Video

LOS ANGELES – Retinal infarctions are often going missed as important red flags for future ischemic strokes.

Among U.S. Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who had a retinal infarction (RI), “only one-third underwent adequate stroke risk factor evaluation,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, reported in a poster presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. And fewer than 10% underwent assessment by a neurologist, based on a review of 5,688 of these older Medicare beneficiaries who had a RI sometime during 2009-2015.

The high-risk profile of these patients was affirmed by a 1% ischemic stroke incidence during the 90 days following their RI diagnosis, a rate roughly fourfold higher than in similar patients without a recent RI.

“A lot of people don’t recognize that a retinal infarction is a type of stroke,” Dr. Merkler said in a video interview. To test this hypothesis, Dr. Merkler and his associates examined the follow-up run on elderly Medicare beneficiaries following a RI diagnosis.”The guidelines recommend evaluating why these patients had a stroke [a retinal infarction] and treating risk factors to reduce the risk of a future stroke,” said Dr. Merkler, a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

The review showed that 34% of the RI patients underwent cervical carotid imaging, 29% had heart rhythm monitoring, 23% underwent echocardiography, and 8% had assessment by a neurologist.

Dr. Merkler had no disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Merkler A et al. ISC 2018 Abstract TMP76 (Stroke. 2018 Jan;49[Suppl 1]:ATMP76).

LOS ANGELES – Retinal infarctions are often going missed as important red flags for future ischemic strokes.

Among U.S. Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who had a retinal infarction (RI), “only one-third underwent adequate stroke risk factor evaluation,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, reported in a poster presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. And fewer than 10% underwent assessment by a neurologist, based on a review of 5,688 of these older Medicare beneficiaries who had a RI sometime during 2009-2015.

The high-risk profile of these patients was affirmed by a 1% ischemic stroke incidence during the 90 days following their RI diagnosis, a rate roughly fourfold higher than in similar patients without a recent RI.

“A lot of people don’t recognize that a retinal infarction is a type of stroke,” Dr. Merkler said in a video interview. To test this hypothesis, Dr. Merkler and his associates examined the follow-up run on elderly Medicare beneficiaries following a RI diagnosis.”The guidelines recommend evaluating why these patients had a stroke [a retinal infarction] and treating risk factors to reduce the risk of a future stroke,” said Dr. Merkler, a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

The review showed that 34% of the RI patients underwent cervical carotid imaging, 29% had heart rhythm monitoring, 23% underwent echocardiography, and 8% had assessment by a neurologist.

Dr. Merkler had no disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Merkler A et al. ISC 2018 Abstract TMP76 (Stroke. 2018 Jan;49[Suppl 1]:ATMP76).

LOS ANGELES – Retinal infarctions are often going missed as important red flags for future ischemic strokes.

Among U.S. Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who had a retinal infarction (RI), “only one-third underwent adequate stroke risk factor evaluation,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, reported in a poster presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. And fewer than 10% underwent assessment by a neurologist, based on a review of 5,688 of these older Medicare beneficiaries who had a RI sometime during 2009-2015.

The high-risk profile of these patients was affirmed by a 1% ischemic stroke incidence during the 90 days following their RI diagnosis, a rate roughly fourfold higher than in similar patients without a recent RI.

“A lot of people don’t recognize that a retinal infarction is a type of stroke,” Dr. Merkler said in a video interview. To test this hypothesis, Dr. Merkler and his associates examined the follow-up run on elderly Medicare beneficiaries following a RI diagnosis.”The guidelines recommend evaluating why these patients had a stroke [a retinal infarction] and treating risk factors to reduce the risk of a future stroke,” said Dr. Merkler, a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

The review showed that 34% of the RI patients underwent cervical carotid imaging, 29% had heart rhythm monitoring, 23% underwent echocardiography, and 8% had assessment by a neurologist.

Dr. Merkler had no disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Merkler A et al. ISC 2018 Abstract TMP76 (Stroke. 2018 Jan;49[Suppl 1]:ATMP76).

SAN DIEGO – A paradox of treating people with the monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab is that the agent can be an effective therapy for many people living with multiple sclerosis, but in some patients is associated with the development of other autoimmune diseases.

“I counsel patients with multiple sclerosis that this is a high risk, high gain drug,” Alasdair Coles, MD, of the University of Cambridge (England), said at the meeting, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Patients can make it safer through strict compliance with the drug’s risk monitoring program. But without patient compliance, alemtuzumab becomes a dangerous drug, he said in a video interview.

Knowing in advance which patients are at an elevated risk for subsequent autoimmune diseases has been difficult to predict. But researchers are getting closer, Dr. Coles said. In the future, measuring a serum factor, potentially interleukin 21, could produce a pretreatment risk assessment for each individual.

SAN DIEGO – A paradox of treating people with the monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab is that the agent can be an effective therapy for many people living with multiple sclerosis, but in some patients is associated with the development of other autoimmune diseases.

“I counsel patients with multiple sclerosis that this is a high risk, high gain drug,” Alasdair Coles, MD, of the University of Cambridge (England), said at the meeting, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Patients can make it safer through strict compliance with the drug’s risk monitoring program. But without patient compliance, alemtuzumab becomes a dangerous drug, he said in a video interview.

Knowing in advance which patients are at an elevated risk for subsequent autoimmune diseases has been difficult to predict. But researchers are getting closer, Dr. Coles said. In the future, measuring a serum factor, potentially interleukin 21, could produce a pretreatment risk assessment for each individual.

SAN DIEGO – A paradox of treating people with the monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab is that the agent can be an effective therapy for many people living with multiple sclerosis, but in some patients is associated with the development of other autoimmune diseases.

