User login
Ready for post-acute care?
The definition of “hospitalist,” according to the SHM website, is a clinician “dedicated to delivering comprehensive medical care to hospitalized patients.” For years, the hospital setting was the specialties’ identifier. But as hospitalists’ scope has expanded, and post-acute care (PAC) in the United States has grown, more hospitalists are extending their roles into this space.
PAC today is more than the traditional nursing home, according to Manoj K. Mathew, MD, SFHM, national medical director of Agilon Health in Los Angeles.
Many of those expanded settings Dr. Mathew describes emerged as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Since its enactment in 2010, the ACA has heightened providers’ focus on the “Triple Aim” of improving the patient experience (including quality and satisfaction), improving the health of populations, and reducing the per capita cost of healthcare.1 Vishal Kuchaculla, MD, New England regional post-acute medical director of Knoxville,Tenn.-based TeamHealth, says new service lines also developed as Medicare clamped down on long-term inpatient hospital stays by giving financial impetus to discharge patients as soon as possible.
“Over the last few years, there’s been a major shift from fee-for-service to risk-based payment models,” Dr. Kuchaculla says. “The government’s financial incentives are driving outcomes to improve performance initiatives.”
“Today, LTACHs can be used as substitutes for short-term acute care,” says Sean R. Muldoon, MD, MPH, FCCP, chief medical officer of Kindred Healthcare in Louisville, Ky., and former chair of SHM’s Post-Acute Care Committee. “This means that a patient can be directly admitted from their home to an LTACH. In fact, many hospice and home-care patients are referred from physicians’ offices without a preceding hospitalization.”
Hospitalists can fill a need
More hospitalists are working in PACs for a number of reasons. Dr. Mathew says PAC facilities and services have “typically lacked the clinical structure and processes to obtain the results that patients and payors expect.
“These deficits needed to be quickly remedied as patients discharged from hospitals have increased acuity and higher disease burdens,” he adds. “Hospitalists were the natural choice to fill roles requiring their expertise and experience.”
Dr. Muldoon considers the expanded scope of practice into PACs an additional layer to hospital medicine’s value proposition to the healthcare system.
“As experts in the management of inpatient populations, it’s natural for hospitalists to expand to other facilities with inpatient-like populations,” he says, noting SNFs are the most popular choice, with IRFs and LTACHs also being common places to work. Few hospitalists work in home care or hospice.
PAC settings are designed to help patients who are transitioning from an inpatient setting back to their home or other setting.
“Many patients go home after a SNF stay, while others will move to a nursing home or other longer-term care setting for the first time,” says Tiffany Radcliff, PhD, a health economist in the department of health policy and management at Texas A&M University School of Public Health in College Station. “With this in mind, hospitalists working in PAC have the opportunity to address each patient’s ongoing care needs and prepare them for their next setting. Hospitalists can manage medication or other care regimen changes that resulted from an inpatient stay, reinforce discharge instructions to the patient and their caregivers, and identify any other issues with continuing care that need to be addressed before discharge to the next care setting.”
Transitioning Care
Even if a hospitalist is not employed at a PAC, it’s important that they know something about them.
“As patients are moved downstream earlier, hospitalists are being asked to help make a judgment regarding when and where an inpatient is transitioned,” Dr. Muldoon says. As organizations move toward becoming fully risk capable, it is necessary to develop referral networks of high-quality PAC providers to achieve the best clinical outcomes, reduce readmissions, and lower costs.2“Therefore, hospitalists should have a working knowledge of the different sites of service as well as some opinion on the suitability of available options in their community,” Dr. Muldoon says. “The hospitalist can also help to educate the hospitalized patient on what to expect at a PAC.”
If a patient is inappropriately prepared for the PAC setting, it could lead to incomplete management of their condition, which ultimately could lead to readmission.
“When hospitalists know how care is provided in a PAC setting, they are better able to ensure a smoother transition of care between settings,” says Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, SFHM, chair of family medicine at Northwell Health in Long Island, N.Y. “This will ultimately prevent unnecessary readmissions.”
Further, the quality metrics that hospitals and thereby hospitalists are judged by no longer end at the hospital’s exit.
“The ownership of acute-care outcomes requires extending the accountability to outside of the institution’s four walls,” Dr. Mathew says. “The inpatient team needs to place great importance on the transition of care and the subsequent quality of that care when the patient is discharged.”
Robert W. Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of Plano, Texas–based Reliant Post-Acute Care Solutions and former SHM president, says the health system landscapes are pushing HM beyond the hospitals’ walls.
How PAC settings differ from hospitals
Practicing in PAC has some important nuances that hospitalists from short-term acute care need to get accustomed to, Dr. Muldoon says. Primarily, the diagnostic capabilities are much more limited, as is the presence of high-level staffing. Further, patients are less resilient to medication changes and interventions, so changes need to be done gradually.
“Hospitalists who try to practice acute-care medicine in a PAC setting may become frustrated by the length of time it takes to do a work-up, get a consultation, and respond to a patient’s change of condition,” Dr. Muldoon says. “Nonetheless, hospitalists can overcome this once recognizing this mind shift.”
According to Dr. Harrington, another challenge hospitalists may face is the inability of the hospital’s and PAC facility’s IT platforms to exchange electronic information.
“The major vendors on both sides need to figure out an interoperability strategy,” he says. “Currently, it often takes 1-3 days to receive a new patient’s discharge summary. The summary may consist of a stack of paper that takes significant time to sort through and requires the PAC facility to perform duplicate data entry. It’s a very highly inefficient process that opens up the doors to mistakes and errors of omission and commission that can result in bad patient outcomes.”
Arif Nazir, MD, CMD, FACP, AGSF, chief medical officer of Signature HealthCARE and president of SHC Medical Partners, both in Louisville, Ky., cites additional reasons the lack of seamless communication between a hospital and PAC facility is problematic. “I see physicians order laboratory tests and investigations that were already done in the hospital because they didn’t know they were already performed or never received the results,” he says. “Similarly, I see patients continue to take medications prescribed in the hospital long term even though they were only supposed to take them short term. I’ve also seen patients come to a PAC setting from a hospital without any formal understanding of their rehabilitative period and expectations for recovery.”
What’s ahead?
Looking to the future, Surafel Tsega, MD, clinical instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, says he thinks there will be a move toward greater collaboration among inpatient and PAC facilities, particularly in the discharge process, given that hospitals have an added incentive to ensure safe transitions because reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is tied to readmissions and there are penalties for readmission. This involves more comprehensive planning regarding “warm handoffs” (e.g., real-time discussions with PAC providers about a patient’s hospital course and plan of care upon discharge), transferring of information, and so forth.
And while it can still be challenging to identify high-risk patients or determine the intensity and duration of their care, Dr. Mathew says risk-stratification tools and care pathways are continually being refined to maximize value with the limited resources available. In addition, with an increased emphasis on employing a team approach to care, there will be better integration of non-medical services to address the social determinants of health, which play significant roles in overall health and healing.
“Working with community-based organizations for this purpose will be a valuable tool for any of the population health–based initiatives,” he says.
Dr. Muldoon says he believes healthcare reform will increasingly view an inpatient admission as something to be avoided.
“If hospitalization can’t be avoided, then it should be shortened as much as possible,” he says. “This will shift inpatient care into LTACHs, SNFs, and IRFs. Hospitalists would be wise to follow patients into those settings as traditional inpatient census is reduced. This will take a few years, so hospitalists should start now in preparing for that downstream transition of individuals who were previously inpatients.”
The cost of care, and other PAC facts and figures
The amount of money that Medicare spends on post-acute care (PAC) has been increasing. In 2012, 12.6% of Medicare beneficiaries used some form of PAC, costing $62 billion.2 That amounts to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spending close to 25% of Medicare beneficiary expenses on PAC, a 133% increase from 2001 to 2012. Among the different types, $30.4 billion was spent on skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), $18.6 billion on home health, and $13.1 billion on long-term acute care (LTAC) and acute-care rehabilitation.2
It’s also been reported that after short-term acute-care hospitalization, about one in five Medicare beneficiaries requires continued specialized treatment in one of the three typical Medicare PAC settings: inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), LTAC hospitals, and SNFs.3
What’s more, hospital readmission nearly doubles the cost of an episode, so the financial implications for organizations operating in risk-bearing arrangements are significant. In 2013, 2,213 hospitals were charged $280 million in readmission penalties.2
References
1. The role of post-acute care in new care delivery models. American Hospital Association website. Available at: http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/15dec-tw-postacute.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.
2. Post-acute care integration: Today and in the future. DHG Healthcare website. Available at: http://www2.dhgllp.com/res_pubs/HCG-Post-Acute-Care-Integration.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.
3. Overview: Post-acute care transitions toolkit. Society for Hospital Medicine website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/Web/Quality___Innovation/Implementation_Toolkit/pact/Overview_PACT.aspx?hkey=dea3da3c-8620-46db-a00f-89f07f021958. Accessed Nov. 10, 2016.
The definition of “hospitalist,” according to the SHM website, is a clinician “dedicated to delivering comprehensive medical care to hospitalized patients.” For years, the hospital setting was the specialties’ identifier. But as hospitalists’ scope has expanded, and post-acute care (PAC) in the United States has grown, more hospitalists are extending their roles into this space.
PAC today is more than the traditional nursing home, according to Manoj K. Mathew, MD, SFHM, national medical director of Agilon Health in Los Angeles.
Many of those expanded settings Dr. Mathew describes emerged as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Since its enactment in 2010, the ACA has heightened providers’ focus on the “Triple Aim” of improving the patient experience (including quality and satisfaction), improving the health of populations, and reducing the per capita cost of healthcare.1 Vishal Kuchaculla, MD, New England regional post-acute medical director of Knoxville,Tenn.-based TeamHealth, says new service lines also developed as Medicare clamped down on long-term inpatient hospital stays by giving financial impetus to discharge patients as soon as possible.
“Over the last few years, there’s been a major shift from fee-for-service to risk-based payment models,” Dr. Kuchaculla says. “The government’s financial incentives are driving outcomes to improve performance initiatives.”
