User login
8 New GI Studies With Practice-Shifting Implications
I’m just back from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In part 2 of this series, I’m offering my highlights from this year’s meeting. (Part 1 is available here.) They are not presented in any particular order, but instead I am sharing what I found to be the most exciting among the thousands of abstracts and presentations.
Performing Capsule Endoscopy in Patients Taking GLP-1s
We’ve heard a lot about glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and the possibility that they might contribute to an increased risk for retained gastric contents and aspiration during endoscopy.
In the first study I’d like to highlight, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, investigated video capsule endoscopy in patients with diabetes who were taking GLP-1 RAs vs a control group with diabetes not taking GLP-1 Ras. Patients in this retrospective matched cohort study were well balanced for demographics and diabetes-related characteristics.
Researchers found that in 7% of the 68 patients in the GLP-1 RA cohort, the video capsule endoscopy actually failed to pass through the stomach, whereas it passed successfully in all 68 patients in the control group (P =.06). The GLP-1 RA cohort had a longer transit time by a factor of almost four times (P <.001).
Multivariate analysis also showed that gastric transit time was approximately 80 minutes longer in the GLP-1 RA cohort (P <.001). Interestingly, 23.5% (16 of 68 patients) in the GLP-1 RA group experienced incomplete passage of the video capsule endoscopy through the small intestine, which was significantly higher than the proportion observed in the control group (4.4%; P <.01).
We need to look at potential strategies to mitigate these effects. Be aware of these results as you perform capsule endoscopy in patients taking GLP-1 RAs.
Barrett Esophagus On the Rise in the Young
The second study that caught my eye revealed the increasing incidence of young-onset Barrett esophagus (BE).
This population-based study used data obtained from TriNetX, a multi-institutional national database that offers a composite of health records from 88 healthcare organizations. Eligible patients had to have a negative upper esophagogastroduodenoscopy for BE prior to subsequently developing BE. Researchers stratified patients as to whether they were younger (< 50 years) or older (≥ 50 years), with further age ranges analyzed within those groups.
Young-onset BE accounted for 20% of all incident cases. The majority (94%) had nondysplastic BE. The incidence rate was not significantly different depending on whether patients were in the 45- to 49-year or 50- to 54-year age group.
Regression analysis revealed that there was a significantly increased trend for young-onset BE with hiatal hernia (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), smoking (OR, 2.3), White race (OR, 2.3), obstructive sleep apnea (OR, 2.2), male gender (OR, 2.0), and — at relatively lower risk levels — gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (OR, 1.2) and body mass index (OR, 1.1). The researchers did not analyze patients based on the presence of obesity, which is one of the risk factors for BE mentioned in national guidelines.
Results also showed that 6% of those with young-onset BE had BE-related neoplasia.
ACG guidelines recommend screening for BE beginning at age 50 in those with some of the risk factors noted in this study, including the presence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. However, doing so may not capture the growing number of patients with young-onset BE.
We’ve seen a similar rise in rates of young-onset colorectal cancer, which has caused us to reevaluate our screening methods. Maybe we should do this for BE as well, specifically for patients presenting with these risk factors.
There’s a caveat to be aware of, which comes from my personal experience. I was biopsied for short-segment BE, and because it came up on my health record, it increased my life insurance premiums. This was because I was identified as having the risk profile of, essentially, an otherwise healthy smoker.
Dr Nicholas J. Shaheen and colleagues published a study several years ago showing that many insurance companies would not certify young, otherwise healthy people once diagnosed with BE. This is something to be aware of when you start to screen for BE, especially among younger patients.
A Novel Biologic for Eosinophilic Esophagitis
The next study presented results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of cendakimab, a biologic agent in development for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).
Dupilumab, which is an anti–interleukin (IL)-4 antibody, is the first treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of EoE. Cendakimab, in turn, is a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes IL-13, a cytokine that plays a key role in EoE.
The study was led by Dr Evan Dellon from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dellon and colleagues analyzed two different dosing regimens of cendakimab — 360 mg once weekly for 48 weeks, or 360 mg once weekly for 24 weeks followed by 360 mg every other week for 24 weeks — vs placebo for 48 weeks.
There was a significant effect for both cendakimab regimens in terms of symptom improvement and histologic response. There wasn’t much difference between participants that maintained once-weekly dosing and those who switched over to receive cendakimab every other week at 24 weeks. Only a minimal number of serious adverse events leading to discontinuation were noted in the study, with no notable difference between the treatment groups.
I think we’ll probably see this drug become available to us soon after it goes through the FDA review process, at which point it will add to our ability to use formative biologics in patients with EoE.
No Clear Benefit to Adding Bezlotoxumab to Fecal Microbiota Transplantation
Next was a very interesting study, and I think a clinically relevant one, about using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) alone or in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection.
Bezlotoxumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to C difficile toxin B. This drug has been studied and is approved for use, but it’s also extremely expensive, at a cost of approximately $4000 per dose.
Patients with IBD were eligible for inclusion if they had had two or more episodes of C difficile infection. They were then randomized in a 1:1 ration to receive either a single infusion of bezlotoxumab or placebo prior to FMT. The primary endpoint was C difficile infection recurrence within 8 weeks, which was defined as diarrhea plus a positive enzyme immunoassay toxin test. The secondary outcome was C difficile decolonization following treatment.
Researchers observed no statistically significant difference between the two cohorts. Steroid use prior to FMT significantly increased the risk for ongoing C difficile colonization (P =.03).
In summary, this is a case where it doesn’t seem that more is better. Bezlotoxumab didn’t add much, which calls into question the justification for its combined use with FMT.
Additional Positive Data for Seladelpar in Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Cirrhosis
Reassuring findings were presented on seladelpar, which was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in August.
Seladelpar is a selective peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta agonist that works in biliary cholangitis by regulating the genes involved in blocking biliary bile acid synthesis and controlling inflammation and fibrosis.
Results from the phase 3 RESPONSE trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in February reporting on the use of seladelpar in primary biliary cholangitis.
Whereas the RESPONSE trial removed decompensated patients, the ongoing phase 3 ASSURE trial results presented at this year’s meeting included patients with compensated cirrhosis. Approximately 94% of the patients in this study had Child-Pugh class A and 6% had class B cirrhosis. Eligibility required that patients had an inadequate response or were intolerant to ursodeoxycholic acid. Patients were administered open-label seladelpar 10 mg orally daily and followed for up to 1 year.
The good news is that there were no safety signals, which is reassuring news for our patients with compensated cirrhosis.
Advantages to Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination in IBD
Another study that offered results certainly worthy of attention dealt with vaccination recommendations in patients with IBD.
Vaccination for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is now available in the United States. Its use was recommended for patients with IBD as early as 2021 per the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology’s clinical practice guideline, which discusses both live and nonlive vaccines. We should be aggressive in recommending this vaccine to our patients with IBD, but we haven’t really had one until recently.
Researchers behind this retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX database, which includes over 100 million unique patient charts. They identified patients with IBD, who were then divided into two groups according to whether they received the RSV vaccine or not.
Although this analysis was conducted in patients > 60 years of age, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends RSV vaccination for all those over the age of 75 years, as well as for those 60-74 years old based on severity of risk.
For the primary endpoint of risk for RSV pneumonia, the OR was dramatically better in those who were vaccinated, with an approximately 80% risk reduction. Additionally, vaccinated patients experienced risk reductions of approximately 60% for acute respiratory failure, 50% for hospital inpatient admission, and 70% for requiring intensive care unit services.
This is a strong study showing not only that RSV vaccine did not exacerbate IBD but also that it improved outcomes in these patients. There’s a live-attenuated RSV vaccination that’s administered intranasally, which wouldn’t be used in your biologic or immunosuppressed patients with IBD, but the intramuscularly administered RSV vaccine doesn’t have any risk.
I think we can immediately begin recommending the RSV vaccine for our patients with IBD, particularly in those 60 years of age or older.
The Impact of Palliative Care Consultations in Decompensated Cirrhosis
The next study I’d like to highlight offers important data on the impact of palliative care consultation on 30- and 90-day readmission in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, which is a major cause of morbidity and mortality.
Researchers queried the National Readmissions Database over a 10-year period (2010-2019) to determine whether patients received a palliative care consult during index admission. They drew on a population of over 1.6 million patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis.
Of this group, only 7.4% received a palliative care consultation at the index admission. But if they had this consultation, it was associated with a dramatic effect on readmission at 30 and 90 days. There was statistically significant risk reduction of approximately 70% for both 30- and 90-day readmission compared with those who didn’t receive the palliative consult (P <.001).
The take-home message here is to get a palliative care consult with these patients when they come in. Your hospital will unquestionably experience value in this reduction in readmission, especially considering that readmission within 30 days may not even be covered. Look at these results and start to take advantage of this valuable consultation.
Auxora: A Novel Treatment for Acute Pancreatitis
The last study for discussion offered very interesting data related to a drug called Auxora, a calcium release–activated calcium-channel inhibitor.
There is growing data that overactive calcium release–activated calcium channels aggravate acute pancreatitis and accelerate systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).
Acute pancreatitis with necrosis encompasses both local and systemic inflammation and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that among patients with acute pancreatitis, 20%-30% have pancreatic necrosis, 30% develop infection, and 25% develop organ failure.
The presence of SIRS seems to herald the activation of these complex inflammatory pathways, which then leads to organ failure and necrosis, which can potentially be stemmed through this calcium channel inhibitor. Phase 2 studies of Auxora found that its use was associated with significant reduction in the risk for progression.
This subsequent phase 3 study looked at patients with acute pancreatitis and accompanying grade ≥ 2 SIRS criteria. They were randomized to receive placebo or Auxora at doses of 2 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, or 0.5 mg/kg, which was administered intravenously over 4 hours for 3 consecutive days.
The primary endpoint was time to solid food tolerance, which was defined as eating ≥ 50% of a ≥ 500-calorie low-fat solid meal without increased abdominal pain or emesis, which is an important target because we always aim for enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. The key secondary endpoint was severe respiratory failure, which was defined as invasive mechanical ventilation or ≥ 48 hours of either high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation.
The primary endpoint was dramatically improved among those receiving Auxora, who achieved early onset of refeed. It appears that the high-dose 2 mg/kg may be the most beneficial in achieving improvement.
There were no patients with suspected or unexpected adverse events in the study population. Additionally, no patients receiving Auxora at any dose level went on to develop respiratory failure.
The present results show that Auxora decreases the time for solid food tolerance, as well as the rates of respiratory failure and necrotizing pancreatitis in patients presenting with two or more SIRS criteria. We’ll certainly look forward to more data, but it provides hope for a new treatment for acute pancreatitis.
Some of the take-home messages I presented are actionable now, whereas for others, we’ll have to wait and see what the final data show as well as the results of ongoing FDA approval before applying them.
Dr Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I’m just back from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In part 2 of this series, I’m offering my highlights from this year’s meeting. (Part 1 is available here.) They are not presented in any particular order, but instead I am sharing what I found to be the most exciting among the thousands of abstracts and presentations.
Performing Capsule Endoscopy in Patients Taking GLP-1s
We’ve heard a lot about glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and the possibility that they might contribute to an increased risk for retained gastric contents and aspiration during endoscopy.
In the first study I’d like to highlight, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, investigated video capsule endoscopy in patients with diabetes who were taking GLP-1 RAs vs a control group with diabetes not taking GLP-1 Ras. Patients in this retrospective matched cohort study were well balanced for demographics and diabetes-related characteristics.
Researchers found that in 7% of the 68 patients in the GLP-1 RA cohort, the video capsule endoscopy actually failed to pass through the stomach, whereas it passed successfully in all 68 patients in the control group (P =.06). The GLP-1 RA cohort had a longer transit time by a factor of almost four times (P <.001).
Multivariate analysis also showed that gastric transit time was approximately 80 minutes longer in the GLP-1 RA cohort (P <.001). Interestingly, 23.5% (16 of 68 patients) in the GLP-1 RA group experienced incomplete passage of the video capsule endoscopy through the small intestine, which was significantly higher than the proportion observed in the control group (4.4%; P <.01).
We need to look at potential strategies to mitigate these effects. Be aware of these results as you perform capsule endoscopy in patients taking GLP-1 RAs.
Barrett Esophagus On the Rise in the Young
The second study that caught my eye revealed the increasing incidence of young-onset Barrett esophagus (BE).
This population-based study used data obtained from TriNetX, a multi-institutional national database that offers a composite of health records from 88 healthcare organizations. Eligible patients had to have a negative upper esophagogastroduodenoscopy for BE prior to subsequently developing BE. Researchers stratified patients as to whether they were younger (< 50 years) or older (≥ 50 years), with further age ranges analyzed within those groups.
Young-onset BE accounted for 20% of all incident cases. The majority (94%) had nondysplastic BE. The incidence rate was not significantly different depending on whether patients were in the 45- to 49-year or 50- to 54-year age group.
Regression analysis revealed that there was a significantly increased trend for young-onset BE with hiatal hernia (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), smoking (OR, 2.3), White race (OR, 2.3), obstructive sleep apnea (OR, 2.2), male gender (OR, 2.0), and — at relatively lower risk levels — gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (OR, 1.2) and body mass index (OR, 1.1). The researchers did not analyze patients based on the presence of obesity, which is one of the risk factors for BE mentioned in national guidelines.
Results also showed that 6% of those with young-onset BE had BE-related neoplasia.
ACG guidelines recommend screening for BE beginning at age 50 in those with some of the risk factors noted in this study, including the presence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. However, doing so may not capture the growing number of patients with young-onset BE.
We’ve seen a similar rise in rates of young-onset colorectal cancer, which has caused us to reevaluate our screening methods. Maybe we should do this for BE as well, specifically for patients presenting with these risk factors.
There’s a caveat to be aware of, which comes from my personal experience. I was biopsied for short-segment BE, and because it came up on my health record, it increased my life insurance premiums. This was because I was identified as having the risk profile of, essentially, an otherwise healthy smoker.
Dr Nicholas J. Shaheen and colleagues published a study several years ago showing that many insurance companies would not certify young, otherwise healthy people once diagnosed with BE. This is something to be aware of when you start to screen for BE, especially among younger patients.
A Novel Biologic for Eosinophilic Esophagitis
The next study presented results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of cendakimab, a biologic agent in development for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).
Dupilumab, which is an anti–interleukin (IL)-4 antibody, is the first treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of EoE. Cendakimab, in turn, is a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes IL-13, a cytokine that plays a key role in EoE.
The study was led by Dr Evan Dellon from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dellon and colleagues analyzed two different dosing regimens of cendakimab — 360 mg once weekly for 48 weeks, or 360 mg once weekly for 24 weeks followed by 360 mg every other week for 24 weeks — vs placebo for 48 weeks.
There was a significant effect for both cendakimab regimens in terms of symptom improvement and histologic response. There wasn’t much difference between participants that maintained once-weekly dosing and those who switched over to receive cendakimab every other week at 24 weeks. Only a minimal number of serious adverse events leading to discontinuation were noted in the study, with no notable difference between the treatment groups.
I think we’ll probably see this drug become available to us soon after it goes through the FDA review process, at which point it will add to our ability to use formative biologics in patients with EoE.
No Clear Benefit to Adding Bezlotoxumab to Fecal Microbiota Transplantation
Next was a very interesting study, and I think a clinically relevant one, about using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) alone or in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection.
Bezlotoxumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to C difficile toxin B. This drug has been studied and is approved for use, but it’s also extremely expensive, at a cost of approximately $4000 per dose.
Patients with IBD were eligible for inclusion if they had had two or more episodes of C difficile infection. They were then randomized in a 1:1 ration to receive either a single infusion of bezlotoxumab or placebo prior to FMT. The primary endpoint was C difficile infection recurrence within 8 weeks, which was defined as diarrhea plus a positive enzyme immunoassay toxin test. The secondary outcome was C difficile decolonization following treatment.
Researchers observed no statistically significant difference between the two cohorts. Steroid use prior to FMT significantly increased the risk for ongoing C difficile colonization (P =.03).
In summary, this is a case where it doesn’t seem that more is better. Bezlotoxumab didn’t add much, which calls into question the justification for its combined use with FMT.
Additional Positive Data for Seladelpar in Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Cirrhosis
Reassuring findings were presented on seladelpar, which was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in August.
Seladelpar is a selective peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta agonist that works in biliary cholangitis by regulating the genes involved in blocking biliary bile acid synthesis and controlling inflammation and fibrosis.
Results from the phase 3 RESPONSE trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in February reporting on the use of seladelpar in primary biliary cholangitis.
Whereas the RESPONSE trial removed decompensated patients, the ongoing phase 3 ASSURE trial results presented at this year’s meeting included patients with compensated cirrhosis. Approximately 94% of the patients in this study had Child-Pugh class A and 6% had class B cirrhosis. Eligibility required that patients had an inadequate response or were intolerant to ursodeoxycholic acid. Patients were administered open-label seladelpar 10 mg orally daily and followed for up to 1 year.
The good news is that there were no safety signals, which is reassuring news for our patients with compensated cirrhosis.
Advantages to Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination in IBD
Another study that offered results certainly worthy of attention dealt with vaccination recommendations in patients with IBD.
Vaccination for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is now available in the United States. Its use was recommended for patients with IBD as early as 2021 per the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology’s clinical practice guideline, which discusses both live and nonlive vaccines. We should be aggressive in recommending this vaccine to our patients with IBD, but we haven’t really had one until recently.
Researchers behind this retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX database, which includes over 100 million unique patient charts. They identified patients with IBD, who were then divided into two groups according to whether they received the RSV vaccine or not.
Although this analysis was conducted in patients > 60 years of age, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends RSV vaccination for all those over the age of 75 years, as well as for those 60-74 years old based on severity of risk.
For the primary endpoint of risk for RSV pneumonia, the OR was dramatically better in those who were vaccinated, with an approximately 80% risk reduction. Additionally, vaccinated patients experienced risk reductions of approximately 60% for acute respiratory failure, 50% for hospital inpatient admission, and 70% for requiring intensive care unit services.
This is a strong study showing not only that RSV vaccine did not exacerbate IBD but also that it improved outcomes in these patients. There’s a live-attenuated RSV vaccination that’s administered intranasally, which wouldn’t be used in your biologic or immunosuppressed patients with IBD, but the intramuscularly administered RSV vaccine doesn’t have any risk.
I think we can immediately begin recommending the RSV vaccine for our patients with IBD, particularly in those 60 years of age or older.
The Impact of Palliative Care Consultations in Decompensated Cirrhosis
The next study I’d like to highlight offers important data on the impact of palliative care consultation on 30- and 90-day readmission in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, which is a major cause of morbidity and mortality.
Researchers queried the National Readmissions Database over a 10-year period (2010-2019) to determine whether patients received a palliative care consult during index admission. They drew on a population of over 1.6 million patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis.
Of this group, only 7.4% received a palliative care consultation at the index admission. But if they had this consultation, it was associated with a dramatic effect on readmission at 30 and 90 days. There was statistically significant risk reduction of approximately 70% for both 30- and 90-day readmission compared with those who didn’t receive the palliative consult (P <.001).