“I counsel patients with multiple sclerosis that this is a high risk, high gain drug,” Alasdair Coles, MD, of the University of Cambridge (England), said at the meeting, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Patients can make it safer through strict compliance with the drug’s risk monitoring program. But without patient compliance, alemtuzumab becomes a dangerous drug, he said in a video interview.

Knowing in advance which patients are at an elevated risk for subsequent autoimmune diseases has been difficult to predict. But researchers are getting closer, Dr. Coles said. In the future, measuring a serum factor, potentially interleukin 21, could produce a pretreatment risk assessment for each individual.

SAN DIEGO – A pair of phase 3 studies offer promising results regarding the safety and efficacy of ozanimod, an experimental immunomodulator, in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS).

The medication targets sphingosine 1-phosphate 1 and 5 receptors. Industry-funded researchers tested it in two studies against interferon beta-1a.

One study, called SUNBEAM, tested once-daily oral ozanimod (1 mg or 0.5 mg with 7-day dose escalation) against interferon beta-1a (via 30 mcg weekly intramuscular injection) for at least 12 months in 1,346 patients with RMS. The annualized relapse rate, the primary endpoint, was lower in the ozanimod groups versus interferon. For the 1-mg dose, it was 0.181 (P less than .0001), and for 0.5-mg dose, 0.241 (P = .0013).

The number of serious treatment-emergent adverse events in the three groups was low, ranging from 2.5% to 3.5%.

The other study, called RADIANCE, was a similar trial that lasted 24 months. In it, the rate of serious treatment-emergent adverse events in the three groups were similar, ranging from 6.4% to 7.1%.

Ozanimod offers “an excellent therapeutic benefit for patients and a very clean safety profile,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center. He is an author on both studies and spoke in a video interview at ACTRIMS Forum 2018, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

He said the ozanimod should be especially useful as a first-line treatment for MS. The drug is currently being evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration for an RMS indication, and it is also being developed for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, he said.

The study was funded by Receptos, a wholly owned subsidiary of Celgene. Dr. Cree reported that he has been a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and Shire.

SOURCE: Cree B et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2018, abstract P030, and Comi G et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2018, abstract P023

SAN DIEGO – A pair of phase 3 studies offer promising results regarding the safety and efficacy of ozanimod, an experimental immunomodulator, in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS).

The medication targets sphingosine 1-phosphate 1 and 5 receptors. Industry-funded researchers tested it in two studies against interferon beta-1a.

One study, called SUNBEAM, tested once-daily oral ozanimod (1 mg or 0.5 mg with 7-day dose escalation) against interferon beta-1a (via 30 mcg weekly intramuscular injection) for at least 12 months in 1,346 patients with RMS. The annualized relapse rate, the primary endpoint, was lower in the ozanimod groups versus interferon. For the 1-mg dose, it was 0.181 (P less than .0001), and for 0.5-mg dose, 0.241 (P = .0013).

The number of serious treatment-emergent adverse events in the three groups was low, ranging from 2.5% to 3.5%.

The other study, called RADIANCE, was a similar trial that lasted 24 months. In it, the rate of serious treatment-emergent adverse events in the three groups were similar, ranging from 6.4% to 7.1%.

Ozanimod offers “an excellent therapeutic benefit for patients and a very clean safety profile,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center. He is an author on both studies and spoke in a video interview at ACTRIMS Forum 2018, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

He said the ozanimod should be especially useful as a first-line treatment for MS. The drug is currently being evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration for an RMS indication, and it is also being developed for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, he said.

The study was funded by Receptos, a wholly owned subsidiary of Celgene. Dr. Cree reported that he has been a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and Shire.

SOURCE: Cree B et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2018, abstract P030, and Comi G et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2018, abstract P023

SAN DIEGO – A pair of phase 3 studies offer promising results regarding the safety and efficacy of ozanimod, an experimental immunomodulator, in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS).

The medication targets sphingosine 1-phosphate 1 and 5 receptors. Industry-funded researchers tested it in two studies against interferon beta-1a.

One study, called SUNBEAM, tested once-daily oral ozanimod (1 mg or 0.5 mg with 7-day dose escalation) against interferon beta-1a (via 30 mcg weekly intramuscular injection) for at least 12 months in 1,346 patients with RMS. The annualized relapse rate, the primary endpoint, was lower in the ozanimod groups versus interferon. For the 1-mg dose, it was 0.181 (P less than .0001), and for 0.5-mg dose, 0.241 (P = .0013).

The number of serious treatment-emergent adverse events in the three groups was low, ranging from 2.5% to 3.5%.

The other study, called RADIANCE, was a similar trial that lasted 24 months. In it, the rate of serious treatment-emergent adverse events in the three groups were similar, ranging from 6.4% to 7.1%.

Ozanimod offers “an excellent therapeutic benefit for patients and a very clean safety profile,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center. He is an author on both studies and spoke in a video interview at ACTRIMS Forum 2018, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

He said the ozanimod should be especially useful as a first-line treatment for MS. The drug is currently being evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration for an RMS indication, and it is also being developed for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, he said.

The study was funded by Receptos, a wholly owned subsidiary of Celgene. Dr. Cree reported that he has been a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and Shire.

SOURCE: Cree B et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2018, abstract P030, and Comi G et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2018, abstract P023

San Diego – The efficacy of immunomodulatory disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis decreases with age, and high-efficacy drugs do a better job of inhibiting MS disability compared with low-efficacy drugs only in patients younger than 40.5 years.

Those are the key conclusions from a meta-analysis of the age-dependent efficacy of MS treatments that was published in the November 2017 issue of Frontiers in Neurology. In a video interview, Ann Marie Weideman, lead study author, discussed highlights from the meta-analysis at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. The meta-analysis drew from more than 28,000 individuals with MS participating in 38 trials of 13 categories of immunomodulatory drugs.