“Today, LTACHs can be used as substitutes for short-term acute care,” says Sean R. Muldoon, MD, MPH, FCCP, chief medical officer of Kindred Healthcare in Louisville, Ky., and former chair of SHM’s Post-Acute Care Committee. “This means that a patient can be directly admitted from their home to an LTACH. In fact, many hospice and home-care patients are referred from physicians’ offices without a preceding hospitalization.”
Hospitalists can fill a need
More hospitalists are working in PACs for a number of reasons. Dr. Mathew says PAC facilities and services have “typically lacked the clinical structure and processes to obtain the results that patients and payors expect.
“These deficits needed to be quickly remedied as patients discharged from hospitals have increased acuity and higher disease burdens,” he adds. “Hospitalists were the natural choice to fill roles requiring their expertise and experience.”
Dr. Muldoon considers the expanded scope of practice into PACs an additional layer to hospital medicine’s value proposition to the healthcare system.
“As experts in the management of inpatient populations, it’s natural for hospitalists to expand to other facilities with inpatient-like populations,” he says, noting SNFs are the most popular choice, with IRFs and LTACHs also being common places to work. Few hospitalists work in home care or hospice.
PAC settings are designed to help patients who are transitioning from an inpatient setting back to their home or other setting.
“Many patients go home after a SNF stay, while others will move to a nursing home or other longer-term care setting for the first time,” says Tiffany Radcliff, PhD, a health economist in the department of health policy and management at Texas A&M University School of Public Health in College Station. “With this in mind, hospitalists working in PAC have the opportunity to address each patient’s ongoing care needs and prepare them for their next setting. Hospitalists can manage medication or other care regimen changes that resulted from an inpatient stay, reinforce discharge instructions to the patient and their caregivers, and identify any other issues with continuing care that need to be addressed before discharge to the next care setting.”
Transitioning Care
Even if a hospitalist is not employed at a PAC, it’s important that they know something about them.
“As patients are moved downstream earlier, hospitalists are being asked to help make a judgment regarding when and where an inpatient is transitioned,” Dr. Muldoon says. As organizations move toward becoming fully risk capable, it is necessary to develop referral networks of high-quality PAC providers to achieve the best clinical outcomes, reduce readmissions, and lower costs.2“Therefore, hospitalists should have a working knowledge of the different sites of service as well as some opinion on the suitability of available options in their community,” Dr. Muldoon says. “The hospitalist can also help to educate the hospitalized patient on what to expect at a PAC.”
If a patient is inappropriately prepared for the PAC setting, it could lead to incomplete management of their condition, which ultimately could lead to readmission.
“When hospitalists know how care is provided in a PAC setting, they are better able to ensure a smoother transition of care between settings,” says Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, SFHM, chair of family medicine at Northwell Health in Long Island, N.Y. “This will ultimately prevent unnecessary readmissions.”
Further, the quality metrics that hospitals and thereby hospitalists are judged by no longer end at the hospital’s exit.
“The ownership of acute-care outcomes requires extending the accountability to outside of the institution’s four walls,” Dr. Mathew says. “The inpatient team needs to place great importance on the transition of care and the subsequent quality of that care when the patient is discharged.”
Robert W. Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of Plano, Texas–based Reliant Post-Acute Care Solutions and former SHM president, says the health system landscapes are pushing HM beyond the hospitals’ walls.
How PAC settings differ from hospitals
Practicing in PAC has some important nuances that hospitalists from short-term acute care need to get accustomed to, Dr. Muldoon says. Primarily, the diagnostic capabilities are much more limited, as is the presence of high-level staffing. Further, patients are less resilient to medication changes and interventions, so changes need to be done gradually.
“Hospitalists who try to practice acute-care medicine in a PAC setting may become frustrated by the length of time it takes to do a work-up, get a consultation, and respond to a patient’s change of condition,” Dr. Muldoon says. “Nonetheless, hospitalists can overcome this once recognizing this mind shift.”
According to Dr. Harrington, another challenge hospitalists may face is the inability of the hospital’s and PAC facility’s IT platforms to exchange electronic information.
“The major vendors on both sides need to figure out an interoperability strategy,” he says. “Currently, it often takes 1-3 days to receive a new patient’s discharge summary. The summary may consist of a stack of paper that takes significant time to sort through and requires the PAC facility to perform duplicate data entry. It’s a very highly inefficient process that opens up the doors to mistakes and errors of omission and commission that can result in bad patient outcomes.”
Arif Nazir, MD, CMD, FACP, AGSF, chief medical officer of Signature HealthCARE and president of SHC Medical Partners, both in Louisville, Ky., cites additional reasons the lack of seamless communication between a hospital and PAC facility is problematic. “I see physicians order laboratory tests and investigations that were already done in the hospital because they didn’t know they were already performed or never received the results,” he says. “Similarly, I see patients continue to take medications prescribed in the hospital long term even though they were only supposed to take them short term. I’ve also seen patients come to a PAC setting from a hospital without any formal understanding of their rehabilitative period and expectations for recovery.”
What’s ahead?
Looking to the future, Surafel Tsega, MD, clinical instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, says he thinks there will be a move toward greater collaboration among inpatient and PAC facilities, particularly in the discharge process, given that hospitals have an added incentive to ensure safe transitions because reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is tied to readmissions and there are penalties for readmission. This involves more comprehensive planning regarding “warm handoffs” (e.g., real-time discussions with PAC providers about a patient’s hospital course and plan of care upon discharge), transferring of information, and so forth.
And while it can still be challenging to identify high-risk patients or determine the intensity and duration of their care, Dr. Mathew says risk-stratification tools and care pathways are continually being refined to maximize value with the limited resources available. In addition, with an increased emphasis on employing a team approach to care, there will be better integration of non-medical services to address the social determinants of health, which play significant roles in overall health and healing.
“Working with community-based organizations for this purpose will be a valuable tool for any of the population health–based initiatives,” he says.
Dr. Muldoon says he believes healthcare reform will increasingly view an inpatient admission as something to be avoided.
“If hospitalization can’t be avoided, then it should be shortened as much as possible,” he says. “This will shift inpatient care into LTACHs, SNFs, and IRFs. Hospitalists would be wise to follow patients into those settings as traditional inpatient census is reduced. This will take a few years, so hospitalists should start now in preparing for that downstream transition of individuals who were previously inpatients.”
The cost of care, and other PAC facts and figures
The amount of money that Medicare spends on post-acute care (PAC) has been increasing. In 2012, 12.6% of Medicare beneficiaries used some form of PAC, costing $62 billion.2 That amounts to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spending close to 25% of Medicare beneficiary expenses on PAC, a 133% increase from 2001 to 2012. Among the different types, $30.4 billion was spent on skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), $18.6 billion on home health, and $13.1 billion on long-term acute care (LTAC) and acute-care rehabilitation.2
It’s also been reported that after short-term acute-care hospitalization, about one in five Medicare beneficiaries requires continued specialized treatment in one of the three typical Medicare PAC settings: inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), LTAC hospitals, and SNFs.3
What’s more, hospital readmission nearly doubles the cost of an episode, so the financial implications for organizations operating in risk-bearing arrangements are significant. In 2013, 2,213 hospitals were charged $280 million in readmission penalties.2
References
1. The role of post-acute care in new care delivery models. American Hospital Association website. Available at: http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/15dec-tw-postacute.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.
2. Post-acute care integration: Today and in the future. DHG Healthcare website. Available at: http://www2.dhgllp.com/res_pubs/HCG-Post-Acute-Care-Integration.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.
3. Overview: Post-acute care transitions toolkit. Society for Hospital Medicine website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/Web/Quality___Innovation/Implementation_Toolkit/pact/Overview_PACT.aspx?hkey=dea3da3c-8620-46db-a00f-89f07f021958. Accessed Nov. 10, 2016.
The definition of “hospitalist,” according to the SHM website, is a clinician “dedicated to delivering comprehensive medical care to hospitalized patients.” For years, the hospital setting was the specialties’ identifier. But as hospitalists’ scope has expanded, and post-acute care (PAC) in the United States has grown, more hospitalists are extending their roles into this space.
PAC today is more than the traditional nursing home, according to Manoj K. Mathew, MD, SFHM, national medical director of Agilon Health in Los Angeles.
Many of those expanded settings Dr. Mathew describes emerged as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Since its enactment in 2010, the ACA has heightened providers’ focus on the “Triple Aim” of improving the patient experience (including quality and satisfaction), improving the health of populations, and reducing the per capita cost of healthcare.1 Vishal Kuchaculla, MD, New England regional post-acute medical director of Knoxville,Tenn.-based TeamHealth, says new service lines also developed as Medicare clamped down on long-term inpatient hospital stays by giving financial impetus to discharge patients as soon as possible.
“Over the last few years, there’s been a major shift from fee-for-service to risk-based payment models,” Dr. Kuchaculla says. “The government’s financial incentives are driving outcomes to improve performance initiatives.”
“Today, LTACHs can be used as substitutes for short-term acute care,” says Sean R. Muldoon, MD, MPH, FCCP, chief medical officer of Kindred Healthcare in Louisville, Ky., and former chair of SHM’s Post-Acute Care Committee. “This means that a patient can be directly admitted from their home to an LTACH. In fact, many hospice and home-care patients are referred from physicians’ offices without a preceding hospitalization.”
Hospitalists can fill a need
More hospitalists are working in PACs for a number of reasons. Dr. Mathew says PAC facilities and services have “typically lacked the clinical structure and processes to obtain the results that patients and payors expect.
“These deficits needed to be quickly remedied as patients discharged from hospitals have increased acuity and higher disease burdens,” he adds. “Hospitalists were the natural choice to fill roles requiring their expertise and experience.”
Dr. Muldoon considers the expanded scope of practice into PACs an additional layer to hospital medicine’s value proposition to the healthcare system.
“As experts in the management of inpatient populations, it’s natural for hospitalists to expand to other facilities with inpatient-like populations,” he says, noting SNFs are the most popular choice, with IRFs and LTACHs also being common places to work. Few hospitalists work in home care or hospice.
PAC settings are designed to help patients who are transitioning from an inpatient setting back to their home or other setting.