The take-home message here is to get a palliative care consult with these patients when they come in. Your hospital will unquestionably experience value in this reduction in readmission, especially considering that readmission within 30 days may not even be covered. Look at these results and start to take advantage of this valuable consultation.
Auxora: A Novel Treatment for Acute Pancreatitis
The last study for discussion offered very interesting data related to a drug called Auxora, a calcium release–activated calcium-channel inhibitor.
There is growing data that overactive calcium release–activated calcium channels aggravate acute pancreatitis and accelerate systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).
Acute pancreatitis with necrosis encompasses both local and systemic inflammation and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that among patients with acute pancreatitis, 20%-30% have pancreatic necrosis, 30% develop infection, and 25% develop organ failure.
The presence of SIRS seems to herald the activation of these complex inflammatory pathways, which then leads to organ failure and necrosis, which can potentially be stemmed through this calcium channel inhibitor. Phase 2 studies of Auxora found that its use was associated with significant reduction in the risk for progression.
This subsequent phase 3 study looked at patients with acute pancreatitis and accompanying grade ≥ 2 SIRS criteria. They were randomized to receive placebo or Auxora at doses of 2 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, or 0.5 mg/kg, which was administered intravenously over 4 hours for 3 consecutive days.
The primary endpoint was time to solid food tolerance, which was defined as eating ≥ 50% of a ≥ 500-calorie low-fat solid meal without increased abdominal pain or emesis, which is an important target because we always aim for enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. The key secondary endpoint was severe respiratory failure, which was defined as invasive mechanical ventilation or ≥ 48 hours of either high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation.
The primary endpoint was dramatically improved among those receiving Auxora, who achieved early onset of refeed. It appears that the high-dose 2 mg/kg may be the most beneficial in achieving improvement.
There were no patients with suspected or unexpected adverse events in the study population. Additionally, no patients receiving Auxora at any dose level went on to develop respiratory failure.
The present results show that Auxora decreases the time for solid food tolerance, as well as the rates of respiratory failure and necrotizing pancreatitis in patients presenting with two or more SIRS criteria. We’ll certainly look forward to more data, but it provides hope for a new treatment for acute pancreatitis.
Some of the take-home messages I presented are actionable now, whereas for others, we’ll have to wait and see what the final data show as well as the results of ongoing FDA approval before applying them.
Dr Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I’m just back from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In part 2 of this series, I’m offering my highlights from this year’s meeting. (Part 1 is available here.) They are not presented in any particular order, but instead I am sharing what I found to be the most exciting among the thousands of abstracts and presentations.
Performing Capsule Endoscopy in Patients Taking GLP-1s
We’ve heard a lot about glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and the possibility that they might contribute to an increased risk for retained gastric contents and aspiration during endoscopy.
In the first study I’d like to highlight, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, investigated video capsule endoscopy in patients with diabetes who were taking GLP-1 RAs vs a control group with diabetes not taking GLP-1 Ras. Patients in this retrospective matched cohort study were well balanced for demographics and diabetes-related characteristics.
Researchers found that in 7% of the 68 patients in the GLP-1 RA cohort, the video capsule endoscopy actually failed to pass through the stomach, whereas it passed successfully in all 68 patients in the control group (P =.06). The GLP-1 RA cohort had a longer transit time by a factor of almost four times (P <.001).
Multivariate analysis also showed that gastric transit time was approximately 80 minutes longer in the GLP-1 RA cohort (P <.001). Interestingly, 23.5% (16 of 68 patients) in the GLP-1 RA group experienced incomplete passage of the video capsule endoscopy through the small intestine, which was significantly higher than the proportion observed in the control group (4.4%; P <.01).
We need to look at potential strategies to mitigate these effects. Be aware of these results as you perform capsule endoscopy in patients taking GLP-1 RAs.
Barrett Esophagus On the Rise in the Young
The second study that caught my eye revealed the increasing incidence of young-onset Barrett esophagus (BE).
This population-based study used data obtained from TriNetX, a multi-institutional national database that offers a composite of health records from 88 healthcare organizations. Eligible patients had to have a negative upper esophagogastroduodenoscopy for BE prior to subsequently developing BE. Researchers stratified patients as to whether they were younger (< 50 years) or older (≥ 50 years), with further age ranges analyzed within those groups.
Young-onset BE accounted for 20% of all incident cases. The majority (94%) had nondysplastic BE. The incidence rate was not significantly different depending on whether patients were in the 45- to 49-year or 50- to 54-year age group.
Regression analysis revealed that there was a significantly increased trend for young-onset BE with hiatal hernia (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), smoking (OR, 2.3), White race (OR, 2.3), obstructive sleep apnea (OR, 2.2), male gender (OR, 2.0), and — at relatively lower risk levels — gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (OR, 1.2) and body mass index (OR, 1.1). The researchers did not analyze patients based on the presence of obesity, which is one of the risk factors for BE mentioned in national guidelines.
Results also showed that 6% of those with young-onset BE had BE-related neoplasia.
ACG guidelines recommend screening for BE beginning at age 50 in those with some of the risk factors noted in this study, including the presence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. However, doing so may not capture the growing number of patients with young-onset BE.
We’ve seen a similar rise in rates of young-onset colorectal cancer, which has caused us to reevaluate our screening methods. Maybe we should do this for BE as well, specifically for patients presenting with these risk factors.
There’s a caveat to be aware of, which comes from my personal experience. I was biopsied for short-segment BE, and because it came up on my health record, it increased my life insurance premiums. This was because I was identified as having the risk profile of, essentially, an otherwise healthy smoker.
Dr Nicholas J. Shaheen and colleagues published a study several years ago showing that many insurance companies would not certify young, otherwise healthy people once diagnosed with BE. This is something to be aware of when you start to screen for BE, especially among younger patients.
A Novel Biologic for Eosinophilic Esophagitis
The next study presented results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of cendakimab, a biologic agent in development for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).
Dupilumab, which is an anti–interleukin (IL)-4 antibody, is the first treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of EoE. Cendakimab, in turn, is a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes IL-13, a cytokine that plays a key role in EoE.
The study was led by Dr Evan Dellon from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dellon and colleagues analyzed two different dosing regimens of cendakimab — 360 mg once weekly for 48 weeks, or 360 mg once weekly for 24 weeks followed by 360 mg every other week for 24 weeks — vs placebo for 48 weeks.
There was a significant effect for both cendakimab regimens in terms of symptom improvement and histologic response. There wasn’t much difference between participants that maintained once-weekly dosing and those who switched over to receive cendakimab every other week at 24 weeks. Only a minimal number of serious adverse events leading to discontinuation were noted in the study, with no notable difference between the treatment groups.
I think we’ll probably see this drug become available to us soon after it goes through the FDA review process, at which point it will add to our ability to use formative biologics in patients with EoE.
No Clear Benefit to Adding Bezlotoxumab to Fecal Microbiota Transplantation
Next was a very interesting study, and I think a clinically relevant one, about using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) alone or in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection.
Bezlotoxumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to C difficile toxin B. This drug has been studied and is approved for use, but it’s also extremely expensive, at a cost of approximately $4000 per dose.
Patients with IBD were eligible for inclusion if they had had two or more episodes of C difficile infection. They were then randomized in a 1:1 ration to receive either a single infusion of bezlotoxumab or placebo prior to FMT. The primary endpoint was C difficile infection recurrence within 8 weeks, which was defined as diarrhea plus a positive enzyme immunoassay toxin test. The secondary outcome was C difficile decolonization following treatment.
Researchers observed no statistically significant difference between the two cohorts. Steroid use prior to FMT significantly increased the risk for ongoing C difficile colonization (P =.03).
In summary, this is a case where it doesn’t seem that more is better. Bezlotoxumab didn’t add much, which calls into question the justification for its combined use with FMT.
Additional Positive Data for Seladelpar in Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Cirrhosis
Reassuring findings were presented on seladelpar, which was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in August.
Seladelpar is a selective peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta agonist that works in biliary cholangitis by regulating the genes involved in blocking biliary bile acid synthesis and controlling inflammation and fibrosis.
Results from the phase 3 RESPONSE trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in February reporting on the use of seladelpar in primary biliary cholangitis.
Whereas the RESPONSE trial removed decompensated patients, the ongoing phase 3 ASSURE trial results presented at this year’s meeting included patients with compensated cirrhosis. Approximately 94% of the patients in this study had Child-Pugh class A and 6% had class B cirrhosis. Eligibility required that patients had an inadequate response or were intolerant to ursodeoxycholic acid. Patients were administered open-label seladelpar 10 mg orally daily and followed for up to 1 year.
The good news is that there were no safety signals, which is reassuring news for our patients with compensated cirrhosis.
Advantages to Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination in IBD
Another study that offered results certainly worthy of attention dealt with vaccination recommendations in patients with IBD.
Vaccination for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is now available in the United States. Its use was recommended for patients with IBD as early as 2021 per the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology’s clinical practice guideline, which discusses both live and nonlive vaccines. We should be aggressive in recommending this vaccine to our patients with IBD, but we haven’t really had one until recently.
Researchers behind this retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX database, which includes over 100 million unique patient charts. They identified patients with IBD, who were then divided into two groups according to whether they received the RSV vaccine or not.
Although this analysis was conducted in patients > 60 years of age, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends RSV vaccination for all those over the age of 75 years, as well as for those 60-74 years old based on severity of risk.
For the primary endpoint of risk for RSV pneumonia, the OR was dramatically better in those who were vaccinated, with an approximately 80% risk reduction. Additionally, vaccinated patients experienced risk reductions of approximately 60% for acute respiratory failure, 50% for hospital inpatient admission, and 70% for requiring intensive care unit services.
This is a strong study showing not only that RSV vaccine did not exacerbate IBD but also that it improved outcomes in these patients. There’s a live-attenuated RSV vaccination that’s administered intranasally, which wouldn’t be used in your biologic or immunosuppressed patients with IBD, but the intramuscularly administered RSV vaccine doesn’t have any risk.
I think we can immediately begin recommending the RSV vaccine for our patients with IBD, particularly in those 60 years of age or older.
The Impact of Palliative Care Consultations in Decompensated Cirrhosis
The next study I’d like to highlight offers important data on the impact of palliative care consultation on 30- and 90-day readmission in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, which is a major cause of morbidity and mortality.
Researchers queried the National Readmissions Database over a 10-year period (2010-2019) to determine whether patients received a palliative care consult during index admission. They drew on a population of over 1.6 million patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis.
Of this group, only 7.4% received a palliative care consultation at the index admission. But if they had this consultation, it was associated with a dramatic effect on readmission at 30 and 90 days. There was statistically significant risk reduction of approximately 70% for both 30- and 90-day readmission compared with those who didn’t receive the palliative consult (P <.001).
The take-home message here is to get a palliative care consult with these patients when they come in. Your hospital will unquestionably experience value in this reduction in readmission, especially considering that readmission within 30 days may not even be covered. Look at these results and start to take advantage of this valuable consultation.
Auxora: A Novel Treatment for Acute Pancreatitis
The last study for discussion offered very interesting data related to a drug called Auxora, a calcium release–activated calcium-channel inhibitor.
There is growing data that overactive calcium release–activated calcium channels aggravate acute pancreatitis and accelerate systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).
Acute pancreatitis with necrosis encompasses both local and systemic inflammation and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that among patients with acute pancreatitis, 20%-30% have pancreatic necrosis, 30% develop infection, and 25% develop organ failure.
The presence of SIRS seems to herald the activation of these complex inflammatory pathways, which then leads to organ failure and necrosis, which can potentially be stemmed through this calcium channel inhibitor. Phase 2 studies of Auxora found that its use was associated with significant reduction in the risk for progression.
This subsequent phase 3 study looked at patients with acute pancreatitis and accompanying grade ≥ 2 SIRS criteria. They were randomized to receive placebo or Auxora at doses of 2 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, or 0.5 mg/kg, which was administered intravenously over 4 hours for 3 consecutive days.
The primary endpoint was time to solid food tolerance, which was defined as eating ≥ 50% of a ≥ 500-calorie low-fat solid meal without increased abdominal pain or emesis, which is an important target because we always aim for enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. The key secondary endpoint was severe respiratory failure, which was defined as invasive mechanical ventilation or ≥ 48 hours of either high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation.
The primary endpoint was dramatically improved among those receiving Auxora, who achieved early onset of refeed. It appears that the high-dose 2 mg/kg may be the most beneficial in achieving improvement.
There were no patients with suspected or unexpected adverse events in the study population. Additionally, no patients receiving Auxora at any dose level went on to develop respiratory failure.
The present results show that Auxora decreases the time for solid food tolerance, as well as the rates of respiratory failure and necrotizing pancreatitis in patients presenting with two or more SIRS criteria. We’ll certainly look forward to more data, but it provides hope for a new treatment for acute pancreatitis.
Some of the take-home messages I presented are actionable now, whereas for others, we’ll have to wait and see what the final data show as well as the results of ongoing FDA approval before applying them.
Dr Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Promising New Data for Drugs Both Novel and Established in Several Common GI Conditions
I’ve just returned from the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), which was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
which will be split into two parts. These studies are not presented in any order of priority because I think they all have clinical applications, some of which are more immediate. Where possible, I’ll also provide you with some teaching points that occurred to me when I viewed the data in these presentations.
Repetitive Use Injuries Among Endoscopists
First is a study that assessed musculoskeletal injuries that occurred while performing endoscopy, which is a large part of what we do as gastroenterologists. I’ve personally experienced virtually all these injuries during my 45-plus years in the field. These findings provide a useful perspective of what we can do to potentially avoid such injuries going forward.
This study comes to us from researchers at the University of Utah, who looked at an author-developed and validated questionnaire called QuickDash (Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand). Endoscopists were evaluated by occupational therapists in their department, who looked at strength testing as well as a series of provocative tests to identify injuries.
Thirty-five endoscopists were enrolled. Overall, 34% reported experiencing pain and 17% reported numbness. In the previous week, 48% had been bothered by pain and 11% by tingling, and 17% reported limitations on what they could do at work.
Additionally, 17% experienced interrupted sleep. I think that finding is particularly important, because when you have fragmented sleep it lowers sensory thresholds. Essentially, this means that the day after interrupted sleep, you respond with a heightened sensory response.
Physical testing showed reduction in grip strength in approximately half of participants, including both right and left grip. More than 70% had at least one abnormal positive provocative test.
There were a couple factors associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes. Those who performed 20 or more procedures a week were at higher risk of pain (P = .007). I recognize that some of you probably perform 20 or more endoscopies in a single day.
Negative outcomes were also more likely to occur among physicians performing biliary endoscopy. Performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during 20%-60% of the week resulted in greater likelihood of experiencing decreased bilateral pinch strength.
The bottom line is that there’s an extremely high prevalence of repetitive use injury among endoscopists. Whether you’re just starting out, mid-career, or more senior, you need to be aware of this.
Kudos to the ACG who put together hands-on sessions across 2 days with extended ergonomics training provided by physical therapists with expertise in this area. These sessions were standing room only every time I visited them.
During the meeting, the ACG also announced the publication of a new book, Ergonomics for Endoscopy: Optimal Preparation, Performance, and Recovery, that is available on the ACG’s website. I had the privilege to meet the two authors, survey the book, and briefly discuss it with them. It’s phenomenal, and something that I think every endoscopist can benefit from.
So, in summary, don’t put aside these concerns. It’s your career, and the better we can do in preventing these injuries, I think the better you’ll feel going forward.
On-Demand Vonoprazan for Heartburn
The second study of note dealt with vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker.
The question surrounding vonoprazan is whether it has clinical value as an on-demand option rather than simply as maintenance therapy administered via daily dosing. Previous results have suggested that it may have a more rapid effect when it’s taken on demand.
This post hoc analysis of a randomized trial evaluated a 4-week run-in period during which patients received vonoprazan 20 mg daily, followed by a 6-week period after which patients switched to on-demand therapy. To be eligible, during the run-in period patients had to be 80% compliant with the study drug and report no heartburn during the last 7 days of treatment. If so, they were then randomized to receive vonoprazan at 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg, or placebo.
Eligible patients reported 16% heartburn-free days during the screening period. During the run-in period, heartburn-free days increased to 83% among those taking vonoprazan 20 mg daily. When this was stopped and patients transitioned to on-demand vonoprazan, they still had a very high rate of heartburn-free days, ranging from 71% to 75%. Over 90% in the treatment group had their symptoms improved within 2 hours, with improvement noted as early as within 1 hour.
We know that proton pump inhibitors don’t produce this effect, which presents a challenge for us. This study suggests there may be a very strong role for on-demand therapy in patients who have reflux, which certainly showed in terms of responsiveness during the 4-week run-in period.
Rifaximin Monotherapy Reduces Risk for Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy Recurrence
The next trial looked at rifaximin monotherapy for prevention of relapse of overt hepatic encephalopathy.
Rifaximin has been added to the baseline primary treatment of lactulose, a combination that has been analyzed in pivotal studies. However, lactulose is a difficult drug to titrate. We typically ask patients to let us know if they have Bristol Stool Scale scores ≥ 6. This results in an inordinate number of calls back to the clinic or office. Diarrhea is a particular problem in these patients.
This study, which was presented by Dr Jasmohan S. Bajaj from Virginia Commonwealth University, analyzed data from two randomized trials: a phase 3, double-blind trial and a phase 4 open-label trial. Both studies were conducted in patients with Child-Pugh classification A and B cirrhosis, whose overt hepatic encephalopathy was graded with a Conn score ≤ 1. Researchers only looked at those patients who received rifaximin 550 mg twice daily without lactulose, or lactulose titrated to a target of two to three soft stools a day plus placebo. The primary endpoint, which was used in both trials, was time to first breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episode, measured as a Conn score ≥ 2.
There were 125 patients in the rifaximin group and 145 patients in the lactulose group. Patients in both groups had mean age of 57 years and a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 12.
Treatment with rifaximin produced significantly striking results. In the rifaximin group, the risk for breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episodes was reduced by 60%, with a number needed to treat of 4, which is extremely powerful. Regarding mortality reduction, the number needed to treat with rifaximin alone was 19.
The take-away message here is that it’s difficult to use lactulose. We frequently have to stop it. These results provide reassurance that rifaximin has a dramatic effect even when used by itself. The recommended first-line therapy is still to begin with lactulose, but this study provides us with very strong data regarding the use of rifaximin alone.
Apraglutide’s Efficacy in Short-Bowel Syndrome
The fourth study I’d like to highlight adds to the growing data around a long-acting glucagon-like peptide 2 analog, apraglutide.
Results from the phase 3, double-blind STARS trial were first presented at Digestive Disease Week earlier in the year. They showed that apraglutide had efficacy and contributed to a reduction in the risk for needing parenteral support, maintenance of weight, and fluid requirements in patients with short-bowel syndrome and intestinal failure. However, questions remained regarding whether there were variations in response based on patient demographics and short-bowel syndrome–specific characteristics.