Ms. Weideman is an IRTA Fellow at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Md. She reported that study coauthor Bibiana Bielekova, MD, is coinventor of several patents related to daclizumab.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

San Diego – The efficacy of immunomodulatory disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis decreases with age, and high-efficacy drugs do a better job of inhibiting MS disability compared with low-efficacy drugs only in patients younger than 40.5 years.

Those are the key conclusions from a meta-analysis of the age-dependent efficacy of MS treatments that was published in the November 2017 issue of Frontiers in Neurology. In a video interview, Ann Marie Weideman, lead study author, discussed highlights from the meta-analysis at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. The meta-analysis drew from more than 28,000 individuals with MS participating in 38 trials of 13 categories of immunomodulatory drugs.

Ms. Weideman is an IRTA Fellow at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Md. She reported that study coauthor Bibiana Bielekova, MD, is coinventor of several patents related to daclizumab.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

San Diego – The efficacy of immunomodulatory disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis decreases with age, and high-efficacy drugs do a better job of inhibiting MS disability compared with low-efficacy drugs only in patients younger than 40.5 years.

Those are the key conclusions from a meta-analysis of the age-dependent efficacy of MS treatments that was published in the November 2017 issue of Frontiers in Neurology. In a video interview, Ann Marie Weideman, lead study author, discussed highlights from the meta-analysis at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. The meta-analysis drew from more than 28,000 individuals with MS participating in 38 trials of 13 categories of immunomodulatory drugs.

Ms. Weideman is an IRTA Fellow at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Md. She reported that study coauthor Bibiana Bielekova, MD, is coinventor of several patents related to daclizumab.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

REPORTING FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2018

SAN DIEGO – Although clinical tools to assess ambulatory function among people with multiple sclerosis exist, some measure it as part of a comprehensive assessment while others require the patient to answer many questions and then clinicians to calculate a score.

To devise a more targeted, simpler instrument, Emily Evans, MD, and her colleagues developed the PDAS or Patient Derived Ambulation Scale. They evaluated the correlation of this single-item scale to assess ambulation – an important measure of patient function – and evaluated how the results correlated with existing tools such as the Patient Determined Disease Steps and 12-item MS Walking Scale. Dr. Evans presented preliminary findings at the ACTRIMS Forum 2018, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“We feel this is a quick test that can be readily implemented into clinical practice,” Dr. Evans, a neurologist at the John L. Trotter MS Center at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a video interview.

REPORTING FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2018

SAN DIEGO – Although clinical tools to assess ambulatory function among people with multiple sclerosis exist, some measure it as part of a comprehensive assessment while others require the patient to answer many questions and then clinicians to calculate a score.

To devise a more targeted, simpler instrument, Emily Evans, MD, and her colleagues developed the PDAS or Patient Derived Ambulation Scale. They evaluated the correlation of this single-item scale to assess ambulation – an important measure of patient function – and evaluated how the results correlated with existing tools such as the Patient Determined Disease Steps and 12-item MS Walking Scale. Dr. Evans presented preliminary findings at the ACTRIMS Forum 2018, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“We feel this is a quick test that can be readily implemented into clinical practice,” Dr. Evans, a neurologist at the John L. Trotter MS Center at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a video interview.

REPORTING FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2018

SAN DIEGO – Although clinical tools to assess ambulatory function among people with multiple sclerosis exist, some measure it as part of a comprehensive assessment while others require the patient to answer many questions and then clinicians to calculate a score.

To devise a more targeted, simpler instrument, Emily Evans, MD, and her colleagues developed the PDAS or Patient Derived Ambulation Scale. They evaluated the correlation of this single-item scale to assess ambulation – an important measure of patient function – and evaluated how the results correlated with existing tools such as the Patient Determined Disease Steps and 12-item MS Walking Scale. Dr. Evans presented preliminary findings at the ACTRIMS Forum 2018, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“We feel this is a quick test that can be readily implemented into clinical practice,” Dr. Evans, a neurologist at the John L. Trotter MS Center at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a video interview.

SAN DIEGO – Compelling findings in a genetically engineered mouse model of multiple sclerosis identify mechanisms of how adolescence and gut dysbiosis contribute to the risk of MS. In addition, disparities in gut microbiome species could explain why some people are at higher risk for developing multiple sclerosis, while others seem to enjoy a protective effect against development of this and other autoimmune diseases.

The hope is that these findings could pave the way for clinicians to potentially prevent development of multiple sclerosis in people at higher risk, perhaps through altering the gut flora and probiotic therapy, Suhayl Dhib-Jalbut, MD, said in a video interview at ACTRIMS Forum 2018, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Dr. Dhib-Jalbut and his team discovered these findings using humanized transgenic mice – in other words, mice containing risk genes for triggering disease transferred from a patient with multiple sclerosis. The mice were more likely to develop MS-like disease at certain ages and in the presence of an altered gut microbiome or gut dysbiosis (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Oct 31;114[44]:E9318-27).

Dr. Dhib-Jalbut is past president of ACTRIMS and is professor and chairman of the departments of neurology at Rutgers–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., and New Jersey Medical School, Newark. He has received research grants from Biogen and Teva, and is a consultant for Genzyme, Teva, Celgene, and, Mallinckrodt.

SAN DIEGO – Compelling findings in a genetically engineered mouse model of multiple sclerosis identify mechanisms of how adolescence and gut dysbiosis contribute to the risk of MS. In addition, disparities in gut microbiome species could explain why some people are at higher risk for developing multiple sclerosis, while others seem to enjoy a protective effect against development of this and other autoimmune diseases.