“Many patients go home after a SNF stay, while others will move to a nursing home or other longer-term care setting for the first time,” says Tiffany Radcliff, PhD, a health economist in the department of health policy and management at Texas A&M University School of Public Health in College Station. “With this in mind, hospitalists working in PAC have the opportunity to address each patient’s ongoing care needs and prepare them for their next setting. Hospitalists can manage medication or other care regimen changes that resulted from an inpatient stay, reinforce discharge instructions to the patient and their caregivers, and identify any other issues with continuing care that need to be addressed before discharge to the next care setting.”
Transitioning Care
Even if a hospitalist is not employed at a PAC, it’s important that they know something about them.
“As patients are moved downstream earlier, hospitalists are being asked to help make a judgment regarding when and where an inpatient is transitioned,” Dr. Muldoon says. As organizations move toward becoming fully risk capable, it is necessary to develop referral networks of high-quality PAC providers to achieve the best clinical outcomes, reduce readmissions, and lower costs.2“Therefore, hospitalists should have a working knowledge of the different sites of service as well as some opinion on the suitability of available options in their community,” Dr. Muldoon says. “The hospitalist can also help to educate the hospitalized patient on what to expect at a PAC.”
If a patient is inappropriately prepared for the PAC setting, it could lead to incomplete management of their condition, which ultimately could lead to readmission.
“When hospitalists know how care is provided in a PAC setting, they are better able to ensure a smoother transition of care between settings,” says Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, SFHM, chair of family medicine at Northwell Health in Long Island, N.Y. “This will ultimately prevent unnecessary readmissions.”
Further, the quality metrics that hospitals and thereby hospitalists are judged by no longer end at the hospital’s exit.
“The ownership of acute-care outcomes requires extending the accountability to outside of the institution’s four walls,” Dr. Mathew says. “The inpatient team needs to place great importance on the transition of care and the subsequent quality of that care when the patient is discharged.”
Robert W. Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of Plano, Texas–based Reliant Post-Acute Care Solutions and former SHM president, says the health system landscapes are pushing HM beyond the hospitals’ walls.
How PAC settings differ from hospitals
Practicing in PAC has some important nuances that hospitalists from short-term acute care need to get accustomed to, Dr. Muldoon says. Primarily, the diagnostic capabilities are much more limited, as is the presence of high-level staffing. Further, patients are less resilient to medication changes and interventions, so changes need to be done gradually.
“Hospitalists who try to practice acute-care medicine in a PAC setting may become frustrated by the length of time it takes to do a work-up, get a consultation, and respond to a patient’s change of condition,” Dr. Muldoon says. “Nonetheless, hospitalists can overcome this once recognizing this mind shift.”
According to Dr. Harrington, another challenge hospitalists may face is the inability of the hospital’s and PAC facility’s IT platforms to exchange electronic information.
“The major vendors on both sides need to figure out an interoperability strategy,” he says. “Currently, it often takes 1-3 days to receive a new patient’s discharge summary. The summary may consist of a stack of paper that takes significant time to sort through and requires the PAC facility to perform duplicate data entry. It’s a very highly inefficient process that opens up the doors to mistakes and errors of omission and commission that can result in bad patient outcomes.”
Arif Nazir, MD, CMD, FACP, AGSF, chief medical officer of Signature HealthCARE and president of SHC Medical Partners, both in Louisville, Ky., cites additional reasons the lack of seamless communication between a hospital and PAC facility is problematic. “I see physicians order laboratory tests and investigations that were already done in the hospital because they didn’t know they were already performed or never received the results,” he says. “Similarly, I see patients continue to take medications prescribed in the hospital long term even though they were only supposed to take them short term. I’ve also seen patients come to a PAC setting from a hospital without any formal understanding of their rehabilitative period and expectations for recovery.”
What’s ahead?
Looking to the future, Surafel Tsega, MD, clinical instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, says he thinks there will be a move toward greater collaboration among inpatient and PAC facilities, particularly in the discharge process, given that hospitals have an added incentive to ensure safe transitions because reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is tied to readmissions and there are penalties for readmission. This involves more comprehensive planning regarding “warm handoffs” (e.g., real-time discussions with PAC providers about a patient’s hospital course and plan of care upon discharge), transferring of information, and so forth.
And while it can still be challenging to identify high-risk patients or determine the intensity and duration of their care, Dr. Mathew says risk-stratification tools and care pathways are continually being refined to maximize value with the limited resources available. In addition, with an increased emphasis on employing a team approach to care, there will be better integration of non-medical services to address the social determinants of health, which play significant roles in overall health and healing.
“Working with community-based organizations for this purpose will be a valuable tool for any of the population health–based initiatives,” he says.
Dr. Muldoon says he believes healthcare reform will increasingly view an inpatient admission as something to be avoided.
“If hospitalization can’t be avoided, then it should be shortened as much as possible,” he says. “This will shift inpatient care into LTACHs, SNFs, and IRFs. Hospitalists would be wise to follow patients into those settings as traditional inpatient census is reduced. This will take a few years, so hospitalists should start now in preparing for that downstream transition of individuals who were previously inpatients.”
The cost of care, and other PAC facts and figures
The amount of money that Medicare spends on post-acute care (PAC) has been increasing. In 2012, 12.6% of Medicare beneficiaries used some form of PAC, costing $62 billion.2 That amounts to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spending close to 25% of Medicare beneficiary expenses on PAC, a 133% increase from 2001 to 2012. Among the different types, $30.4 billion was spent on skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), $18.6 billion on home health, and $13.1 billion on long-term acute care (LTAC) and acute-care rehabilitation.2
It’s also been reported that after short-term acute-care hospitalization, about one in five Medicare beneficiaries requires continued specialized treatment in one of the three typical Medicare PAC settings: inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), LTAC hospitals, and SNFs.3
What’s more, hospital readmission nearly doubles the cost of an episode, so the financial implications for organizations operating in risk-bearing arrangements are significant. In 2013, 2,213 hospitals were charged $280 million in readmission penalties.2
References
1. The role of post-acute care in new care delivery models. American Hospital Association website. Available at: http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/15dec-tw-postacute.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.
2. Post-acute care integration: Today and in the future. DHG Healthcare website. Available at: http://www2.dhgllp.com/res_pubs/HCG-Post-Acute-Care-Integration.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.
3. Overview: Post-acute care transitions toolkit. Society for Hospital Medicine website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/Web/Quality___Innovation/Implementation_Toolkit/pact/Overview_PACT.aspx?hkey=dea3da3c-8620-46db-a00f-89f07f021958. Accessed Nov. 10, 2016.
Transplantation palliative care: The time is ripe
Over 10 years ago, a challenge was made in a surgical publication for increased collaboration between the fields of transplantation and palliative care.1
Since that time not much progress has been made bringing these fields together in a consistent way that would mutually benefit patients and the specialties. However, other progress has been made, particularly in the field of palliative care, which could brighten the prospects and broaden the opportunities to accomplish collaboration between palliative care and transplantation.
Growth of palliative services
During the past decade there has been a robust proliferation of hospital-based palliative care programs in the United States. In all, 67% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds report palliative care teams, up from 63% in 2011 and 53% in 2008.
Only a decade ago, critical care and palliative care were generally considered mutually exclusive. Evidence is trickling in to suggest that this is no longer the case. Although palliative care was not an integral part of critical care at that time, patients, families, and even practitioners began to demand these services. Cook and Rocker have eloquently advocated the rightful place of palliative care in the ICU.2
Studies in recent years have shown that the integration of palliative care into critical care decreases in length of ICU and hospital stay, decreases costs, enhances patient/family satisfaction, and promotes a more rapid consensus about goals of care, without increasing mortality. The ICU experience to date could be considered a reassuring precedent for transplantation palliative care.
Integration of palliative care with transplantation
Early palliative care intervention has been shown to improve symptom burden and depression scores in end-stage liver disease patients awaiting transplant. In addition, early palliative care consultation in conjunction with cancer treatment has been associated with increased survival in non–small-cell lung cancer patients. It has been demonstrated that early integration of palliative care in the surgical ICU alongside disease-directed curative care can be accomplished without change in mortality, while improving end-of-life practice in liver transplant patients.3
What palliative care can do for transplant patients
What does palliative care mean for the person (and family) awaiting transplantation? For the cirrhotic patient with cachexia, ascites, and encephalopathy, it means access to the services of a team trained in the management of these symptoms. Palliative care teams can also provide psychosocial and spiritual support for patients and families who are intimidated by the complex navigation of the health care system and the existential threat that end-stage organ failure presents to them. Skilled palliative care and services can be the difference between failing and extended life with a higher quality of life for these very sick patients
Resuscitation of a patient, whether through restoration of organ function or interdicting the progression of disease, begins with resuscitation of hope. Nothing achieves this more quickly than amelioration of burdensome symptoms for the patient and family.
The barriers for transplant surgeons and teams referring and incorporating palliative care services in their practices are multiple and profound. The unique dilemma facing the transplant team is to balance the treatment of the failing organ, the treatment of the patient (and family and friends), and the best use of the graft, a precious gift of society.
Palliative surgery has been defined as any invasive procedure in which the main intention is to mitigate physical symptoms in patients with noncurable disease without causing premature death. The very success of transplantation over the past 3 decades has obscured our memory of transplantation as a type of palliative surgery. It is a well-known axiom of reconstructive surgery that the reconstructed site should be compared to what was there, not to “normal.” Even in the current era of improved immunosuppression and posttransplant support services, one could hardly describe even a successful transplant patient’s experience as “normal.” These patients’ lives may be extended and/or enhanced but they need palliative care before, during, and after transplantation. The growing availability of trained palliative care clinicians and teams, the increased familiarity of palliative and end-of-life care to surgical residents and fellows, and quality metrics measuring palliative care outcomes will provide reassurance and guidance to address reservations about the convergence of the two seemingly opposite realities.
A modest proposal
We propose that palliative care be presented to the entire spectrum of transplantation care: on the ward, in the ICU, and after transplantation. More specific “triggers” for palliative care for referral of transplant patients should be identified. Wentlandt et al.4 have described a promising model for an ambulatory clinic, which provides early, integrated palliative care to patients awaiting and receiving organ transplantation. In addition, we propose an application for grant funding for a conference and eventual formation of a work group of transplant surgeons and team members, palliative care clinicians, and patient/families who have experienced one of the aspects of the transplant spectrum. We await the subspecialty certification in hospice and palliative medicine of a transplant surgeon. Outside of transplantation, every other surgical specialty in the United States has diplomates certified in hospice and palliative medicine. We await the benefits that will accrue from research about the merging of these fields.
