Latest News

A renewed effort to modernize and stabilize Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services is underway.

In mid-March, members of Congress reintroduced bipartisan federal legislation that would shift Medicare reimbursement for radiation oncology services from quantity-based payments to episode-based payments and help stabilize the declining rates of reimbursement in the field. 

The Radiation Oncology Case Rate (ROCR) Value Based Payment Program Act, sponsored by two senators and four representatives, would not only “transform” how Medicare reimburses radiation therapy services, it would also “protect access to high quality cancer care and improve outcomes for patients nationwide, while generating savings for Medicare,” according to a recent American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) press release praising the bill. 

However, the reaction among those in the field has been mixed. Whereas some radiation oncologists are aligned with the bill, others argue that the legislation was crafted without meaningful input from many who will be affected.

“There’s consensus across multiple groups within the house of radiation oncology, hospital groups, and industry, which is incredibly important,” according to Mustafa Basree, DO, a radiation oncology resident who serves on ASTRO’s government relations committee and was part of the discussion on drafting the bill. 

But, Basree acknowledged, “not everybody likes the bill.”

A core complaint is a lack of communication and input from clinicians in the field. “If we’re going to decide to design our own quality program — which is really like a dream from a clinician’s standpoint — we need a meaningful way to come together as a unified field,” said Matthew Spraker, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist practicing in Denver. In this bill, “we’re not getting any of that.”

 

Impetus for the Bill

Amid dramatic drops in Medicare reimbursement — and with more probably on the horizon — ASTRO announced in January 2024 that the society had partnered with the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology to lobby for payment reform. 

Cuts to Medicare reimbursement were approaching 25% at the time. These declines were related, in part, to changes in how radiation treatment was being delivered. Reimbursement has historically been based on the fraction of radiation given, but the field has increasingly embraced hypofractionated regimens and deescalated approaches, which have led to fewer billable fractions and consequently lower reimbursement. 

A recent study highlighted significant declines in reimbursement based on this shift in care. For instance, greater use of hypofractionation led to declines in reimbursement for technical services in freestanding radiation oncology offices by nearly 17% for breast cancer and 14.2% for prostate cancer between 2016 and 2022. Inflation-adjusted Medicare conversion factors fell 12.2% in hospital outpatient centers and 20.8% in freestanding offices.

These declining reimbursement rates have occurred alongside changes to radiation oncology practice patterns. A recent analysis reported a 51% increase in the number of US practices with at least 10 radiation oncologists between 2015 and 2023, and a 27% decrease in the number of solo practices during the same period. The number of practicing radiation oncologists increased by 16%, but the number of practices employing them decreased by 13%, indicating a trend toward practice consolidation. 

These changes, the analysis found, may affect patients’ access to care. In rural areas, retirement rates were higher and rates of entry of new radiation oncologists was lower compared with urban areas.

The current payment structure “has become untenable,” leading to practice consolidation that threaten patient access, especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for ASTRO told this news organization last year. 

 

What Is the ROCR Act?

The ROCR ACT was drafted by ASTRO to address these issues and reverse declines in Medicare reimbursement. 

In addition to shifting radiation oncology reimbursement from fraction-based to episode-based, the bill also aims to encourage clinicians to adoptevidence-based shorter treatment regimens, improve safety and quality by supporting new technologies, and generate savings to Medicare by eliminating outdated and costly practices that have not been shown to improve patient outcomes.

When first introduced last year, the bill did not receive a vote in Congress.

A 2025 version of the bill, introduced last month, largely aligns with the 2024 legislation but contains some “enhancements,” such as improving accreditation with increased incentive payments, outlining a revised exemption for practices with limited resources and instituting a transitional payment period for adaptive radiation therapy to allow billing to continue while a new code is created.

 

Mixed Reactions 

How has the radiation oncology community reacted to the latest ROCR Act? 

A recent survey, which included more than 500 practicing radiation oncologists, found that 61% of respondents supported implementing an episode-based payment model such as that proposed in the 2025 legislation, 17.3% neither supported nor opposed it, and 21.6% opposed the model.

“I think this supports this idea that our field would have benefited from much more open discussion in the design phases of the bill,” Spraker told this news organization.

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Rutland Regional Medical Center, Vermont, agreed. 

While on board with the concept of reform and episode-based payment, given what Beckta called “the absolute absurdity of the cuts in radiation oncology,” he took issue with the lack of transparency in the rollout of the bill.

The announcement about the 2025 version of the ROCR Act came as “a complete surprise — out of nowhere — except to insiders,” Beckta said.

ASTRO held a town hall in February 2025 “featuring new information and discussion” regarding ROCR 2025, but the bill had already been finalized for submission at that point, Beckta said. 

And although Beckta and Spraker believe ASTRO had good intentions, the physicians highlighted concerns with several aspects of the bill.

“What upsets me most is the blatant regulatory capture,” Beckta said. The legislation will require all practices to be accredited by either ASTRO, the American College of Radiation Oncology, or the American College of Radiology, essentially capturing their business through a regulation or having practices “face a 2.5% penalty, which is up 1% from the prior version,” Beckta explained. 

The bill also shortens the runway to get accredited from 3 years to 2 years, Beckta noted, stressing the arduousness of the accreditation process as a hurdle for many practices.

But doing the accreditation program does not mean care will get better, Spraker said. In fact, “that is absolutely not the case.”

Another issue: Requirements for medical equipment and quality review periods seem to favor industry over patients and practices, he said, highlighting the potential role of manufacturers in determining if or when equipment updates are required.

“A field like ours has rapidly exploding technology with not-always-clear patient benefit,” said Spraker. “We’re seeing too many examples where people are leveraging that, basically to sell devices instead of to help patients,” he added. 

Furthermore, Beckta noted, the bill allows for reduced reimbursement of between 4% and 7%, depending on the circumstances — a cut to reimbursement that is being justified by saying it’s the only way the bill will get through Congress. But “it’s just a less-bad option than continued cuts to fee-for-service,” Beckta said.

ASTRO leadership has expressed strong support for the bill. In the recent ASTRO press release, Howard M. Sandler, MD, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, called the ROCR Act “the only viable policy solution designed to provide payment stability for the field of radiation oncology in 2026 and beyond.” 

The ROCR Act, which is broadly supported by more than 80 organizations, “represents a balanced, evidence-based policy solution to safeguard access to high value cancer treatment for Americans,” Sandler said. 

“I believe in this bill,” Basree added.

Basree touted the replacement of a fee-for-service model with a “value-based payment system, ensuring predictable, fair reimbursement for the field” as a major win for stabilizing Medicare reimbursement. The bill also includes measures to improve patient access, such as providing discounted transportation for patients — a significant need, particularly in rural areas, he explained.

Although not everyone is happy with the bill, ASTRO did aim “to build coalition of support,” Basree said. “It’s an uphill battle, for sure, but we should press forward and hope for the best,” he added.

Even with their concerns, both Spraker and Beckta are optimistic that improvements to the bill can still be made, and urge colleagues to study the bill, speak out, and engage to help promote the best possible policy.

Basree reported receiving reimbursement for meeting travel and lodging as both a Fellow and member of the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology. Spraker and Beckta reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

A renewed effort to modernize and stabilize Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services is underway.

In mid-March, members of Congress reintroduced bipartisan federal legislation that would shift Medicare reimbursement for radiation oncology services from quantity-based payments to episode-based payments and help stabilize the declining rates of reimbursement in the field. 

The Radiation Oncology Case Rate (ROCR) Value Based Payment Program Act, sponsored by two senators and four representatives, would not only “transform” how Medicare reimburses radiation therapy services, it would also “protect access to high quality cancer care and improve outcomes for patients nationwide, while generating savings for Medicare,” according to a recent American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) press release praising the bill. 

However, the reaction among those in the field has been mixed. Whereas some radiation oncologists are aligned with the bill, others argue that the legislation was crafted without meaningful input from many who will be affected.

“There’s consensus across multiple groups within the house of radiation oncology, hospital groups, and industry, which is incredibly important,” according to Mustafa Basree, DO, a radiation oncology resident who serves on ASTRO’s government relations committee and was part of the discussion on drafting the bill. 

But, Basree acknowledged, “not everybody likes the bill.”

A core complaint is a lack of communication and input from clinicians in the field. “If we’re going to decide to design our own quality program — which is really like a dream from a clinician’s standpoint — we need a meaningful way to come together as a unified field,” said Matthew Spraker, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist practicing in Denver. In this bill, “we’re not getting any of that.”

 

Impetus for the Bill

Amid dramatic drops in Medicare reimbursement — and with more probably on the horizon — ASTRO announced in January 2024 that the society had partnered with the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology to lobby for payment reform. 

Cuts to Medicare reimbursement were approaching 25% at the time. These declines were related, in part, to changes in how radiation treatment was being delivered. Reimbursement has historically been based on the fraction of radiation given, but the field has increasingly embraced hypofractionated regimens and deescalated approaches, which have led to fewer billable fractions and consequently lower reimbursement. 