The hope is that these findings could pave the way for clinicians to potentially prevent development of multiple sclerosis in people at higher risk, perhaps through altering the gut flora and probiotic therapy, Suhayl Dhib-Jalbut, MD, said in a video interview at ACTRIMS Forum 2018, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Dr. Dhib-Jalbut and his team discovered these findings using humanized transgenic mice – in other words, mice containing risk genes for triggering disease transferred from a patient with multiple sclerosis. The mice were more likely to develop MS-like disease at certain ages and in the presence of an altered gut microbiome or gut dysbiosis (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Oct 31;114[44]:E9318-27).

Dr. Dhib-Jalbut is past president of ACTRIMS and is professor and chairman of the departments of neurology at Rutgers–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., and New Jersey Medical School, Newark. He has received research grants from Biogen and Teva, and is a consultant for Genzyme, Teva, Celgene, and, Mallinckrodt.

SAN DIEGO – Compelling findings in a genetically engineered mouse model of multiple sclerosis identify mechanisms of how adolescence and gut dysbiosis contribute to the risk of MS. In addition, disparities in gut microbiome species could explain why some people are at higher risk for developing multiple sclerosis, while others seem to enjoy a protective effect against development of this and other autoimmune diseases.

The hope is that these findings could pave the way for clinicians to potentially prevent development of multiple sclerosis in people at higher risk, perhaps through altering the gut flora and probiotic therapy, Suhayl Dhib-Jalbut, MD, said in a video interview at ACTRIMS Forum 2018, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Dr. Dhib-Jalbut and his team discovered these findings using humanized transgenic mice – in other words, mice containing risk genes for triggering disease transferred from a patient with multiple sclerosis. The mice were more likely to develop MS-like disease at certain ages and in the presence of an altered gut microbiome or gut dysbiosis (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Oct 31;114[44]:E9318-27).

Dr. Dhib-Jalbut is past president of ACTRIMS and is professor and chairman of the departments of neurology at Rutgers–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., and New Jersey Medical School, Newark. He has received research grants from Biogen and Teva, and is a consultant for Genzyme, Teva, Celgene, and, Mallinckrodt.

Adults with cystic fibrosis (CF) should undergo screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer every 5 years beginning at age 40 years, unless they have had a solid organ transplant – in which case, screening should begin at age 30 years. For both groups, screening intervals should be shortened to 3 years if any adenomatous polyps are recovered.

The new screening recommendation is 1 of 10 set forth by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, in conjunction with the American Gastroenterological Association. The document reflects the significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer among adults with the chronic lung disorder, Denis Hadjiliadis, MD, and his colleagues wrote in the February issue of Gastroenterology. CF patients face up to a 10-fold risk of colorectal cancer, compared with the general population; the risk approaches a 30-fold increase among CF patients who have undergone a lung transplant.

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association

In addition to making recommendations on screening intervals and protocols, the document asks clinicians to reframe their thinking of CF as a respiratory-only disease.

“Physicians should recognize that CF is a colon cancer syndrome,” wrote Dr. Hadjiliadis, director of the Adult Cystic Fibrosis Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his coauthors.

The increased colorectal cancer risk has become increasingly evident as CF patients live longer, Dr. Hadjiliadis and the panel wrote.

“The current median predicted survival is 41 years, and persons born in 2015 have an estimated average life expectancy of 45 years. The increasing longevity of adults with CF puts them at risk for other diseases, such as gastrointestinal cancer.”

In addition to the normal age-related risk, however, CF patients seem to have an elevated risk profile unique to the disease. The underlying causes have not been fully elucidated but may have to do with mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR), which are responsible for the excess thickened mucosal secretions that characterize CF. CFTR also is a tumor-suppressor gene in the intestinal tract of mice, and is important in gastrointestinal epithelial homeostasis. “Absence of CFTR is associated with dysregulation of the immune response, intestinal stem cells, and growth signaling regulators,” the authors noted.

In response to this observed increased risk of colorectal cancers among CF patients, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation convened an 18-member task force to review the extant literature and compile colorectal cancer screening recommendations for CF patients who show no signs of such malignancies. The team reviewed 1,159 articles and based its findings on the 50 most relevant. The papers comprised observational studies, case-control studies, and case reports; there are no randomized clinical trials of screening for this population.

The American Gastroenterological Association reviewed and approved all of the recommendations:

• Screening decisions should be a collaborative process between the CF patient and clinician, taking into account comorbidities, safety, and quality of life. This should include a discussion of expected lifespan; patients with limited lifespan won’t benefit from screening for a slow-growing cancer. Patients should also consider that the colonoscopy prep for CF patients is somewhat more complex than for non-CF patients. “Given these complexities, the task force agreed that individuals with CF and their providers should … carefully assess the risks and benefits of CRC screening and its impact on the health and quality of life for the adult with CF.”
• The decision team should include an endoscopist. An endoscopist with CF training is preferred, but the panel noted these specialists are rare.
• Colonoscopy is the preferred method of screening for CF patients, since it can both detect and remove polyps. “This is one of the main reasons why colonoscopy is the screening procedure of choice for other high-risk groups,” the panel noted.
• There is insufficient evidence to recommend alternate screening methods in CF patients, including CT scanning, colonography, stool-based tests, or flexible sigmoidoscopy.
• In CF patients without signs of CRC, screening should commence at age 40 years and be repeated every 5 years as long as the results are negative.
• Any CF patient who has had adenomatous polyps on a screening colonoscopy should have a repeat colonoscopy within 3 years, unless clinical findings support more frequent screening.
• For any adult CF patient older than age 30 years who has undergone a solid organ transplant, screening colonoscopy should commence within 2 years of transplantation. “Although the absolute risk of CRC in individuals with CF is extremely low for patients younger than 30 years, the risk … greatly increases after lung transplantation,” to 25-30 times the age-adjusted baseline, the panel wrote. “Increased posttransplantation survival means that many transplant patients will enter older age groups where there is an increased risk of cancer.” Screening should be performed after recovery and within 2 years, unless there was a negative colonoscopy in the 5 years before transplant.
• Thereafter, patients who have had a solid organ transplant should undergo colonoscopy every 5 years, based on their life expectancy. “In cases where the expected survival time is limited (less than 10 years), screening should not be performed. For adults appropriately selected, lung transplantation usually increases survival probability. Therefore, a lung transplantation candidate with a short life expectancy is likely to become a screening candidate before and after transplantation at the appropriate ages described here, because the potential survival increases to approximately 10 years.”
• Colonoscopy should be repeated every 3 years on CF patients with transplants with a history of adenomatous polyps. This interval may be as short as 1 year for patients with high-risk, large, or multiple polyps.
• CF patients should undergo more intense bowel prep for colonoscopy, with three-four washes of a minimum of one liter of purgative per wash; the last wash should occur 4-6 hours before the procedure. Split-prep regimens (several smaller-volume washes) are better than a single larger-volume wash. The panel suggested a sample CF-specific regimen available from the Minnesota Cystic Fibrosis Center.