Researchers looked at a subgroup of patients from the STARS trial. The primary endpoint remained the same as in the main trial: relative change from baseline in actual parenteral support weekly volume at week 24. However, rather than measure it in the overall population, they did so according to geographic region, gender, age, body weight, race and ethnicity, and short-bowel syndrome characteristics, including differences in parenteral support volume, length of the remnant small intestine, and time from short-bowel syndrome diagnosis.
Across all these demographic and disease characteristic categories, there was absolutely no difference in the primary endpoint.
Apraglutide seems to be inordinately promising. This is a once-weekly treatment, as opposed to liraglutide, which is problematic because it has to be given daily.
From what I understand, apraglutide has been offered a fast-track status by the US Food and Drug Administration. Again, from what I’ve heard, it will be evaluated upon submission beginning sometime in the first quarter of 2025, which may mean that apraglutide could be available as early as 2026.
This would be a big deal for patients with short-bowel syndrome who would have a once-weekly treatment option as opposed to daily treatment and its accompanying problems of compliance and relatively reduced response.
Biologics for Treating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis
The final study I want to discuss in this presentation dealt with adverse responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. We see this increasingly in our clinics as ICIs become more widely used. They are wonderful drugs, but ICI-induced colitis can occur in up to 30% of patients.
The oncologic approach is to try and stay the course, while gastroenterologists are tasked with treating the colitis so that these patients can maintain their cancer treatment. Steroid therapy is the primary first-line treatment against ICI colitis, but the use of biologic therapy with infliximab or vedolizumab has been associated with favorable outcomes as well.
ICI colitis is graded on a scale. Whereas grade 1 ICI colitis indicates increased stool frequency of less than four a day and the absence of symptoms, grade 2 indicates a progression to a stool frequency of four to six times a day, the appearance of blood or mucus in the stool, and symptoms like abdominal pain.
Researchers sought to answer the question of which treatment is better for patients with moderate to severe ICI colitis: infliximab or vedolizumab? They performed a database analysis of patients at their institution who received at least one dose of these biologics. The endpoint was sustained clinical response (ie, without a recurrent colitis episode), as well as patients achieving improvement to grade 1 ICI colitis.
The data for infliximab and vedolizumab were quite good. Sustained clinical response was noted in 91% of patients receiving infliximab and 86% receiving vedolizumab. There was no difference in infection risk between the groups.
There’s a teaching point in the study’s other key finding, which is that following biologic initiation, steroids were more rapidly discontinued with vedolizumab vs infliximab (median, 25 days vs 56 days, respectively). Therefore, vedolizumab may have the added benefit of patients being able to get off steroids more quickly. That’s the take-home message: Vedolizumab may be better. We certainly are comfortable with both biologics, but patients getting off steroids would be better.
There are two additional teaching points I’d like to convey.
First, don’t forget to perform a biopsy, because there are patients who may have cytomegalovirus colitis and we don’t want to miss it. A biopsy may also reveal whether they have a macroscopically normal rectosigmoid. So, you should biopsy to look for microscopic changes. As 98% of ICI colitis cases involve the left colon, you can get by with just using a flexible sigmoidoscopy.
Second, don’t forget to check for celiac disease. Patients taking ICIs may develop celiac disease as a side effect of treatment. So, I always order a celiac profile as well.
These are, in my opinion, five of the top studies from ACG 2024, with the remaining studies to be discussed in my next video. They all provide opportunities to help us improve our patients’ health.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
I’ve just returned from the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), which was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
which will be split into two parts. These studies are not presented in any order of priority because I think they all have clinical applications, some of which are more immediate. Where possible, I’ll also provide you with some teaching points that occurred to me when I viewed the data in these presentations.
Repetitive Use Injuries Among Endoscopists
First is a study that assessed musculoskeletal injuries that occurred while performing endoscopy, which is a large part of what we do as gastroenterologists. I’ve personally experienced virtually all these injuries during my 45-plus years in the field. These findings provide a useful perspective of what we can do to potentially avoid such injuries going forward.
This study comes to us from researchers at the University of Utah, who looked at an author-developed and validated questionnaire called QuickDash (Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand). Endoscopists were evaluated by occupational therapists in their department, who looked at strength testing as well as a series of provocative tests to identify injuries.
Thirty-five endoscopists were enrolled. Overall, 34% reported experiencing pain and 17% reported numbness. In the previous week, 48% had been bothered by pain and 11% by tingling, and 17% reported limitations on what they could do at work.
Additionally, 17% experienced interrupted sleep. I think that finding is particularly important, because when you have fragmented sleep it lowers sensory thresholds. Essentially, this means that the day after interrupted sleep, you respond with a heightened sensory response.
Physical testing showed reduction in grip strength in approximately half of participants, including both right and left grip. More than 70% had at least one abnormal positive provocative test.
There were a couple factors associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes. Those who performed 20 or more procedures a week were at higher risk of pain (P = .007). I recognize that some of you probably perform 20 or more endoscopies in a single day.
Negative outcomes were also more likely to occur among physicians performing biliary endoscopy. Performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during 20%-60% of the week resulted in greater likelihood of experiencing decreased bilateral pinch strength.
The bottom line is that there’s an extremely high prevalence of repetitive use injury among endoscopists. Whether you’re just starting out, mid-career, or more senior, you need to be aware of this.
Kudos to the ACG who put together hands-on sessions across 2 days with extended ergonomics training provided by physical therapists with expertise in this area. These sessions were standing room only every time I visited them.
During the meeting, the ACG also announced the publication of a new book, Ergonomics for Endoscopy: Optimal Preparation, Performance, and Recovery, that is available on the ACG’s website. I had the privilege to meet the two authors, survey the book, and briefly discuss it with them. It’s phenomenal, and something that I think every endoscopist can benefit from.
So, in summary, don’t put aside these concerns. It’s your career, and the better we can do in preventing these injuries, I think the better you’ll feel going forward.
On-Demand Vonoprazan for Heartburn
The second study of note dealt with vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker.
The question surrounding vonoprazan is whether it has clinical value as an on-demand option rather than simply as maintenance therapy administered via daily dosing. Previous results have suggested that it may have a more rapid effect when it’s taken on demand.
This post hoc analysis of a randomized trial evaluated a 4-week run-in period during which patients received vonoprazan 20 mg daily, followed by a 6-week period after which patients switched to on-demand therapy. To be eligible, during the run-in period patients had to be 80% compliant with the study drug and report no heartburn during the last 7 days of treatment. If so, they were then randomized to receive vonoprazan at 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg, or placebo.
Eligible patients reported 16% heartburn-free days during the screening period. During the run-in period, heartburn-free days increased to 83% among those taking vonoprazan 20 mg daily. When this was stopped and patients transitioned to on-demand vonoprazan, they still had a very high rate of heartburn-free days, ranging from 71% to 75%. Over 90% in the treatment group had their symptoms improved within 2 hours, with improvement noted as early as within 1 hour.
We know that proton pump inhibitors don’t produce this effect, which presents a challenge for us. This study suggests there may be a very strong role for on-demand therapy in patients who have reflux, which certainly showed in terms of responsiveness during the 4-week run-in period.
Rifaximin Monotherapy Reduces Risk for Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy Recurrence
The next trial looked at rifaximin monotherapy for prevention of relapse of overt hepatic encephalopathy.
Rifaximin has been added to the baseline primary treatment of lactulose, a combination that has been analyzed in pivotal studies. However, lactulose is a difficult drug to titrate. We typically ask patients to let us know if they have Bristol Stool Scale scores ≥ 6. This results in an inordinate number of calls back to the clinic or office. Diarrhea is a particular problem in these patients.
This study, which was presented by Dr Jasmohan S. Bajaj from Virginia Commonwealth University, analyzed data from two randomized trials: a phase 3, double-blind trial and a phase 4 open-label trial. Both studies were conducted in patients with Child-Pugh classification A and B cirrhosis, whose overt hepatic encephalopathy was graded with a Conn score ≤ 1. Researchers only looked at those patients who received rifaximin 550 mg twice daily without lactulose, or lactulose titrated to a target of two to three soft stools a day plus placebo. The primary endpoint, which was used in both trials, was time to first breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episode, measured as a Conn score ≥ 2.
There were 125 patients in the rifaximin group and 145 patients in the lactulose group. Patients in both groups had mean age of 57 years and a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 12.
Treatment with rifaximin produced significantly striking results. In the rifaximin group, the risk for breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episodes was reduced by 60%, with a number needed to treat of 4, which is extremely powerful. Regarding mortality reduction, the number needed to treat with rifaximin alone was 19.
The take-away message here is that it’s difficult to use lactulose. We frequently have to stop it. These results provide reassurance that rifaximin has a dramatic effect even when used by itself. The recommended first-line therapy is still to begin with lactulose, but this study provides us with very strong data regarding the use of rifaximin alone.
Apraglutide’s Efficacy in Short-Bowel Syndrome
The fourth study I’d like to highlight adds to the growing data around a long-acting glucagon-like peptide 2 analog, apraglutide.
Results from the phase 3, double-blind STARS trial were first presented at Digestive Disease Week earlier in the year. They showed that apraglutide had efficacy and contributed to a reduction in the risk for needing parenteral support, maintenance of weight, and fluid requirements in patients with short-bowel syndrome and intestinal failure. However, questions remained regarding whether there were variations in response based on patient demographics and short-bowel syndrome–specific characteristics.
Researchers looked at a subgroup of patients from the STARS trial. The primary endpoint remained the same as in the main trial: relative change from baseline in actual parenteral support weekly volume at week 24. However, rather than measure it in the overall population, they did so according to geographic region, gender, age, body weight, race and ethnicity, and short-bowel syndrome characteristics, including differences in parenteral support volume, length of the remnant small intestine, and time from short-bowel syndrome diagnosis.
Across all these demographic and disease characteristic categories, there was absolutely no difference in the primary endpoint.
Apraglutide seems to be inordinately promising. This is a once-weekly treatment, as opposed to liraglutide, which is problematic because it has to be given daily.
From what I understand, apraglutide has been offered a fast-track status by the US Food and Drug Administration. Again, from what I’ve heard, it will be evaluated upon submission beginning sometime in the first quarter of 2025, which may mean that apraglutide could be available as early as 2026.
This would be a big deal for patients with short-bowel syndrome who would have a once-weekly treatment option as opposed to daily treatment and its accompanying problems of compliance and relatively reduced response.
Biologics for Treating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis
The final study I want to discuss in this presentation dealt with adverse responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. We see this increasingly in our clinics as ICIs become more widely used. They are wonderful drugs, but ICI-induced colitis can occur in up to 30% of patients.
The oncologic approach is to try and stay the course, while gastroenterologists are tasked with treating the colitis so that these patients can maintain their cancer treatment. Steroid therapy is the primary first-line treatment against ICI colitis, but the use of biologic therapy with infliximab or vedolizumab has been associated with favorable outcomes as well.
ICI colitis is graded on a scale. Whereas grade 1 ICI colitis indicates increased stool frequency of less than four a day and the absence of symptoms, grade 2 indicates a progression to a stool frequency of four to six times a day, the appearance of blood or mucus in the stool, and symptoms like abdominal pain.
Researchers sought to answer the question of which treatment is better for patients with moderate to severe ICI colitis: infliximab or vedolizumab? They performed a database analysis of patients at their institution who received at least one dose of these biologics. The endpoint was sustained clinical response (ie, without a recurrent colitis episode), as well as patients achieving improvement to grade 1 ICI colitis.
The data for infliximab and vedolizumab were quite good. Sustained clinical response was noted in 91% of patients receiving infliximab and 86% receiving vedolizumab. There was no difference in infection risk between the groups.
There’s a teaching point in the study’s other key finding, which is that following biologic initiation, steroids were more rapidly discontinued with vedolizumab vs infliximab (median, 25 days vs 56 days, respectively). Therefore, vedolizumab may have the added benefit of patients being able to get off steroids more quickly. That’s the take-home message: Vedolizumab may be better. We certainly are comfortable with both biologics, but patients getting off steroids would be better.
There are two additional teaching points I’d like to convey.
First, don’t forget to perform a biopsy, because there are patients who may have cytomegalovirus colitis and we don’t want to miss it. A biopsy may also reveal whether they have a macroscopically normal rectosigmoid. So, you should biopsy to look for microscopic changes. As 98% of ICI colitis cases involve the left colon, you can get by with just using a flexible sigmoidoscopy.
Second, don’t forget to check for celiac disease. Patients taking ICIs may develop celiac disease as a side effect of treatment. So, I always order a celiac profile as well.
These are, in my opinion, five of the top studies from ACG 2024, with the remaining studies to be discussed in my next video. They all provide opportunities to help us improve our patients’ health.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
I’ve just returned from the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), which was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
which will be split into two parts. These studies are not presented in any order of priority because I think they all have clinical applications, some of which are more immediate. Where possible, I’ll also provide you with some teaching points that occurred to me when I viewed the data in these presentations.
Repetitive Use Injuries Among Endoscopists
First is a study that assessed musculoskeletal injuries that occurred while performing endoscopy, which is a large part of what we do as gastroenterologists. I’ve personally experienced virtually all these injuries during my 45-plus years in the field. These findings provide a useful perspective of what we can do to potentially avoid such injuries going forward.
This study comes to us from researchers at the University of Utah, who looked at an author-developed and validated questionnaire called QuickDash (Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand). Endoscopists were evaluated by occupational therapists in their department, who looked at strength testing as well as a series of provocative tests to identify injuries.
Thirty-five endoscopists were enrolled. Overall, 34% reported experiencing pain and 17% reported numbness. In the previous week, 48% had been bothered by pain and 11% by tingling, and 17% reported limitations on what they could do at work.
Additionally, 17% experienced interrupted sleep. I think that finding is particularly important, because when you have fragmented sleep it lowers sensory thresholds. Essentially, this means that the day after interrupted sleep, you respond with a heightened sensory response.
Physical testing showed reduction in grip strength in approximately half of participants, including both right and left grip. More than 70% had at least one abnormal positive provocative test.
There were a couple factors associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes. Those who performed 20 or more procedures a week were at higher risk of pain (P = .007). I recognize that some of you probably perform 20 or more endoscopies in a single day.
Negative outcomes were also more likely to occur among physicians performing biliary endoscopy. Performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during 20%-60% of the week resulted in greater likelihood of experiencing decreased bilateral pinch strength.
The bottom line is that there’s an extremely high prevalence of repetitive use injury among endoscopists. Whether you’re just starting out, mid-career, or more senior, you need to be aware of this.
Kudos to the ACG who put together hands-on sessions across 2 days with extended ergonomics training provided by physical therapists with expertise in this area. These sessions were standing room only every time I visited them.
During the meeting, the ACG also announced the publication of a new book, Ergonomics for Endoscopy: Optimal Preparation, Performance, and Recovery, that is available on the ACG’s website. I had the privilege to meet the two authors, survey the book, and briefly discuss it with them. It’s phenomenal, and something that I think every endoscopist can benefit from.
So, in summary, don’t put aside these concerns. It’s your career, and the better we can do in preventing these injuries, I think the better you’ll feel going forward.
On-Demand Vonoprazan for Heartburn
The second study of note dealt with vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker.
The question surrounding vonoprazan is whether it has clinical value as an on-demand option rather than simply as maintenance therapy administered via daily dosing. Previous results have suggested that it may have a more rapid effect when it’s taken on demand.
This post hoc analysis of a randomized trial evaluated a 4-week run-in period during which patients received vonoprazan 20 mg daily, followed by a 6-week period after which patients switched to on-demand therapy. To be eligible, during the run-in period patients had to be 80% compliant with the study drug and report no heartburn during the last 7 days of treatment. If so, they were then randomized to receive vonoprazan at 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg, or placebo.
Eligible patients reported 16% heartburn-free days during the screening period. During the run-in period, heartburn-free days increased to 83% among those taking vonoprazan 20 mg daily. When this was stopped and patients transitioned to on-demand vonoprazan, they still had a very high rate of heartburn-free days, ranging from 71% to 75%. Over 90% in the treatment group had their symptoms improved within 2 hours, with improvement noted as early as within 1 hour.
We know that proton pump inhibitors don’t produce this effect, which presents a challenge for us. This study suggests there may be a very strong role for on-demand therapy in patients who have reflux, which certainly showed in terms of responsiveness during the 4-week run-in period.
Rifaximin Monotherapy Reduces Risk for Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy Recurrence
The next trial looked at rifaximin monotherapy for prevention of relapse of overt hepatic encephalopathy.
Rifaximin has been added to the baseline primary treatment of lactulose, a combination that has been analyzed in pivotal studies. However, lactulose is a difficult drug to titrate. We typically ask patients to let us know if they have Bristol Stool Scale scores ≥ 6. This results in an inordinate number of calls back to the clinic or office. Diarrhea is a particular problem in these patients.
This study, which was presented by Dr Jasmohan S. Bajaj from Virginia Commonwealth University, analyzed data from two randomized trials: a phase 3, double-blind trial and a phase 4 open-label trial. Both studies were conducted in patients with Child-Pugh classification A and B cirrhosis, whose overt hepatic encephalopathy was graded with a Conn score ≤ 1. Researchers only looked at those patients who received rifaximin 550 mg twice daily without lactulose, or lactulose titrated to a target of two to three soft stools a day plus placebo. The primary endpoint, which was used in both trials, was time to first breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episode, measured as a Conn score ≥ 2.
There were 125 patients in the rifaximin group and 145 patients in the lactulose group. Patients in both groups had mean age of 57 years and a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 12.
Treatment with rifaximin produced significantly striking results. In the rifaximin group, the risk for breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episodes was reduced by 60%, with a number needed to treat of 4, which is extremely powerful. Regarding mortality reduction, the number needed to treat with rifaximin alone was 19.
The take-away message here is that it’s difficult to use lactulose. We frequently have to stop it. These results provide reassurance that rifaximin has a dramatic effect even when used by itself. The recommended first-line therapy is still to begin with lactulose, but this study provides us with very strong data regarding the use of rifaximin alone.
Apraglutide’s Efficacy in Short-Bowel Syndrome
The fourth study I’d like to highlight adds to the growing data around a long-acting glucagon-like peptide 2 analog, apraglutide.
Results from the phase 3, double-blind STARS trial were first presented at Digestive Disease Week earlier in the year. They showed that apraglutide had efficacy and contributed to a reduction in the risk for needing parenteral support, maintenance of weight, and fluid requirements in patients with short-bowel syndrome and intestinal failure. However, questions remained regarding whether there were variations in response based on patient demographics and short-bowel syndrome–specific characteristics.
Researchers looked at a subgroup of patients from the STARS trial. The primary endpoint remained the same as in the main trial: relative change from baseline in actual parenteral support weekly volume at week 24. However, rather than measure it in the overall population, they did so according to geographic region, gender, age, body weight, race and ethnicity, and short-bowel syndrome characteristics, including differences in parenteral support volume, length of the remnant small intestine, and time from short-bowel syndrome diagnosis.