A recent study highlighted significant declines in reimbursement based on this shift in care. For instance, greater use of hypofractionation led to declines in reimbursement for technical services in freestanding radiation oncology offices by nearly 17% for breast cancer and 14.2% for prostate cancer between 2016 and 2022. Inflation-adjusted Medicare conversion factors fell 12.2% in hospital outpatient centers and 20.8% in freestanding offices.

These declining reimbursement rates have occurred alongside changes to radiation oncology practice patterns. A recent analysis reported a 51% increase in the number of US practices with at least 10 radiation oncologists between 2015 and 2023, and a 27% decrease in the number of solo practices during the same period. The number of practicing radiation oncologists increased by 16%, but the number of practices employing them decreased by 13%, indicating a trend toward practice consolidation. 

These changes, the analysis found, may affect patients’ access to care. In rural areas, retirement rates were higher and rates of entry of new radiation oncologists was lower compared with urban areas.

The current payment structure “has become untenable,” leading to practice consolidation that threaten patient access, especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for ASTRO told this news organization last year. 

 

What Is the ROCR Act?

The ROCR ACT was drafted by ASTRO to address these issues and reverse declines in Medicare reimbursement. 

In addition to shifting radiation oncology reimbursement from fraction-based to episode-based, the bill also aims to encourage clinicians to adoptevidence-based shorter treatment regimens, improve safety and quality by supporting new technologies, and generate savings to Medicare by eliminating outdated and costly practices that have not been shown to improve patient outcomes.

When first introduced last year, the bill did not receive a vote in Congress.

A 2025 version of the bill, introduced last month, largely aligns with the 2024 legislation but contains some “enhancements,” such as improving accreditation with increased incentive payments, outlining a revised exemption for practices with limited resources and instituting a transitional payment period for adaptive radiation therapy to allow billing to continue while a new code is created.

 

Mixed Reactions 

How has the radiation oncology community reacted to the latest ROCR Act? 

A recent survey, which included more than 500 practicing radiation oncologists, found that 61% of respondents supported implementing an episode-based payment model such as that proposed in the 2025 legislation, 17.3% neither supported nor opposed it, and 21.6% opposed the model.

“I think this supports this idea that our field would have benefited from much more open discussion in the design phases of the bill,” Spraker told this news organization.

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Rutland Regional Medical Center, Vermont, agreed. 

While on board with the concept of reform and episode-based payment, given what Beckta called “the absolute absurdity of the cuts in radiation oncology,” he took issue with the lack of transparency in the rollout of the bill.

The announcement about the 2025 version of the ROCR Act came as “a complete surprise — out of nowhere — except to insiders,” Beckta said.

ASTRO held a town hall in February 2025 “featuring new information and discussion” regarding ROCR 2025, but the bill had already been finalized for submission at that point, Beckta said. 

And although Beckta and Spraker believe ASTRO had good intentions, the physicians highlighted concerns with several aspects of the bill.

“What upsets me most is the blatant regulatory capture,” Beckta said. The legislation will require all practices to be accredited by either ASTRO, the American College of Radiation Oncology, or the American College of Radiology, essentially capturing their business through a regulation or having practices “face a 2.5% penalty, which is up 1% from the prior version,” Beckta explained. 

The bill also shortens the runway to get accredited from 3 years to 2 years, Beckta noted, stressing the arduousness of the accreditation process as a hurdle for many practices.

But doing the accreditation program does not mean care will get better, Spraker said. In fact, “that is absolutely not the case.”

Another issue: Requirements for medical equipment and quality review periods seem to favor industry over patients and practices, he said, highlighting the potential role of manufacturers in determining if or when equipment updates are required.

“A field like ours has rapidly exploding technology with not-always-clear patient benefit,” said Spraker. “We’re seeing too many examples where people are leveraging that, basically to sell devices instead of to help patients,” he added. 

Furthermore, Beckta noted, the bill allows for reduced reimbursement of between 4% and 7%, depending on the circumstances — a cut to reimbursement that is being justified by saying it’s the only way the bill will get through Congress. But “it’s just a less-bad option than continued cuts to fee-for-service,” Beckta said.

ASTRO leadership has expressed strong support for the bill. In the recent ASTRO press release, Howard M. Sandler, MD, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, called the ROCR Act “the only viable policy solution designed to provide payment stability for the field of radiation oncology in 2026 and beyond.” 

The ROCR Act, which is broadly supported by more than 80 organizations, “represents a balanced, evidence-based policy solution to safeguard access to high value cancer treatment for Americans,” Sandler said. 

“I believe in this bill,” Basree added.

Basree touted the replacement of a fee-for-service model with a “value-based payment system, ensuring predictable, fair reimbursement for the field” as a major win for stabilizing Medicare reimbursement. The bill also includes measures to improve patient access, such as providing discounted transportation for patients — a significant need, particularly in rural areas, he explained.

Although not everyone is happy with the bill, ASTRO did aim “to build coalition of support,” Basree said. “It’s an uphill battle, for sure, but we should press forward and hope for the best,” he added.

Even with their concerns, both Spraker and Beckta are optimistic that improvements to the bill can still be made, and urge colleagues to study the bill, speak out, and engage to help promote the best possible policy.

Basree reported receiving reimbursement for meeting travel and lodging as both a Fellow and member of the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology. Spraker and Beckta reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

A renewed effort to modernize and stabilize Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services is underway.

In mid-March, members of Congress reintroduced bipartisan federal legislation that would shift Medicare reimbursement for radiation oncology services from quantity-based payments to episode-based payments and help stabilize the declining rates of reimbursement in the field. 

The Radiation Oncology Case Rate (ROCR) Value Based Payment Program Act, sponsored by two senators and four representatives, would not only “transform” how Medicare reimburses radiation therapy services, it would also “protect access to high quality cancer care and improve outcomes for patients nationwide, while generating savings for Medicare,” according to a recent American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) press release praising the bill. 

However, the reaction among those in the field has been mixed. Whereas some radiation oncologists are aligned with the bill, others argue that the legislation was crafted without meaningful input from many who will be affected.

“There’s consensus across multiple groups within the house of radiation oncology, hospital groups, and industry, which is incredibly important,” according to Mustafa Basree, DO, a radiation oncology resident who serves on ASTRO’s government relations committee and was part of the discussion on drafting the bill. 

But, Basree acknowledged, “not everybody likes the bill.”

A core complaint is a lack of communication and input from clinicians in the field. “If we’re going to decide to design our own quality program — which is really like a dream from a clinician’s standpoint — we need a meaningful way to come together as a unified field,” said Matthew Spraker, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist practicing in Denver. In this bill, “we’re not getting any of that.”

 

Impetus for the Bill

Amid dramatic drops in Medicare reimbursement — and with more probably on the horizon — ASTRO announced in January 2024 that the society had partnered with the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology to lobby for payment reform. 

Cuts to Medicare reimbursement were approaching 25% at the time. These declines were related, in part, to changes in how radiation treatment was being delivered. Reimbursement has historically been based on the fraction of radiation given, but the field has increasingly embraced hypofractionated regimens and deescalated approaches, which have led to fewer billable fractions and consequently lower reimbursement. 

A recent study highlighted significant declines in reimbursement based on this shift in care. For instance, greater use of hypofractionation led to declines in reimbursement for technical services in freestanding radiation oncology offices by nearly 17% for breast cancer and 14.2% for prostate cancer between 2016 and 2022. Inflation-adjusted Medicare conversion factors fell 12.2% in hospital outpatient centers and 20.8% in freestanding offices.

These declining reimbursement rates have occurred alongside changes to radiation oncology practice patterns. A recent analysis reported a 51% increase in the number of US practices with at least 10 radiation oncologists between 2015 and 2023, and a 27% decrease in the number of solo practices during the same period. The number of practicing radiation oncologists increased by 16%, but the number of practices employing them decreased by 13%, indicating a trend toward practice consolidation. 

These changes, the analysis found, may affect patients’ access to care. In rural areas, retirement rates were higher and rates of entry of new radiation oncologists was lower compared with urban areas.

The current payment structure “has become untenable,” leading to practice consolidation that threaten patient access, especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for ASTRO told this news organization last year. 

 

What Is the ROCR Act?

The ROCR ACT was drafted by ASTRO to address these issues and reverse declines in Medicare reimbursement. 

In addition to shifting radiation oncology reimbursement from fraction-based to episode-based, the bill also aims to encourage clinicians to adoptevidence-based shorter treatment regimens, improve safety and quality by supporting new technologies, and generate savings to Medicare by eliminating outdated and costly practices that have not been shown to improve patient outcomes.

When first introduced last year, the bill did not receive a vote in Congress.

A 2025 version of the bill, introduced last month, largely aligns with the 2024 legislation but contains some “enhancements,” such as improving accreditation with increased incentive payments, outlining a revised exemption for practices with limited resources and instituting a transitional payment period for adaptive radiation therapy to allow billing to continue while a new code is created.

 

Mixed Reactions 

How has the radiation oncology community reacted to the latest ROCR Act? 