The new document reflects expert consensus on the currently available data, the panel said. As more data emerge, the recommendations might change.

“It is possible that different subpopulations will need more or less frequent schedules for rescreening and surveillance. Our recommendations are making an effort to balance the risk of missing advanced colorectal cancer and minimizing the burden and risk of too frequent examinations.”

None of the panel members had any financial disclosures.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Hadjiliadis D et al. Gastroenterology. 2017 Dec 28. doi. org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.012

Adults with cystic fibrosis (CF) should undergo screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer every 5 years beginning at age 40 years, unless they have had a solid organ transplant – in which case, screening should begin at age 30 years. For both groups, screening intervals should be shortened to 3 years if any adenomatous polyps are recovered.

The new screening recommendation is 1 of 10 set forth by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, in conjunction with the American Gastroenterological Association. The document reflects the significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer among adults with the chronic lung disorder, Denis Hadjiliadis, MD, and his colleagues wrote in the February issue of Gastroenterology. CF patients face up to a 10-fold risk of colorectal cancer, compared with the general population; the risk approaches a 30-fold increase among CF patients who have undergone a lung transplant.

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association

In addition to making recommendations on screening intervals and protocols, the document asks clinicians to reframe their thinking of CF as a respiratory-only disease.

“Physicians should recognize that CF is a colon cancer syndrome,” wrote Dr. Hadjiliadis, director of the Adult Cystic Fibrosis Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his coauthors.

The increased colorectal cancer risk has become increasingly evident as CF patients live longer, Dr. Hadjiliadis and the panel wrote.

“The current median predicted survival is 41 years, and persons born in 2015 have an estimated average life expectancy of 45 years. The increasing longevity of adults with CF puts them at risk for other diseases, such as gastrointestinal cancer.”

In addition to the normal age-related risk, however, CF patients seem to have an elevated risk profile unique to the disease. The underlying causes have not been fully elucidated but may have to do with mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR), which are responsible for the excess thickened mucosal secretions that characterize CF. CFTR also is a tumor-suppressor gene in the intestinal tract of mice, and is important in gastrointestinal epithelial homeostasis. “Absence of CFTR is associated with dysregulation of the immune response, intestinal stem cells, and growth signaling regulators,” the authors noted.

In response to this observed increased risk of colorectal cancers among CF patients, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation convened an 18-member task force to review the extant literature and compile colorectal cancer screening recommendations for CF patients who show no signs of such malignancies. The team reviewed 1,159 articles and based its findings on the 50 most relevant. The papers comprised observational studies, case-control studies, and case reports; there are no randomized clinical trials of screening for this population.

The American Gastroenterological Association reviewed and approved all of the recommendations:

• Screening decisions should be a collaborative process between the CF patient and clinician, taking into account comorbidities, safety, and quality of life. This should include a discussion of expected lifespan; patients with limited lifespan won’t benefit from screening for a slow-growing cancer. Patients should also consider that the colonoscopy prep for CF patients is somewhat more complex than for non-CF patients. “Given these complexities, the task force agreed that individuals with CF and their providers should … carefully assess the risks and benefits of CRC screening and its impact on the health and quality of life for the adult with CF.”
• The decision team should include an endoscopist. An endoscopist with CF training is preferred, but the panel noted these specialists are rare.
• Colonoscopy is the preferred method of screening for CF patients, since it can both detect and remove polyps. “This is one of the main reasons why colonoscopy is the screening procedure of choice for other high-risk groups,” the panel noted.
• There is insufficient evidence to recommend alternate screening methods in CF patients, including CT scanning, colonography, stool-based tests, or flexible sigmoidoscopy.
• In CF patients without signs of CRC, screening should commence at age 40 years and be repeated every 5 years as long as the results are negative.
• Any CF patient who has had adenomatous polyps on a screening colonoscopy should have a repeat colonoscopy within 3 years, unless clinical findings support more frequent screening.
• For any adult CF patient older than age 30 years who has undergone a solid organ transplant, screening colonoscopy should commence within 2 years of transplantation. “Although the absolute risk of CRC in individuals with CF is extremely low for patients younger than 30 years, the risk … greatly increases after lung transplantation,” to 25-30 times the age-adjusted baseline, the panel wrote. “Increased posttransplantation survival means that many transplant patients will enter older age groups where there is an increased risk of cancer.” Screening should be performed after recovery and within 2 years, unless there was a negative colonoscopy in the 5 years before transplant.
• Thereafter, patients who have had a solid organ transplant should undergo colonoscopy every 5 years, based on their life expectancy. “In cases where the expected survival time is limited (less than 10 years), screening should not be performed. For adults appropriately selected, lung transplantation usually increases survival probability. Therefore, a lung transplantation candidate with a short life expectancy is likely to become a screening candidate before and after transplantation at the appropriate ages described here, because the potential survival increases to approximately 10 years.”
• Colonoscopy should be repeated every 3 years on CF patients with transplants with a history of adenomatous polyps. This interval may be as short as 1 year for patients with high-risk, large, or multiple polyps.
• CF patients should undergo more intense bowel prep for colonoscopy, with three-four washes of a minimum of one liter of purgative per wash; the last wash should occur 4-6 hours before the procedure. Split-prep regimens (several smaller-volume washes) are better than a single larger-volume wash. The panel suggested a sample CF-specific regimen available from the Minnesota Cystic Fibrosis Center.