Across all these demographic and disease characteristic categories, there was absolutely no difference in the primary endpoint.
Apraglutide seems to be inordinately promising. This is a once-weekly treatment, as opposed to liraglutide, which is problematic because it has to be given daily.
From what I understand, apraglutide has been offered a fast-track status by the US Food and Drug Administration. Again, from what I’ve heard, it will be evaluated upon submission beginning sometime in the first quarter of 2025, which may mean that apraglutide could be available as early as 2026.
This would be a big deal for patients with short-bowel syndrome who would have a once-weekly treatment option as opposed to daily treatment and its accompanying problems of compliance and relatively reduced response.
Biologics for Treating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis
The final study I want to discuss in this presentation dealt with adverse responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. We see this increasingly in our clinics as ICIs become more widely used. They are wonderful drugs, but ICI-induced colitis can occur in up to 30% of patients.
The oncologic approach is to try and stay the course, while gastroenterologists are tasked with treating the colitis so that these patients can maintain their cancer treatment. Steroid therapy is the primary first-line treatment against ICI colitis, but the use of biologic therapy with infliximab or vedolizumab has been associated with favorable outcomes as well.
ICI colitis is graded on a scale. Whereas grade 1 ICI colitis indicates increased stool frequency of less than four a day and the absence of symptoms, grade 2 indicates a progression to a stool frequency of four to six times a day, the appearance of blood or mucus in the stool, and symptoms like abdominal pain.
Researchers sought to answer the question of which treatment is better for patients with moderate to severe ICI colitis: infliximab or vedolizumab? They performed a database analysis of patients at their institution who received at least one dose of these biologics. The endpoint was sustained clinical response (ie, without a recurrent colitis episode), as well as patients achieving improvement to grade 1 ICI colitis.
The data for infliximab and vedolizumab were quite good. Sustained clinical response was noted in 91% of patients receiving infliximab and 86% receiving vedolizumab. There was no difference in infection risk between the groups.
There’s a teaching point in the study’s other key finding, which is that following biologic initiation, steroids were more rapidly discontinued with vedolizumab vs infliximab (median, 25 days vs 56 days, respectively). Therefore, vedolizumab may have the added benefit of patients being able to get off steroids more quickly. That’s the take-home message: Vedolizumab may be better. We certainly are comfortable with both biologics, but patients getting off steroids would be better.
There are two additional teaching points I’d like to convey.
First, don’t forget to perform a biopsy, because there are patients who may have cytomegalovirus colitis and we don’t want to miss it. A biopsy may also reveal whether they have a macroscopically normal rectosigmoid. So, you should biopsy to look for microscopic changes. As 98% of ICI colitis cases involve the left colon, you can get by with just using a flexible sigmoidoscopy.
Second, don’t forget to check for celiac disease. Patients taking ICIs may develop celiac disease as a side effect of treatment. So, I always order a celiac profile as well.
These are, in my opinion, five of the top studies from ACG 2024, with the remaining studies to be discussed in my next video. They all provide opportunities to help us improve our patients’ health.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
H pylori: ACG Guideline Advises New Approaches to Treatment
Helicobacter pylori is one of the most common human bacterial chronic infections globally. Its prevalence has actually decreased in North America in recent years, although its current range of approximately 30%-40% remains substantial given the potential clinical implications of infection.
Standards have changed considerably regarding the testing, treatment, and follow-up of H pylori. This is made clear by the just-published clinical practice guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), which provides several new recommendations based on recent scientific evidence that should change your clinical approach to managing this common infection.
This discussion aims to synthesize and highlight key concepts from the ACG’s comprehensive publication.
Who Should Be Tested and Treated?
The cardinal diseases caused by H pylori have traditionally included peptic ulcer disease, marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, gastric adenocarcinoma, and dyspepsia.
Additional associations have been made with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and otherwise unexplained iron deficiency.
New evidence suggests that patients taking long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including low-dose aspirin, are relatively more susceptible to infection.
The ACG’s guideline also recommends testing persons at an increased risk for gastric adenocarcinoma (eg, those with autoimmune gastritis, current or history of premalignant conditions, or first-degree relative with gastric cancer), as well as household members of patients with a positive nonserologic test for H pylori.
The authors note that those with an indication for testing should be offered treatment if determined to have an infection. These patients should also undergo a posttreatment test-of-cure, which should occur at least 4 weeks afterwards using a urea breath test, fecal antigen test, or gastric biopsy.
Caveats to Treatment
Patients with H pylori infections are advised to undergo treatment for a duration of 14 days. Some of the commercial prepackaged H pylori treatment options (eg, Pylera, which contains bismuth subcitrate/metronidazole/tetracycline) are dispensed in regimens lasting only 10 days and currently are viewed as inadequate.
In the United States, the patterns of antibiotic resistance for the previously used standard drugs in the treatment of H pylori have increased considerably. They range from 32% for clarithromycin, 38% for levofloxacin, and 42% for metronidazole, in contrast to 3% for amoxicillin, 1% for tetracycline, and 0% for rifabutin.
Clarithromycin- and levofloxacin-containing treatments should be avoided in treatment-naive patients unless specifically directed following the results of susceptibility tests with either a phenotypic method (culture-based) or a molecular method (polymerase chain reaction or next-generation sequencing). Notably, the mutations responsible for both clarithromycin and levofloxacin resistance may be detectable by stool-based testing.
Maintenance of intragastric acid suppression is key to H pylori eradication, as elevated intragastric pH promotes active replication of H pylori and makes it more susceptible to bactericidal antibiotics.
Therefore, the use of histamine-2 receptors is not recommended, as they are inadequate for achieving acid suppression. Instead, a dual-based therapy of either the potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan (20 mg) or a high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and amoxicillin, administered twice daily, is effective, although this finding is based on limited evidence.
Treatment-Naive Patients
In treatment-naive patients without penicillin allergy and for whom antibiotic susceptibility testing has not been obtained, the guideline offers its strongest recommendation for bismuth quadruple therapy. This therapy typically consists of a PPI, bismuth subcitrate or subsalicylate, tetracycline, and metronidazole.
Among those with a penicillin allergy, bismuth quadruple therapy is also the primary treatment choice. The authors suggest that patients with a suspected allergy are referred to an allergist for possible penicillin desensitization, given that less than 1% of the population is thought to present with a “true” allergy.
The guideline also presented conditional recommendations, based on low- to moderate-quality evidence, for using a rifabutin-based triple regimen of omeprazole, amoxicillin, and rifabutin (Talicia); a PCAB-based dual regimen of vonoprazan and amoxicillin (Voquezna Dual Pak); and a PCAB-based triple regimen of vonoprazan, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin (Voquezna Triple Pak). In patients with unknown clarithromycin susceptibility, the PCAB-based triple therapy is preferred over PPI-clarithromycin triple therapy.
Although probiotics have been suggested to possibly lead to increased effectiveness or tolerability for H pylori eradication, this was based on studies with significant heterogeneity in their designs. At present, no high-quality data support probiotic therapy.
Clinicians may substitute doxycycline for tetracycline due to availability or cost, and also may prescribe metronidazole at a lower dose than recommended (1.5-2 g/d) to limit side effects. Both modifications have been associated with lower rates of H pylori eradication and are not recommended.
Treatment-Experienced Patients
Quadruple bismuth therapy is the optimal approach among treatment-experienced patients with persistent H pylori infection who have not previously received this therapy. However, this recommendation was rated as conditional, given that it was based on a low quality of evidence.
The guideline offered other recommendations for treatment-experienced patients with persistent infection who had received bismuth quadruple therapy — also conditionally based on a low quality of evidence.
In such patients, it is recommended to consider the use of a rifabutin-based triple therapy (ie, a PPI standard to double dose, amoxicillin, and rifabutin) and a levofloxacin-based triple therapy (ie, a PPI standard dose, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin or metronidazole).
Although significant evidence gaps prevented the authors from providing formal recommendations, they included a PCAB-based triple therapy of vonoprazan, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin (Voquezna Triple Pak) and a high-dose dual therapy of either vonoprazan (20 mg) or PPI (double dose) and amoxicillin among their suggested salvage regimens for these patients.
A New Standard
We must recognize, however, that there are still substantial evidence gaps, particularly around the use of a PCAB-based regimen and its relative advantages over a standard or high-dose PPI-based regimen. This may be of particular importance based on the variable prevalence of cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) polymorphisms in the specific patient populations, as PCABs are not metabolized by CYP2C19.
Reviewing the entirety of the ACG’s clinical guideline is encouraged for additional details about the management of H pylori beyond what is highlighted herein.
Dr. Johnson, Professor of Medicine, Chief of Gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Helicobacter pylori is one of the most common human bacterial chronic infections globally. Its prevalence has actually decreased in North America in recent years, although its current range of approximately 30%-40% remains substantial given the potential clinical implications of infection.
Standards have changed considerably regarding the testing, treatment, and follow-up of H pylori. This is made clear by the just-published clinical practice guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), which provides several new recommendations based on recent scientific evidence that should change your clinical approach to managing this common infection.
This discussion aims to synthesize and highlight key concepts from the ACG’s comprehensive publication.
Who Should Be Tested and Treated?
The cardinal diseases caused by H pylori have traditionally included peptic ulcer disease, marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, gastric adenocarcinoma, and dyspepsia.
Additional associations have been made with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and otherwise unexplained iron deficiency.
New evidence suggests that patients taking long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including low-dose aspirin, are relatively more susceptible to infection.
The ACG’s guideline also recommends testing persons at an increased risk for gastric adenocarcinoma (eg, those with autoimmune gastritis, current or history of premalignant conditions, or first-degree relative with gastric cancer), as well as household members of patients with a positive nonserologic test for H pylori.
The authors note that those with an indication for testing should be offered treatment if determined to have an infection. These patients should also undergo a posttreatment test-of-cure, which should occur at least 4 weeks afterwards using a urea breath test, fecal antigen test, or gastric biopsy.
Caveats to Treatment
Patients with H pylori infections are advised to undergo treatment for a duration of 14 days. Some of the commercial prepackaged H pylori treatment options (eg, Pylera, which contains bismuth subcitrate/metronidazole/tetracycline) are dispensed in regimens lasting only 10 days and currently are viewed as inadequate.
In the United States, the patterns of antibiotic resistance for the previously used standard drugs in the treatment of H pylori have increased considerably. They range from 32% for clarithromycin, 38% for levofloxacin, and 42% for metronidazole, in contrast to 3% for amoxicillin, 1% for tetracycline, and 0% for rifabutin.
Clarithromycin- and levofloxacin-containing treatments should be avoided in treatment-naive patients unless specifically directed following the results of susceptibility tests with either a phenotypic method (culture-based) or a molecular method (polymerase chain reaction or next-generation sequencing). Notably, the mutations responsible for both clarithromycin and levofloxacin resistance may be detectable by stool-based testing.
Maintenance of intragastric acid suppression is key to H pylori eradication, as elevated intragastric pH promotes active replication of H pylori and makes it more susceptible to bactericidal antibiotics.
Therefore, the use of histamine-2 receptors is not recommended, as they are inadequate for achieving acid suppression. Instead, a dual-based therapy of either the potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan (20 mg) or a high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and amoxicillin, administered twice daily, is effective, although this finding is based on limited evidence.
Treatment-Naive Patients
In treatment-naive patients without penicillin allergy and for whom antibiotic susceptibility testing has not been obtained, the guideline offers its strongest recommendation for bismuth quadruple therapy. This therapy typically consists of a PPI, bismuth subcitrate or subsalicylate, tetracycline, and metronidazole.
Among those with a penicillin allergy, bismuth quadruple therapy is also the primary treatment choice. The authors suggest that patients with a suspected allergy are referred to an allergist for possible penicillin desensitization, given that less than 1% of the population is thought to present with a “true” allergy.
The guideline also presented conditional recommendations, based on low- to moderate-quality evidence, for using a rifabutin-based triple regimen of omeprazole, amoxicillin, and rifabutin (Talicia); a PCAB-based dual regimen of vonoprazan and amoxicillin (Voquezna Dual Pak); and a PCAB-based triple regimen of vonoprazan, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin (Voquezna Triple Pak). In patients with unknown clarithromycin susceptibility, the PCAB-based triple therapy is preferred over PPI-clarithromycin triple therapy.
Although probiotics have been suggested to possibly lead to increased effectiveness or tolerability for H pylori eradication, this was based on studies with significant heterogeneity in their designs. At present, no high-quality data support probiotic therapy.
Clinicians may substitute doxycycline for tetracycline due to availability or cost, and also may prescribe metronidazole at a lower dose than recommended (1.5-2 g/d) to limit side effects. Both modifications have been associated with lower rates of H pylori eradication and are not recommended.
Treatment-Experienced Patients
Quadruple bismuth therapy is the optimal approach among treatment-experienced patients with persistent H pylori infection who have not previously received this therapy. However, this recommendation was rated as conditional, given that it was based on a low quality of evidence.
The guideline offered other recommendations for treatment-experienced patients with persistent infection who had received bismuth quadruple therapy — also conditionally based on a low quality of evidence.
In such patients, it is recommended to consider the use of a rifabutin-based triple therapy (ie, a PPI standard to double dose, amoxicillin, and rifabutin) and a levofloxacin-based triple therapy (ie, a PPI standard dose, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin or metronidazole).
Although significant evidence gaps prevented the authors from providing formal recommendations, they included a PCAB-based triple therapy of vonoprazan, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin (Voquezna Triple Pak) and a high-dose dual therapy of either vonoprazan (20 mg) or PPI (double dose) and amoxicillin among their suggested salvage regimens for these patients.
A New Standard
We must recognize, however, that there are still substantial evidence gaps, particularly around the use of a PCAB-based regimen and its relative advantages over a standard or high-dose PPI-based regimen. This may be of particular importance based on the variable prevalence of cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) polymorphisms in the specific patient populations, as PCABs are not metabolized by CYP2C19.
Reviewing the entirety of the ACG’s clinical guideline is encouraged for additional details about the management of H pylori beyond what is highlighted herein.
Dr. Johnson, Professor of Medicine, Chief of Gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Helicobacter pylori is one of the most common human bacterial chronic infections globally. Its prevalence has actually decreased in North America in recent years, although its current range of approximately 30%-40% remains substantial given the potential clinical implications of infection.
Standards have changed considerably regarding the testing, treatment, and follow-up of H pylori. This is made clear by the just-published clinical practice guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), which provides several new recommendations based on recent scientific evidence that should change your clinical approach to managing this common infection.
This discussion aims to synthesize and highlight key concepts from the ACG’s comprehensive publication.
Who Should Be Tested and Treated?
The cardinal diseases caused by H pylori have traditionally included peptic ulcer disease, marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, gastric adenocarcinoma, and dyspepsia.
Additional associations have been made with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and otherwise unexplained iron deficiency.
New evidence suggests that patients taking long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including low-dose aspirin, are relatively more susceptible to infection.
The ACG’s guideline also recommends testing persons at an increased risk for gastric adenocarcinoma (eg, those with autoimmune gastritis, current or history of premalignant conditions, or first-degree relative with gastric cancer), as well as household members of patients with a positive nonserologic test for H pylori.
The authors note that those with an indication for testing should be offered treatment if determined to have an infection. These patients should also undergo a posttreatment test-of-cure, which should occur at least 4 weeks afterwards using a urea breath test, fecal antigen test, or gastric biopsy.
Caveats to Treatment
Patients with H pylori infections are advised to undergo treatment for a duration of 14 days. Some of the commercial prepackaged H pylori treatment options (eg, Pylera, which contains bismuth subcitrate/metronidazole/tetracycline) are dispensed in regimens lasting only 10 days and currently are viewed as inadequate.
In the United States, the patterns of antibiotic resistance for the previously used standard drugs in the treatment of H pylori have increased considerably. They range from 32% for clarithromycin, 38% for levofloxacin, and 42% for metronidazole, in contrast to 3% for amoxicillin, 1% for tetracycline, and 0% for rifabutin.
Clarithromycin- and levofloxacin-containing treatments should be avoided in treatment-naive patients unless specifically directed following the results of susceptibility tests with either a phenotypic method (culture-based) or a molecular method (polymerase chain reaction or next-generation sequencing). Notably, the mutations responsible for both clarithromycin and levofloxacin resistance may be detectable by stool-based testing.
Maintenance of intragastric acid suppression is key to H pylori eradication, as elevated intragastric pH promotes active replication of H pylori and makes it more susceptible to bactericidal antibiotics.
Therefore, the use of histamine-2 receptors is not recommended, as they are inadequate for achieving acid suppression. Instead, a dual-based therapy of either the potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan (20 mg) or a high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and amoxicillin, administered twice daily, is effective, although this finding is based on limited evidence.
Treatment-Naive Patients
In treatment-naive patients without penicillin allergy and for whom antibiotic susceptibility testing has not been obtained, the guideline offers its strongest recommendation for bismuth quadruple therapy. This therapy typically consists of a PPI, bismuth subcitrate or subsalicylate, tetracycline, and metronidazole.
Among those with a penicillin allergy, bismuth quadruple therapy is also the primary treatment choice. The authors suggest that patients with a suspected allergy are referred to an allergist for possible penicillin desensitization, given that less than 1% of the population is thought to present with a “true” allergy.
The guideline also presented conditional recommendations, based on low- to moderate-quality evidence, for using a rifabutin-based triple regimen of omeprazole, amoxicillin, and rifabutin (Talicia); a PCAB-based dual regimen of vonoprazan and amoxicillin (Voquezna Dual Pak); and a PCAB-based triple regimen of vonoprazan, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin (Voquezna Triple Pak). In patients with unknown clarithromycin susceptibility, the PCAB-based triple therapy is preferred over PPI-clarithromycin triple therapy.
Although probiotics have been suggested to possibly lead to increased effectiveness or tolerability for H pylori eradication, this was based on studies with significant heterogeneity in their designs. At present, no high-quality data support probiotic therapy.
Clinicians may substitute doxycycline for tetracycline due to availability or cost, and also may prescribe metronidazole at a lower dose than recommended (1.5-2 g/d) to limit side effects. Both modifications have been associated with lower rates of H pylori eradication and are not recommended.
Treatment-Experienced Patients
Quadruple bismuth therapy is the optimal approach among treatment-experienced patients with persistent H pylori infection who have not previously received this therapy. However, this recommendation was rated as conditional, given that it was based on a low quality of evidence.
The guideline offered other recommendations for treatment-experienced patients with persistent infection who had received bismuth quadruple therapy — also conditionally based on a low quality of evidence.
In such patients, it is recommended to consider the use of a rifabutin-based triple therapy (ie, a PPI standard to double dose, amoxicillin, and rifabutin) and a levofloxacin-based triple therapy (ie, a PPI standard dose, levofloxacin, and amoxicillin or metronidazole).
Although significant evidence gaps prevented the authors from providing formal recommendations, they included a PCAB-based triple therapy of vonoprazan, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin (Voquezna Triple Pak) and a high-dose dual therapy of either vonoprazan (20 mg) or PPI (double dose) and amoxicillin among their suggested salvage regimens for these patients.