A recent survey, which included more than 500 practicing radiation oncologists, found that 61% of respondents supported implementing an episode-based payment model such as that proposed in the 2025 legislation, 17.3% neither supported nor opposed it, and 21.6% opposed the model.

“I think this supports this idea that our field would have benefited from much more open discussion in the design phases of the bill,” Spraker told this news organization.

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Rutland Regional Medical Center, Vermont, agreed. 

While on board with the concept of reform and episode-based payment, given what Beckta called “the absolute absurdity of the cuts in radiation oncology,” he took issue with the lack of transparency in the rollout of the bill.

The announcement about the 2025 version of the ROCR Act came as “a complete surprise — out of nowhere — except to insiders,” Beckta said.

ASTRO held a town hall in February 2025 “featuring new information and discussion” regarding ROCR 2025, but the bill had already been finalized for submission at that point, Beckta said. 

And although Beckta and Spraker believe ASTRO had good intentions, the physicians highlighted concerns with several aspects of the bill.

“What upsets me most is the blatant regulatory capture,” Beckta said. The legislation will require all practices to be accredited by either ASTRO, the American College of Radiation Oncology, or the American College of Radiology, essentially capturing their business through a regulation or having practices “face a 2.5% penalty, which is up 1% from the prior version,” Beckta explained. 

The bill also shortens the runway to get accredited from 3 years to 2 years, Beckta noted, stressing the arduousness of the accreditation process as a hurdle for many practices.

But doing the accreditation program does not mean care will get better, Spraker said. In fact, “that is absolutely not the case.”

Another issue: Requirements for medical equipment and quality review periods seem to favor industry over patients and practices, he said, highlighting the potential role of manufacturers in determining if or when equipment updates are required.

“A field like ours has rapidly exploding technology with not-always-clear patient benefit,” said Spraker. “We’re seeing too many examples where people are leveraging that, basically to sell devices instead of to help patients,” he added. 

Furthermore, Beckta noted, the bill allows for reduced reimbursement of between 4% and 7%, depending on the circumstances — a cut to reimbursement that is being justified by saying it’s the only way the bill will get through Congress. But “it’s just a less-bad option than continued cuts to fee-for-service,” Beckta said.

ASTRO leadership has expressed strong support for the bill. In the recent ASTRO press release, Howard M. Sandler, MD, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, called the ROCR Act “the only viable policy solution designed to provide payment stability for the field of radiation oncology in 2026 and beyond.” 

The ROCR Act, which is broadly supported by more than 80 organizations, “represents a balanced, evidence-based policy solution to safeguard access to high value cancer treatment for Americans,” Sandler said. 

“I believe in this bill,” Basree added.

Basree touted the replacement of a fee-for-service model with a “value-based payment system, ensuring predictable, fair reimbursement for the field” as a major win for stabilizing Medicare reimbursement. The bill also includes measures to improve patient access, such as providing discounted transportation for patients — a significant need, particularly in rural areas, he explained.

Although not everyone is happy with the bill, ASTRO did aim “to build coalition of support,” Basree said. “It’s an uphill battle, for sure, but we should press forward and hope for the best,” he added.

Even with their concerns, both Spraker and Beckta are optimistic that improvements to the bill can still be made, and urge colleagues to study the bill, speak out, and engage to help promote the best possible policy.

Basree reported receiving reimbursement for meeting travel and lodging as both a Fellow and member of the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology. Spraker and Beckta reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

Patient navigation was more effective than usual care in increasing follow-up colonoscopy rates after an abnormal stool test result, a new randomized controlled trial revealed.

The intervention led to a significant 13-point increase in follow-up colonoscopy completion at 1 year, compared with usual care (55.1% vs 42.1%), according the study, which was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

“Patients with an abnormal fecal test results have about a 1 in 20 chance of having colorectal cancer found, and many more will be found to have advanced adenomas that can be removed to prevent cancer,” Gloria Coronado, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, and University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, said in an interview.

“It is critical that these patients get a follow-up colonoscopy,” she said. “Patient navigation can accomplish this goal.”

 

‘Highly Effective’ Intervention

Researchers compared the effectiveness of a patient navigation program with that of usual care outreach in increasing follow-up colonoscopy completion after an abnormal stool test. They also developed a risk-prediction model that calculated a patient’s probability of obtaining a follow-up colonoscopy without navigation to determine if the addition of this intervention had a greater impact on those determined to be less likely to follow through.

The study included 967 patients from a community health center in Washington State who received an abnormal fecal test result within the prior month. The mean age of participants was 61 years, approximately 45% were women and 77% were White, and 18% preferred a Spanish-language intervention. In total, 479 patients received the intervention and 488 received usual care.

The intervention was delivered by a patient navigator who mailed introductory letters, sent text messages, and made live phone calls. In the calls, the navigators addressed the topics of barrier assessment and resolution, bowel preparation instruction and reminders, colonoscopy check-in, and understanding colonoscopy results and retesting intervals.

Patients in the usual-care group were contacted by a referral coordinator to schedule a follow-up colonoscopy appointment. If they couldn’t be reached initially, up to two follow-up attempts were made at 30 and 45 days after the referral date.

Patient navigation resulted in a significant 13% increase in follow-up, and those in this group completed a colonoscopy 27 days sooner than those in the usual care group (mean, 229 days vs 256 days).

Contrary to the authors’ expectation, the effectiveness of the intervention did not vary by patients’ predicted likelihood of obtaining a colonoscopy without navigation.

Notably, 20.3% of patients were unreachable or lost to follow-up, and 29.7% did not receive navigation. Among the 479 patients assigned to navigation, 79 (16.5%) declined participation and 56 (11.7%) were never reached.

The study was primarily conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which created additional systemic and individual barriers to completing colonoscopies.

Nevertheless, the authors wrote, “our findings suggest that patient navigation is highly effective for patients eligible for colonoscopy.”

“Most patients who were reached were contacted with six or fewer phone attempts,” Coronado noted. “Further efforts are needed to determine how to reach and motivate patients [who did not participate] to get a follow-up colonoscopy.”

Coronado and colleagues are exploring ways to leverage artificial intelligence and virtual approaches to augment patient navigation programs — for example, by using a virtual navigator or low-cost automated tools to provide education to build patient confidence in getting a colonoscopy.

 

‘A Promising Tool’

“Colonoscopy completion after positive stool-based testing is critical to mitigating the impact of colon cancer,” commented Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology & hepatology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “While prior studies assessing navigation have demonstrated improvements, none were as large enrollment-wise or as generalizable as the current study.”

That said, Bhuta said in an interview that the study could have provided more detail about coordination and communication with local gastrointestinal practices.

“Local ordering and prescribing practices vary and can significantly impact compliance rates. Were colonoscopies completed via an open access pathway or were the patients required to see a gastroenterologist first? How long was the average wait time for colonoscopy once scheduled? What were the local policies on requiring an escort after the procedure?”

He also noted that some aspects of the study — such as access to reduced-cost specialty care and free ride-share services — may limit generalizable to settings without such resources.

He added: “Although patient navigators for cancer treatment have mandated reimbursement, there is no current reimbursement for navigators for abnormal screening tests, another barrier to wide-spread implementation.”

Bhuta said that the dropout rate in the study mirrors that of his own real-world practice, which serves a high-risk, low-resource community. “I would specifically like to see research that provides behavioral insights on why patients respond positively to navigation — whether it is due to reminders, emotional support, or logistical assistance. Is it systemic barriers or patient disinterest or both that drives noncompliance?”

Despite these uncertainties and the need to refine implementation logistics, Bhuta concluded, “this strategy is a promising tool to reduce disparities and improve colorectal cancer outcomes. Clinicians should advocate for or implement structured follow-up systems, particularly in high-risk populations.”

The study was funded by the US National Cancer Institute. Coronado received a grant/contract from Guardant Health. Bhuta declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient navigation was more effective than usual care in increasing follow-up colonoscopy rates after an abnormal stool test result, a new randomized controlled trial revealed.

The intervention led to a significant 13-point increase in follow-up colonoscopy completion at 1 year, compared with usual care (55.1% vs 42.1%), according the study, which was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

“Patients with an abnormal fecal test results have about a 1 in 20 chance of having colorectal cancer found, and many more will be found to have advanced adenomas that can be removed to prevent cancer,” Gloria Coronado, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, and University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, said in an interview.

“It is critical that these patients get a follow-up colonoscopy,” she said. “Patient navigation can accomplish this goal.”

 

‘Highly Effective’ Intervention

Researchers compared the effectiveness of a patient navigation program with that of usual care outreach in increasing follow-up colonoscopy completion after an abnormal stool test. They also developed a risk-prediction model that calculated a patient’s probability of obtaining a follow-up colonoscopy without navigation to determine if the addition of this intervention had a greater impact on those determined to be less likely to follow through.

The study included 967 patients from a community health center in Washington State who received an abnormal fecal test result within the prior month. The mean age of participants was 61 years, approximately 45% were women and 77% were White, and 18% preferred a Spanish-language intervention. In total, 479 patients received the intervention and 488 received usual care.