The new document reflects expert consensus on the currently available data, the panel said. As more data emerge, the recommendations might change.

“It is possible that different subpopulations will need more or less frequent schedules for rescreening and surveillance. Our recommendations are making an effort to balance the risk of missing advanced colorectal cancer and minimizing the burden and risk of too frequent examinations.”

None of the panel members had any financial disclosures.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Hadjiliadis D et al. Gastroenterology. 2017 Dec 28. doi. org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.012

Adults with cystic fibrosis (CF) should undergo screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer every 5 years beginning at age 40 years, unless they have had a solid organ transplant – in which case, screening should begin at age 30 years. For both groups, screening intervals should be shortened to 3 years if any adenomatous polyps are recovered.

The new screening recommendation is 1 of 10 set forth by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, in conjunction with the American Gastroenterological Association. The document reflects the significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer among adults with the chronic lung disorder, Denis Hadjiliadis, MD, and his colleagues wrote in the February issue of Gastroenterology. CF patients face up to a 10-fold risk of colorectal cancer, compared with the general population; the risk approaches a 30-fold increase among CF patients who have undergone a lung transplant.

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association

In addition to making recommendations on screening intervals and protocols, the document asks clinicians to reframe their thinking of CF as a respiratory-only disease.

“Physicians should recognize that CF is a colon cancer syndrome,” wrote Dr. Hadjiliadis, director of the Adult Cystic Fibrosis Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his coauthors.

The increased colorectal cancer risk has become increasingly evident as CF patients live longer, Dr. Hadjiliadis and the panel wrote.

“The current median predicted survival is 41 years, and persons born in 2015 have an estimated average life expectancy of 45 years. The increasing longevity of adults with CF puts them at risk for other diseases, such as gastrointestinal cancer.”

In addition to the normal age-related risk, however, CF patients seem to have an elevated risk profile unique to the disease. The underlying causes have not been fully elucidated but may have to do with mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR), which are responsible for the excess thickened mucosal secretions that characterize CF. CFTR also is a tumor-suppressor gene in the intestinal tract of mice, and is important in gastrointestinal epithelial homeostasis. “Absence of CFTR is associated with dysregulation of the immune response, intestinal stem cells, and growth signaling regulators,” the authors noted.

In response to this observed increased risk of colorectal cancers among CF patients, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation convened an 18-member task force to review the extant literature and compile colorectal cancer screening recommendations for CF patients who show no signs of such malignancies. The team reviewed 1,159 articles and based its findings on the 50 most relevant. The papers comprised observational studies, case-control studies, and case reports; there are no randomized clinical trials of screening for this population.

The American Gastroenterological Association reviewed and approved all of the recommendations:

• Screening decisions should be a collaborative process between the CF patient and clinician, taking into account comorbidities, safety, and quality of life. This should include a discussion of expected lifespan; patients with limited lifespan won’t benefit from screening for a slow-growing cancer. Patients should also consider that the colonoscopy prep for CF patients is somewhat more complex than for non-CF patients. “Given these complexities, the task force agreed that individuals with CF and their providers should … carefully assess the risks and benefits of CRC screening and its impact on the health and quality of life for the adult with CF.”
• The decision team should include an endoscopist. An endoscopist with CF training is preferred, but the panel noted these specialists are rare.
• Colonoscopy is the preferred method of screening for CF patients, since it can both detect and remove polyps. “This is one of the main reasons why colonoscopy is the screening procedure of choice for other high-risk groups,” the panel noted.
• There is insufficient evidence to recommend alternate screening methods in CF patients, including CT scanning, colonography, stool-based tests, or flexible sigmoidoscopy.
• In CF patients without signs of CRC, screening should commence at age 40 years and be repeated every 5 years as long as the results are negative.
• Any CF patient who has had adenomatous polyps on a screening colonoscopy should have a repeat colonoscopy within 3 years, unless clinical findings support more frequent screening.
• For any adult CF patient older than age 30 years who has undergone a solid organ transplant, screening colonoscopy should commence within 2 years of transplantation. “Although the absolute risk of CRC in individuals with CF is extremely low for patients younger than 30 years, the risk … greatly increases after lung transplantation,” to 25-30 times the age-adjusted baseline, the panel wrote. “Increased posttransplantation survival means that many transplant patients will enter older age groups where there is an increased risk of cancer.” Screening should be performed after recovery and within 2 years, unless there was a negative colonoscopy in the 5 years before transplant.
• Thereafter, patients who have had a solid organ transplant should undergo colonoscopy every 5 years, based on their life expectancy. “In cases where the expected survival time is limited (less than 10 years), screening should not be performed. For adults appropriately selected, lung transplantation usually increases survival probability. Therefore, a lung transplantation candidate with a short life expectancy is likely to become a screening candidate before and after transplantation at the appropriate ages described here, because the potential survival increases to approximately 10 years.”
• Colonoscopy should be repeated every 3 years on CF patients with transplants with a history of adenomatous polyps. This interval may be as short as 1 year for patients with high-risk, large, or multiple polyps.
• CF patients should undergo more intense bowel prep for colonoscopy, with three-four washes of a minimum of one liter of purgative per wash; the last wash should occur 4-6 hours before the procedure. Split-prep regimens (several smaller-volume washes) are better than a single larger-volume wash. The panel suggested a sample CF-specific regimen available from the Minnesota Cystic Fibrosis Center.

