3% had CRC detected.

Similar rates of advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) were reported in another recent analysis of more than 9800 adults older than 65 years receiving surveillance colonoscopies.

Despite the low rates of polyp and CRC detection, nearly 90% of patients with recommendation information available received advice to return for a future colonoscopy. Even among patients with no polyps or small ones, almost 60% who had life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return.

Although someone with prior adenomas has a higher risk for CRC, that doesn’t tell the whole story for an individual patient, Samir Gupta, MD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of California San Diego, and co-lead of the Cancer Control Program at Moores Cancer Center, told this news organization. For older adults, it’s vital to consider the competing risks and how much time it might take for CRC to develop.

At Digestive Disease Week in May, Dr. Gupta presented new research that looked at cumulative risk among patients aged 75 years and older with prior precancerous polyps vs prior normal colonoscopies. Although those with prior adenomas had a higher risk for CRC overall, their cumulative CRC risk was low — about 0.3% at 5 years and 0.8% at 10 years. Cumulative CRC deaths were even lower — 0.2% at 5 years and 0.7% at 10 years — while the risk of dying from something other than CRC was 20% at 5 years and 40% at 10 years.

“What this means to me is that patients who are 75 and older should think really carefully about whether they want to do surveillance,” said Dr. Gupta, who coauthored the AGA’s clinical practice update. “Someone who is very healthy and doesn’t have obvious medical problems can look at that risk for developing colon cancer and the risk of dying and make a decision about whether there’s enough concern to go ahead with surveillance.”

Those with competing health priorities, on other hand, should likely concentrate on those instead, he said, and feel reassured that even if they choose not to do surveillance, they’re probably not doing themselves any harm.

“The bottom line is that referring older adults or frail adults for surveillance colonoscopy shouldn’t be a rubber stamp or check-the-box action,” Dr. Gupta said. “We need to think about it carefully and give ourselves — as clinicians and patients — the room to decide that it may not need to take high priority.”
 

What to Tell Patients

Overall, older adults who have had prior colonoscopies, no or low-risk polyps, and low CRC risk will likely face greater risks from the procedure than benefits.

“The more invasive the screening the test, the more dangerous it could be,” Dr. Rothberg noted.

Many patients, however, are open to stopping and often trust their primary care provider in the decision-making process, said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. “But the systems we have in place don’t optimally support that decision-making at the time it matters most.”

For example, at a prior colonoscopy, a gastroenterologist may recommend surveillance again in 5-7 years. But in the interim, the patient could have new medications or develop comorbidities and other health issues. Rather than defer to the gastroenterologist’s recommendations from years ago, clinicians and patients can reassess the pros and cons of screening or surveillance based on current circumstances, Dr. Calderwood said.

“There should be lines of communication and systems of support to allow primary care providers to decide whether it is still needed,” she said.

While some may be ready to stop, other patients are going to continue to want and ask about CRC screening or surveillance, Dr. Rothberg said.

In these instances, communication style matters.

“You don’t want to tell a patient that they’re not going to be screened because they’re not going to live long enough to benefit,” Dr. Rothberg said.

However, steering people toward less invasive tests or telling them it’s important to give other health problems priority may be more sensitive ways to communicate that it’s time to ramp down or halt screening.

“Sometimes when you say you’re going to stop cancer screening, older adults misperceive that you’re giving up on them,” Dr. Gupta said. “We spend 30-40 years driving home the message that prevention and screening are important, and then it feels like we’re taking it away, so we need to find the best way to discuss it and make the choice that’s comfortable for them.”

Dr. Rothberg, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. Calderwood disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard method for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and removing precancerous polyps.

The recommended age for CRC screening in the United States spans 45-75 years, with the benefits of colonoscopy diminishing considerably after this point.

Older adults are much more likely to experience complications before, during, and after a colonoscopy. Bowel preps can cause dehydration or electrolyte problems in some, while bleeding and bowel perforation can occur perioperatively, and pulmonary or cardiovascular complications may arise postoperatively.

These risks often outweigh the benefits of catching a precancerous lesion or early-stage cancer, especially given the low rates of advanced neoplasia and CRC detected from screening and surveillance after age 75. Yet the research overall suggests that more than half of older individuals continue to receive screening and surveillance colonoscopies outside the recommended screening window.

So is there a point in time when a person is too old to receive a colonoscopy? The answer is not always clear-cut, but life expectancy should be a key consideration.