A New Standard
We must recognize, however, that there are still substantial evidence gaps, particularly around the use of a PCAB-based regimen and its relative advantages over a standard or high-dose PPI-based regimen. This may be of particular importance based on the variable prevalence of cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) polymorphisms in the specific patient populations, as PCABs are not metabolized by CYP2C19.
Reviewing the entirety of the ACG’s clinical guideline is encouraged for additional details about the management of H pylori beyond what is highlighted herein.
Dr. Johnson, Professor of Medicine, Chief of Gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Which GI Side Effects Should GLP-1 Prescribers Worry About?
Several recent studies have sought to expound upon what role, if any, GLP-1 RAs may have in increasing the risk for specific gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events.
Herein is a summary of the most current information on this topic, as well as my best guidance for clinicians on integrating it into the clinical care of their patients.
Aspiration Risks
Albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide are among the class of medications known as GLP-1 RAs. These medications all work by mimicking the action of hormonal incretins, which are released postprandially. Incretins affect the pancreatic glucose-dependent release of insulin, inhibit release of glucagon, stimulate satiety, and reduce gastric emptying. This last effect has raised concerns that patients taking GLP-1 RAs might be at an elevated risk for endoscopy-related aspiration.
In June 2023, the American Society of Anesthesiologists released recommendations asking providers to consider holding back GLP-1 RAs in patients with scheduled elective procedures.
In August 2023, five national GI societies — the American Gastroenterological Association, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition — issued their own joint statement on the issue.
In the absence of sufficient evidence, these groups suggested that healthcare providers “exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients on GLP-1 [RAs].” They called for more data and encouraged key stakeholders to work together to develop the necessary evidence to provide guidance for these patients prior to elective endoscopy. A rapid clinical update issued by the American Gastroenterological Association in 2024 was consistent with these earlier multisociety recommendations.
Two studies presented at 2024’s Digestive Disease Week provided additional reassurance that concerns about aspiration with these medications were perhaps unwarranted.
The first (since published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology ) was a case-control study of 16,295 patients undergoing upper endoscopy, among whom 306 were taking GLP-1 RAs. It showed a higher rate of solid gastric residue among those taking GLP-1 RAs compared with controls (14% vs 4%, respectively). Patients who had prolonged fasting and clear liquids for concurrent colonoscopy had lower residue rates (2% vs 11%, respectively). However, there were no recorded incidents of procedural complications or aspiration.
The second was a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a federated cloud-based network pulling millions of data points from multiple US healthcare organizations. It found that the incidence of aspiration pneumonitis and emergent intubation during or immediately after esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy among those taking GLP-1 RAs was not increased compared with those not taking these medications.
These were followed in June 2024 by a systematic review and meta-analysis published by Hiramoto and colleagues, which included 15 studies. The researchers showed a 36-minute prolongation for solid-food emptying and no delay in liquid emptying for patients taking GLP-1 RAs vs controls. The authors concluded that the minimal delay in solid-food emptying would be offset by standard preprocedural fasting periods.
There is concern that patients with complicated type 2 diabetes may have a bit more of a risk for aspiration. However, this was not supported by an analysis from Barlowe and colleagues, who used a national claims database to identify 15,119 patients with type 2 diabetes on GLP-1 RAs. They found no increased events of pulmonary complications (ie, aspiration, pneumonia, respiratory failure) within 14 days following esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Additional evidence suggests that the risk for aspiration in these patients seems to be offset by prolonged fasting and intake of clear liquids.
Although physicians clearly need to use clinical judgment when performing endoscopic procedures on these patients, the emerging evidence on safety has been encouraging.
Association With GI Adverse Events
A recent retrospective analysis of real-world data from 10,328 new users of GLP-1 RAs with diabetes/obesity reported that the most common GI adverse events in this cohort were abdominal pain (57.6%), constipation (30.4%), diarrhea (32.7%), nausea and vomiting (23.4%), GI bleeding (15.9%), gastroparesis (5.1%), and pancreatitis (3.4%).
Notably, dulaglutide and liraglutide had higher rates of abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, and nausea and vomiting than did semaglutide and exenatide. Compared with semaglutide, dulaglutide and liraglutide had slightly higher odds of abdominal pain, gastroparesis, and nausea and vomiting. There were no significant differences between the GLP-1 RAs in the risk for GI bleeding or pancreatitis.
A 2023 report in JAMA observed that the risk for bowel obstruction is also elevated among patients using these agents for weight loss. Possible reasons for this are currently unknown.
Studies are needed to analyze possible variations in safety profiles between GLP-1 RAs to better guide selection of these drugs, particularly in patients with GI risk factors. Furthermore, the causal relationship between GLP-1 RAs with other concomitant medications requires further investigation.
Although relatively infrequent, the risk for GI adverse events should be given special consideration by providers when prescribing them for weight loss, because the risk/benefit ratios may be different from those in patients with diabetes.
A Lack of Hepatic Concerns
GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated a significant impact on body weight and glycemic control, as well as beneficial effects on clinical, biochemical, and histologic markers in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). These favorable changes are evident by reductions in the hepatic cytolysis markers (ie, aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase).
GLP-1 RAs may provide a protective function by reducing the accumulation of hepatic triglycerides and expression of several collagen genes. Some preclinical data suggest a risk reduction for progression to hepatocellular carcinoma, and animal studies indicate that complete suppression of hepatic carcinogenesis is achieved with liraglutide.
The most recent assessment of risk reduction for MASLD progression comes from a Scandinavian cohort analysis of national registries. In looking at 91,479 patients using GLP-1 RAs, investigators demonstrated this treatment was associated with a significant reduction in the composite primary endpoint of hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as both compensated and decompensated cirrhosis.
Given the various favorable hepatic effects of GLP-1 RAs, it is likely that the composite benefit on MASLD is multifactorial. The current literature is clear that it is safe to use these agents across the spectrum of MASLD with or without fibrosis, although it must be noted that GLP-1 RAs are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Several recent studies have sought to expound upon what role, if any, GLP-1 RAs may have in increasing the risk for specific gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events.
Herein is a summary of the most current information on this topic, as well as my best guidance for clinicians on integrating it into the clinical care of their patients.
Aspiration Risks
Albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide are among the class of medications known as GLP-1 RAs. These medications all work by mimicking the action of hormonal incretins, which are released postprandially. Incretins affect the pancreatic glucose-dependent release of insulin, inhibit release of glucagon, stimulate satiety, and reduce gastric emptying. This last effect has raised concerns that patients taking GLP-1 RAs might be at an elevated risk for endoscopy-related aspiration.
In June 2023, the American Society of Anesthesiologists released recommendations asking providers to consider holding back GLP-1 RAs in patients with scheduled elective procedures.
In August 2023, five national GI societies — the American Gastroenterological Association, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition — issued their own joint statement on the issue.
In the absence of sufficient evidence, these groups suggested that healthcare providers “exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients on GLP-1 [RAs].” They called for more data and encouraged key stakeholders to work together to develop the necessary evidence to provide guidance for these patients prior to elective endoscopy. A rapid clinical update issued by the American Gastroenterological Association in 2024 was consistent with these earlier multisociety recommendations.
Two studies presented at 2024’s Digestive Disease Week provided additional reassurance that concerns about aspiration with these medications were perhaps unwarranted.
The first (since published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology ) was a case-control study of 16,295 patients undergoing upper endoscopy, among whom 306 were taking GLP-1 RAs. It showed a higher rate of solid gastric residue among those taking GLP-1 RAs compared with controls (14% vs 4%, respectively). Patients who had prolonged fasting and clear liquids for concurrent colonoscopy had lower residue rates (2% vs 11%, respectively). However, there were no recorded incidents of procedural complications or aspiration.
The second was a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a federated cloud-based network pulling millions of data points from multiple US healthcare organizations. It found that the incidence of aspiration pneumonitis and emergent intubation during or immediately after esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy among those taking GLP-1 RAs was not increased compared with those not taking these medications.
These were followed in June 2024 by a systematic review and meta-analysis published by Hiramoto and colleagues, which included 15 studies. The researchers showed a 36-minute prolongation for solid-food emptying and no delay in liquid emptying for patients taking GLP-1 RAs vs controls. The authors concluded that the minimal delay in solid-food emptying would be offset by standard preprocedural fasting periods.
There is concern that patients with complicated type 2 diabetes may have a bit more of a risk for aspiration. However, this was not supported by an analysis from Barlowe and colleagues, who used a national claims database to identify 15,119 patients with type 2 diabetes on GLP-1 RAs. They found no increased events of pulmonary complications (ie, aspiration, pneumonia, respiratory failure) within 14 days following esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Additional evidence suggests that the risk for aspiration in these patients seems to be offset by prolonged fasting and intake of clear liquids.
Although physicians clearly need to use clinical judgment when performing endoscopic procedures on these patients, the emerging evidence on safety has been encouraging.
Association With GI Adverse Events
A recent retrospective analysis of real-world data from 10,328 new users of GLP-1 RAs with diabetes/obesity reported that the most common GI adverse events in this cohort were abdominal pain (57.6%), constipation (30.4%), diarrhea (32.7%), nausea and vomiting (23.4%), GI bleeding (15.9%), gastroparesis (5.1%), and pancreatitis (3.4%).
Notably, dulaglutide and liraglutide had higher rates of abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, and nausea and vomiting than did semaglutide and exenatide. Compared with semaglutide, dulaglutide and liraglutide had slightly higher odds of abdominal pain, gastroparesis, and nausea and vomiting. There were no significant differences between the GLP-1 RAs in the risk for GI bleeding or pancreatitis.
A 2023 report in JAMA observed that the risk for bowel obstruction is also elevated among patients using these agents for weight loss. Possible reasons for this are currently unknown.
Studies are needed to analyze possible variations in safety profiles between GLP-1 RAs to better guide selection of these drugs, particularly in patients with GI risk factors. Furthermore, the causal relationship between GLP-1 RAs with other concomitant medications requires further investigation.
Although relatively infrequent, the risk for GI adverse events should be given special consideration by providers when prescribing them for weight loss, because the risk/benefit ratios may be different from those in patients with diabetes.
A Lack of Hepatic Concerns
GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated a significant impact on body weight and glycemic control, as well as beneficial effects on clinical, biochemical, and histologic markers in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). These favorable changes are evident by reductions in the hepatic cytolysis markers (ie, aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase).
GLP-1 RAs may provide a protective function by reducing the accumulation of hepatic triglycerides and expression of several collagen genes. Some preclinical data suggest a risk reduction for progression to hepatocellular carcinoma, and animal studies indicate that complete suppression of hepatic carcinogenesis is achieved with liraglutide.
The most recent assessment of risk reduction for MASLD progression comes from a Scandinavian cohort analysis of national registries. In looking at 91,479 patients using GLP-1 RAs, investigators demonstrated this treatment was associated with a significant reduction in the composite primary endpoint of hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as both compensated and decompensated cirrhosis.
Given the various favorable hepatic effects of GLP-1 RAs, it is likely that the composite benefit on MASLD is multifactorial. The current literature is clear that it is safe to use these agents across the spectrum of MASLD with or without fibrosis, although it must be noted that GLP-1 RAs are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Several recent studies have sought to expound upon what role, if any, GLP-1 RAs may have in increasing the risk for specific gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events.
Herein is a summary of the most current information on this topic, as well as my best guidance for clinicians on integrating it into the clinical care of their patients.
Aspiration Risks
Albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide are among the class of medications known as GLP-1 RAs. These medications all work by mimicking the action of hormonal incretins, which are released postprandially. Incretins affect the pancreatic glucose-dependent release of insulin, inhibit release of glucagon, stimulate satiety, and reduce gastric emptying. This last effect has raised concerns that patients taking GLP-1 RAs might be at an elevated risk for endoscopy-related aspiration.
In June 2023, the American Society of Anesthesiologists released recommendations asking providers to consider holding back GLP-1 RAs in patients with scheduled elective procedures.
In August 2023, five national GI societies — the American Gastroenterological Association, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition — issued their own joint statement on the issue.
In the absence of sufficient evidence, these groups suggested that healthcare providers “exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients on GLP-1 [RAs].” They called for more data and encouraged key stakeholders to work together to develop the necessary evidence to provide guidance for these patients prior to elective endoscopy. A rapid clinical update issued by the American Gastroenterological Association in 2024 was consistent with these earlier multisociety recommendations.
Two studies presented at 2024’s Digestive Disease Week provided additional reassurance that concerns about aspiration with these medications were perhaps unwarranted.
The first (since published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology ) was a case-control study of 16,295 patients undergoing upper endoscopy, among whom 306 were taking GLP-1 RAs. It showed a higher rate of solid gastric residue among those taking GLP-1 RAs compared with controls (14% vs 4%, respectively). Patients who had prolonged fasting and clear liquids for concurrent colonoscopy had lower residue rates (2% vs 11%, respectively). However, there were no recorded incidents of procedural complications or aspiration.
The second was a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a federated cloud-based network pulling millions of data points from multiple US healthcare organizations. It found that the incidence of aspiration pneumonitis and emergent intubation during or immediately after esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy among those taking GLP-1 RAs was not increased compared with those not taking these medications.
These were followed in June 2024 by a systematic review and meta-analysis published by Hiramoto and colleagues, which included 15 studies. The researchers showed a 36-minute prolongation for solid-food emptying and no delay in liquid emptying for patients taking GLP-1 RAs vs controls. The authors concluded that the minimal delay in solid-food emptying would be offset by standard preprocedural fasting periods.
There is concern that patients with complicated type 2 diabetes may have a bit more of a risk for aspiration. However, this was not supported by an analysis from Barlowe and colleagues, who used a national claims database to identify 15,119 patients with type 2 diabetes on GLP-1 RAs. They found no increased events of pulmonary complications (ie, aspiration, pneumonia, respiratory failure) within 14 days following esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Additional evidence suggests that the risk for aspiration in these patients seems to be offset by prolonged fasting and intake of clear liquids.
Although physicians clearly need to use clinical judgment when performing endoscopic procedures on these patients, the emerging evidence on safety has been encouraging.
Association With GI Adverse Events
A recent retrospective analysis of real-world data from 10,328 new users of GLP-1 RAs with diabetes/obesity reported that the most common GI adverse events in this cohort were abdominal pain (57.6%), constipation (30.4%), diarrhea (32.7%), nausea and vomiting (23.4%), GI bleeding (15.9%), gastroparesis (5.1%), and pancreatitis (3.4%).
Notably, dulaglutide and liraglutide had higher rates of abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, and nausea and vomiting than did semaglutide and exenatide. Compared with semaglutide, dulaglutide and liraglutide had slightly higher odds of abdominal pain, gastroparesis, and nausea and vomiting. There were no significant differences between the GLP-1 RAs in the risk for GI bleeding or pancreatitis.
A 2023 report in JAMA observed that the risk for bowel obstruction is also elevated among patients using these agents for weight loss. Possible reasons for this are currently unknown.
Studies are needed to analyze possible variations in safety profiles between GLP-1 RAs to better guide selection of these drugs, particularly in patients with GI risk factors. Furthermore, the causal relationship between GLP-1 RAs with other concomitant medications requires further investigation.
Although relatively infrequent, the risk for GI adverse events should be given special consideration by providers when prescribing them for weight loss, because the risk/benefit ratios may be different from those in patients with diabetes.
A Lack of Hepatic Concerns
GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated a significant impact on body weight and glycemic control, as well as beneficial effects on clinical, biochemical, and histologic markers in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). These favorable changes are evident by reductions in the hepatic cytolysis markers (ie, aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase).
GLP-1 RAs may provide a protective function by reducing the accumulation of hepatic triglycerides and expression of several collagen genes. Some preclinical data suggest a risk reduction for progression to hepatocellular carcinoma, and animal studies indicate that complete suppression of hepatic carcinogenesis is achieved with liraglutide.
The most recent assessment of risk reduction for MASLD progression comes from a Scandinavian cohort analysis of national registries. In looking at 91,479 patients using GLP-1 RAs, investigators demonstrated this treatment was associated with a significant reduction in the composite primary endpoint of hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as both compensated and decompensated cirrhosis.
Given the various favorable hepatic effects of GLP-1 RAs, it is likely that the composite benefit on MASLD is multifactorial. The current literature is clear that it is safe to use these agents across the spectrum of MASLD with or without fibrosis, although it must be noted that GLP-1 RAs are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How to Better Diagnose and Manage Rumination Syndrome
Rumination syndrome is a well-recognized functional disorder characterized by the regurgitation of food or liquid in the absence of retching or nausea.
Evidence suggests that the prevalence of rumination syndrome is increasing. In a 2022 health survey study conducted across 26 countries — the largest epidemiologic study to date on rumination syndrome — investigators reported that it had a global prevalence of 3.1% in adults. This was higher than reported in most prior country-specific studies. More recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis from 2024 reported the pooled prevalence of rumination syndrome as 3.7% in adults and 0.4% in children. Both reports noted that female gender, anxiety, and depression were independent risk factors associated with rumination syndrome.
Recognition of this disorder is crucial in order for clinicians to better diagnose and manage it in their patients.
Making the Diagnosis
The diagnosis of rumination syndrome is currently based on the Rome IV consensus criteria, which were last updated in 2016. These include three diagnostic criteria essential to remember as discriminant for rumination syndrome:
- Regurgitation is the effortless return of gastric contents (recognizable food) retrograde back into the esophagus and/or mouth.
- This is not preceded by retching and not associated with nausea.
- These symptoms must have started at least 6 months before evaluation, been evident over the past 3 months, and occurred at least two to three times per month.
Although this diagnosis will be highly suspected after taking an astute clinical history, you will still need to rule out the presence of underlying organic disease.
Nearly one quarter of patients with eating disorders — which commonly accompany gastrointestinal disorders — will not have been diagnosed by the time they visit with a gastroenterologist. Therefore, gastroenterologists should be vigilant in screening for eating disorders. Notably, severe weight loss, malnutrition, electrolyte abnormalities, and dental erosions (due to acid etching) are uncommon in rumination syndrome. If such symptoms are present, it increases the possibility of an underlying eating disorder rather than primary regurgitation.
Previously, there were no published, validated questionnaires to assess the diagnosis or symptomatic response to therapies for rumination syndrome. This has recently changed with the development of a novel eight-point questionnaire that assesses frequency, severity, type of regurgitant, timing of regurgitation in relation to the meal, weight loss, and use of and response to proton pump inhibitors.
This questionnaire was recently implemented in five patients diagnosed with rumination syndrome. Albeit an extremely small trial, it nonetheless showed clinical improvement in scores associated with therapeutic intervention. Further evaluation of this tool is needed.
The diagnosis of rumination syndrome can be confirmed using impedance manometry in persons with evidence of reflux extending to the proximal esophagus, which is associated with an intragastric pressure > 30 mmHg in adults or > 25 mmHg in children.