The new document reflects expert consensus on the currently available data, the panel said. As more data emerge, the recommendations might change.

“It is possible that different subpopulations will need more or less frequent schedules for rescreening and surveillance. Our recommendations are making an effort to balance the risk of missing advanced colorectal cancer and minimizing the burden and risk of too frequent examinations.”

None of the panel members had any financial disclosures.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Hadjiliadis D et al. Gastroenterology. 2017 Dec 28. doi. org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.012

The readership of Gastroenterology includes a broad distribution of stakeholders in digestive health, including those with vested interests in clinical practice, education, policy, clinical investigation, and basic research. One of our most critical constituencies, however, is trainees and early-career GIs. In an effort to support such individuals, our editorial team has developed a freshly minted 1-year editorial fellowship for Gastroenterology. The overarching purpose of this fellowship is to mentor an outstanding trainee for future editorial leadership roles in scientific publishing, as a means to promote the interests of trainee and early-career GI constituencies within the AGA and Gastroenterology. This fellowship is available to exceptional second- or third-year fellows through an application process. The intent of this training is to allow the selected applicant to become intimately involved with Gastroenterology’s entire editorial process, including peer review, editorial oversight, manuscript selection for publication, production, and postpublication activities. Our first fellow, Eric Shah, MD, MBA, was selected from a highly competitive pool of exceptional applicants, and began his fellowship on July 1, 2017.

AGA Institute

This year, we have been delighted to work with Dr. Shah as our inaugural Gastroenterology fellow. Dr. Shah has a unique background, having pursued a joint MD and MBA (earning both concurrently), while also following venture-oriented interests in developing GI technology from academia. Dr. Shah began his research career under the mentorship of Mark Pimentel, MD, and Gil Melmed, MD, at Cedars-Sinai as part of a Research Honors Program. Since that time, he has focused on evaluating the comparative efficacy, durability, and harm associated with pharmacotherapy in functional bowel disorders. Dr. Shah was accepted into the GI fellowship training program at the University of Michigan and received a slot on the T32 training grant to study cost-effectiveness and qualitative research techniques to address gaps in the care of functional bowel disorders. His work under the mentorship of William Chey, MD, Ryan Stidham, MD, and Philip S. Schoenfeld, MD, has flourished and culminated in an oral presentation and several posters for DDW 2017, as well as several first-author manuscripts that have been submitted. Dr. Shah has fully embraced the Gastroenterology fellowship and has far surpassed our high expectations for this position.
 

VIDEO SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

In addition to creating an editorial fellowship, our team has also developed other components within the journal that specifically target trainees and early-career GIs. The Mentoring, Education and Training section – initiated in 2011 through the vision and insight of Bishr Omary MD, PhD, and John Del Valle, MD, at the University of Michigan – has been extremely effective in highlighting critical issues relevant to trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. Topics have included mentoring advice not only for individuals in academic or private practice careers but also industry careers and midlevel providers. Other topics have included Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones, career advancement for clinician-educators, sex and ethnic diversity, and maintenance of certification, as well as guidance regarding nontraditional funding mechanisms such as philanthropy. Potential future topics will include information about major new public and private funding initiatives, comments and input from National Institutes of Health officials, and reports of funding trends relevant to both physician scientists and clinicians. We are fortunate to have Prateek Sharma, MD, lead this section, and his depth of experience as an exceptional mentor has provided the requisite expertise.

Additionally, we offer a reduction in page charges to junior investigators (within 7 years of fellowship) who are the corresponding authors of exceedingly important original Gastroenterology manuscripts. These manuscripts from junior investigators will be highlighted in both print and online versions of Gastroenterology. We are using the journal to expand electronic access to educational offerings for new technologies, training, self-assessment, and practice improvement to establish the AGA as the ultimate resource for junior academicians and practicing physicians. We are also currently integrating Gastroenterology more closely into other AGA educational efforts that target young physicians, such as the AGA Education and Training Committee.

At Gastroenterology, we are acutely aware of the needs and obstacles facing trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. We have boldly adopted a multidimensional approach to provide guidance and opportunities to overcome these challenges, including the creation of the nascent Editorial Fellowship. We welcome applications for the next fellowship, which will be announced by the AGA in the spring of 2018!
 

Dr. Peek is the Mina Wallace Professor of Medicine, Cancer Biology, and Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, and director, division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. He has no conflicts of interest.

The readership of Gastroenterology includes a broad distribution of stakeholders in digestive health, including those with vested interests in clinical practice, education, policy, clinical investigation, and basic research. One of our most critical constituencies, however, is trainees and early-career GIs. In an effort to support such individuals, our editorial team has developed a freshly minted 1-year editorial fellowship for Gastroenterology. The overarching purpose of this fellowship is to mentor an outstanding trainee for future editorial leadership roles in scientific publishing, as a means to promote the interests of trainee and early-career GI constituencies within the AGA and Gastroenterology. This fellowship is available to exceptional second- or third-year fellows through an application process. The intent of this training is to allow the selected applicant to become intimately involved with Gastroenterology’s entire editorial process, including peer review, editorial oversight, manuscript selection for publication, production, and postpublication activities. Our first fellow, Eric Shah, MD, MBA, was selected from a highly competitive pool of exceptional applicants, and began his fellowship on July 1, 2017.