“Taking the most extreme example, if you have 6 months to live, finding early-stage cancer is not going to help you,” Michael Rothberg, MD, vice chair for research at Cleveland Clinic’s Medical Institute and director of the Center for Value-Based Care Research, told Medscape Medical News.

For those with more time, the benefits of continued screening and surveillance may outweigh the risks, but when that balance shifts from helpful to not helpful remains inexact, Dr. Rothberg noted.

What’s Recommended?

In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the CRC screening threshold to age 45, recommending all adults aged between 45 and 75 years receive screening.

For those aged between 76 and 85 years, the USPSTF upheld its 2016 recommendation of selective screening, noting that the “net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small” and should be determined on an individual basis. The USPSTF, however, did not provide recommendations on surveillance colonoscopies among those with previously identified polyps.

In November 2023, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) issued a clinical practice update that provided advice on risk stratification for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance. For adults older than 75 years specifically, the AGA recommended that the decision to continue CRC screening or perform post-polypectomy surveillance be based on risks, benefits, comorbidities, and screening history and decided on a case-by-case basis.

For instance, previously unscreened patients without comorbidities could benefit from screening beyond age 75 — up to age 80 for men and 90 for women — while those who have had regular colonoscopies, per recommended guidelines, but severe comorbidities that may limit life expectancy could stop sooner, even by age 65.

Although an individualized approach leaves room for variation, it’s essential to consider life expectancy and the time it takes for a polyp to progress to CRC, as well as the risks associated with the procedure itself. Certain older adults are “less likely to live long enough to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy, due to competing, non-CRC mortality risks,” and clinicians should discuss these risks with their patients, the experts explained.
 

When to Stop Screening Colonoscopies

Research shows that screening colonoscopies continue well after the recommended stop age.

A 2023 JAMA Internal Medicine study found, for instance, that a large proportion of screening colonoscopies occurred among the 7067 patients who were 75 years and older with a life expectancy < 10 years. Overall, 30% of patients aged between 76 and 80 years with a limited life expectancy had a colonoscopy. That percentage increased to 71% for those aged 81-85 years and to 100% for those older than 85 years.

But the benefits of screening were minimal. Overall, colonoscopies detected advanced neoplasia in 5.4% of patients aged 76-80 years, 6.2% of those aged 81-85 years, and 9.5% of those older than 85 years. Only 15 patients (0.2%) had CRC detected via colonoscopy, five of whom underwent cancer treatment. Of those five, four had a life expectancy ≥ 10 years, and one had a life expectancy < 10 years.

At the same time, adverse events requiring hospitalization were common 10 days post-colonoscopy (13.58 per 1000), and the risk for hospitalization increased with age.

“For all kinds of screening, we’re not that comfortable in America with the idea that people are eventually going to die, but as you get older, the potential benefits for screening decrease,” study author Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

In general, life expectancy provides a good predictor of whether people should continue screening or receive treatment following a CRC diagnosis.

Patients aged 76-80 years in good health, for instance, could benefit from screening and, potentially, treatment, Dr. Rothberg said. And “if doctors don’t feel comfortable or confident about predicting life expectancy, taking comorbid illnesses into account can be helpful, especially for that age range.”
 

Weighing Surveillance Benefits

Surveillance colonoscopy is often recommended post-polypectomy to reduce the risk for CRC. But even in this higher-risk population, those older than 75 years may not benefit.

Recent evidence indicates that those with a history of one or two adenomas less than 1 cm in size have only a slightly (1.3-fold) increased risk for incident CRC — and no significant increased risk for fatal CRC.

Another recent study found that detecting CRC at surveillance colonoscopy was rare among older adults. In surveillance colonoscopies performed among 9601 individuals aged 70-85 years with prior adenomas, 12% had advanced neoplasia detected, and only 0.3% had CRC detected.

Similar rates of advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) were reported in another recent analysis of more than 9800 adults older than 65 years receiving surveillance colonoscopies.

Despite the low rates of polyp and CRC detection, nearly 90% of patients with recommendation information available received advice to return for a future colonoscopy. Even among patients with no polyps or small ones, almost 60% who had life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return.

Although someone with prior adenomas has a higher risk for CRC, that doesn’t tell the whole story for an individual patient, Samir Gupta, MD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of California San Diego, and co-lead of the Cancer Control Program at Moores Cancer Center, told this news organization. For older adults, it’s vital to consider the competing risks and how much time it might take for CRC to develop.