Gastric emptying studies are typically not required to make a diagnosis unless the clinical symptoms are atypical and an alternative motility disorder is suspected. Endoscopy is performed to rule out a mechanical disorder.
Histopathologic Evidence
New data indicate that there may be specific histologic changes associated with rumination syndrome. A 2023 meta-analysis reported that patients with rumination syndrome had duodenal histologic evidence of increased lymphocytes and eosinophils, which have been associated with epithelial barrier dysfunction, microbial changes, and systemic immune activation in eosinophilic duodenitis.
If these histologic changes are validated, they may suggest future novel diagnostic and treatment approaches, at least for a subset of people with rumination syndrome.
Best Available Treatments
The first-line therapeutic treatment for rumination syndrome is diaphragmatic breathing.
I recommended using diaphragmatic breathing for this indication in a previous commentary, in which I noted that it can essentially serve as yoga for the diaphragm and abdominal muscles and advised patients to focus on breathing “through” their belly button.
Patients are instructed to breath in through their nose for 4-6 seconds, hold their breath for 2-3 seconds, and then breath out slowly against pursed lips. They can be supine or upright but should sense their abdominal muscles expand with inhaling, not move their chest wall, and completely relax their abdominal muscles upon exhaling.
Although there is no standard frequency or duration for diaphragmatic breathing, I routinely recommend patients try it after each meal for 10-15 minutes and, if possible, more during the day and in times of stress or anxiety.
Cognitive-behavioral therapies have been shown to be effective alternatives to diaphragmatic breathing.
There is some evidence that hypnosis and biofeedback-guided control of abdominothoracic muscle activity can also be effective options in treating rumination syndrome.
Robust data on pharmacologic treatments for rumination syndrome are lacking, with the exception of a randomized crossover study of baclofen. In this study, baclofen (10 mg three times daily) was significantly more effective than placebo (P = .04) in reducing regurgitation events. Investigators theorized that baclofen counteracts transient lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxations by increasing basal LES pressure, thereby potentially reducing regurgitation episodes. The most notable treatment side effects were somnolence, confusion, and dizziness, which may limit its extended use.
A Potentially Reversible Habit
Rumination syndrome is considered an acquired habit and, therefore, should be reversible.
Although there is no recent evidence in the literature that rumination syndrome contributes to a reduced survival rate, older data suggested adult mortality rates of 12%-20% (mostly in patients who were institutionalized). Additionally, rumination syndrome has been shown to diminish quality of life.
The best approach to improving the clinical outcomes of patients with rumination syndrome is to enlist a collaborative interprofessional team that includes physicians, behavioral therapists, and nurses to coordinate and optimize existing treatment strategies.
David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: advisor to ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rumination syndrome is a well-recognized functional disorder characterized by the regurgitation of food or liquid in the absence of retching or nausea.
Evidence suggests that the prevalence of rumination syndrome is increasing. In a 2022 health survey study conducted across 26 countries — the largest epidemiologic study to date on rumination syndrome — investigators reported that it had a global prevalence of 3.1% in adults. This was higher than reported in most prior country-specific studies. More recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis from 2024 reported the pooled prevalence of rumination syndrome as 3.7% in adults and 0.4% in children. Both reports noted that female gender, anxiety, and depression were independent risk factors associated with rumination syndrome.
Recognition of this disorder is crucial in order for clinicians to better diagnose and manage it in their patients.
Making the Diagnosis
The diagnosis of rumination syndrome is currently based on the Rome IV consensus criteria, which were last updated in 2016. These include three diagnostic criteria essential to remember as discriminant for rumination syndrome:
- Regurgitation is the effortless return of gastric contents (recognizable food) retrograde back into the esophagus and/or mouth.
- This is not preceded by retching and not associated with nausea.
- These symptoms must have started at least 6 months before evaluation, been evident over the past 3 months, and occurred at least two to three times per month.
Although this diagnosis will be highly suspected after taking an astute clinical history, you will still need to rule out the presence of underlying organic disease.
Nearly one quarter of patients with eating disorders — which commonly accompany gastrointestinal disorders — will not have been diagnosed by the time they visit with a gastroenterologist. Therefore, gastroenterologists should be vigilant in screening for eating disorders. Notably, severe weight loss, malnutrition, electrolyte abnormalities, and dental erosions (due to acid etching) are uncommon in rumination syndrome. If such symptoms are present, it increases the possibility of an underlying eating disorder rather than primary regurgitation.
Previously, there were no published, validated questionnaires to assess the diagnosis or symptomatic response to therapies for rumination syndrome. This has recently changed with the development of a novel eight-point questionnaire that assesses frequency, severity, type of regurgitant, timing of regurgitation in relation to the meal, weight loss, and use of and response to proton pump inhibitors.
This questionnaire was recently implemented in five patients diagnosed with rumination syndrome. Albeit an extremely small trial, it nonetheless showed clinical improvement in scores associated with therapeutic intervention. Further evaluation of this tool is needed.
The diagnosis of rumination syndrome can be confirmed using impedance manometry in persons with evidence of reflux extending to the proximal esophagus, which is associated with an intragastric pressure > 30 mmHg in adults or > 25 mmHg in children.
Gastric emptying studies are typically not required to make a diagnosis unless the clinical symptoms are atypical and an alternative motility disorder is suspected. Endoscopy is performed to rule out a mechanical disorder.
Histopathologic Evidence
New data indicate that there may be specific histologic changes associated with rumination syndrome. A 2023 meta-analysis reported that patients with rumination syndrome had duodenal histologic evidence of increased lymphocytes and eosinophils, which have been associated with epithelial barrier dysfunction, microbial changes, and systemic immune activation in eosinophilic duodenitis.
If these histologic changes are validated, they may suggest future novel diagnostic and treatment approaches, at least for a subset of people with rumination syndrome.
Best Available Treatments
The first-line therapeutic treatment for rumination syndrome is diaphragmatic breathing.
I recommended using diaphragmatic breathing for this indication in a previous commentary, in which I noted that it can essentially serve as yoga for the diaphragm and abdominal muscles and advised patients to focus on breathing “through” their belly button.
Patients are instructed to breath in through their nose for 4-6 seconds, hold their breath for 2-3 seconds, and then breath out slowly against pursed lips. They can be supine or upright but should sense their abdominal muscles expand with inhaling, not move their chest wall, and completely relax their abdominal muscles upon exhaling.
Although there is no standard frequency or duration for diaphragmatic breathing, I routinely recommend patients try it after each meal for 10-15 minutes and, if possible, more during the day and in times of stress or anxiety.
Cognitive-behavioral therapies have been shown to be effective alternatives to diaphragmatic breathing.
There is some evidence that hypnosis and biofeedback-guided control of abdominothoracic muscle activity can also be effective options in treating rumination syndrome.
Robust data on pharmacologic treatments for rumination syndrome are lacking, with the exception of a randomized crossover study of baclofen. In this study, baclofen (10 mg three times daily) was significantly more effective than placebo (P = .04) in reducing regurgitation events. Investigators theorized that baclofen counteracts transient lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxations by increasing basal LES pressure, thereby potentially reducing regurgitation episodes. The most notable treatment side effects were somnolence, confusion, and dizziness, which may limit its extended use.
A Potentially Reversible Habit
Rumination syndrome is considered an acquired habit and, therefore, should be reversible.
Although there is no recent evidence in the literature that rumination syndrome contributes to a reduced survival rate, older data suggested adult mortality rates of 12%-20% (mostly in patients who were institutionalized). Additionally, rumination syndrome has been shown to diminish quality of life.
The best approach to improving the clinical outcomes of patients with rumination syndrome is to enlist a collaborative interprofessional team that includes physicians, behavioral therapists, and nurses to coordinate and optimize existing treatment strategies.
David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: advisor to ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rumination syndrome is a well-recognized functional disorder characterized by the regurgitation of food or liquid in the absence of retching or nausea.
Evidence suggests that the prevalence of rumination syndrome is increasing. In a 2022 health survey study conducted across 26 countries — the largest epidemiologic study to date on rumination syndrome — investigators reported that it had a global prevalence of 3.1% in adults. This was higher than reported in most prior country-specific studies. More recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis from 2024 reported the pooled prevalence of rumination syndrome as 3.7% in adults and 0.4% in children. Both reports noted that female gender, anxiety, and depression were independent risk factors associated with rumination syndrome.
Recognition of this disorder is crucial in order for clinicians to better diagnose and manage it in their patients.
Making the Diagnosis
The diagnosis of rumination syndrome is currently based on the Rome IV consensus criteria, which were last updated in 2016. These include three diagnostic criteria essential to remember as discriminant for rumination syndrome:
- Regurgitation is the effortless return of gastric contents (recognizable food) retrograde back into the esophagus and/or mouth.
- This is not preceded by retching and not associated with nausea.
- These symptoms must have started at least 6 months before evaluation, been evident over the past 3 months, and occurred at least two to three times per month.
Although this diagnosis will be highly suspected after taking an astute clinical history, you will still need to rule out the presence of underlying organic disease.
Nearly one quarter of patients with eating disorders — which commonly accompany gastrointestinal disorders — will not have been diagnosed by the time they visit with a gastroenterologist. Therefore, gastroenterologists should be vigilant in screening for eating disorders. Notably, severe weight loss, malnutrition, electrolyte abnormalities, and dental erosions (due to acid etching) are uncommon in rumination syndrome. If such symptoms are present, it increases the possibility of an underlying eating disorder rather than primary regurgitation.
Previously, there were no published, validated questionnaires to assess the diagnosis or symptomatic response to therapies for rumination syndrome. This has recently changed with the development of a novel eight-point questionnaire that assesses frequency, severity, type of regurgitant, timing of regurgitation in relation to the meal, weight loss, and use of and response to proton pump inhibitors.
This questionnaire was recently implemented in five patients diagnosed with rumination syndrome. Albeit an extremely small trial, it nonetheless showed clinical improvement in scores associated with therapeutic intervention. Further evaluation of this tool is needed.
The diagnosis of rumination syndrome can be confirmed using impedance manometry in persons with evidence of reflux extending to the proximal esophagus, which is associated with an intragastric pressure > 30 mmHg in adults or > 25 mmHg in children.
Gastric emptying studies are typically not required to make a diagnosis unless the clinical symptoms are atypical and an alternative motility disorder is suspected. Endoscopy is performed to rule out a mechanical disorder.
Histopathologic Evidence
New data indicate that there may be specific histologic changes associated with rumination syndrome. A 2023 meta-analysis reported that patients with rumination syndrome had duodenal histologic evidence of increased lymphocytes and eosinophils, which have been associated with epithelial barrier dysfunction, microbial changes, and systemic immune activation in eosinophilic duodenitis.
If these histologic changes are validated, they may suggest future novel diagnostic and treatment approaches, at least for a subset of people with rumination syndrome.
Best Available Treatments
The first-line therapeutic treatment for rumination syndrome is diaphragmatic breathing.
I recommended using diaphragmatic breathing for this indication in a previous commentary, in which I noted that it can essentially serve as yoga for the diaphragm and abdominal muscles and advised patients to focus on breathing “through” their belly button.
Patients are instructed to breath in through their nose for 4-6 seconds, hold their breath for 2-3 seconds, and then breath out slowly against pursed lips. They can be supine or upright but should sense their abdominal muscles expand with inhaling, not move their chest wall, and completely relax their abdominal muscles upon exhaling.
Although there is no standard frequency or duration for diaphragmatic breathing, I routinely recommend patients try it after each meal for 10-15 minutes and, if possible, more during the day and in times of stress or anxiety.
Cognitive-behavioral therapies have been shown to be effective alternatives to diaphragmatic breathing.
There is some evidence that hypnosis and biofeedback-guided control of abdominothoracic muscle activity can also be effective options in treating rumination syndrome.
Robust data on pharmacologic treatments for rumination syndrome are lacking, with the exception of a randomized crossover study of baclofen. In this study, baclofen (10 mg three times daily) was significantly more effective than placebo (P = .04) in reducing regurgitation events. Investigators theorized that baclofen counteracts transient lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxations by increasing basal LES pressure, thereby potentially reducing regurgitation episodes. The most notable treatment side effects were somnolence, confusion, and dizziness, which may limit its extended use.
A Potentially Reversible Habit
Rumination syndrome is considered an acquired habit and, therefore, should be reversible.
Although there is no recent evidence in the literature that rumination syndrome contributes to a reduced survival rate, older data suggested adult mortality rates of 12%-20% (mostly in patients who were institutionalized). Additionally, rumination syndrome has been shown to diminish quality of life.
The best approach to improving the clinical outcomes of patients with rumination syndrome is to enlist a collaborative interprofessional team that includes physicians, behavioral therapists, and nurses to coordinate and optimize existing treatment strategies.
David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: advisor to ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CRC: Troubling Mortality Rates for a Preventable Cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The American Cancer Society has just published its cancer statistics for 2024. This is an annual report, the latest version of which has some alarming news for gastroenterologists. Usually, we think of being “number one” as a positive thing, but that’s not the case this year when it comes to the projections for colorectal cancer.
But first, let’s discuss the report’s overall findings. That decline over the past four decades is due to reductions in smoking, earlier detection, and improved screening and treatments for localized or metastatic disease. But these gains are now threatened by some offsets that we’re seeing, with increasing rates of six of the top 10 cancers in the past several years.
Increasing Rates of Gastrointestinal Cancers
The incidence rate of pancreas cancer has increased from 0.6% to 1% annually.
Pancreas cancer has a 5-year relative survival rate of 13%, which ranks as one of the three worst rates for cancers. This cancer represents a real screening challenge for us, as it typically presents asymptomatically.
Women have experienced a 2%-3% annual increase in incidence rates for liver cancer.
I suspect that this is due to cases of fibrotic liver disease resulting from viral hepatitis and metabolic liver diseases with nonalcoholic fatty liver and advanced fibrosis (F3 and F4). These cases may be carried over from before, thereby contributing to the increasing incremental cancer risk.
We can’t overlook the need for risk reduction here and should focus on applying regular screening efforts in our female patients. However, it’s also true that we require better liver cancer screening tests to accomplish that goal.
In Those Under 50, CRC the Leading Cause of Cancer Death in Men, Second in Women
I really want to focus on the news around colorectal cancer.
To put this in perspective, in the late 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of death in men and women. The current report extrapolated 2024 projections using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database ending in 2020, which was necessary given the incremental time it takes to develop cancers. The SEER database suggests that in 2024, colorectal cancer in those younger than 50 years of age will become the number-one leading cause of cancer death in men and number-two in women. The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in younger people is probably the result of a number of epidemiologic and other reasons.
The current report offers evidence of racial disparities in cancer mortality rates in general, which are twofold higher in Black people compared with White people, particularly for gastric cancer. There is also an evident disparity in Native Americans, who have higher rates of gastric and liver cancer. This is a reminder of the increasing need for equity to address racial disparities across these populations.
But returning to colon cancer, it’s a marked change to go from being the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in those younger than 50 years of age to being number one for men and number two for women.
Being “number one” is supposed to make you famous. This “number one,” however, should in fact be infamous. It’s a travesty, because colorectal cancer is a potentially preventable disease.
As we move into March, which happens to be Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, hopefully this fires up some of the conversations you have with your younger at-risk population, who may be reticent or resistant to colorectal cancer screening.
We have to do better at getting this message out to that population at large. “Number one” is not where we want to be for this potentially preventable problem.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The American Cancer Society has just published its cancer statistics for 2024. This is an annual report, the latest version of which has some alarming news for gastroenterologists. Usually, we think of being “number one” as a positive thing, but that’s not the case this year when it comes to the projections for colorectal cancer.
But first, let’s discuss the report’s overall findings. That decline over the past four decades is due to reductions in smoking, earlier detection, and improved screening and treatments for localized or metastatic disease. But these gains are now threatened by some offsets that we’re seeing, with increasing rates of six of the top 10 cancers in the past several years.
Increasing Rates of Gastrointestinal Cancers
The incidence rate of pancreas cancer has increased from 0.6% to 1% annually.
Pancreas cancer has a 5-year relative survival rate of 13%, which ranks as one of the three worst rates for cancers. This cancer represents a real screening challenge for us, as it typically presents asymptomatically.
Women have experienced a 2%-3% annual increase in incidence rates for liver cancer.
I suspect that this is due to cases of fibrotic liver disease resulting from viral hepatitis and metabolic liver diseases with nonalcoholic fatty liver and advanced fibrosis (F3 and F4). These cases may be carried over from before, thereby contributing to the increasing incremental cancer risk.
We can’t overlook the need for risk reduction here and should focus on applying regular screening efforts in our female patients. However, it’s also true that we require better liver cancer screening tests to accomplish that goal.
In Those Under 50, CRC the Leading Cause of Cancer Death in Men, Second in Women
I really want to focus on the news around colorectal cancer.
To put this in perspective, in the late 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of death in men and women. The current report extrapolated 2024 projections using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database ending in 2020, which was necessary given the incremental time it takes to develop cancers. The SEER database suggests that in 2024, colorectal cancer in those younger than 50 years of age will become the number-one leading cause of cancer death in men and number-two in women. The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in younger people is probably the result of a number of epidemiologic and other reasons.
The current report offers evidence of racial disparities in cancer mortality rates in general, which are twofold higher in Black people compared with White people, particularly for gastric cancer. There is also an evident disparity in Native Americans, who have higher rates of gastric and liver cancer. This is a reminder of the increasing need for equity to address racial disparities across these populations.
But returning to colon cancer, it’s a marked change to go from being the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in those younger than 50 years of age to being number one for men and number two for women.
Being “number one” is supposed to make you famous. This “number one,” however, should in fact be infamous. It’s a travesty, because colorectal cancer is a potentially preventable disease.
As we move into March, which happens to be Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, hopefully this fires up some of the conversations you have with your younger at-risk population, who may be reticent or resistant to colorectal cancer screening.
We have to do better at getting this message out to that population at large. “Number one” is not where we want to be for this potentially preventable problem.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The American Cancer Society has just published its cancer statistics for 2024. This is an annual report, the latest version of which has some alarming news for gastroenterologists. Usually, we think of being “number one” as a positive thing, but that’s not the case this year when it comes to the projections for colorectal cancer.
But first, let’s discuss the report’s overall findings. That decline over the past four decades is due to reductions in smoking, earlier detection, and improved screening and treatments for localized or metastatic disease. But these gains are now threatened by some offsets that we’re seeing, with increasing rates of six of the top 10 cancers in the past several years.
Increasing Rates of Gastrointestinal Cancers
The incidence rate of pancreas cancer has increased from 0.6% to 1% annually.
Pancreas cancer has a 5-year relative survival rate of 13%, which ranks as one of the three worst rates for cancers. This cancer represents a real screening challenge for us, as it typically presents asymptomatically.
Women have experienced a 2%-3% annual increase in incidence rates for liver cancer.
I suspect that this is due to cases of fibrotic liver disease resulting from viral hepatitis and metabolic liver diseases with nonalcoholic fatty liver and advanced fibrosis (F3 and F4). These cases may be carried over from before, thereby contributing to the increasing incremental cancer risk.