The intervention was delivered by a patient navigator who mailed introductory letters, sent text messages, and made live phone calls. In the calls, the navigators addressed the topics of barrier assessment and resolution, bowel preparation instruction and reminders, colonoscopy check-in, and understanding colonoscopy results and retesting intervals.

Patients in the usual-care group were contacted by a referral coordinator to schedule a follow-up colonoscopy appointment. If they couldn’t be reached initially, up to two follow-up attempts were made at 30 and 45 days after the referral date.

Patient navigation resulted in a significant 13% increase in follow-up, and those in this group completed a colonoscopy 27 days sooner than those in the usual care group (mean, 229 days vs 256 days).

Contrary to the authors’ expectation, the effectiveness of the intervention did not vary by patients’ predicted likelihood of obtaining a colonoscopy without navigation.

Notably, 20.3% of patients were unreachable or lost to follow-up, and 29.7% did not receive navigation. Among the 479 patients assigned to navigation, 79 (16.5%) declined participation and 56 (11.7%) were never reached.

The study was primarily conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which created additional systemic and individual barriers to completing colonoscopies.

Nevertheless, the authors wrote, “our findings suggest that patient navigation is highly effective for patients eligible for colonoscopy.”

“Most patients who were reached were contacted with six or fewer phone attempts,” Coronado noted. “Further efforts are needed to determine how to reach and motivate patients [who did not participate] to get a follow-up colonoscopy.”

Coronado and colleagues are exploring ways to leverage artificial intelligence and virtual approaches to augment patient navigation programs — for example, by using a virtual navigator or low-cost automated tools to provide education to build patient confidence in getting a colonoscopy.

 

‘A Promising Tool’

“Colonoscopy completion after positive stool-based testing is critical to mitigating the impact of colon cancer,” commented Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology & hepatology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “While prior studies assessing navigation have demonstrated improvements, none were as large enrollment-wise or as generalizable as the current study.”

That said, Bhuta said in an interview that the study could have provided more detail about coordination and communication with local gastrointestinal practices.

“Local ordering and prescribing practices vary and can significantly impact compliance rates. Were colonoscopies completed via an open access pathway or were the patients required to see a gastroenterologist first? How long was the average wait time for colonoscopy once scheduled? What were the local policies on requiring an escort after the procedure?”

He also noted that some aspects of the study — such as access to reduced-cost specialty care and free ride-share services — may limit generalizable to settings without such resources.

He added: “Although patient navigators for cancer treatment have mandated reimbursement, there is no current reimbursement for navigators for abnormal screening tests, another barrier to wide-spread implementation.”

Bhuta said that the dropout rate in the study mirrors that of his own real-world practice, which serves a high-risk, low-resource community. “I would specifically like to see research that provides behavioral insights on why patients respond positively to navigation — whether it is due to reminders, emotional support, or logistical assistance. Is it systemic barriers or patient disinterest or both that drives noncompliance?”

Despite these uncertainties and the need to refine implementation logistics, Bhuta concluded, “this strategy is a promising tool to reduce disparities and improve colorectal cancer outcomes. Clinicians should advocate for or implement structured follow-up systems, particularly in high-risk populations.”

The study was funded by the US National Cancer Institute. Coronado received a grant/contract from Guardant Health. Bhuta declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient navigation was more effective than usual care in increasing follow-up colonoscopy rates after an abnormal stool test result, a new randomized controlled trial revealed.

The intervention led to a significant 13-point increase in follow-up colonoscopy completion at 1 year, compared with usual care (55.1% vs 42.1%), according the study, which was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

“Patients with an abnormal fecal test results have about a 1 in 20 chance of having colorectal cancer found, and many more will be found to have advanced adenomas that can be removed to prevent cancer,” Gloria Coronado, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, and University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, said in an interview.

“It is critical that these patients get a follow-up colonoscopy,” she said. “Patient navigation can accomplish this goal.”

 

‘Highly Effective’ Intervention

Researchers compared the effectiveness of a patient navigation program with that of usual care outreach in increasing follow-up colonoscopy completion after an abnormal stool test. They also developed a risk-prediction model that calculated a patient’s probability of obtaining a follow-up colonoscopy without navigation to determine if the addition of this intervention had a greater impact on those determined to be less likely to follow through.

The study included 967 patients from a community health center in Washington State who received an abnormal fecal test result within the prior month. The mean age of participants was 61 years, approximately 45% were women and 77% were White, and 18% preferred a Spanish-language intervention. In total, 479 patients received the intervention and 488 received usual care.

The intervention was delivered by a patient navigator who mailed introductory letters, sent text messages, and made live phone calls. In the calls, the navigators addressed the topics of barrier assessment and resolution, bowel preparation instruction and reminders, colonoscopy check-in, and understanding colonoscopy results and retesting intervals.

Patients in the usual-care group were contacted by a referral coordinator to schedule a follow-up colonoscopy appointment. If they couldn’t be reached initially, up to two follow-up attempts were made at 30 and 45 days after the referral date.

Patient navigation resulted in a significant 13% increase in follow-up, and those in this group completed a colonoscopy 27 days sooner than those in the usual care group (mean, 229 days vs 256 days).

Contrary to the authors’ expectation, the effectiveness of the intervention did not vary by patients’ predicted likelihood of obtaining a colonoscopy without navigation.

Notably, 20.3% of patients were unreachable or lost to follow-up, and 29.7% did not receive navigation. Among the 479 patients assigned to navigation, 79 (16.5%) declined participation and 56 (11.7%) were never reached.

The study was primarily conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which created additional systemic and individual barriers to completing colonoscopies.

Nevertheless, the authors wrote, “our findings suggest that patient navigation is highly effective for patients eligible for colonoscopy.”

“Most patients who were reached were contacted with six or fewer phone attempts,” Coronado noted. “Further efforts are needed to determine how to reach and motivate patients [who did not participate] to get a follow-up colonoscopy.”

Coronado and colleagues are exploring ways to leverage artificial intelligence and virtual approaches to augment patient navigation programs — for example, by using a virtual navigator or low-cost automated tools to provide education to build patient confidence in getting a colonoscopy.

 

‘A Promising Tool’

“Colonoscopy completion after positive stool-based testing is critical to mitigating the impact of colon cancer,” commented Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology & hepatology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “While prior studies assessing navigation have demonstrated improvements, none were as large enrollment-wise or as generalizable as the current study.”

That said, Bhuta said in an interview that the study could have provided more detail about coordination and communication with local gastrointestinal practices.

“Local ordering and prescribing practices vary and can significantly impact compliance rates. Were colonoscopies completed via an open access pathway or were the patients required to see a gastroenterologist first? How long was the average wait time for colonoscopy once scheduled? What were the local policies on requiring an escort after the procedure?”

He also noted that some aspects of the study — such as access to reduced-cost specialty care and free ride-share services — may limit generalizable to settings without such resources.

He added: “Although patient navigators for cancer treatment have mandated reimbursement, there is no current reimbursement for navigators for abnormal screening tests, another barrier to wide-spread implementation.”

Bhuta said that the dropout rate in the study mirrors that of his own real-world practice, which serves a high-risk, low-resource community. “I would specifically like to see research that provides behavioral insights on why patients respond positively to navigation — whether it is due to reminders, emotional support, or logistical assistance. Is it systemic barriers or patient disinterest or both that drives noncompliance?”

Despite these uncertainties and the need to refine implementation logistics, Bhuta concluded, “this strategy is a promising tool to reduce disparities and improve colorectal cancer outcomes. Clinicians should advocate for or implement structured follow-up systems, particularly in high-risk populations.”

The study was funded by the US National Cancer Institute. Coronado received a grant/contract from Guardant Health. Bhuta declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent fasting (IMF) with behavioral support may be more effective and better tolerated by patients than standard daily caloric restriction (DCR) in weight-loss programs, a randomized study found.

A 4:3 IMF program produced modestly superior weight loss than DCR of 2.89 kg over 12 months in the context of a guidelines-based, high-intensity, comprehensive behavioral weight loss program, according to Danielle M. Ostendorf, PhD, MS, co–lead author and an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, study principal investigator, co–lead author, and an associate professor located at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that objectively measured percentage caloric restriction was greater in the 4:3 IMF group, whereas there was no between-group difference in change in total moderate to vigorous physical activity, suggesting that differences in weight loss may have been caused by greater adherence to 4:3 IMF. The 4:3 IMF program was well tolerated and attrition was lower in this group: 19% for IMF group vs 30% for DCR group.

The authors noted that alternative patterns for restricting dietary energy intake are gaining attention owing to the difficulty of adhering to a reduced-calorie diet daily, with most adults who lose weight through DCR showing significant weight regain a year later.

According to Ostendorf and Catenacci, fasting strategies “come in two different flavors and oftentimes get confused in the lay press and by patients and researchers. And there is a difference between IMF and time-restricted eating (TRE),” they said in an interview. “TRE involves limiting the daily window of food intake to 8-10 hours or less on most days of the week — for example, 16:8 or 14:10 strategies. TRE is done every day, consistently and involves eating in the predefined window, and fasting outside of that window.” 