1. Molmenti EP, Dunn GP: Transplantation and palliative care: The convergence of two seemingly opposite realities. Surg Clin North Am. 2005;85:373-82.
2. Cook D, Rocker G. Dying with dignity in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2506-14.
3. Lamba S, Murphy P, McVicker S, Smith JH, and Mosenthal AC. Changing end-of-life care practice for liver transplant patients: structured palliative care intervention in the surgical intensive care unit. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012; 44(4):508-19.
4. Wentlandt, K., Dall’Osto, A., Freeman, N., Le, L. W., Kaya, E., Ross, H., Singer, L. G., Abbey, S., Clarke, H. and Zimmermann, C. (2016), The Transplant Palliative Care Clinic: An early palliative care model for patients in a transplant program. Clin Transplant. 2016 Nov 4; doi: 10.1111/ctr.12838.
Dr. Azoulay is a transplantation specialist of Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, and the University of Paris. Dr. Dunn is medical director of the Palliative Care Consultation Service at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot, and vice-chair of the ACS Committee on Surgical Palliative Care.
Over 10 years ago, a challenge was made in a surgical publication for increased collaboration between the fields of transplantation and palliative care.1
Since that time not much progress has been made bringing these fields together in a consistent way that would mutually benefit patients and the specialties. However, other progress has been made, particularly in the field of palliative care, which could brighten the prospects and broaden the opportunities to accomplish collaboration between palliative care and transplantation.
Growth of palliative services
During the past decade there has been a robust proliferation of hospital-based palliative care programs in the United States. In all, 67% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds report palliative care teams, up from 63% in 2011 and 53% in 2008.
Only a decade ago, critical care and palliative care were generally considered mutually exclusive. Evidence is trickling in to suggest that this is no longer the case. Although palliative care was not an integral part of critical care at that time, patients, families, and even practitioners began to demand these services. Cook and Rocker have eloquently advocated the rightful place of palliative care in the ICU.2
Studies in recent years have shown that the integration of palliative care into critical care decreases in length of ICU and hospital stay, decreases costs, enhances patient/family satisfaction, and promotes a more rapid consensus about goals of care, without increasing mortality. The ICU experience to date could be considered a reassuring precedent for transplantation palliative care.
Integration of palliative care with transplantation
Early palliative care intervention has been shown to improve symptom burden and depression scores in end-stage liver disease patients awaiting transplant. In addition, early palliative care consultation in conjunction with cancer treatment has been associated with increased survival in non–small-cell lung cancer patients. It has been demonstrated that early integration of palliative care in the surgical ICU alongside disease-directed curative care can be accomplished without change in mortality, while improving end-of-life practice in liver transplant patients.3
What palliative care can do for transplant patients
What does palliative care mean for the person (and family) awaiting transplantation? For the cirrhotic patient with cachexia, ascites, and encephalopathy, it means access to the services of a team trained in the management of these symptoms. Palliative care teams can also provide psychosocial and spiritual support for patients and families who are intimidated by the complex navigation of the health care system and the existential threat that end-stage organ failure presents to them. Skilled palliative care and services can be the difference between failing and extended life with a higher quality of life for these very sick patients
Resuscitation of a patient, whether through restoration of organ function or interdicting the progression of disease, begins with resuscitation of hope. Nothing achieves this more quickly than amelioration of burdensome symptoms for the patient and family.
The barriers for transplant surgeons and teams referring and incorporating palliative care services in their practices are multiple and profound. The unique dilemma facing the transplant team is to balance the treatment of the failing organ, the treatment of the patient (and family and friends), and the best use of the graft, a precious gift of society.
Palliative surgery has been defined as any invasive procedure in which the main intention is to mitigate physical symptoms in patients with noncurable disease without causing premature death. The very success of transplantation over the past 3 decades has obscured our memory of transplantation as a type of palliative surgery. It is a well-known axiom of reconstructive surgery that the reconstructed site should be compared to what was there, not to “normal.” Even in the current era of improved immunosuppression and posttransplant support services, one could hardly describe even a successful transplant patient’s experience as “normal.” These patients’ lives may be extended and/or enhanced but they need palliative care before, during, and after transplantation. The growing availability of trained palliative care clinicians and teams, the increased familiarity of palliative and end-of-life care to surgical residents and fellows, and quality metrics measuring palliative care outcomes will provide reassurance and guidance to address reservations about the convergence of the two seemingly opposite realities.
A modest proposal
We propose that palliative care be presented to the entire spectrum of transplantation care: on the ward, in the ICU, and after transplantation. More specific “triggers” for palliative care for referral of transplant patients should be identified. Wentlandt et al.4 have described a promising model for an ambulatory clinic, which provides early, integrated palliative care to patients awaiting and receiving organ transplantation. In addition, we propose an application for grant funding for a conference and eventual formation of a work group of transplant surgeons and team members, palliative care clinicians, and patient/families who have experienced one of the aspects of the transplant spectrum. We await the subspecialty certification in hospice and palliative medicine of a transplant surgeon. Outside of transplantation, every other surgical specialty in the United States has diplomates certified in hospice and palliative medicine. We await the benefits that will accrue from research about the merging of these fields.
1. Molmenti EP, Dunn GP: Transplantation and palliative care: The convergence of two seemingly opposite realities. Surg Clin North Am. 2005;85:373-82.
2. Cook D, Rocker G. Dying with dignity in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2506-14.
3. Lamba S, Murphy P, McVicker S, Smith JH, and Mosenthal AC. Changing end-of-life care practice for liver transplant patients: structured palliative care intervention in the surgical intensive care unit. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012; 44(4):508-19.
4. Wentlandt, K., Dall’Osto, A., Freeman, N., Le, L. W., Kaya, E., Ross, H., Singer, L. G., Abbey, S., Clarke, H. and Zimmermann, C. (2016), The Transplant Palliative Care Clinic: An early palliative care model for patients in a transplant program. Clin Transplant. 2016 Nov 4; doi: 10.1111/ctr.12838.
Dr. Azoulay is a transplantation specialist of Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, and the University of Paris. Dr. Dunn is medical director of the Palliative Care Consultation Service at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot, and vice-chair of the ACS Committee on Surgical Palliative Care.
Over 10 years ago, a challenge was made in a surgical publication for increased collaboration between the fields of transplantation and palliative care.1
Since that time not much progress has been made bringing these fields together in a consistent way that would mutually benefit patients and the specialties. However, other progress has been made, particularly in the field of palliative care, which could brighten the prospects and broaden the opportunities to accomplish collaboration between palliative care and transplantation.
Growth of palliative services
During the past decade there has been a robust proliferation of hospital-based palliative care programs in the United States. In all, 67% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds report palliative care teams, up from 63% in 2011 and 53% in 2008.
Only a decade ago, critical care and palliative care were generally considered mutually exclusive. Evidence is trickling in to suggest that this is no longer the case. Although palliative care was not an integral part of critical care at that time, patients, families, and even practitioners began to demand these services. Cook and Rocker have eloquently advocated the rightful place of palliative care in the ICU.2
Studies in recent years have shown that the integration of palliative care into critical care decreases in length of ICU and hospital stay, decreases costs, enhances patient/family satisfaction, and promotes a more rapid consensus about goals of care, without increasing mortality. The ICU experience to date could be considered a reassuring precedent for transplantation palliative care.
Integration of palliative care with transplantation
Early palliative care intervention has been shown to improve symptom burden and depression scores in end-stage liver disease patients awaiting transplant. In addition, early palliative care consultation in conjunction with cancer treatment has been associated with increased survival in non–small-cell lung cancer patients. It has been demonstrated that early integration of palliative care in the surgical ICU alongside disease-directed curative care can be accomplished without change in mortality, while improving end-of-life practice in liver transplant patients.3
What palliative care can do for transplant patients
What does palliative care mean for the person (and family) awaiting transplantation? For the cirrhotic patient with cachexia, ascites, and encephalopathy, it means access to the services of a team trained in the management of these symptoms. Palliative care teams can also provide psychosocial and spiritual support for patients and families who are intimidated by the complex navigation of the health care system and the existential threat that end-stage organ failure presents to them. Skilled palliative care and services can be the difference between failing and extended life with a higher quality of life for these very sick patients
Resuscitation of a patient, whether through restoration of organ function or interdicting the progression of disease, begins with resuscitation of hope. Nothing achieves this more quickly than amelioration of burdensome symptoms for the patient and family.
The barriers for transplant surgeons and teams referring and incorporating palliative care services in their practices are multiple and profound. The unique dilemma facing the transplant team is to balance the treatment of the failing organ, the treatment of the patient (and family and friends), and the best use of the graft, a precious gift of society.
Palliative surgery has been defined as any invasive procedure in which the main intention is to mitigate physical symptoms in patients with noncurable disease without causing premature death. The very success of transplantation over the past 3 decades has obscured our memory of transplantation as a type of palliative surgery. It is a well-known axiom of reconstructive surgery that the reconstructed site should be compared to what was there, not to “normal.” Even in the current era of improved immunosuppression and posttransplant support services, one could hardly describe even a successful transplant patient’s experience as “normal.” These patients’ lives may be extended and/or enhanced but they need palliative care before, during, and after transplantation. The growing availability of trained palliative care clinicians and teams, the increased familiarity of palliative and end-of-life care to surgical residents and fellows, and quality metrics measuring palliative care outcomes will provide reassurance and guidance to address reservations about the convergence of the two seemingly opposite realities.
A modest proposal
We propose that palliative care be presented to the entire spectrum of transplantation care: on the ward, in the ICU, and after transplantation. More specific “triggers” for palliative care for referral of transplant patients should be identified. Wentlandt et al.4 have described a promising model for an ambulatory clinic, which provides early, integrated palliative care to patients awaiting and receiving organ transplantation. In addition, we propose an application for grant funding for a conference and eventual formation of a work group of transplant surgeons and team members, palliative care clinicians, and patient/families who have experienced one of the aspects of the transplant spectrum. We await the subspecialty certification in hospice and palliative medicine of a transplant surgeon. Outside of transplantation, every other surgical specialty in the United States has diplomates certified in hospice and palliative medicine. We await the benefits that will accrue from research about the merging of these fields.