We can’t overlook the need for risk reduction here and should focus on applying regular screening efforts in our female patients. However, it’s also true that we require better liver cancer screening tests to accomplish that goal.
In Those Under 50, CRC the Leading Cause of Cancer Death in Men, Second in Women
I really want to focus on the news around colorectal cancer.
To put this in perspective, in the late 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of death in men and women. The current report extrapolated 2024 projections using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database ending in 2020, which was necessary given the incremental time it takes to develop cancers. The SEER database suggests that in 2024, colorectal cancer in those younger than 50 years of age will become the number-one leading cause of cancer death in men and number-two in women. The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in younger people is probably the result of a number of epidemiologic and other reasons.
The current report offers evidence of racial disparities in cancer mortality rates in general, which are twofold higher in Black people compared with White people, particularly for gastric cancer. There is also an evident disparity in Native Americans, who have higher rates of gastric and liver cancer. This is a reminder of the increasing need for equity to address racial disparities across these populations.
But returning to colon cancer, it’s a marked change to go from being the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in those younger than 50 years of age to being number one for men and number two for women.
Being “number one” is supposed to make you famous. This “number one,” however, should in fact be infamous. It’s a travesty, because colorectal cancer is a potentially preventable disease.
As we move into March, which happens to be Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, hopefully this fires up some of the conversations you have with your younger at-risk population, who may be reticent or resistant to colorectal cancer screening.
We have to do better at getting this message out to that population at large. “Number one” is not where we want to be for this potentially preventable problem.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Tips and Techniques to Boost Colonoscopy Quality
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.
There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.
Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate
Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).
However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.
There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.
First, This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.
In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).
There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.
There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute
Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.
A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.
Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.
APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors
Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.
Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.
When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.
I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
Best Practices in Bowel Preparations
The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.
I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.
The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
Resection Considerations
There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.
There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.
The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.
Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.
We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.
When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.
There are two other considerations regarding resection.
The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.
The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.
In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.
There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.
Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate
Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).
However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.
There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.
First, This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.
In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).
There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.
There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute
Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.
A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.
Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.
APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors
Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.
Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.
When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.
I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
Best Practices in Bowel Preparations
The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.
I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.
The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
Resection Considerations
There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.
There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.
The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.
Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.
We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.
When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.
There are two other considerations regarding resection.
The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.
The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.
In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.
There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.
Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate
Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).
However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.
There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.
First, This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.
In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).
There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.
There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute
Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.
A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.
Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.
APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors
Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.
Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.
When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.
I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
Best Practices in Bowel Preparations
The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.
I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.
The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
Resection Considerations
There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.
There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.
The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.
Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.
We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.
When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.
There are two other considerations regarding resection.
The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.
The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.
In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
GI symptoms during menopause deserve attention
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome back to another GI Common Concerns.
Today, I want to highlight some information about menopause.
Approximately 1.5 million women in the United States per year enter into menopause. Hysterectomy is also one of the most common surgeries for women worldwide, with an estimated 20%-40% undergoing this procedure by the age of 60.
Therefore, whether it’s because of biologic onset with age or surgical induction, menopause is a very common condition, and it’s important that we understand its symptoms and the latest information around it.
Impact on GI motility
One of the clearest functional symptoms to be aware of with menopause relates to alterations in hormonal balance. This has an impact on gastrointestinal (GI) motility by increasing abdominal muscle stimulation related to different patterns of secretion and can result in a number of symptomatic changes.
One such change that can occur is food intolerance. It is believed that menopause-associated food intolerance has multiple possible causes and may be related more to alterations to the microbiome, which can be contributed to by diet, activity, sleep cycle, and other factors.
When food intolerances are triggered in the perimenopausal or menopausal patient, it may lead you to recommend the well-established FODMAP diet, which is known to reduce symptoms. But the answer for every patient is not simply placing them on a FODMAP diet and telling them they have irritable bowel syndrome.
Other approaches can be considered for addressing food intolerance in these patients. The data are quite strong that adjunctive use of a dietitian is tremendously helpful in this particular population.
When it comes to menopausal patients, however, we need to consider other changes in their activity or adverse contributors to their mental health, such as stress or anxiety. These all contribute to more of a multifactorial composite in this population, for which irritable bowel syndrome serves as a similar example.
This means that we may need to expand our horizons rather than to focus on solely on antispasmodic or diet-related interventions.
Instead, we can start to consider more of a multidimensional treatment approach consisting of education, relaxation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and physical activity. Certainly, there are now behavioral interventions using Internet-based digital formats to increase the acceptability and sustainability among patients.
Choosing such a multidisciplinary approach can be quite helpful.
The metabolic consequences of altering hormonal balance
Recent data from a rat model study investigated the metabolic impact of changing hormonal balance.
Investigators looked at ovariectomized rats and found that there was a biologic change in the diversity of the general GI biome. There were also noteworthy associations with weight fluctuations and dramatic changes in the spatial memory and cognitive performance characteristics of these rats, which was subsequently improved by supplemental estrogen.
This indicates that we may be able to remediate these effects with the similar use of supplemental hormone replacement treatments.
Another recent study looked at nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which is very common in the general population and has a > 20% worldwide prevalence in postmenopausal women. Albeit small in numbers, this was a very interesting study.
Investigators looked at the delivery method for menopausal hormone therapy, which was transdermal for 75 patients and oral for 293 patients. Then, they looked at ultrasound definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after 1 year as the endpoint. They found an approximate 7% reduction in the patients who received the transdermal administration compared with a 4% increase in the patients who received it orally.
Again, we have to remember this is a relatively small study, but the results indicate that the route of estrogen administration may be an important consideration in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Sleep disturbances: fragmentation, duration, and quality
Sleep is something that’s near and dear to my heart and is the focus of a lot of our research.
Sleep disturbances are really part and parcel of menopause and are observed with hormonal imbalances and temperature intolerances. Disturbances such as sleep fragmentation, shorter sleep duration, and poorer sleep quality have a dramatic effect not only on the biome but also on sensory thresholds.
Therefore, as we start to look at mitigating strategies here, we need to focus on sleep and ask the right questions.
In my own practice, I try not to just ask, “How did you sleep last night?” That’s because sleep can be somewhat amnestic. You may have a cognitive awakening or a noncognitive awakening but still have experienced fragmentation.
As a result, my focus is on next-day function. I ask my patients, “When you get up in the morning, are you refreshed? Do you have the ability to perform daytime activities? Do you experience early fatigue or cognitive changes that occur?”
These questions can provide good insights into the sleep efficiency of the previous night.
The effect of the microbiome on osteoporosis
One final topic I found very interesting pertains to the effects of menopause on osteoporosis.
We certainly know that postmenopausal women have a very high prevalence of osteopenia, and that osteoporosis is a progression of that, as well as that increased bone-related disease affects fractures and related morbidity and mortality.
However, there’s accumulating evidence on the osteoporotic effects of biomarker changes in menopause, which shows that the biome regulates the pathophysiologic process of at least a large degree of osteoporosis.
This starts to make sense when you look at the pro-inflammatory factors that increase with changes in biome diversity, in particular tumor necrosis factor alpha (which is something we also see in inflammatory bowel disease), interleukin-1, and increased activated osteoclasts.
Therefore, when it comes to decreasing bone loss among patients who are perimenopausal or postmenopausal, we don’t yet have a clear answer. Hormone therapy, diet, activity, vitamin D supplementation, and other things may positively change the biome. They are worthy topics for patients to bring up with their ob.gyns. or primary care doctors.
Although it may be a little bit outside the scope of gastroenterology, in my opinion there are a number of new findings relating to menopause that we as a field need to be more proactive in addressing.
Ask the right questions when these people come in to you, irrespective of why they’re there. Start to ask about the quality of their sleep. What are their other functional symptoms? What are their other potential osteoporosis-related risks?
We must do a better job about individualizing care. Rather than treating patients as disease states, we must start to do specific patient-focused care.
I hope this gives you some provocative thoughts when you have your next session with a patient in the perimenopausal or menopausal state. There are lots of things that we continue to learn.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He serves as an adviser to ISOThrive and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome back to another GI Common Concerns.
Today, I want to highlight some information about menopause.
Approximately 1.5 million women in the United States per year enter into menopause. Hysterectomy is also one of the most common surgeries for women worldwide, with an estimated 20%-40% undergoing this procedure by the age of 60.
Therefore, whether it’s because of biologic onset with age or surgical induction, menopause is a very common condition, and it’s important that we understand its symptoms and the latest information around it.
Impact on GI motility
One of the clearest functional symptoms to be aware of with menopause relates to alterations in hormonal balance. This has an impact on gastrointestinal (GI) motility by increasing abdominal muscle stimulation related to different patterns of secretion and can result in a number of symptomatic changes.
One such change that can occur is food intolerance. It is believed that menopause-associated food intolerance has multiple possible causes and may be related more to alterations to the microbiome, which can be contributed to by diet, activity, sleep cycle, and other factors.
When food intolerances are triggered in the perimenopausal or menopausal patient, it may lead you to recommend the well-established FODMAP diet, which is known to reduce symptoms. But the answer for every patient is not simply placing them on a FODMAP diet and telling them they have irritable bowel syndrome.
Other approaches can be considered for addressing food intolerance in these patients. The data are quite strong that adjunctive use of a dietitian is tremendously helpful in this particular population.
When it comes to menopausal patients, however, we need to consider other changes in their activity or adverse contributors to their mental health, such as stress or anxiety. These all contribute to more of a multifactorial composite in this population, for which irritable bowel syndrome serves as a similar example.
This means that we may need to expand our horizons rather than to focus on solely on antispasmodic or diet-related interventions.
Instead, we can start to consider more of a multidimensional treatment approach consisting of education, relaxation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and physical activity. Certainly, there are now behavioral interventions using Internet-based digital formats to increase the acceptability and sustainability among patients.
Choosing such a multidisciplinary approach can be quite helpful.
The metabolic consequences of altering hormonal balance
Recent data from a rat model study investigated the metabolic impact of changing hormonal balance.
Investigators looked at ovariectomized rats and found that there was a biologic change in the diversity of the general GI biome. There were also noteworthy associations with weight fluctuations and dramatic changes in the spatial memory and cognitive performance characteristics of these rats, which was subsequently improved by supplemental estrogen.
This indicates that we may be able to remediate these effects with the similar use of supplemental hormone replacement treatments.
Another recent study looked at nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which is very common in the general population and has a > 20% worldwide prevalence in postmenopausal women. Albeit small in numbers, this was a very interesting study.
Investigators looked at the delivery method for menopausal hormone therapy, which was transdermal for 75 patients and oral for 293 patients. Then, they looked at ultrasound definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after 1 year as the endpoint. They found an approximate 7% reduction in the patients who received the transdermal administration compared with a 4% increase in the patients who received it orally.
Again, we have to remember this is a relatively small study, but the results indicate that the route of estrogen administration may be an important consideration in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Sleep disturbances: fragmentation, duration, and quality
Sleep is something that’s near and dear to my heart and is the focus of a lot of our research.
Sleep disturbances are really part and parcel of menopause and are observed with hormonal imbalances and temperature intolerances. Disturbances such as sleep fragmentation, shorter sleep duration, and poorer sleep quality have a dramatic effect not only on the biome but also on sensory thresholds.
Therefore, as we start to look at mitigating strategies here, we need to focus on sleep and ask the right questions.
In my own practice, I try not to just ask, “How did you sleep last night?” That’s because sleep can be somewhat amnestic. You may have a cognitive awakening or a noncognitive awakening but still have experienced fragmentation.
As a result, my focus is on next-day function. I ask my patients, “When you get up in the morning, are you refreshed? Do you have the ability to perform daytime activities? Do you experience early fatigue or cognitive changes that occur?”
These questions can provide good insights into the sleep efficiency of the previous night.
The effect of the microbiome on osteoporosis
One final topic I found very interesting pertains to the effects of menopause on osteoporosis.
We certainly know that postmenopausal women have a very high prevalence of osteopenia, and that osteoporosis is a progression of that, as well as that increased bone-related disease affects fractures and related morbidity and mortality.
However, there’s accumulating evidence on the osteoporotic effects of biomarker changes in menopause, which shows that the biome regulates the pathophysiologic process of at least a large degree of osteoporosis.
This starts to make sense when you look at the pro-inflammatory factors that increase with changes in biome diversity, in particular tumor necrosis factor alpha (which is something we also see in inflammatory bowel disease), interleukin-1, and increased activated osteoclasts.
Therefore, when it comes to decreasing bone loss among patients who are perimenopausal or postmenopausal, we don’t yet have a clear answer. Hormone therapy, diet, activity, vitamin D supplementation, and other things may positively change the biome. They are worthy topics for patients to bring up with their ob.gyns. or primary care doctors.
Although it may be a little bit outside the scope of gastroenterology, in my opinion there are a number of new findings relating to menopause that we as a field need to be more proactive in addressing.
Ask the right questions when these people come in to you, irrespective of why they’re there. Start to ask about the quality of their sleep. What are their other functional symptoms? What are their other potential osteoporosis-related risks?
We must do a better job about individualizing care. Rather than treating patients as disease states, we must start to do specific patient-focused care.
I hope this gives you some provocative thoughts when you have your next session with a patient in the perimenopausal or menopausal state. There are lots of things that we continue to learn.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He serves as an adviser to ISOThrive and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome back to another GI Common Concerns.
Today, I want to highlight some information about menopause.
Approximately 1.5 million women in the United States per year enter into menopause. Hysterectomy is also one of the most common surgeries for women worldwide, with an estimated 20%-40% undergoing this procedure by the age of 60.
Therefore, whether it’s because of biologic onset with age or surgical induction, menopause is a very common condition, and it’s important that we understand its symptoms and the latest information around it.
Impact on GI motility
One of the clearest functional symptoms to be aware of with menopause relates to alterations in hormonal balance. This has an impact on gastrointestinal (GI) motility by increasing abdominal muscle stimulation related to different patterns of secretion and can result in a number of symptomatic changes.
One such change that can occur is food intolerance. It is believed that menopause-associated food intolerance has multiple possible causes and may be related more to alterations to the microbiome, which can be contributed to by diet, activity, sleep cycle, and other factors.
When food intolerances are triggered in the perimenopausal or menopausal patient, it may lead you to recommend the well-established FODMAP diet, which is known to reduce symptoms. But the answer for every patient is not simply placing them on a FODMAP diet and telling them they have irritable bowel syndrome.
Other approaches can be considered for addressing food intolerance in these patients. The data are quite strong that adjunctive use of a dietitian is tremendously helpful in this particular population.
When it comes to menopausal patients, however, we need to consider other changes in their activity or adverse contributors to their mental health, such as stress or anxiety. These all contribute to more of a multifactorial composite in this population, for which irritable bowel syndrome serves as a similar example.
This means that we may need to expand our horizons rather than to focus on solely on antispasmodic or diet-related interventions.
Instead, we can start to consider more of a multidimensional treatment approach consisting of education, relaxation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and physical activity. Certainly, there are now behavioral interventions using Internet-based digital formats to increase the acceptability and sustainability among patients.
Choosing such a multidisciplinary approach can be quite helpful.
The metabolic consequences of altering hormonal balance
Recent data from a rat model study investigated the metabolic impact of changing hormonal balance.
Investigators looked at ovariectomized rats and found that there was a biologic change in the diversity of the general GI biome. There were also noteworthy associations with weight fluctuations and dramatic changes in the spatial memory and cognitive performance characteristics of these rats, which was subsequently improved by supplemental estrogen.
This indicates that we may be able to remediate these effects with the similar use of supplemental hormone replacement treatments.
Another recent study looked at nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which is very common in the general population and has a > 20% worldwide prevalence in postmenopausal women. Albeit small in numbers, this was a very interesting study.
Investigators looked at the delivery method for menopausal hormone therapy, which was transdermal for 75 patients and oral for 293 patients. Then, they looked at ultrasound definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after 1 year as the endpoint. They found an approximate 7% reduction in the patients who received the transdermal administration compared with a 4% increase in the patients who received it orally.
Again, we have to remember this is a relatively small study, but the results indicate that the route of estrogen administration may be an important consideration in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Sleep disturbances: fragmentation, duration, and quality
Sleep is something that’s near and dear to my heart and is the focus of a lot of our research.
Sleep disturbances are really part and parcel of menopause and are observed with hormonal imbalances and temperature intolerances. Disturbances such as sleep fragmentation, shorter sleep duration, and poorer sleep quality have a dramatic effect not only on the biome but also on sensory thresholds.
Therefore, as we start to look at mitigating strategies here, we need to focus on sleep and ask the right questions.
In my own practice, I try not to just ask, “How did you sleep last night?” That’s because sleep can be somewhat amnestic. You may have a cognitive awakening or a noncognitive awakening but still have experienced fragmentation.
As a result, my focus is on next-day function. I ask my patients, “When you get up in the morning, are you refreshed? Do you have the ability to perform daytime activities? Do you experience early fatigue or cognitive changes that occur?”
These questions can provide good insights into the sleep efficiency of the previous night.
The effect of the microbiome on osteoporosis
One final topic I found very interesting pertains to the effects of menopause on osteoporosis.
We certainly know that postmenopausal women have a very high prevalence of osteopenia, and that osteoporosis is a progression of that, as well as that increased bone-related disease affects fractures and related morbidity and mortality.
However, there’s accumulating evidence on the osteoporotic effects of biomarker changes in menopause, which shows that the biome regulates the pathophysiologic process of at least a large degree of osteoporosis.
This starts to make sense when you look at the pro-inflammatory factors that increase with changes in biome diversity, in particular tumor necrosis factor alpha (which is something we also see in inflammatory bowel disease), interleukin-1, and increased activated osteoclasts.
Therefore, when it comes to decreasing bone loss among patients who are perimenopausal or postmenopausal, we don’t yet have a clear answer. Hormone therapy, diet, activity, vitamin D supplementation, and other things may positively change the biome. They are worthy topics for patients to bring up with their ob.gyns. or primary care doctors.
Although it may be a little bit outside the scope of gastroenterology, in my opinion there are a number of new findings relating to menopause that we as a field need to be more proactive in addressing.
Ask the right questions when these people come in to you, irrespective of why they’re there. Start to ask about the quality of their sleep. What are their other functional symptoms? What are their other potential osteoporosis-related risks?
We must do a better job about individualizing care. Rather than treating patients as disease states, we must start to do specific patient-focused care.
I hope this gives you some provocative thoughts when you have your next session with a patient in the perimenopausal or menopausal state. There are lots of things that we continue to learn.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He serves as an adviser to ISOThrive and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Take a closer look at sleep’s role in GERD
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The ongoing longitudinal Nurses’ Health Study has served as an incredible database for evaluating disease states prospectively over decades, thanks to the robust input of its participants. Most recently, this allowed for an important analysis of the association between gastroesophageal reflux (GER) symptoms and sleep quality, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.