IMF is a more periodic and significant fast and involves cycling between complete or near-complete (> 75%) energy restriction on fast days and ad libitum energy intake on nonfast days.

An appealing feature of IMF is that dieters do not have to focus on counting calories and restricting intake every day as they do with DCR, the authors wrote. Furthermore, the periodic nature of fasting is simpler and may mitigate the constant hunger associated with DCR.

Some said the diet was dreadful, but many said it was the easiest diet they had ever been on. “But it did take time for people to adjust to this strategy,” Catenacci said. “It was reassuring to see no evidence of increased binge-eating behaviors.”

Although objectively measured adherence to the targeted energy deficit (percentage caloric restriction from baseline) was below the target of 34.3% in both groups, the 4:3 IMF group showed greater percentage caloric restriction over 12 months. This suggests that, on average, the 4:3 IMF group may be more sustainable over a year than the DCR group. However, weight loss varied in both groups. Future studies should evaluate biological and behavioral predictors of response to both 4:3 IMF and DCR groups in order to personalize recommendations for weight loss.

 

Study Details

The investigators randomized 165 patients at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, with a mean age of 42 years (18-60), a mean baseline weight of 97.4 kg, and a mean baseline body mass index (BMI) of 34.1 to IMF (n = 84) or DCR (n = 81). Of these, 74% were women and 86% were White individuals, and 125 (76%) completed the trial.

The 4:3 IMF group restricted energy intake by 80% on 3 nonconsecutive fast days per week, with ad libitum intake on the other 4 days (4:3 IMF). The 80% calorie reduction fasting corresponded to about 400-600 kcals/d for women and 500-700 kcals/d for men.

“Participants were only required to count calories on their fast days, which is part of the appeal,” Ostendorf said. Although permitted to eat what they wanted on nonfast days, participants were encouraged to make healthy food choices and consume healthy portion sizes.

For its part, the DCR group reduced daily energy intake by 34% to match the weekly energy deficit of 4:3 IMF.

Both groups participated in a high-intensity comprehensive weight loss program with group-based behavioral support and a recommended increase in moderate-intensity physical activity to 300 min/wk.

On the primary endpoint, the 4:3 IMF group showed a weight loss of 7.7 kg (95% CI, –9.6 to –5.9 kg) compared with 4.8 kg (95% CI, –6.8 to –2.8 kg, P =.040) in the DCR group at 12 months. The percentage change in body weight from baseline was –7.6% (95% CI, –9.5% to –5.7%) in the 4:3 IMF group and –5% (95% CI, –6.9% to –3.1%) in the DCR group.

At 12 months, 58% (n = 50) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 5% vs 47% (n = 27) of those in the DCR group. In addition, 38% (n = 26) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 10% at 12 months vs 16% (n = 9) of those in the DCR group. Changes in body composition, BMI, and waist circumference also tended to favor the 4:3 IMF group.

On other 12-month measures, point estimates of change in systolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglyceride level, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, fasting glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c level favored 4:3 IMF. Point estimates of change in diastolic blood pressure and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level favored DCR.

Currently lacking, the authors said, are data on safety in children and older adults, and adults affected by a long list of conditions: Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease (stage 4 or 5), cancer, and eating disorders. Also, people of normal weight or only mild overweight, and pregnant or lactating women. “There have been concerns about IMF causing eating disorders, so we did not include people with eating disorders in our study,” Ostendorf and Catenacci said.

Offering an outside perspective on the findings, James O. Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center and a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham believes IMF is a viable option for people trying to lose weight and has prescribed this approach for some in his practice. “But there is no one strategy that works for everyone,” he said in an interview. “I recommend IMF as a science-based strategy that can be effective for some people, and I think it should be on the list of science-based tools that people can consider using.” But as it won’t work for everyone, “we need to consider both metabolic success and behavioral success. In other words, would it be more effective if people could do it and how easy or hard is it for people to do?”

Audra Wilson, MS, RD, a bariatric dietitian at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, Illinois, who was not involved in the study, expressed more reservations. “We do not specifically recommend intermittent fasting at Northwestern Medicine. There is no set protocol for this diet, and it can vary in ways that can limit nutrition to the point where we are not meeting needs on a regular basis,” she said in an interview.

Moreover, this study did not specify exact nutritional recommendations for participants but merely reduced overall caloric intake. “Although intermittent fasting may be helpful to some, in my nearly 10 years of experience I have not seen it be effective for many and especially not long term,” Wilson added.

Concerningly, IMF can foster disordered eating patterns of restriction followed by binging. “Although a balanced diet is more difficult to achieve, guidance from professionals like dietitians can give patients the tools to achieve balance, meet all nutrient needs, achieve satiety, and maybe most importantly, have a better relationship with food,” she said.

As for the influence of metabolic factors that may be associated with better weight loss, Ostendorf said, “be on the lookout for future publications in this area. We are analyzing data around changes in energy expenditure and changes in hunger-related hormones, among others.” A colleague is collecting biological samples to study genetics in this context. “However, in general, it appeared that the difference in weight loss was due to a greater caloric deficit in the 4:3 IMF group.”

Ostendorf and Catenacci are currently conducting a pilot study testing 4:3 IMF in breast cancer survivors. “We think this is a promising strategy for weight loss in breast cancer survivors who struggle with overweight/obesity in addition to their cancer diagnosis,” Ostendorf said.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Ostendorf, Catenacci, Hill, and Wilson disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent fasting (IMF) with behavioral support may be more effective and better tolerated by patients than standard daily caloric restriction (DCR) in weight-loss programs, a randomized study found.

A 4:3 IMF program produced modestly superior weight loss than DCR of 2.89 kg over 12 months in the context of a guidelines-based, high-intensity, comprehensive behavioral weight loss program, according to Danielle M. Ostendorf, PhD, MS, co–lead author and an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, study principal investigator, co–lead author, and an associate professor located at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that objectively measured percentage caloric restriction was greater in the 4:3 IMF group, whereas there was no between-group difference in change in total moderate to vigorous physical activity, suggesting that differences in weight loss may have been caused by greater adherence to 4:3 IMF. The 4:3 IMF program was well tolerated and attrition was lower in this group: 19% for IMF group vs 30% for DCR group.

The authors noted that alternative patterns for restricting dietary energy intake are gaining attention owing to the difficulty of adhering to a reduced-calorie diet daily, with most adults who lose weight through DCR showing significant weight regain a year later.

According to Ostendorf and Catenacci, fasting strategies “come in two different flavors and oftentimes get confused in the lay press and by patients and researchers. And there is a difference between IMF and time-restricted eating (TRE),” they said in an interview. “TRE involves limiting the daily window of food intake to 8-10 hours or less on most days of the week — for example, 16:8 or 14:10 strategies. TRE is done every day, consistently and involves eating in the predefined window, and fasting outside of that window.” 

IMF is a more periodic and significant fast and involves cycling between complete or near-complete (> 75%) energy restriction on fast days and ad libitum energy intake on nonfast days.

An appealing feature of IMF is that dieters do not have to focus on counting calories and restricting intake every day as they do with DCR, the authors wrote. Furthermore, the periodic nature of fasting is simpler and may mitigate the constant hunger associated with DCR.

Some said the diet was dreadful, but many said it was the easiest diet they had ever been on. “But it did take time for people to adjust to this strategy,” Catenacci said. “It was reassuring to see no evidence of increased binge-eating behaviors.”

Although objectively measured adherence to the targeted energy deficit (percentage caloric restriction from baseline) was below the target of 34.3% in both groups, the 4:3 IMF group showed greater percentage caloric restriction over 12 months. This suggests that, on average, the 4:3 IMF group may be more sustainable over a year than the DCR group. However, weight loss varied in both groups. Future studies should evaluate biological and behavioral predictors of response to both 4:3 IMF and DCR groups in order to personalize recommendations for weight loss.

 

Study Details

The investigators randomized 165 patients at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, with a mean age of 42 years (18-60), a mean baseline weight of 97.4 kg, and a mean baseline body mass index (BMI) of 34.1 to IMF (n = 84) or DCR (n = 81). Of these, 74% were women and 86% were White individuals, and 125 (76%) completed the trial.

The 4:3 IMF group restricted energy intake by 80% on 3 nonconsecutive fast days per week, with ad libitum intake on the other 4 days (4:3 IMF). The 80% calorie reduction fasting corresponded to about 400-600 kcals/d for women and 500-700 kcals/d for men.

“Participants were only required to count calories on their fast days, which is part of the appeal,” Ostendorf said. Although permitted to eat what they wanted on nonfast days, participants were encouraged to make healthy food choices and consume healthy portion sizes.

For its part, the DCR group reduced daily energy intake by 34% to match the weekly energy deficit of 4:3 IMF.

Both groups participated in a high-intensity comprehensive weight loss program with group-based behavioral support and a recommended increase in moderate-intensity physical activity to 300 min/wk.