1. Molmenti EP, Dunn GP: Transplantation and palliative care: The convergence of two seemingly opposite realities. Surg Clin North Am. 2005;85:373-82.
2. Cook D, Rocker G. Dying with dignity in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2506-14.
3. Lamba S, Murphy P, McVicker S, Smith JH, and Mosenthal AC. Changing end-of-life care practice for liver transplant patients: structured palliative care intervention in the surgical intensive care unit. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012; 44(4):508-19.
4. Wentlandt, K., Dall’Osto, A., Freeman, N., Le, L. W., Kaya, E., Ross, H., Singer, L. G., Abbey, S., Clarke, H. and Zimmermann, C. (2016), The Transplant Palliative Care Clinic: An early palliative care model for patients in a transplant program. Clin Transplant. 2016 Nov 4; doi: 10.1111/ctr.12838.
Dr. Azoulay is a transplantation specialist of Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, and the University of Paris. Dr. Dunn is medical director of the Palliative Care Consultation Service at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot, and vice-chair of the ACS Committee on Surgical Palliative Care.
SVS Now Accepting Abstracts for VAM 2017
Abstracts for the 2017 Vascular Annual Meeting are now being accepted. The submission site opened Monday, Nov. 14 for the meeting, to be held May 31 to June 3, 2017, in San Diego. Plenary sessions and exhibits will be June 1 to 3.
Participants may submit abstracts into any of 14 categories and a number of presentation types, including videos. In 2016, organizers selected approximately two-thirds of the submitted abstracts, and this year the VAM Program Committee is seeking additional venues for people to present their work in, including more sessions and other presentation formats.
Click here for abstract guidelines and more information. Abstracts themselves may be submitted here.
Abstracts for the 2017 Vascular Annual Meeting are now being accepted. The submission site opened Monday, Nov. 14 for the meeting, to be held May 31 to June 3, 2017, in San Diego. Plenary sessions and exhibits will be June 1 to 3.
Participants may submit abstracts into any of 14 categories and a number of presentation types, including videos. In 2016, organizers selected approximately two-thirds of the submitted abstracts, and this year the VAM Program Committee is seeking additional venues for people to present their work in, including more sessions and other presentation formats.
Click here for abstract guidelines and more information. Abstracts themselves may be submitted here.
Abstracts for the 2017 Vascular Annual Meeting are now being accepted. The submission site opened Monday, Nov. 14 for the meeting, to be held May 31 to June 3, 2017, in San Diego. Plenary sessions and exhibits will be June 1 to 3.
Participants may submit abstracts into any of 14 categories and a number of presentation types, including videos. In 2016, organizers selected approximately two-thirds of the submitted abstracts, and this year the VAM Program Committee is seeking additional venues for people to present their work in, including more sessions and other presentation formats.
Click here for abstract guidelines and more information. Abstracts themselves may be submitted here.
Best Practices: Protecting Dry Vulnerable Skin with CeraVe® Healing Ointment
A supplement to Dermatology News. This advertising supplement is sponsored by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
- Reinforcing the Skin Barrier
- NEA Seal of Acceptance
- A Preventative Approach to Dry, Cracked Skin
- CeraVe Ointment in the Clinical Setting
Faculty/Faculty Disclosure
Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD
Professor of Clinical Dermatology & Pediatrics
Director, Pediatric Dermatology Fellowship Training Program
University of California at San Diego School of Medicine
Rady Children’s Hospital,
San Diego, California
Dr. Friedlander was compensated for her participation in the development of this article.
CeraVe is a registered trademark of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. or its affiliates.
A supplement to Dermatology News. This advertising supplement is sponsored by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
- Reinforcing the Skin Barrier
- NEA Seal of Acceptance
- A Preventative Approach to Dry, Cracked Skin
- CeraVe Ointment in the Clinical Setting
Faculty/Faculty Disclosure
Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD
Professor of Clinical Dermatology & Pediatrics
Director, Pediatric Dermatology Fellowship Training Program
University of California at San Diego School of Medicine
Rady Children’s Hospital,
San Diego, California
Dr. Friedlander was compensated for her participation in the development of this article.
CeraVe is a registered trademark of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. or its affiliates.
A supplement to Dermatology News. This advertising supplement is sponsored by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
- Reinforcing the Skin Barrier
- NEA Seal of Acceptance
- A Preventative Approach to Dry, Cracked Skin
- CeraVe Ointment in the Clinical Setting
Faculty/Faculty Disclosure
Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD
Professor of Clinical Dermatology & Pediatrics
Director, Pediatric Dermatology Fellowship Training Program
University of California at San Diego School of Medicine
Rady Children’s Hospital,
San Diego, California
Dr. Friedlander was compensated for her participation in the development of this article.
CeraVe is a registered trademark of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. or its affiliates.
AGA Guidelines Endorse Earlier Use of High-Efficacy Drugs for Ulcerative Colitis
In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape,
“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.
Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.
“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”
One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated.
“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.
The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.
Specifics
Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.
The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.
The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.
Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:
- Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
- Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
- Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
- For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
- In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
- The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
- The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
- Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
- The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
- For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
- For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.
According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.
However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”
Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”
The Future
The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.
The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.
They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.
The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.
These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape,
“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.
Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.
“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”
One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated.
“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.
The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.
Specifics
Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.
The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.
The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.
Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:
- Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
- Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
- Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
- For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
- In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
- The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
- The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
- Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
- The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
- For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
- For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.
According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.
However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”
Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”
The Future
The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.
The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.
They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.
The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.
These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape,
“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.
Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.
“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”
One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated.
“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.
The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.
Specifics
Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.
The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.
The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.
Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:
- Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
- Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
- Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
- For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
- In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
- The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
- The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
- Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
- The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
- For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
- For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.
According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.
However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”
Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”
The Future
The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.
The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.
They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.
The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.
These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
AI Tool Identifies Undiagnosed Early-Stage MASLD
SAN DIEGO — according to new research.
Among the patients identified by the algorithm as meeting the criteria for MASLD, only a small percentage had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code.
“A significant portion of patients who meet criteria for MASLD go undiagnosed, which can lead to delays in care and progression to advanced liver disease,” said lead author Ariana Stuart, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Washington, Seattle, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
“However, people shouldn’t interpret our findings as a lack of primary care training or management,” she said. “Instead, this study indicates that AI can complement physician workflow and address the limitations of traditional clinical practice.”
Developing an MASLD Algorithm
Typically, the identification of MASLD has relied on clinician recognition and descriptions in chart notes, Stuart said. Early-stage disease often goes unnoticed, particularly if patients remain asymptomatic, until cirrhosis develops.
To address this, Stuart and colleagues created a machine learning, natural language processing AI algorithm on the basis of MASLD criteria from AASLD: Hepatic steatosis on imaging and at least one metabolic factor (elevated body mass index, hypertension, prediabetes or diabetes, or dyslipidemia). The model was validated by two physicians, who manually reviewed monthly cohorts generated by the algorithm.
Between December 2023 and May 2024, the researchers used the algorithm to analyze an MASLD cohort from medical centers in the Seattle area. The mean age was 51 years, 44% were women, and 68% were White. Those with alcohol-associated liver disease, metastatic malignancy, and autoimmune, genetic, and infectious causes of liver disease were excluded.
The algorithm identified 957 patients with imaging that matched MASLD criteria.
Among those, 137 patients (17%) identified by the algorithm had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code. For these patients, the mean time from initial imaging with steatosis to diagnosis was 33 days, according to patient records.
An additional 26 patients received an MASLD diagnosis during the study period, with a mean time to diagnosis of 56.2 days.
In terms of patient management, 245 patients (26%) had contact with a gastroenterologist or hepatologist based on documentation of a letter, phone call, or office visit. In addition, 546 patients (57%) were screened for hepatitis C.
After adjusting for an over-inclusion error rate of 12.8% and an overdiagnosis rate of 0.02%, the research team found 697 patients (83%) lacked a relevant diagnosis. After multiple iterations, the algorithm achieved an accuracy of about 88%, Stuart said.
Considering Future AI Use
Stuart and colleagues are now testing the algorithm in larger groups and across longer periods.
After that, they intend to implement a quality improvement program to increase awareness for clinicians and primary care providers, as well as train users on how to interpret and move forward with findings of hepatic steatosis in patient records.
For instance, future AI models could flag patients for additional testing, improve chart review, and aid in research efforts around cardiometabolic comorbidities associated with MASLD, she said.
Looking ahead, AI tools such as these represent what’s possible for advancements in research, patient care, and clinical workflows, said Ashley Spann, MD, assistant professor and transplant hepatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and director of clinical research informatics for Vanderbilt’s Gastroenterology Division.
“AI, in my view, is actually augmented intelligence,” she added. “We need to think about the people and processes involved.”
Spann, who spoke about the use of AI tools in medicine in general, stressed the need for transparency in AI use, careful validation of input-output data, frameworks for machine learning models in medicine, and standardization across institutions.
“What we ultimately need is an infrastructure that supports the simultaneous deployment and evaluation of these models,” she said. “We all need to be on the same page and make sure our models work in multiple settings and make adjustments based on algorithmovigilance afterward.”
Stuart reported no relevant disclosures. Spann serves on Epic’s hepatology steering board, which has focused on how to use AI tools in electronic medical records.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — according to new research.
Among the patients identified by the algorithm as meeting the criteria for MASLD, only a small percentage had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code.
“A significant portion of patients who meet criteria for MASLD go undiagnosed, which can lead to delays in care and progression to advanced liver disease,” said lead author Ariana Stuart, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Washington, Seattle, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
“However, people shouldn’t interpret our findings as a lack of primary care training or management,” she said. “Instead, this study indicates that AI can complement physician workflow and address the limitations of traditional clinical practice.”
Developing an MASLD Algorithm
Typically, the identification of MASLD has relied on clinician recognition and descriptions in chart notes, Stuart said. Early-stage disease often goes unnoticed, particularly if patients remain asymptomatic, until cirrhosis develops.
To address this, Stuart and colleagues created a machine learning, natural language processing AI algorithm on the basis of MASLD criteria from AASLD: Hepatic steatosis on imaging and at least one metabolic factor (elevated body mass index, hypertension, prediabetes or diabetes, or dyslipidemia). The model was validated by two physicians, who manually reviewed monthly cohorts generated by the algorithm.