At Digestive Disease Week in May, Dr. Gupta presented new research that looked at cumulative risk among patients aged 75 years and older with prior precancerous polyps vs prior normal colonoscopies. Although those with prior adenomas had a higher risk for CRC overall, their cumulative CRC risk was low — about 0.3% at 5 years and 0.8% at 10 years. Cumulative CRC deaths were even lower — 0.2% at 5 years and 0.7% at 10 years — while the risk of dying from something other than CRC was 20% at 5 years and 40% at 10 years.

“What this means to me is that patients who are 75 and older should think really carefully about whether they want to do surveillance,” said Dr. Gupta, who coauthored the AGA’s clinical practice update. “Someone who is very healthy and doesn’t have obvious medical problems can look at that risk for developing colon cancer and the risk of dying and make a decision about whether there’s enough concern to go ahead with surveillance.”

Those with competing health priorities, on other hand, should likely concentrate on those instead, he said, and feel reassured that even if they choose not to do surveillance, they’re probably not doing themselves any harm.

“The bottom line is that referring older adults or frail adults for surveillance colonoscopy shouldn’t be a rubber stamp or check-the-box action,” Dr. Gupta said. “We need to think about it carefully and give ourselves — as clinicians and patients — the room to decide that it may not need to take high priority.”
 

What to Tell Patients

Overall, older adults who have had prior colonoscopies, no or low-risk polyps, and low CRC risk will likely face greater risks from the procedure than benefits.

“The more invasive the screening the test, the more dangerous it could be,” Dr. Rothberg noted.

Many patients, however, are open to stopping and often trust their primary care provider in the decision-making process, said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. “But the systems we have in place don’t optimally support that decision-making at the time it matters most.”

For example, at a prior colonoscopy, a gastroenterologist may recommend surveillance again in 5-7 years. But in the interim, the patient could have new medications or develop comorbidities and other health issues. Rather than defer to the gastroenterologist’s recommendations from years ago, clinicians and patients can reassess the pros and cons of screening or surveillance based on current circumstances, Dr. Calderwood said.

“There should be lines of communication and systems of support to allow primary care providers to decide whether it is still needed,” she said.

While some may be ready to stop, other patients are going to continue to want and ask about CRC screening or surveillance, Dr. Rothberg said.

In these instances, communication style matters.

“You don’t want to tell a patient that they’re not going to be screened because they’re not going to live long enough to benefit,” Dr. Rothberg said.

However, steering people toward less invasive tests or telling them it’s important to give other health problems priority may be more sensitive ways to communicate that it’s time to ramp down or halt screening.

“Sometimes when you say you’re going to stop cancer screening, older adults misperceive that you’re giving up on them,” Dr. Gupta said. “We spend 30-40 years driving home the message that prevention and screening are important, and then it feels like we’re taking it away, so we need to find the best way to discuss it and make the choice that’s comfortable for them.”

Dr. Rothberg, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. Calderwood disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Top-down treatment with a combination of infliximab and an immunomodulator should be adopted as the standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed active Crohn’s disease, according to a recent study.

Top-down treatment achieved substantially better outcomes at one year after diagnosis than step-up treatment, with nearly 80% of those receiving top-down therapy having both symptoms and inflammatory markers controlled, as compared with only 15% of those receiving accelerated step-up therapy.

NIHR Cambridge

“Up until now, the view has been: ‘Why would you use a more expensive treatment strategy and potentially overtreat people if there’s a chance they might do fine anyway?’ ” asked senior author Miles Parkes, MBBS, professor of translational gastroenterology at the University of Cambridge in England and director of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.

“As we’ve shown, and as previous studies have demonstrated, there’s actually a pretty high risk that an individual with Crohn’s disease will experience disease flares and complications even in the first year after diagnosis,” he said. “We now know we can prevent the majority of adverse outcomes, including need for urgent surgery, by providing a treatment strategy that is safe and becoming increasingly affordable.”

The study was published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
 

Comparing Treatments

Dr. Parkes and colleagues conducted a multicenter, open-label, biomarker-stratified randomized controlled trial among adults with newly diagnosed active Crohn’s disease. Participants were tested for a prognostic biomarker derived from T-cell transcriptional signatures and randomly assigned to a top-down or accelerated step-up treatment based on biomarker subgroup, endoscopic inflammation (mild, moderate, or severe), and extent (colonic or other).