Approximately 49,000 women with a median age of 59 years (range, 48-69 years) provided data for this analysis. Starting in 2005, they were asked about their experience of GER symptoms. In 2017, they were also asked to respond to a questionnaire, a modified Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). This is a tool we’ve used a lot in prospective studies looking at gastrointestinal diseases and sleep-related abnormalities. It’s unique in that it looks not only at sleep but also at next-day function and daytime sleepiness, which is important here for its implications related to reflux disease and sleep fragmentation.
For those with GER symptoms occurring once a week and more than once a week, the approximate relative risk increased by 30% and 53%, respectively. Clearly, the association of GER symptoms and relative sleep quality was really important.
It should be noted that the PSQI is a disease-independent, validated instrument. It’s not specific to GER disease or any diseases. It’s cross validated across 17 different languages. I think what’s most important about its use in the assessment here is the incorporation of next-day function and asking participants about daytime sleepiness, which we’ll discuss in more detail shortly.
The many causes of interrupted sleep
We’ve all experienced sleep fragmentation, whether in the form of having been on call during our medical training or common experiences like hearing a child cry in the night, a noisy truck pass by, or a dog barking. You may or may not remember that these happened the next day, but they’ve nonetheless interrupted your sleep efficiency.
When you transition laterally across the stages of sleep, that’s what establishes the circadian rhythm and ensures sleep hygiene. Typically, we require approximately 7 hours of restful sleep to do that. But if you fragment or interrupt this process, you more or less move your way erratically through the night, disrupting sleep hygiene and efficiency.
If you have a cognitive awakening during those disruptions, you may recall those events the next day. Or, you may not remember it at all, and such amnestic events are normal for some people with sleep disruptions.
You may also have a sensory arousal, whether it’s due to GER symptoms, auditory stimuli, bumping your toe, or whatever disruptive event. Any of these can cause you to lose that laterality of smooth transition through sleep.
Approximately 20% of the U.S. population have reported GER symptoms at least once a week. Incident data indicate that number may be increasing by as much as 5% a year. Much of that increase is tied to obesity. But nonetheless, it’s a problem on the rise.
It’s important to know this as we start to look at sleep. If GER is acting as a trigger to sleep disruption, you need to ask your patients with this condition about next-day function.
In particular, the next-day function questions to ask are, “How do you feel when you get up? Are you awake and refreshed? Do you have early fatigue? Do you drag yourself out of bed, have daytime somnolence, loss of concentration, or irritability?”
Those are key parameters we can use for looking back to the night before and gauging sleep efficiency. If you’re not asking those questions, you may miss out on identifying a patient having sleep fragmentation.
Sleep’s role in inflammatory disease processes
I now perform an interval assessment of this type not just in my patients with GER disease but across all my patients. I do so because sleep is physiologically important in so many ways.
In patients who have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and a variety of other liver diseases, we’re finding an increased association with sleep fragmentation outside of sleep apnea.
The same is true with irritable bowel and other functional diseases.
When you have sleep fragmentation in inflammatory bowel disease, you turn on a variety of inflammatory proteins (e.g., C-reactive protein) and cytokines, such as interleukins and tumor necrosis factor alpha. These processes may actually tip somebody over to a pro-inflammatory state.
When it comes to what might be considered a relatively simpler condition like GER disease, Ronnie Fass and colleagues showed a number of years ago via Bernstein testing performed in patients with both fragmented and normal sleep that the sensory thresholds all get lowered in the former group. This is irrespective of whether you have a functional symptom or you’re awakened by bumping your toe, a headache, or having heartburn; your sensory thresholds are lower. As a result, the same stimulus provides a higher sense of awareness. By ramping up that awareness, you increase the interference with the next-day function.
We’ve shown that sleep fragmentation affects a variety of things, including immune function. This may be why many people get sick when they travel in between time zones.
There are also implications relating to things like obesity. When you have sleep dysfunction, you have effects on leptin and ghrelin, contrary to what you would normally want to have. This, in turn, causes adverse effects on stimulation or suppression of satiety or appetite. These are things that I counsel my patients about when I talk about reflux as well as those trying to lose weight.
Sleep disruption affects cortisol stimulation and has a significant correlation with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and even mortality statistics.
Advice for counseling patients
This latest analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study reminds us that a lot of people have reflux and a lot of people have sleep fragmentation. We need to do better in asking our patients if they have symptoms specific not only to reflux but also to potentially sleep-related complications.
The more we do that, the more we individualize patient treatment rather than treating them as a disease state. This, in turn, will allow us to practice personalized medicine. The more we can engage our patients with reflux disease by asking the right questions about next-day function, the better we can do in improving their outcomes.
It’s time for us all to open our eyes to the value of closing them. Let’s talk to our patients with reflux disease in a little bit of a different light, providing a new perspective on strategies we can use to mitigate and deal with those symptoms, thereby preventing the consequences of sleep fragmentation.
Hopefully, this overview gives you some guidance the next time you have a conversation with your patients. It will apply across many, many disease states, and in almost everything we do in gastroenterology.
David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported advising with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The ongoing longitudinal Nurses’ Health Study has served as an incredible database for evaluating disease states prospectively over decades, thanks to the robust input of its participants. Most recently, this allowed for an important analysis of the association between gastroesophageal reflux (GER) symptoms and sleep quality, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.
Approximately 49,000 women with a median age of 59 years (range, 48-69 years) provided data for this analysis. Starting in 2005, they were asked about their experience of GER symptoms. In 2017, they were also asked to respond to a questionnaire, a modified Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). This is a tool we’ve used a lot in prospective studies looking at gastrointestinal diseases and sleep-related abnormalities. It’s unique in that it looks not only at sleep but also at next-day function and daytime sleepiness, which is important here for its implications related to reflux disease and sleep fragmentation.
For those with GER symptoms occurring once a week and more than once a week, the approximate relative risk increased by 30% and 53%, respectively. Clearly, the association of GER symptoms and relative sleep quality was really important.
It should be noted that the PSQI is a disease-independent, validated instrument. It’s not specific to GER disease or any diseases. It’s cross validated across 17 different languages. I think what’s most important about its use in the assessment here is the incorporation of next-day function and asking participants about daytime sleepiness, which we’ll discuss in more detail shortly.
The many causes of interrupted sleep
We’ve all experienced sleep fragmentation, whether in the form of having been on call during our medical training or common experiences like hearing a child cry in the night, a noisy truck pass by, or a dog barking. You may or may not remember that these happened the next day, but they’ve nonetheless interrupted your sleep efficiency.
When you transition laterally across the stages of sleep, that’s what establishes the circadian rhythm and ensures sleep hygiene. Typically, we require approximately 7 hours of restful sleep to do that. But if you fragment or interrupt this process, you more or less move your way erratically through the night, disrupting sleep hygiene and efficiency.
If you have a cognitive awakening during those disruptions, you may recall those events the next day. Or, you may not remember it at all, and such amnestic events are normal for some people with sleep disruptions.
You may also have a sensory arousal, whether it’s due to GER symptoms, auditory stimuli, bumping your toe, or whatever disruptive event. Any of these can cause you to lose that laterality of smooth transition through sleep.
Approximately 20% of the U.S. population have reported GER symptoms at least once a week. Incident data indicate that number may be increasing by as much as 5% a year. Much of that increase is tied to obesity. But nonetheless, it’s a problem on the rise.
It’s important to know this as we start to look at sleep. If GER is acting as a trigger to sleep disruption, you need to ask your patients with this condition about next-day function.
In particular, the next-day function questions to ask are, “How do you feel when you get up? Are you awake and refreshed? Do you have early fatigue? Do you drag yourself out of bed, have daytime somnolence, loss of concentration, or irritability?”
Those are key parameters we can use for looking back to the night before and gauging sleep efficiency. If you’re not asking those questions, you may miss out on identifying a patient having sleep fragmentation.
Sleep’s role in inflammatory disease processes
I now perform an interval assessment of this type not just in my patients with GER disease but across all my patients. I do so because sleep is physiologically important in so many ways.
In patients who have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and a variety of other liver diseases, we’re finding an increased association with sleep fragmentation outside of sleep apnea.
The same is true with irritable bowel and other functional diseases.
When you have sleep fragmentation in inflammatory bowel disease, you turn on a variety of inflammatory proteins (e.g., C-reactive protein) and cytokines, such as interleukins and tumor necrosis factor alpha. These processes may actually tip somebody over to a pro-inflammatory state.
When it comes to what might be considered a relatively simpler condition like GER disease, Ronnie Fass and colleagues showed a number of years ago via Bernstein testing performed in patients with both fragmented and normal sleep that the sensory thresholds all get lowered in the former group. This is irrespective of whether you have a functional symptom or you’re awakened by bumping your toe, a headache, or having heartburn; your sensory thresholds are lower. As a result, the same stimulus provides a higher sense of awareness. By ramping up that awareness, you increase the interference with the next-day function.
We’ve shown that sleep fragmentation affects a variety of things, including immune function. This may be why many people get sick when they travel in between time zones.
There are also implications relating to things like obesity. When you have sleep dysfunction, you have effects on leptin and ghrelin, contrary to what you would normally want to have. This, in turn, causes adverse effects on stimulation or suppression of satiety or appetite. These are things that I counsel my patients about when I talk about reflux as well as those trying to lose weight.
Sleep disruption affects cortisol stimulation and has a significant correlation with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and even mortality statistics.
Advice for counseling patients
This latest analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study reminds us that a lot of people have reflux and a lot of people have sleep fragmentation. We need to do better in asking our patients if they have symptoms specific not only to reflux but also to potentially sleep-related complications.
The more we do that, the more we individualize patient treatment rather than treating them as a disease state. This, in turn, will allow us to practice personalized medicine. The more we can engage our patients with reflux disease by asking the right questions about next-day function, the better we can do in improving their outcomes.
It’s time for us all to open our eyes to the value of closing them. Let’s talk to our patients with reflux disease in a little bit of a different light, providing a new perspective on strategies we can use to mitigate and deal with those symptoms, thereby preventing the consequences of sleep fragmentation.
Hopefully, this overview gives you some guidance the next time you have a conversation with your patients. It will apply across many, many disease states, and in almost everything we do in gastroenterology.
David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported advising with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The ongoing longitudinal Nurses’ Health Study has served as an incredible database for evaluating disease states prospectively over decades, thanks to the robust input of its participants. Most recently, this allowed for an important analysis of the association between gastroesophageal reflux (GER) symptoms and sleep quality, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.
Approximately 49,000 women with a median age of 59 years (range, 48-69 years) provided data for this analysis. Starting in 2005, they were asked about their experience of GER symptoms. In 2017, they were also asked to respond to a questionnaire, a modified Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). This is a tool we’ve used a lot in prospective studies looking at gastrointestinal diseases and sleep-related abnormalities. It’s unique in that it looks not only at sleep but also at next-day function and daytime sleepiness, which is important here for its implications related to reflux disease and sleep fragmentation.
For those with GER symptoms occurring once a week and more than once a week, the approximate relative risk increased by 30% and 53%, respectively. Clearly, the association of GER symptoms and relative sleep quality was really important.
It should be noted that the PSQI is a disease-independent, validated instrument. It’s not specific to GER disease or any diseases. It’s cross validated across 17 different languages. I think what’s most important about its use in the assessment here is the incorporation of next-day function and asking participants about daytime sleepiness, which we’ll discuss in more detail shortly.
The many causes of interrupted sleep
We’ve all experienced sleep fragmentation, whether in the form of having been on call during our medical training or common experiences like hearing a child cry in the night, a noisy truck pass by, or a dog barking. You may or may not remember that these happened the next day, but they’ve nonetheless interrupted your sleep efficiency.
When you transition laterally across the stages of sleep, that’s what establishes the circadian rhythm and ensures sleep hygiene. Typically, we require approximately 7 hours of restful sleep to do that. But if you fragment or interrupt this process, you more or less move your way erratically through the night, disrupting sleep hygiene and efficiency.
If you have a cognitive awakening during those disruptions, you may recall those events the next day. Or, you may not remember it at all, and such amnestic events are normal for some people with sleep disruptions.
You may also have a sensory arousal, whether it’s due to GER symptoms, auditory stimuli, bumping your toe, or whatever disruptive event. Any of these can cause you to lose that laterality of smooth transition through sleep.
Approximately 20% of the U.S. population have reported GER symptoms at least once a week. Incident data indicate that number may be increasing by as much as 5% a year. Much of that increase is tied to obesity. But nonetheless, it’s a problem on the rise.
It’s important to know this as we start to look at sleep. If GER is acting as a trigger to sleep disruption, you need to ask your patients with this condition about next-day function.
In particular, the next-day function questions to ask are, “How do you feel when you get up? Are you awake and refreshed? Do you have early fatigue? Do you drag yourself out of bed, have daytime somnolence, loss of concentration, or irritability?”
Those are key parameters we can use for looking back to the night before and gauging sleep efficiency. If you’re not asking those questions, you may miss out on identifying a patient having sleep fragmentation.
Sleep’s role in inflammatory disease processes
I now perform an interval assessment of this type not just in my patients with GER disease but across all my patients. I do so because sleep is physiologically important in so many ways.
In patients who have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and a variety of other liver diseases, we’re finding an increased association with sleep fragmentation outside of sleep apnea.
The same is true with irritable bowel and other functional diseases.
When you have sleep fragmentation in inflammatory bowel disease, you turn on a variety of inflammatory proteins (e.g., C-reactive protein) and cytokines, such as interleukins and tumor necrosis factor alpha. These processes may actually tip somebody over to a pro-inflammatory state.
When it comes to what might be considered a relatively simpler condition like GER disease, Ronnie Fass and colleagues showed a number of years ago via Bernstein testing performed in patients with both fragmented and normal sleep that the sensory thresholds all get lowered in the former group. This is irrespective of whether you have a functional symptom or you’re awakened by bumping your toe, a headache, or having heartburn; your sensory thresholds are lower. As a result, the same stimulus provides a higher sense of awareness. By ramping up that awareness, you increase the interference with the next-day function.
We’ve shown that sleep fragmentation affects a variety of things, including immune function. This may be why many people get sick when they travel in between time zones.
There are also implications relating to things like obesity. When you have sleep dysfunction, you have effects on leptin and ghrelin, contrary to what you would normally want to have. This, in turn, causes adverse effects on stimulation or suppression of satiety or appetite. These are things that I counsel my patients about when I talk about reflux as well as those trying to lose weight.
Sleep disruption affects cortisol stimulation and has a significant correlation with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and even mortality statistics.
Advice for counseling patients
This latest analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study reminds us that a lot of people have reflux and a lot of people have sleep fragmentation. We need to do better in asking our patients if they have symptoms specific not only to reflux but also to potentially sleep-related complications.
The more we do that, the more we individualize patient treatment rather than treating them as a disease state. This, in turn, will allow us to practice personalized medicine. The more we can engage our patients with reflux disease by asking the right questions about next-day function, the better we can do in improving their outcomes.
It’s time for us all to open our eyes to the value of closing them. Let’s talk to our patients with reflux disease in a little bit of a different light, providing a new perspective on strategies we can use to mitigate and deal with those symptoms, thereby preventing the consequences of sleep fragmentation.
Hopefully, this overview gives you some guidance the next time you have a conversation with your patients. It will apply across many, many disease states, and in almost everything we do in gastroenterology.
David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported advising with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Reducing Risk for Clostridioides difficile Recurrence
Incidence of C difficile infection has been increasing over the past two decades, accounting for nearly 460,000 cases of illness and 20,000 deaths annually in the United States.
Antibiotic treatment is the standard of care for C difficile infection, but the treatment can disrupt a patient's gastrointestinal microbiome, thereby contributing to the risk for disease recurrence.
Recurrence rates are proven to increase with each episode of C difficile, making prevention essential.
In this ReCAP, Dr David Johnson, of Eastern Virginia Medical School, discusses treatment options to avoid recurrence. He considers multiple means of prevention, including disinfection, infusions of monoclonal antibodies, and the latest advances in fecal microbiota-based biotherapies. Dr Johnson provides data regarding the success rates of pharmaceutical-grade options for prevention of relapse of C difficile.
--
David A. Johnson, MD, Professor of Medicine, Chief of Gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School; Chief of Gastroenterology, Digestive and Liver Disease Specialists, Division of Capital Digestive Care, Norfolk, Virginia
David A. Johnson, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) on a board for: ACG Institute for Clinical Research and Education; Adjudication Board Parexel
Serve(d) as a consultant for: Johnson & Johnson; Isothrive
Received research grant from: ISOThrive
Have a 5% or greater equity interest in: American College of Gastroenterology
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Parexel; Johnson & Johnson
Incidence of C difficile infection has been increasing over the past two decades, accounting for nearly 460,000 cases of illness and 20,000 deaths annually in the United States.
Antibiotic treatment is the standard of care for C difficile infection, but the treatment can disrupt a patient's gastrointestinal microbiome, thereby contributing to the risk for disease recurrence.
Recurrence rates are proven to increase with each episode of C difficile, making prevention essential.
In this ReCAP, Dr David Johnson, of Eastern Virginia Medical School, discusses treatment options to avoid recurrence. He considers multiple means of prevention, including disinfection, infusions of monoclonal antibodies, and the latest advances in fecal microbiota-based biotherapies. Dr Johnson provides data regarding the success rates of pharmaceutical-grade options for prevention of relapse of C difficile.
--
David A. Johnson, MD, Professor of Medicine, Chief of Gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School; Chief of Gastroenterology, Digestive and Liver Disease Specialists, Division of Capital Digestive Care, Norfolk, Virginia
David A. Johnson, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) on a board for: ACG Institute for Clinical Research and Education; Adjudication Board Parexel
Serve(d) as a consultant for: Johnson & Johnson; Isothrive
Received research grant from: ISOThrive
Have a 5% or greater equity interest in: American College of Gastroenterology
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Parexel; Johnson & Johnson
Incidence of C difficile infection has been increasing over the past two decades, accounting for nearly 460,000 cases of illness and 20,000 deaths annually in the United States.
Antibiotic treatment is the standard of care for C difficile infection, but the treatment can disrupt a patient's gastrointestinal microbiome, thereby contributing to the risk for disease recurrence.
Recurrence rates are proven to increase with each episode of C difficile, making prevention essential.
In this ReCAP, Dr David Johnson, of Eastern Virginia Medical School, discusses treatment options to avoid recurrence. He considers multiple means of prevention, including disinfection, infusions of monoclonal antibodies, and the latest advances in fecal microbiota-based biotherapies. Dr Johnson provides data regarding the success rates of pharmaceutical-grade options for prevention of relapse of C difficile.
--
David A. Johnson, MD, Professor of Medicine, Chief of Gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School; Chief of Gastroenterology, Digestive and Liver Disease Specialists, Division of Capital Digestive Care, Norfolk, Virginia
David A. Johnson, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) on a board for: ACG Institute for Clinical Research and Education; Adjudication Board Parexel
Serve(d) as a consultant for: Johnson & Johnson; Isothrive
Received research grant from: ISOThrive
Have a 5% or greater equity interest in: American College of Gastroenterology
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Parexel; Johnson & Johnson