On the primary endpoint, the 4:3 IMF group showed a weight loss of 7.7 kg (95% CI, –9.6 to –5.9 kg) compared with 4.8 kg (95% CI, –6.8 to –2.8 kg, P =.040) in the DCR group at 12 months. The percentage change in body weight from baseline was –7.6% (95% CI, –9.5% to –5.7%) in the 4:3 IMF group and –5% (95% CI, –6.9% to –3.1%) in the DCR group.

At 12 months, 58% (n = 50) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 5% vs 47% (n = 27) of those in the DCR group. In addition, 38% (n = 26) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 10% at 12 months vs 16% (n = 9) of those in the DCR group. Changes in body composition, BMI, and waist circumference also tended to favor the 4:3 IMF group.

On other 12-month measures, point estimates of change in systolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglyceride level, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, fasting glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c level favored 4:3 IMF. Point estimates of change in diastolic blood pressure and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level favored DCR.

Currently lacking, the authors said, are data on safety in children and older adults, and adults affected by a long list of conditions: Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease (stage 4 or 5), cancer, and eating disorders. Also, people of normal weight or only mild overweight, and pregnant or lactating women. “There have been concerns about IMF causing eating disorders, so we did not include people with eating disorders in our study,” Ostendorf and Catenacci said.

Offering an outside perspective on the findings, James O. Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center and a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham believes IMF is a viable option for people trying to lose weight and has prescribed this approach for some in his practice. “But there is no one strategy that works for everyone,” he said in an interview. “I recommend IMF as a science-based strategy that can be effective for some people, and I think it should be on the list of science-based tools that people can consider using.” But as it won’t work for everyone, “we need to consider both metabolic success and behavioral success. In other words, would it be more effective if people could do it and how easy or hard is it for people to do?”

Audra Wilson, MS, RD, a bariatric dietitian at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, Illinois, who was not involved in the study, expressed more reservations. “We do not specifically recommend intermittent fasting at Northwestern Medicine. There is no set protocol for this diet, and it can vary in ways that can limit nutrition to the point where we are not meeting needs on a regular basis,” she said in an interview.

Moreover, this study did not specify exact nutritional recommendations for participants but merely reduced overall caloric intake. “Although intermittent fasting may be helpful to some, in my nearly 10 years of experience I have not seen it be effective for many and especially not long term,” Wilson added.

Concerningly, IMF can foster disordered eating patterns of restriction followed by binging. “Although a balanced diet is more difficult to achieve, guidance from professionals like dietitians can give patients the tools to achieve balance, meet all nutrient needs, achieve satiety, and maybe most importantly, have a better relationship with food,” she said.

As for the influence of metabolic factors that may be associated with better weight loss, Ostendorf said, “be on the lookout for future publications in this area. We are analyzing data around changes in energy expenditure and changes in hunger-related hormones, among others.” A colleague is collecting biological samples to study genetics in this context. “However, in general, it appeared that the difference in weight loss was due to a greater caloric deficit in the 4:3 IMF group.”

Ostendorf and Catenacci are currently conducting a pilot study testing 4:3 IMF in breast cancer survivors. “We think this is a promising strategy for weight loss in breast cancer survivors who struggle with overweight/obesity in addition to their cancer diagnosis,” Ostendorf said.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Ostendorf, Catenacci, Hill, and Wilson disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent fasting (IMF) with behavioral support may be more effective and better tolerated by patients than standard daily caloric restriction (DCR) in weight-loss programs, a randomized study found.

A 4:3 IMF program produced modestly superior weight loss than DCR of 2.89 kg over 12 months in the context of a guidelines-based, high-intensity, comprehensive behavioral weight loss program, according to Danielle M. Ostendorf, PhD, MS, co–lead author and an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, study principal investigator, co–lead author, and an associate professor located at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that objectively measured percentage caloric restriction was greater in the 4:3 IMF group, whereas there was no between-group difference in change in total moderate to vigorous physical activity, suggesting that differences in weight loss may have been caused by greater adherence to 4:3 IMF. The 4:3 IMF program was well tolerated and attrition was lower in this group: 19% for IMF group vs 30% for DCR group.

The authors noted that alternative patterns for restricting dietary energy intake are gaining attention owing to the difficulty of adhering to a reduced-calorie diet daily, with most adults who lose weight through DCR showing significant weight regain a year later.

According to Ostendorf and Catenacci, fasting strategies “come in two different flavors and oftentimes get confused in the lay press and by patients and researchers. And there is a difference between IMF and time-restricted eating (TRE),” they said in an interview. “TRE involves limiting the daily window of food intake to 8-10 hours or less on most days of the week — for example, 16:8 or 14:10 strategies. TRE is done every day, consistently and involves eating in the predefined window, and fasting outside of that window.” 

IMF is a more periodic and significant fast and involves cycling between complete or near-complete (> 75%) energy restriction on fast days and ad libitum energy intake on nonfast days.

An appealing feature of IMF is that dieters do not have to focus on counting calories and restricting intake every day as they do with DCR, the authors wrote. Furthermore, the periodic nature of fasting is simpler and may mitigate the constant hunger associated with DCR.

Some said the diet was dreadful, but many said it was the easiest diet they had ever been on. “But it did take time for people to adjust to this strategy,” Catenacci said. “It was reassuring to see no evidence of increased binge-eating behaviors.”

Although objectively measured adherence to the targeted energy deficit (percentage caloric restriction from baseline) was below the target of 34.3% in both groups, the 4:3 IMF group showed greater percentage caloric restriction over 12 months. This suggests that, on average, the 4:3 IMF group may be more sustainable over a year than the DCR group. However, weight loss varied in both groups. Future studies should evaluate biological and behavioral predictors of response to both 4:3 IMF and DCR groups in order to personalize recommendations for weight loss.

 

Study Details

The investigators randomized 165 patients at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, with a mean age of 42 years (18-60), a mean baseline weight of 97.4 kg, and a mean baseline body mass index (BMI) of 34.1 to IMF (n = 84) or DCR (n = 81). Of these, 74% were women and 86% were White individuals, and 125 (76%) completed the trial.

The 4:3 IMF group restricted energy intake by 80% on 3 nonconsecutive fast days per week, with ad libitum intake on the other 4 days (4:3 IMF). The 80% calorie reduction fasting corresponded to about 400-600 kcals/d for women and 500-700 kcals/d for men.

“Participants were only required to count calories on their fast days, which is part of the appeal,” Ostendorf said. Although permitted to eat what they wanted on nonfast days, participants were encouraged to make healthy food choices and consume healthy portion sizes.

For its part, the DCR group reduced daily energy intake by 34% to match the weekly energy deficit of 4:3 IMF.

Both groups participated in a high-intensity comprehensive weight loss program with group-based behavioral support and a recommended increase in moderate-intensity physical activity to 300 min/wk.

On the primary endpoint, the 4:3 IMF group showed a weight loss of 7.7 kg (95% CI, –9.6 to –5.9 kg) compared with 4.8 kg (95% CI, –6.8 to –2.8 kg, P =.040) in the DCR group at 12 months. The percentage change in body weight from baseline was –7.6% (95% CI, –9.5% to –5.7%) in the 4:3 IMF group and –5% (95% CI, –6.9% to –3.1%) in the DCR group.

At 12 months, 58% (n = 50) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 5% vs 47% (n = 27) of those in the DCR group. In addition, 38% (n = 26) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 10% at 12 months vs 16% (n = 9) of those in the DCR group. Changes in body composition, BMI, and waist circumference also tended to favor the 4:3 IMF group.

On other 12-month measures, point estimates of change in systolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglyceride level, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, fasting glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c level favored 4:3 IMF. Point estimates of change in diastolic blood pressure and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level favored DCR.

Currently lacking, the authors said, are data on safety in children and older adults, and adults affected by a long list of conditions: Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease (stage 4 or 5), cancer, and eating disorders. Also, people of normal weight or only mild overweight, and pregnant or lactating women. “There have been concerns about IMF causing eating disorders, so we did not include people with eating disorders in our study,” Ostendorf and Catenacci said.

Offering an outside perspective on the findings, James O. Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center and a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham believes IMF is a viable option for people trying to lose weight and has prescribed this approach for some in his practice. “But there is no one strategy that works for everyone,” he said in an interview. “I recommend IMF as a science-based strategy that can be effective for some people, and I think it should be on the list of science-based tools that people can consider using.” But as it won’t work for everyone, “we need to consider both metabolic success and behavioral success. In other words, would it be more effective if people could do it and how easy or hard is it for people to do?”

Audra Wilson, MS, RD, a bariatric dietitian at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, Illinois, who was not involved in the study, expressed more reservations. “We do not specifically recommend intermittent fasting at Northwestern Medicine. There is no set protocol for this diet, and it can vary in ways that can limit nutrition to the point where we are not meeting needs on a regular basis,” she said in an interview.