The primary endpoint was sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission after completing a steroid induction (maximum 8-week course) to week 48. Remission was defined by a composite of symptoms and inflammatory markers at all visits, with a Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) score of less than 5 or resolved inflammatory markers or both, while a flare was defined as active symptoms (HBI ≥ 5) and raised inflammatory markers.

Across 40 UK hospitals, 386 patients (mean age, 33.6 years; 54% male) were randomized, with 193 receiving a top-down therapy of combination intravenous infliximab plus immunomodulator (azathioprine, low-dose mercaptopurine with allopurinol, or methotrexate) and 193 receiving an accelerated step-up therapy of an immunomodulator and then infliximab if further flares occurred after the steroid course. In the step-up group, 85% required escalation to an immunomodulator, and 41% required infliximab by week 48.

Overall, sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission was significantly more frequent in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (among 149 of 189 patients vs 29 of 190 patients), at 79% vs 15%, marking an absolute difference of 64 percentage points.

Top-down treatment also showed greater efficacy in achieving endoscopic remission (67% vs 44%), improved quality of life, lower need for steroids, and reduced number of flares requiring treatment escalation.

In addition, there were fewer adverse events (168 vs 315) and fewer serious adverse events (15 vs 42) in the top-down group than in the step-up group. There were also fewer complications that required urgent abdominal surgery, with one in the top-down group for gallstone ileus and nine in the step-up group requiring intestinal resection for structuring or fistulating complications.

However, the biomarker showed no clinical utility, and none of the baseline measurements predicted which patients were at risk of adverse outcomes with the step-up approach, Dr. Parkes said.

“The key message is that Crohn’s is unpredictable, hence you are better off treating everyone who has significant disease at diagnosis with combo therapy (anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] plus immunomodulator) rather than ‘wait and see,’ as bad things happen to people with uncontrolled inflammation during that ‘wait and see’ stage,” he said.
 

Additional Considerations

In the PROFILE trial, the need for a prognostic biomarker was based on the lack of an effective, safe, and affordable treatment strategy for newly diagnosed patients, the study authors wrote, but effective top-down management could reduce the need for a biomarker.

McMaster University

“In one sense, this is a negative study as the blood-based CD8+ T-cell transcriptomic biomarker that was being studied was not predictive of outcomes at all. But PROFILE makes it very clear that early effective therapy leads to better outcomes than accelerated step-up therapy,” said Neeraj Narula, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and staff gastroenterologist focused on inflammatory bowel disease at Hamilton Health Sciences.

Dr. Narula, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the comparative effectiveness of biologics for endoscopic healing of the ileum and colon in Crohn’s disease. He and colleagues found that anti-TNF biologics were effective in achieving 1-year endoscopic healing in moderate to severe Crohn’s disease.

“These findings likely aren’t specific to infliximab/azathioprine, and I suspect similar outcomes would be shown for other advanced therapies used early in the course of disease,” he said. “There does remain a concern that using this strategy for all patients may lead to overtreatment of some, but perhaps any harm done by overtreatment of a minority may be offset by the harm resulting from undertreatment of the majority. It’s hard to say for sure, but it certainly gives us some food for thought.”

The study was funded by Wellcome and PredictImmune and jointly sponsored by the University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Dr. Parkes and several authors declared fees and grants from numerous companies outside of this study. Dr. Narula reported no relevant disclosures.

Top-down treatment with a combination of infliximab and an immunomodulator should be adopted as the standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed active Crohn’s disease, according to a recent study.

Top-down treatment achieved substantially better outcomes at one year after diagnosis than step-up treatment, with nearly 80% of those receiving top-down therapy having both symptoms and inflammatory markers controlled, as compared with only 15% of those receiving accelerated step-up therapy.

NIHR Cambridge

“Up until now, the view has been: ‘Why would you use a more expensive treatment strategy and potentially overtreat people if there’s a chance they might do fine anyway?’ ” asked senior author Miles Parkes, MBBS, professor of translational gastroenterology at the University of Cambridge in England and director of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.

“As we’ve shown, and as previous studies have demonstrated, there’s actually a pretty high risk that an individual with Crohn’s disease will experience disease flares and complications even in the first year after diagnosis,” he said. “We now know we can prevent the majority of adverse outcomes, including need for urgent surgery, by providing a treatment strategy that is safe and becoming increasingly affordable.”