Between December 2023 and May 2024, the researchers used the algorithm to analyze an MASLD cohort from medical centers in the Seattle area. The mean age was 51 years, 44% were women, and 68% were White. Those with alcohol-associated liver disease, metastatic malignancy, and autoimmune, genetic, and infectious causes of liver disease were excluded.
The algorithm identified 957 patients with imaging that matched MASLD criteria.
Among those, 137 patients (17%) identified by the algorithm had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code. For these patients, the mean time from initial imaging with steatosis to diagnosis was 33 days, according to patient records.
An additional 26 patients received an MASLD diagnosis during the study period, with a mean time to diagnosis of 56.2 days.
In terms of patient management, 245 patients (26%) had contact with a gastroenterologist or hepatologist based on documentation of a letter, phone call, or office visit. In addition, 546 patients (57%) were screened for hepatitis C.
After adjusting for an over-inclusion error rate of 12.8% and an overdiagnosis rate of 0.02%, the research team found 697 patients (83%) lacked a relevant diagnosis. After multiple iterations, the algorithm achieved an accuracy of about 88%, Stuart said.
Considering Future AI Use
Stuart and colleagues are now testing the algorithm in larger groups and across longer periods.
After that, they intend to implement a quality improvement program to increase awareness for clinicians and primary care providers, as well as train users on how to interpret and move forward with findings of hepatic steatosis in patient records.
For instance, future AI models could flag patients for additional testing, improve chart review, and aid in research efforts around cardiometabolic comorbidities associated with MASLD, she said.
Looking ahead, AI tools such as these represent what’s possible for advancements in research, patient care, and clinical workflows, said Ashley Spann, MD, assistant professor and transplant hepatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and director of clinical research informatics for Vanderbilt’s Gastroenterology Division.
“AI, in my view, is actually augmented intelligence,” she added. “We need to think about the people and processes involved.”
Spann, who spoke about the use of AI tools in medicine in general, stressed the need for transparency in AI use, careful validation of input-output data, frameworks for machine learning models in medicine, and standardization across institutions.
“What we ultimately need is an infrastructure that supports the simultaneous deployment and evaluation of these models,” she said. “We all need to be on the same page and make sure our models work in multiple settings and make adjustments based on algorithmovigilance afterward.”
Stuart reported no relevant disclosures. Spann serves on Epic’s hepatology steering board, which has focused on how to use AI tools in electronic medical records.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — according to new research.
Among the patients identified by the algorithm as meeting the criteria for MASLD, only a small percentage had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code.
“A significant portion of patients who meet criteria for MASLD go undiagnosed, which can lead to delays in care and progression to advanced liver disease,” said lead author Ariana Stuart, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Washington, Seattle, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
“However, people shouldn’t interpret our findings as a lack of primary care training or management,” she said. “Instead, this study indicates that AI can complement physician workflow and address the limitations of traditional clinical practice.”
Developing an MASLD Algorithm
Typically, the identification of MASLD has relied on clinician recognition and descriptions in chart notes, Stuart said. Early-stage disease often goes unnoticed, particularly if patients remain asymptomatic, until cirrhosis develops.
To address this, Stuart and colleagues created a machine learning, natural language processing AI algorithm on the basis of MASLD criteria from AASLD: Hepatic steatosis on imaging and at least one metabolic factor (elevated body mass index, hypertension, prediabetes or diabetes, or dyslipidemia). The model was validated by two physicians, who manually reviewed monthly cohorts generated by the algorithm.
Between December 2023 and May 2024, the researchers used the algorithm to analyze an MASLD cohort from medical centers in the Seattle area. The mean age was 51 years, 44% were women, and 68% were White. Those with alcohol-associated liver disease, metastatic malignancy, and autoimmune, genetic, and infectious causes of liver disease were excluded.
The algorithm identified 957 patients with imaging that matched MASLD criteria.
Among those, 137 patients (17%) identified by the algorithm had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code. For these patients, the mean time from initial imaging with steatosis to diagnosis was 33 days, according to patient records.
An additional 26 patients received an MASLD diagnosis during the study period, with a mean time to diagnosis of 56.2 days.
In terms of patient management, 245 patients (26%) had contact with a gastroenterologist or hepatologist based on documentation of a letter, phone call, or office visit. In addition, 546 patients (57%) were screened for hepatitis C.
After adjusting for an over-inclusion error rate of 12.8% and an overdiagnosis rate of 0.02%, the research team found 697 patients (83%) lacked a relevant diagnosis. After multiple iterations, the algorithm achieved an accuracy of about 88%, Stuart said.
Considering Future AI Use
Stuart and colleagues are now testing the algorithm in larger groups and across longer periods.
After that, they intend to implement a quality improvement program to increase awareness for clinicians and primary care providers, as well as train users on how to interpret and move forward with findings of hepatic steatosis in patient records.
For instance, future AI models could flag patients for additional testing, improve chart review, and aid in research efforts around cardiometabolic comorbidities associated with MASLD, she said.
Looking ahead, AI tools such as these represent what’s possible for advancements in research, patient care, and clinical workflows, said Ashley Spann, MD, assistant professor and transplant hepatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and director of clinical research informatics for Vanderbilt’s Gastroenterology Division.
“AI, in my view, is actually augmented intelligence,” she added. “We need to think about the people and processes involved.”
Spann, who spoke about the use of AI tools in medicine in general, stressed the need for transparency in AI use, careful validation of input-output data, frameworks for machine learning models in medicine, and standardization across institutions.
“What we ultimately need is an infrastructure that supports the simultaneous deployment and evaluation of these models,” she said. “We all need to be on the same page and make sure our models work in multiple settings and make adjustments based on algorithmovigilance afterward.”
Stuart reported no relevant disclosures. Spann serves on Epic’s hepatology steering board, which has focused on how to use AI tools in electronic medical records.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AASLD 24
‘Watershed Moment’: Semaglutide Shown to Be Effective in MASH
SAN DIEGO — according to interim results from a phase 3 trial.
At 72 weeks, a 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous dose of semaglutide demonstrated superiority, compared with placebo, for the two primary endpoints: Resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis and improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis.
“It’s been a long journey. I’ve been working with GLP-1s for 16 years, and it’s great to be able to report the first GLP-1 receptor agonist to demonstrate efficacy in a phase 3 trial for MASH,” said lead author Philip Newsome, MD, PhD, director of the Roger Williams Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College London in England.
“There were also improvements in a slew of other noninvasive markers,” said Newsome, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
Although already seen in a broader context, “it’s nice to see a demonstration of the cardiometabolic benefits in the context of MASH and a reassuring safety profile,” he added.
Interim ESSENCE Trial Analysis
ESSENCE (NCT04822181) is an ongoing multicenter, phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outcome trial studying semaglutide for the potential treatment of MASH.
The trial includes 1200 participants with biopsy-defined MASH and fibrosis, stages F2 and F3, who were randomized 2:1 to a once-weekly subcutaneous injection of 2.4 mg of semaglutide or placebo for 240 weeks. After initiation, the semaglutide dosage was increased every 4 weeks up to 16 weeks when the full dose (2.4 mg) was reached.
In a planned interim analysis, the trial investigators evaluated the primary endpoints at week 72 for the first 800 participants, with biopsies taken at weeks 1 and 72.
A total of 534 people were randomized to the semaglutide group, including 169 with F2 fibrosis and 365 with F3 fibrosis. Among the 266 participants randomized to placebo, 81 had F2 fibrosis and 185 had F3 fibrosis.
At baseline, the patient characteristics were similar between the groups (mean age, 56 years; body mass index, 34.6). A majority of participants also were White (67.5%), women (57.1%), had type 2 diabetes (55.9%), F3 fibrosis (68.8%), and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) scores around 10 (55.5%).
For the first primary endpoint, 62.9% of those in the semaglutide group and 34.1% of those in the placebo group reached resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis. This represented an estimated difference in responder proportions (EDP) of 28.9%.
In addition, 37% of those in the semaglutide group and 22.5% of those in the placebo group met the second primary endpoint of improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis (EDP, 14.4%).
Among the secondary endpoints, combined resolution of steatohepatitis with a one-stage improvement in liver fibrosis occurred in 32.8% of the semaglutide group and 16.2% of the placebo group (EDP, 16.6%).
In additional analyses, Newsome and colleagues found 20%-40% improvements in liver enzymes and noninvasive fibrosis markers, such as ELF and vibration-controlled transient elastography liver stiffness.
Weight loss was also significant, with a 10.5% reduction in the semaglutide group compared with a 2% reduction in the placebo group.
Cardiometabolic risk factors improved as well, with changes in blood pressure measurements, hemoglobin A1c scores, and cholesterol values.
Although not considered statistically significant, patients in the semaglutide group also reported greater reductions in body pain.
In a safety analysis of 1195 participants at 96 weeks, adverse events, severe adverse events, and discontinuations were similar in both groups. Not surprisingly, gastrointestinal side effects were more commonly reported in the semaglutide group, Newsome said.
Highly Anticipated Results
After Newsome’s presentation, attendees applauded.
Rohit Loomba, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved with the study, called the results the “highlight of the meeting.”
This sentiment was echoed by Naga Chalasani, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, who called the results a “watershed moment in the MASH field” with “terrific data.”
Based on questions after the presentation, Newsome indicated that future ESSENCE reports would look at certain aspects of the results, such as the 10% weight loss among those in the semaglutide group, as well as the mechanisms of histological and fibrosis improvement.
“We know from other GLP-1 trials that more weight loss occurs in those who don’t have type 2 diabetes, and we’re still running those analyses,” he said. “Weight loss is clearly a major contributor to MASH improvement, but there seem to be some weight-independent effects here, which are likely linked to insulin sensitivity or inflammation. We look forward to presenting those analyses in due course.”
In a comment, Kimberly Ann Brown, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, AASLD Foundation chair, and comoderator of the late-breaking abstract session, spoke about the highly anticipated presentation.
“This study was really the pinnacle of this meeting. We’ve all been waiting for this data, in large part because many of our patients are already using these medications,” Brown said. “Seeing the benefit for the liver, as well as lipids and other cardiovascular measures, is so important. Having this confirmatory study will hopefully lead to the availability of the medication for this indication among our patients.”