Moreover, this study did not specify exact nutritional recommendations for participants but merely reduced overall caloric intake. “Although intermittent fasting may be helpful to some, in my nearly 10 years of experience I have not seen it be effective for many and especially not long term,” Wilson added.

Concerningly, IMF can foster disordered eating patterns of restriction followed by binging. “Although a balanced diet is more difficult to achieve, guidance from professionals like dietitians can give patients the tools to achieve balance, meet all nutrient needs, achieve satiety, and maybe most importantly, have a better relationship with food,” she said.

As for the influence of metabolic factors that may be associated with better weight loss, Ostendorf said, “be on the lookout for future publications in this area. We are analyzing data around changes in energy expenditure and changes in hunger-related hormones, among others.” A colleague is collecting biological samples to study genetics in this context. “However, in general, it appeared that the difference in weight loss was due to a greater caloric deficit in the 4:3 IMF group.”

Ostendorf and Catenacci are currently conducting a pilot study testing 4:3 IMF in breast cancer survivors. “We think this is a promising strategy for weight loss in breast cancer survivors who struggle with overweight/obesity in addition to their cancer diagnosis,” Ostendorf said.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Ostendorf, Catenacci, Hill, and Wilson disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearable devices like the Apple Watch and Fitbit may help identify and predict inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flares, and even distinguish between inflammatory and purely symptomatic episodes, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that widely used consumer wearables could support long-term monitoring of IBD and other chronic inflammatory conditions, lead author Robert P. Hirten, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues reported.

 

“Wearable devices are an increasingly accepted tool for monitoring health and disease,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “They are frequently used in non–inflammatory-based diseases for remote patient monitoring, allowing individuals to be monitored outside of the clinical setting, which has resulted in improved outcomes in multiple disease states.”

Progress has been slower for inflammatory conditions, the investigators noted, despite interest from both providers and patients. Prior studies have explored activity and sleep tracking, or sweat-based biomarkers, as potential tools for monitoring IBD. 

Hirten and colleagues took a novel approach, focusing on physiologic changes driven by autonomic nervous system dysfunction — a hallmark of chronic inflammation. Conditions like IBD are associated with reduced parasympathetic activity and increased sympathetic tone, which in turn affect heart rate and heart rate variability. Heart rate tends to rise during flares, while heart rate variability decreases.

Their prospective cohort study included 309 adults with Crohn’s disease (n = 196) or ulcerative colitis (n = 113). Participants used their own or a study-provided Apple Watch, Fitbit, or Oura Ring to passively collect physiological data, including heart rate, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, and step count. A subset of Apple Watch users also contributed oxygen saturation data.

Participants also completed daily symptom surveys using a custom smartphone app and reported laboratory values such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, as part of routine care. These data were used to identify symptomatic and inflammatory flare periods.

Over a mean follow-up of about 7 months, the physiological data consistently distinguished both types of flares from periods of remission. Heart rate variability dropped significantly during flares, while heart rate and resting heart rate increased. Step counts decreased during inflammatory flares but not during symptom-only flares. Oxygen saturation stayed mostly the same, except for a slight drop seen in participants with Crohn’s disease.

These physiological changes could be detected as early as 7 weeks before a flare. Predictive models that combined multiple metrics — heart rate variability, heart rate, resting heart rate, and step count — were highly accurate, with F1 scores as high as 0.90 for predicting inflammatory flares and 0.83 for predicting symptomatic flares.

In addition, wearable data helped differentiate between flares caused by active inflammation and those driven by symptoms alone. Even when symptoms were similar, heart rate variability, heart rate, and resting heart rate were significantly higher when inflammation was present—suggesting wearable devices may help address the common mismatch between symptoms and actual disease activity in IBD.

“These findings support the further evaluation of wearable devices in the monitoring of IBD,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Ms. Jenny Steingart. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Agomab, Lilly, Merck, and others.

 

Wearable devices like the Apple Watch and Fitbit may help identify and predict inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flares, and even distinguish between inflammatory and purely symptomatic episodes, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that widely used consumer wearables could support long-term monitoring of IBD and other chronic inflammatory conditions, lead author Robert P. Hirten, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues reported.

 

“Wearable devices are an increasingly accepted tool for monitoring health and disease,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “They are frequently used in non–inflammatory-based diseases for remote patient monitoring, allowing individuals to be monitored outside of the clinical setting, which has resulted in improved outcomes in multiple disease states.”

Progress has been slower for inflammatory conditions, the investigators noted, despite interest from both providers and patients. Prior studies have explored activity and sleep tracking, or sweat-based biomarkers, as potential tools for monitoring IBD. 

Hirten and colleagues took a novel approach, focusing on physiologic changes driven by autonomic nervous system dysfunction — a hallmark of chronic inflammation. Conditions like IBD are associated with reduced parasympathetic activity and increased sympathetic tone, which in turn affect heart rate and heart rate variability. Heart rate tends to rise during flares, while heart rate variability decreases.

Their prospective cohort study included 309 adults with Crohn’s disease (n = 196) or ulcerative colitis (n = 113). Participants used their own or a study-provided Apple Watch, Fitbit, or Oura Ring to passively collect physiological data, including heart rate, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, and step count. A subset of Apple Watch users also contributed oxygen saturation data.

Participants also completed daily symptom surveys using a custom smartphone app and reported laboratory values such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, as part of routine care. These data were used to identify symptomatic and inflammatory flare periods.

Over a mean follow-up of about 7 months, the physiological data consistently distinguished both types of flares from periods of remission. Heart rate variability dropped significantly during flares, while heart rate and resting heart rate increased. Step counts decreased during inflammatory flares but not during symptom-only flares. Oxygen saturation stayed mostly the same, except for a slight drop seen in participants with Crohn’s disease.

These physiological changes could be detected as early as 7 weeks before a flare. Predictive models that combined multiple metrics — heart rate variability, heart rate, resting heart rate, and step count — were highly accurate, with F1 scores as high as 0.90 for predicting inflammatory flares and 0.83 for predicting symptomatic flares.

In addition, wearable data helped differentiate between flares caused by active inflammation and those driven by symptoms alone. Even when symptoms were similar, heart rate variability, heart rate, and resting heart rate were significantly higher when inflammation was present—suggesting wearable devices may help address the common mismatch between symptoms and actual disease activity in IBD.

“These findings support the further evaluation of wearable devices in the monitoring of IBD,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Ms. Jenny Steingart. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Agomab, Lilly, Merck, and others.

 

Wearable devices like the Apple Watch and Fitbit may help identify and predict inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flares, and even distinguish between inflammatory and purely symptomatic episodes, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that widely used consumer wearables could support long-term monitoring of IBD and other chronic inflammatory conditions, lead author Robert P. Hirten, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues reported.

 

“Wearable devices are an increasingly accepted tool for monitoring health and disease,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “They are frequently used in non–inflammatory-based diseases for remote patient monitoring, allowing individuals to be monitored outside of the clinical setting, which has resulted in improved outcomes in multiple disease states.”

Progress has been slower for inflammatory conditions, the investigators noted, despite interest from both providers and patients. Prior studies have explored activity and sleep tracking, or sweat-based biomarkers, as potential tools for monitoring IBD. 

Hirten and colleagues took a novel approach, focusing on physiologic changes driven by autonomic nervous system dysfunction — a hallmark of chronic inflammation. Conditions like IBD are associated with reduced parasympathetic activity and increased sympathetic tone, which in turn affect heart rate and heart rate variability. Heart rate tends to rise during flares, while heart rate variability decreases.

Their prospective cohort study included 309 adults with Crohn’s disease (n = 196) or ulcerative colitis (n = 113). Participants used their own or a study-provided Apple Watch, Fitbit, or Oura Ring to passively collect physiological data, including heart rate, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, and step count. A subset of Apple Watch users also contributed oxygen saturation data.

Participants also completed daily symptom surveys using a custom smartphone app and reported laboratory values such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, as part of routine care. These data were used to identify symptomatic and inflammatory flare periods.

Over a mean follow-up of about 7 months, the physiological data consistently distinguished both types of flares from periods of remission. Heart rate variability dropped significantly during flares, while heart rate and resting heart rate increased. Step counts decreased during inflammatory flares but not during symptom-only flares. Oxygen saturation stayed mostly the same, except for a slight drop seen in participants with Crohn’s disease.

These physiological changes could be detected as early as 7 weeks before a flare. Predictive models that combined multiple metrics — heart rate variability, heart rate, resting heart rate, and step count — were highly accurate, with F1 scores as high as 0.90 for predicting inflammatory flares and 0.83 for predicting symptomatic flares.

In addition, wearable data helped differentiate between flares caused by active inflammation and those driven by symptoms alone. Even when symptoms were similar, heart rate variability, heart rate, and resting heart rate were significantly higher when inflammation was present—suggesting wearable devices may help address the common mismatch between symptoms and actual disease activity in IBD.

“These findings support the further evaluation of wearable devices in the monitoring of IBD,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Ms. Jenny Steingart. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Agomab, Lilly, Merck, and others.