The study was published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
 

Comparing Treatments

Dr. Parkes and colleagues conducted a multicenter, open-label, biomarker-stratified randomized controlled trial among adults with newly diagnosed active Crohn’s disease. Participants were tested for a prognostic biomarker derived from T-cell transcriptional signatures and randomly assigned to a top-down or accelerated step-up treatment based on biomarker subgroup, endoscopic inflammation (mild, moderate, or severe), and extent (colonic or other).

The primary endpoint was sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission after completing a steroid induction (maximum 8-week course) to week 48. Remission was defined by a composite of symptoms and inflammatory markers at all visits, with a Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) score of less than 5 or resolved inflammatory markers or both, while a flare was defined as active symptoms (HBI ≥ 5) and raised inflammatory markers.

Across 40 UK hospitals, 386 patients (mean age, 33.6 years; 54% male) were randomized, with 193 receiving a top-down therapy of combination intravenous infliximab plus immunomodulator (azathioprine, low-dose mercaptopurine with allopurinol, or methotrexate) and 193 receiving an accelerated step-up therapy of an immunomodulator and then infliximab if further flares occurred after the steroid course. In the step-up group, 85% required escalation to an immunomodulator, and 41% required infliximab by week 48.

Overall, sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission was significantly more frequent in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (among 149 of 189 patients vs 29 of 190 patients), at 79% vs 15%, marking an absolute difference of 64 percentage points.

Top-down treatment also showed greater efficacy in achieving endoscopic remission (67% vs 44%), improved quality of life, lower need for steroids, and reduced number of flares requiring treatment escalation.

In addition, there were fewer adverse events (168 vs 315) and fewer serious adverse events (15 vs 42) in the top-down group than in the step-up group. There were also fewer complications that required urgent abdominal surgery, with one in the top-down group for gallstone ileus and nine in the step-up group requiring intestinal resection for structuring or fistulating complications.

However, the biomarker showed no clinical utility, and none of the baseline measurements predicted which patients were at risk of adverse outcomes with the step-up approach, Dr. Parkes said.

“The key message is that Crohn’s is unpredictable, hence you are better off treating everyone who has significant disease at diagnosis with combo therapy (anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] plus immunomodulator) rather than ‘wait and see,’ as bad things happen to people with uncontrolled inflammation during that ‘wait and see’ stage,” he said.
 

Additional Considerations

In the PROFILE trial, the need for a prognostic biomarker was based on the lack of an effective, safe, and affordable treatment strategy for newly diagnosed patients, the study authors wrote, but effective top-down management could reduce the need for a biomarker.

McMaster University

“In one sense, this is a negative study as the blood-based CD8+ T-cell transcriptomic biomarker that was being studied was not predictive of outcomes at all. But PROFILE makes it very clear that early effective therapy leads to better outcomes than accelerated step-up therapy,” said Neeraj Narula, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and staff gastroenterologist focused on inflammatory bowel disease at Hamilton Health Sciences.

Dr. Narula, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the comparative effectiveness of biologics for endoscopic healing of the ileum and colon in Crohn’s disease. He and colleagues found that anti-TNF biologics were effective in achieving 1-year endoscopic healing in moderate to severe Crohn’s disease.

“These findings likely aren’t specific to infliximab/azathioprine, and I suspect similar outcomes would be shown for other advanced therapies used early in the course of disease,” he said. “There does remain a concern that using this strategy for all patients may lead to overtreatment of some, but perhaps any harm done by overtreatment of a minority may be offset by the harm resulting from undertreatment of the majority. It’s hard to say for sure, but it certainly gives us some food for thought.”

The study was funded by Wellcome and PredictImmune and jointly sponsored by the University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Dr. Parkes and several authors declared fees and grants from numerous companies outside of this study. Dr. Narula reported no relevant disclosures.

Top-down treatment with a combination of infliximab and an immunomodulator should be adopted as the standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed active Crohn’s disease, according to a recent study.

Top-down treatment achieved substantially better outcomes at one year after diagnosis than step-up treatment, with nearly 80% of those receiving top-down therapy having both symptoms and inflammatory markers controlled, as compared with only 15% of those receiving accelerated step-up therapy.