Newsome reported numerous disclosures, including consultant relationships with pharmaceutical companies, such as Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Loomba has research grant relationships with numerous companies, including Hanmi, Gilead, Galmed Pharmaceuticals, Galectin Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Chalasani has consultant relationships with Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, GSK, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, and Zydus. Brown reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — according to interim results from a phase 3 trial.
At 72 weeks, a 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous dose of semaglutide demonstrated superiority, compared with placebo, for the two primary endpoints: Resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis and improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis.
“It’s been a long journey. I’ve been working with GLP-1s for 16 years, and it’s great to be able to report the first GLP-1 receptor agonist to demonstrate efficacy in a phase 3 trial for MASH,” said lead author Philip Newsome, MD, PhD, director of the Roger Williams Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College London in England.
“There were also improvements in a slew of other noninvasive markers,” said Newsome, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
Although already seen in a broader context, “it’s nice to see a demonstration of the cardiometabolic benefits in the context of MASH and a reassuring safety profile,” he added.
Interim ESSENCE Trial Analysis
ESSENCE (NCT04822181) is an ongoing multicenter, phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outcome trial studying semaglutide for the potential treatment of MASH.
The trial includes 1200 participants with biopsy-defined MASH and fibrosis, stages F2 and F3, who were randomized 2:1 to a once-weekly subcutaneous injection of 2.4 mg of semaglutide or placebo for 240 weeks. After initiation, the semaglutide dosage was increased every 4 weeks up to 16 weeks when the full dose (2.4 mg) was reached.
In a planned interim analysis, the trial investigators evaluated the primary endpoints at week 72 for the first 800 participants, with biopsies taken at weeks 1 and 72.
A total of 534 people were randomized to the semaglutide group, including 169 with F2 fibrosis and 365 with F3 fibrosis. Among the 266 participants randomized to placebo, 81 had F2 fibrosis and 185 had F3 fibrosis.
At baseline, the patient characteristics were similar between the groups (mean age, 56 years; body mass index, 34.6). A majority of participants also were White (67.5%), women (57.1%), had type 2 diabetes (55.9%), F3 fibrosis (68.8%), and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) scores around 10 (55.5%).
For the first primary endpoint, 62.9% of those in the semaglutide group and 34.1% of those in the placebo group reached resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis. This represented an estimated difference in responder proportions (EDP) of 28.9%.
In addition, 37% of those in the semaglutide group and 22.5% of those in the placebo group met the second primary endpoint of improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis (EDP, 14.4%).
Among the secondary endpoints, combined resolution of steatohepatitis with a one-stage improvement in liver fibrosis occurred in 32.8% of the semaglutide group and 16.2% of the placebo group (EDP, 16.6%).
In additional analyses, Newsome and colleagues found 20%-40% improvements in liver enzymes and noninvasive fibrosis markers, such as ELF and vibration-controlled transient elastography liver stiffness.
Weight loss was also significant, with a 10.5% reduction in the semaglutide group compared with a 2% reduction in the placebo group.
Cardiometabolic risk factors improved as well, with changes in blood pressure measurements, hemoglobin A1c scores, and cholesterol values.
Although not considered statistically significant, patients in the semaglutide group also reported greater reductions in body pain.
In a safety analysis of 1195 participants at 96 weeks, adverse events, severe adverse events, and discontinuations were similar in both groups. Not surprisingly, gastrointestinal side effects were more commonly reported in the semaglutide group, Newsome said.
Highly Anticipated Results
After Newsome’s presentation, attendees applauded.
Rohit Loomba, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved with the study, called the results the “highlight of the meeting.”
This sentiment was echoed by Naga Chalasani, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, who called the results a “watershed moment in the MASH field” with “terrific data.”
Based on questions after the presentation, Newsome indicated that future ESSENCE reports would look at certain aspects of the results, such as the 10% weight loss among those in the semaglutide group, as well as the mechanisms of histological and fibrosis improvement.
“We know from other GLP-1 trials that more weight loss occurs in those who don’t have type 2 diabetes, and we’re still running those analyses,” he said. “Weight loss is clearly a major contributor to MASH improvement, but there seem to be some weight-independent effects here, which are likely linked to insulin sensitivity or inflammation. We look forward to presenting those analyses in due course.”
In a comment, Kimberly Ann Brown, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, AASLD Foundation chair, and comoderator of the late-breaking abstract session, spoke about the highly anticipated presentation.
“This study was really the pinnacle of this meeting. We’ve all been waiting for this data, in large part because many of our patients are already using these medications,” Brown said. “Seeing the benefit for the liver, as well as lipids and other cardiovascular measures, is so important. Having this confirmatory study will hopefully lead to the availability of the medication for this indication among our patients.”
Newsome reported numerous disclosures, including consultant relationships with pharmaceutical companies, such as Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Loomba has research grant relationships with numerous companies, including Hanmi, Gilead, Galmed Pharmaceuticals, Galectin Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Chalasani has consultant relationships with Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, GSK, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, and Zydus. Brown reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — according to interim results from a phase 3 trial.
At 72 weeks, a 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous dose of semaglutide demonstrated superiority, compared with placebo, for the two primary endpoints: Resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis and improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis.
“It’s been a long journey. I’ve been working with GLP-1s for 16 years, and it’s great to be able to report the first GLP-1 receptor agonist to demonstrate efficacy in a phase 3 trial for MASH,” said lead author Philip Newsome, MD, PhD, director of the Roger Williams Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College London in England.
“There were also improvements in a slew of other noninvasive markers,” said Newsome, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
Although already seen in a broader context, “it’s nice to see a demonstration of the cardiometabolic benefits in the context of MASH and a reassuring safety profile,” he added.
Interim ESSENCE Trial Analysis
ESSENCE (NCT04822181) is an ongoing multicenter, phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outcome trial studying semaglutide for the potential treatment of MASH.
The trial includes 1200 participants with biopsy-defined MASH and fibrosis, stages F2 and F3, who were randomized 2:1 to a once-weekly subcutaneous injection of 2.4 mg of semaglutide or placebo for 240 weeks. After initiation, the semaglutide dosage was increased every 4 weeks up to 16 weeks when the full dose (2.4 mg) was reached.
In a planned interim analysis, the trial investigators evaluated the primary endpoints at week 72 for the first 800 participants, with biopsies taken at weeks 1 and 72.
A total of 534 people were randomized to the semaglutide group, including 169 with F2 fibrosis and 365 with F3 fibrosis. Among the 266 participants randomized to placebo, 81 had F2 fibrosis and 185 had F3 fibrosis.
At baseline, the patient characteristics were similar between the groups (mean age, 56 years; body mass index, 34.6). A majority of participants also were White (67.5%), women (57.1%), had type 2 diabetes (55.9%), F3 fibrosis (68.8%), and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) scores around 10 (55.5%).
For the first primary endpoint, 62.9% of those in the semaglutide group and 34.1% of those in the placebo group reached resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis. This represented an estimated difference in responder proportions (EDP) of 28.9%.
In addition, 37% of those in the semaglutide group and 22.5% of those in the placebo group met the second primary endpoint of improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis (EDP, 14.4%).
Among the secondary endpoints, combined resolution of steatohepatitis with a one-stage improvement in liver fibrosis occurred in 32.8% of the semaglutide group and 16.2% of the placebo group (EDP, 16.6%).
In additional analyses, Newsome and colleagues found 20%-40% improvements in liver enzymes and noninvasive fibrosis markers, such as ELF and vibration-controlled transient elastography liver stiffness.
Weight loss was also significant, with a 10.5% reduction in the semaglutide group compared with a 2% reduction in the placebo group.
Cardiometabolic risk factors improved as well, with changes in blood pressure measurements, hemoglobin A1c scores, and cholesterol values.
Although not considered statistically significant, patients in the semaglutide group also reported greater reductions in body pain.
In a safety analysis of 1195 participants at 96 weeks, adverse events, severe adverse events, and discontinuations were similar in both groups. Not surprisingly, gastrointestinal side effects were more commonly reported in the semaglutide group, Newsome said.
Highly Anticipated Results
After Newsome’s presentation, attendees applauded.
Rohit Loomba, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved with the study, called the results the “highlight of the meeting.”
This sentiment was echoed by Naga Chalasani, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, who called the results a “watershed moment in the MASH field” with “terrific data.”
Based on questions after the presentation, Newsome indicated that future ESSENCE reports would look at certain aspects of the results, such as the 10% weight loss among those in the semaglutide group, as well as the mechanisms of histological and fibrosis improvement.
“We know from other GLP-1 trials that more weight loss occurs in those who don’t have type 2 diabetes, and we’re still running those analyses,” he said. “Weight loss is clearly a major contributor to MASH improvement, but there seem to be some weight-independent effects here, which are likely linked to insulin sensitivity or inflammation. We look forward to presenting those analyses in due course.”
In a comment, Kimberly Ann Brown, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, AASLD Foundation chair, and comoderator of the late-breaking abstract session, spoke about the highly anticipated presentation.
“This study was really the pinnacle of this meeting. We’ve all been waiting for this data, in large part because many of our patients are already using these medications,” Brown said. “Seeing the benefit for the liver, as well as lipids and other cardiovascular measures, is so important. Having this confirmatory study will hopefully lead to the availability of the medication for this indication among our patients.”
Newsome reported numerous disclosures, including consultant relationships with pharmaceutical companies, such as Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Loomba has research grant relationships with numerous companies, including Hanmi, Gilead, Galmed Pharmaceuticals, Galectin Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Chalasani has consultant relationships with Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, GSK, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, and Zydus. Brown reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AASLD 24
Alcohol Use Disorder Therapy Remains Underutilized in Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease
PHILADELPHIA — according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
In an analysis of commercially insured Americans, AUD medications were prescribed to only 1 in 50 patients with ALD and about 1 in 10 patients with acute alcohol-associated hepatitis (AAH).
“Providers caring for these patients should consider early initiation of this therapy in select cases,” said lead author Alex R. Jones, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
“Based on additional analyses looking at the prescriber subspecialty, we didn’t identify any gastroenterologists or hepatologists who prescribed pharmacotherapy,” he said. “This could be a great opportunity for hepatologists to engage in the pharmacologic treatment of AUD.”