 

US counties with limited access to healthy food (food deserts) or a high density of unhealthy food outlets (food swamps) have higher mortality rates from metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), according to investigators.

These findings highlight the importance of addressing disparities in food environments and social determinants of health to help reduce MASLD-related mortality, lead author Annette Paik, MD, of Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, and colleagues reported.

“Recent studies indicate that food swamps and deserts, as surrogates for food insecurity, are linked to poor glycemic control and higher adult obesity rates,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Understanding the intersection of these factors with sociodemographic and clinical variables offers insights into MASLD-related outcomes, including mortality.”

To this end, the present study examined the association between food environments and MASLD-related mortality across more than 2,195 US counties. County-level mortality data were obtained from the CDC WONDER database (2016-2020) and linked to food environment data from the US Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas using Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes. Food deserts were defined as low-income areas with limited access to grocery stores, while food swamps were characterized by a predominance of unhealthy food outlets relative to healthy ones.

Additional data on obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and nine social determinants of health were obtained from CDC PLACES and other publicly available datasets. Counties were stratified into quartiles based on MASLD-related mortality rates. Population-weighted mixed-effects linear regression models were used to evaluate associations between food environment exposures and MASLD mortality, adjusting for region, rural-urban status, age, sex, race, insurance coverage, chronic dis-ease prevalence, SNAP participation, and access to exercise facilities.

Counties with the worst food environments had significantly higher MASLD-related mortality, even after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Compared with counties in the lowest quartile of MASLD mortality, those in the highest quartile had a greater proportion of food deserts (22.3% vs 14.9%; P < .001) and food swamps (73.1% vs 65.7%; P < .001). They also had a significantly higher prevalence of obesity (40.5% vs 32.5%), type 2 diabetes (15.8% vs 11.4%), and physical inactivity (33.7% vs 24.9%).

Demographically, counties with higher MASLD mortality had significantly larger proportions of Black and Hispanic residents, and were more likely to be rural and located in the South. These counties also had significantly lower median household incomes, higher poverty rates, fewer adults with a college education, lower access to exercise opportunities, greater SNAP participation, less broadband access, and more uninsured adults.

In multivariable regression models, both food deserts and food swamps remained independently associated with MASLD mortality. Counties in the highest quartile of food desert exposure had a 14.5% higher MASLD mortality rate, compared with the lowest quartile (P = .001), and those in the highest quartile for food swamp exposure had a 13.9% higher mortality rate (P = .005).

Type 2 diabetes, physical inactivity, and lack of health insurance were also independently associated with increased MASLD-related mortality. 

“Implementing public health interventions that address the specific environmental factors of each county can help US policymakers promote access to healthy, culturally appropriate food choices at affordable prices and reduce the consumption of poor-quality food,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, improving access to parks and exercise facilities can further enhance the impact of healthy nutrition. These strategies could help curb the growing epidemic of metabolic diseases, including MASLD and related mortality.”

This study was supported by King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, the Global NASH Council, Center for Outcomes Research in Liver Diseases, and the Beatty Liver and Obesity Research Fund, Inova Health System. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

US counties with limited access to healthy food (food deserts) or a high density of unhealthy food outlets (food swamps) have higher mortality rates from metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), according to investigators.

These findings highlight the importance of addressing disparities in food environments and social determinants of health to help reduce MASLD-related mortality, lead author Annette Paik, MD, of Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, and colleagues reported.

“Recent studies indicate that food swamps and deserts, as surrogates for food insecurity, are linked to poor glycemic control and higher adult obesity rates,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Understanding the intersection of these factors with sociodemographic and clinical variables offers insights into MASLD-related outcomes, including mortality.”

To this end, the present study examined the association between food environments and MASLD-related mortality across more than 2,195 US counties. County-level mortality data were obtained from the CDC WONDER database (2016-2020) and linked to food environment data from the US Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas using Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes. Food deserts were defined as low-income areas with limited access to grocery stores, while food swamps were characterized by a predominance of unhealthy food outlets relative to healthy ones.

Additional data on obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and nine social determinants of health were obtained from CDC PLACES and other publicly available datasets. Counties were stratified into quartiles based on MASLD-related mortality rates. Population-weighted mixed-effects linear regression models were used to evaluate associations between food environment exposures and MASLD mortality, adjusting for region, rural-urban status, age, sex, race, insurance coverage, chronic dis-ease prevalence, SNAP participation, and access to exercise facilities.

Counties with the worst food environments had significantly higher MASLD-related mortality, even after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Compared with counties in the lowest quartile of MASLD mortality, those in the highest quartile had a greater proportion of food deserts (22.3% vs 14.9%; P < .001) and food swamps (73.1% vs 65.7%; P < .001). They also had a significantly higher prevalence of obesity (40.5% vs 32.5%), type 2 diabetes (15.8% vs 11.4%), and physical inactivity (33.7% vs 24.9%).

Demographically, counties with higher MASLD mortality had significantly larger proportions of Black and Hispanic residents, and were more likely to be rural and located in the South. These counties also had significantly lower median household incomes, higher poverty rates, fewer adults with a college education, lower access to exercise opportunities, greater SNAP participation, less broadband access, and more uninsured adults.

In multivariable regression models, both food deserts and food swamps remained independently associated with MASLD mortality. Counties in the highest quartile of food desert exposure had a 14.5% higher MASLD mortality rate, compared with the lowest quartile (P = .001), and those in the highest quartile for food swamp exposure had a 13.9% higher mortality rate (P = .005).

Type 2 diabetes, physical inactivity, and lack of health insurance were also independently associated with increased MASLD-related mortality. 

“Implementing public health interventions that address the specific environmental factors of each county can help US policymakers promote access to healthy, culturally appropriate food choices at affordable prices and reduce the consumption of poor-quality food,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, improving access to parks and exercise facilities can further enhance the impact of healthy nutrition. These strategies could help curb the growing epidemic of metabolic diseases, including MASLD and related mortality.”

This study was supported by King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, the Global NASH Council, Center for Outcomes Research in Liver Diseases, and the Beatty Liver and Obesity Research Fund, Inova Health System. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

US counties with limited access to healthy food (food deserts) or a high density of unhealthy food outlets (food swamps) have higher mortality rates from metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), according to investigators.

These findings highlight the importance of addressing disparities in food environments and social determinants of health to help reduce MASLD-related mortality, lead author Annette Paik, MD, of Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, and colleagues reported.

“Recent studies indicate that food swamps and deserts, as surrogates for food insecurity, are linked to poor glycemic control and higher adult obesity rates,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Understanding the intersection of these factors with sociodemographic and clinical variables offers insights into MASLD-related outcomes, including mortality.”

To this end, the present study examined the association between food environments and MASLD-related mortality across more than 2,195 US counties. County-level mortality data were obtained from the CDC WONDER database (2016-2020) and linked to food environment data from the US Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas using Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes. Food deserts were defined as low-income areas with limited access to grocery stores, while food swamps were characterized by a predominance of unhealthy food outlets relative to healthy ones.

Additional data on obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and nine social determinants of health were obtained from CDC PLACES and other publicly available datasets. Counties were stratified into quartiles based on MASLD-related mortality rates. Population-weighted mixed-effects linear regression models were used to evaluate associations between food environment exposures and MASLD mortality, adjusting for region, rural-urban status, age, sex, race, insurance coverage, chronic dis-ease prevalence, SNAP participation, and access to exercise facilities.

Counties with the worst food environments had significantly higher MASLD-related mortality, even after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Compared with counties in the lowest quartile of MASLD mortality, those in the highest quartile had a greater proportion of food deserts (22.3% vs 14.9%; P < .001) and food swamps (73.1% vs 65.7%; P < .001). They also had a significantly higher prevalence of obesity (40.5% vs 32.5%), type 2 diabetes (15.8% vs 11.4%), and physical inactivity (33.7% vs 24.9%).

Demographically, counties with higher MASLD mortality had significantly larger proportions of Black and Hispanic residents, and were more likely to be rural and located in the South. These counties also had significantly lower median household incomes, higher poverty rates, fewer adults with a college education, lower access to exercise opportunities, greater SNAP participation, less broadband access, and more uninsured adults.

In multivariable regression models, both food deserts and food swamps remained independently associated with MASLD mortality. Counties in the highest quartile of food desert exposure had a 14.5% higher MASLD mortality rate, compared with the lowest quartile (P = .001), and those in the highest quartile for food swamp exposure had a 13.9% higher mortality rate (P = .005).

Type 2 diabetes, physical inactivity, and lack of health insurance were also independently associated with increased MASLD-related mortality. 

“Implementing public health interventions that address the specific environmental factors of each county can help US policymakers promote access to healthy, culturally appropriate food choices at affordable prices and reduce the consumption of poor-quality food,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, improving access to parks and exercise facilities can further enhance the impact of healthy nutrition. These strategies could help curb the growing epidemic of metabolic diseases, including MASLD and related mortality.”

This study was supported by King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, the Global NASH Council, Center for Outcomes Research in Liver Diseases, and the Beatty Liver and Obesity Research Fund, Inova Health System. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.