NIHR Cambridge

“Up until now, the view has been: ‘Why would you use a more expensive treatment strategy and potentially overtreat people if there’s a chance they might do fine anyway?’ ” asked senior author Miles Parkes, MBBS, professor of translational gastroenterology at the University of Cambridge in England and director of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.

“As we’ve shown, and as previous studies have demonstrated, there’s actually a pretty high risk that an individual with Crohn’s disease will experience disease flares and complications even in the first year after diagnosis,” he said. “We now know we can prevent the majority of adverse outcomes, including need for urgent surgery, by providing a treatment strategy that is safe and becoming increasingly affordable.”

The study was published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
 

Comparing Treatments

Dr. Parkes and colleagues conducted a multicenter, open-label, biomarker-stratified randomized controlled trial among adults with newly diagnosed active Crohn’s disease. Participants were tested for a prognostic biomarker derived from T-cell transcriptional signatures and randomly assigned to a top-down or accelerated step-up treatment based on biomarker subgroup, endoscopic inflammation (mild, moderate, or severe), and extent (colonic or other).

The primary endpoint was sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission after completing a steroid induction (maximum 8-week course) to week 48. Remission was defined by a composite of symptoms and inflammatory markers at all visits, with a Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) score of less than 5 or resolved inflammatory markers or both, while a flare was defined as active symptoms (HBI ≥ 5) and raised inflammatory markers.

Across 40 UK hospitals, 386 patients (mean age, 33.6 years; 54% male) were randomized, with 193 receiving a top-down therapy of combination intravenous infliximab plus immunomodulator (azathioprine, low-dose mercaptopurine with allopurinol, or methotrexate) and 193 receiving an accelerated step-up therapy of an immunomodulator and then infliximab if further flares occurred after the steroid course. In the step-up group, 85% required escalation to an immunomodulator, and 41% required infliximab by week 48.

Overall, sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission was significantly more frequent in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (among 149 of 189 patients vs 29 of 190 patients), at 79% vs 15%, marking an absolute difference of 64 percentage points.

Top-down treatment also showed greater efficacy in achieving endoscopic remission (67% vs 44%), improved quality of life, lower need for steroids, and reduced number of flares requiring treatment escalation.

In addition, there were fewer adverse events (168 vs 315) and fewer serious adverse events (15 vs 42) in the top-down group than in the step-up group. There were also fewer complications that required urgent abdominal surgery, with one in the top-down group for gallstone ileus and nine in the step-up group requiring intestinal resection for structuring or fistulating complications.

However, the biomarker showed no clinical utility, and none of the baseline measurements predicted which patients were at risk of adverse outcomes with the step-up approach, Dr. Parkes said.

“The key message is that Crohn’s is unpredictable, hence you are better off treating everyone who has significant disease at diagnosis with combo therapy (anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] plus immunomodulator) rather than ‘wait and see,’ as bad things happen to people with uncontrolled inflammation during that ‘wait and see’ stage,” he said.
 

Additional Considerations

In the PROFILE trial, the need for a prognostic biomarker was based on the lack of an effective, safe, and affordable treatment strategy for newly diagnosed patients, the study authors wrote, but effective top-down management could reduce the need for a biomarker.

McMaster University

“In one sense, this is a negative study as the blood-based CD8+ T-cell transcriptomic biomarker that was being studied was not predictive of outcomes at all. But PROFILE makes it very clear that early effective therapy leads to better outcomes than accelerated step-up therapy,” said Neeraj Narula, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and staff gastroenterologist focused on inflammatory bowel disease at Hamilton Health Sciences.

Dr. Narula, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the comparative effectiveness of biologics for endoscopic healing of the ileum and colon in Crohn’s disease. He and colleagues found that anti-TNF biologics were effective in achieving 1-year endoscopic healing in moderate to severe Crohn’s disease.

“These findings likely aren’t specific to infliximab/azathioprine, and I suspect similar outcomes would be shown for other advanced therapies used early in the course of disease,” he said. “There does remain a concern that using this strategy for all patients may lead to overtreatment of some, but perhaps any harm done by overtreatment of a minority may be offset by the harm resulting from undertreatment of the majority. It’s hard to say for sure, but it certainly gives us some food for thought.”

The study was funded by Wellcome and PredictImmune and jointly sponsored by the University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Dr. Parkes and several authors declared fees and grants from numerous companies outside of this study. Dr. Narula reported no relevant disclosures.