Jones and colleagues analyzed 2006-2021 data from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics, a nationally representative database of commercially insured patients in the United States. They looked for AUD pharmacologic treatment at any time after AUD diagnosis, including prescriptions for gabapentin, naltrexone, topiramate, acamprosate, baclofen, and disulfiram.
Among 28,625 patients with AUD (defined as at least two outpatient codes or at least one inpatient code), 1201 had ALD with cirrhosis and 439 had AAH.
Pharmacologic therapy was prescribed in 3924 (14.5%) patients without ALD, 28 (2.3%) with ALD, and 42 (9.8%) with AAH.
In addition, one-time prescriptions were observed in 1113 (28.4%) patients without ALD, three patients (10.7%) with ALD, and eight patients (18.6%) with AAH.
Overall, 64.5% of the general population consisted of men. About 46% had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance use disorder (SUD), and 35.7% had a non-AUD SUD.
Patients who received AUD pharmacotherapy tended to be older, at a median age of 45 years, than those aged 42 years without a prescription.
The median time to prescription was 302 days, with no significant differences based on the presence of liver disease.
By medication, gabapentin was prescribed most often (9.4%), followed by oral naltrexone (2.6%) and topiramate (2%). Oral naltrexone was prescribed at a lower rate in patients with ALD and at a higher rate in patients with AAH than in patients without ALD. Baclofen was also prescribed at lower rates in patients with ALD and AAH.
In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, several characteristics were more significantly associated with pharmacologic therapy, such as age ≥ 50 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.33), female sex (aOR, 1.31), a non-liver Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 (aOR, 2.21), and psychiatric comorbidities (aOR, 2.76).
On the other hand, the presence of hepatic decompensation — defined as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, or bleeding varices — was associated with lower odds of receiving pharmacotherapy (aOR, 0.08). ALD cirrhosis (non-AAH) also had lower odds (aOR, 0.24).
The study was limited by only incorporating patients with commercial insurance, lacking demographic details related to race or ethnicity, and potentially misclassifying patients despite validated definitions of ALD and AUD, Jones said.
As the study couldn’t determine the indications for prescriptions, such as gabapentin use for migraines or diabetes-associated neuropathy, for instance, future studies could look at these precise details, he added.
“It’s important to know we’re underutilizing therapies that we have a lot of information about, such as gabapentin, which is an old medication that we should feel fairly comfortable using,” said Patricia Jones, MD, a hepatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, in Florida. Patricia Jones comoderated the plenary session on small intestine, functional, and liver research.
“I also expect that, if a future study reviewed this data and excluded people with valid indications, such as migraines or diabetic neuropathy, we’d see even lower rates of prescription,” she said.
From a clinical perspective, patient communication and clinical decision-making are key, Patricia Jones added, particularly when clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists may not offer this type of therapy or patients refuse this type of therapy.
“We need to think about our practice patterns and how we can offer therapy,” she said. “In general, we know these medications are very safe. Even though they’re not widely used in people with cirrhosis, there’s not enough evidence to suggest we shouldn’t use them.”
Alex Jones and Patricia Jones reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
In an analysis of commercially insured Americans, AUD medications were prescribed to only 1 in 50 patients with ALD and about 1 in 10 patients with acute alcohol-associated hepatitis (AAH).
“Providers caring for these patients should consider early initiation of this therapy in select cases,” said lead author Alex R. Jones, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
“Based on additional analyses looking at the prescriber subspecialty, we didn’t identify any gastroenterologists or hepatologists who prescribed pharmacotherapy,” he said. “This could be a great opportunity for hepatologists to engage in the pharmacologic treatment of AUD.”
Jones and colleagues analyzed 2006-2021 data from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics, a nationally representative database of commercially insured patients in the United States. They looked for AUD pharmacologic treatment at any time after AUD diagnosis, including prescriptions for gabapentin, naltrexone, topiramate, acamprosate, baclofen, and disulfiram.
Among 28,625 patients with AUD (defined as at least two outpatient codes or at least one inpatient code), 1201 had ALD with cirrhosis and 439 had AAH.
Pharmacologic therapy was prescribed in 3924 (14.5%) patients without ALD, 28 (2.3%) with ALD, and 42 (9.8%) with AAH.
In addition, one-time prescriptions were observed in 1113 (28.4%) patients without ALD, three patients (10.7%) with ALD, and eight patients (18.6%) with AAH.
Overall, 64.5% of the general population consisted of men. About 46% had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance use disorder (SUD), and 35.7% had a non-AUD SUD.
Patients who received AUD pharmacotherapy tended to be older, at a median age of 45 years, than those aged 42 years without a prescription.
The median time to prescription was 302 days, with no significant differences based on the presence of liver disease.
By medication, gabapentin was prescribed most often (9.4%), followed by oral naltrexone (2.6%) and topiramate (2%). Oral naltrexone was prescribed at a lower rate in patients with ALD and at a higher rate in patients with AAH than in patients without ALD. Baclofen was also prescribed at lower rates in patients with ALD and AAH.
In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, several characteristics were more significantly associated with pharmacologic therapy, such as age ≥ 50 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.33), female sex (aOR, 1.31), a non-liver Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 (aOR, 2.21), and psychiatric comorbidities (aOR, 2.76).
On the other hand, the presence of hepatic decompensation — defined as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, or bleeding varices — was associated with lower odds of receiving pharmacotherapy (aOR, 0.08). ALD cirrhosis (non-AAH) also had lower odds (aOR, 0.24).
The study was limited by only incorporating patients with commercial insurance, lacking demographic details related to race or ethnicity, and potentially misclassifying patients despite validated definitions of ALD and AUD, Jones said.
As the study couldn’t determine the indications for prescriptions, such as gabapentin use for migraines or diabetes-associated neuropathy, for instance, future studies could look at these precise details, he added.
“It’s important to know we’re underutilizing therapies that we have a lot of information about, such as gabapentin, which is an old medication that we should feel fairly comfortable using,” said Patricia Jones, MD, a hepatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, in Florida. Patricia Jones comoderated the plenary session on small intestine, functional, and liver research.
“I also expect that, if a future study reviewed this data and excluded people with valid indications, such as migraines or diabetic neuropathy, we’d see even lower rates of prescription,” she said.
From a clinical perspective, patient communication and clinical decision-making are key, Patricia Jones added, particularly when clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists may not offer this type of therapy or patients refuse this type of therapy.
“We need to think about our practice patterns and how we can offer therapy,” she said. “In general, we know these medications are very safe. Even though they’re not widely used in people with cirrhosis, there’s not enough evidence to suggest we shouldn’t use them.”
Alex Jones and Patricia Jones reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
In an analysis of commercially insured Americans, AUD medications were prescribed to only 1 in 50 patients with ALD and about 1 in 10 patients with acute alcohol-associated hepatitis (AAH).
“Providers caring for these patients should consider early initiation of this therapy in select cases,” said lead author Alex R. Jones, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
“Based on additional analyses looking at the prescriber subspecialty, we didn’t identify any gastroenterologists or hepatologists who prescribed pharmacotherapy,” he said. “This could be a great opportunity for hepatologists to engage in the pharmacologic treatment of AUD.”
Jones and colleagues analyzed 2006-2021 data from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics, a nationally representative database of commercially insured patients in the United States. They looked for AUD pharmacologic treatment at any time after AUD diagnosis, including prescriptions for gabapentin, naltrexone, topiramate, acamprosate, baclofen, and disulfiram.
Among 28,625 patients with AUD (defined as at least two outpatient codes or at least one inpatient code), 1201 had ALD with cirrhosis and 439 had AAH.
Pharmacologic therapy was prescribed in 3924 (14.5%) patients without ALD, 28 (2.3%) with ALD, and 42 (9.8%) with AAH.
In addition, one-time prescriptions were observed in 1113 (28.4%) patients without ALD, three patients (10.7%) with ALD, and eight patients (18.6%) with AAH.
Overall, 64.5% of the general population consisted of men. About 46% had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance use disorder (SUD), and 35.7% had a non-AUD SUD.
Patients who received AUD pharmacotherapy tended to be older, at a median age of 45 years, than those aged 42 years without a prescription.
The median time to prescription was 302 days, with no significant differences based on the presence of liver disease.
By medication, gabapentin was prescribed most often (9.4%), followed by oral naltrexone (2.6%) and topiramate (2%). Oral naltrexone was prescribed at a lower rate in patients with ALD and at a higher rate in patients with AAH than in patients without ALD. Baclofen was also prescribed at lower rates in patients with ALD and AAH.
In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, several characteristics were more significantly associated with pharmacologic therapy, such as age ≥ 50 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.33), female sex (aOR, 1.31), a non-liver Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 (aOR, 2.21), and psychiatric comorbidities (aOR, 2.76).
On the other hand, the presence of hepatic decompensation — defined as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, or bleeding varices — was associated with lower odds of receiving pharmacotherapy (aOR, 0.08). ALD cirrhosis (non-AAH) also had lower odds (aOR, 0.24).
The study was limited by only incorporating patients with commercial insurance, lacking demographic details related to race or ethnicity, and potentially misclassifying patients despite validated definitions of ALD and AUD, Jones said.
As the study couldn’t determine the indications for prescriptions, such as gabapentin use for migraines or diabetes-associated neuropathy, for instance, future studies could look at these precise details, he added.
“It’s important to know we’re underutilizing therapies that we have a lot of information about, such as gabapentin, which is an old medication that we should feel fairly comfortable using,” said Patricia Jones, MD, a hepatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, in Florida. Patricia Jones comoderated the plenary session on small intestine, functional, and liver research.
“I also expect that, if a future study reviewed this data and excluded people with valid indications, such as migraines or diabetic neuropathy, we’d see even lower rates of prescription,” she said.
From a clinical perspective, patient communication and clinical decision-making are key, Patricia Jones added, particularly when clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists may not offer this type of therapy or patients refuse this type of therapy.
“We need to think about our practice patterns and how we can offer therapy,” she said. “In general, we know these medications are very safe. Even though they’re not widely used in people with cirrhosis, there’s not enough evidence to suggest we shouldn’t use them.”
Alex Jones and Patricia Jones reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2024