AGA Institute

This year, we have been delighted to work with Dr. Shah as our inaugural Gastroenterology fellow. Dr. Shah has a unique background, having pursued a joint MD and MBA (earning both concurrently), while also following venture-oriented interests in developing GI technology from academia. Dr. Shah began his research career under the mentorship of Mark Pimentel, MD, and Gil Melmed, MD, at Cedars-Sinai as part of a Research Honors Program. Since that time, he has focused on evaluating the comparative efficacy, durability, and harm associated with pharmacotherapy in functional bowel disorders. Dr. Shah was accepted into the GI fellowship training program at the University of Michigan and received a slot on the T32 training grant to study cost-effectiveness and qualitative research techniques to address gaps in the care of functional bowel disorders. His work under the mentorship of William Chey, MD, Ryan Stidham, MD, and Philip S. Schoenfeld, MD, has flourished and culminated in an oral presentation and several posters for DDW 2017, as well as several first-author manuscripts that have been submitted. Dr. Shah has fully embraced the Gastroenterology fellowship and has far surpassed our high expectations for this position.
 

VIDEO SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

In addition to creating an editorial fellowship, our team has also developed other components within the journal that specifically target trainees and early-career GIs. The Mentoring, Education and Training section – initiated in 2011 through the vision and insight of Bishr Omary MD, PhD, and John Del Valle, MD, at the University of Michigan – has been extremely effective in highlighting critical issues relevant to trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. Topics have included mentoring advice not only for individuals in academic or private practice careers but also industry careers and midlevel providers. Other topics have included Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones, career advancement for clinician-educators, sex and ethnic diversity, and maintenance of certification, as well as guidance regarding nontraditional funding mechanisms such as philanthropy. Potential future topics will include information about major new public and private funding initiatives, comments and input from National Institutes of Health officials, and reports of funding trends relevant to both physician scientists and clinicians. We are fortunate to have Prateek Sharma, MD, lead this section, and his depth of experience as an exceptional mentor has provided the requisite expertise.

Additionally, we offer a reduction in page charges to junior investigators (within 7 years of fellowship) who are the corresponding authors of exceedingly important original Gastroenterology manuscripts. These manuscripts from junior investigators will be highlighted in both print and online versions of Gastroenterology. We are using the journal to expand electronic access to educational offerings for new technologies, training, self-assessment, and practice improvement to establish the AGA as the ultimate resource for junior academicians and practicing physicians. We are also currently integrating Gastroenterology more closely into other AGA educational efforts that target young physicians, such as the AGA Education and Training Committee.

At Gastroenterology, we are acutely aware of the needs and obstacles facing trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. We have boldly adopted a multidimensional approach to provide guidance and opportunities to overcome these challenges, including the creation of the nascent Editorial Fellowship. We welcome applications for the next fellowship, which will be announced by the AGA in the spring of 2018!
 

Dr. Peek is the Mina Wallace Professor of Medicine, Cancer Biology, and Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, and director, division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. He has no conflicts of interest.

The readership of Gastroenterology includes a broad distribution of stakeholders in digestive health, including those with vested interests in clinical practice, education, policy, clinical investigation, and basic research. One of our most critical constituencies, however, is trainees and early-career GIs. In an effort to support such individuals, our editorial team has developed a freshly minted 1-year editorial fellowship for Gastroenterology. The overarching purpose of this fellowship is to mentor an outstanding trainee for future editorial leadership roles in scientific publishing, as a means to promote the interests of trainee and early-career GI constituencies within the AGA and Gastroenterology. This fellowship is available to exceptional second- or third-year fellows through an application process. The intent of this training is to allow the selected applicant to become intimately involved with Gastroenterology’s entire editorial process, including peer review, editorial oversight, manuscript selection for publication, production, and postpublication activities. Our first fellow, Eric Shah, MD, MBA, was selected from a highly competitive pool of exceptional applicants, and began his fellowship on July 1, 2017.

AGA Institute

This year, we have been delighted to work with Dr. Shah as our inaugural Gastroenterology fellow. Dr. Shah has a unique background, having pursued a joint MD and MBA (earning both concurrently), while also following venture-oriented interests in developing GI technology from academia. Dr. Shah began his research career under the mentorship of Mark Pimentel, MD, and Gil Melmed, MD, at Cedars-Sinai as part of a Research Honors Program. Since that time, he has focused on evaluating the comparative efficacy, durability, and harm associated with pharmacotherapy in functional bowel disorders. Dr. Shah was accepted into the GI fellowship training program at the University of Michigan and received a slot on the T32 training grant to study cost-effectiveness and qualitative research techniques to address gaps in the care of functional bowel disorders. His work under the mentorship of William Chey, MD, Ryan Stidham, MD, and Philip S. Schoenfeld, MD, has flourished and culminated in an oral presentation and several posters for DDW 2017, as well as several first-author manuscripts that have been submitted. Dr. Shah has fully embraced the Gastroenterology fellowship and has far surpassed our high expectations for this position.
 

VIDEO SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

In addition to creating an editorial fellowship, our team has also developed other components within the journal that specifically target trainees and early-career GIs. The Mentoring, Education and Training section – initiated in 2011 through the vision and insight of Bishr Omary MD, PhD, and John Del Valle, MD, at the University of Michigan – has been extremely effective in highlighting critical issues relevant to trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. Topics have included mentoring advice not only for individuals in academic or private practice careers but also industry careers and midlevel providers. Other topics have included Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones, career advancement for clinician-educators, sex and ethnic diversity, and maintenance of certification, as well as guidance regarding nontraditional funding mechanisms such as philanthropy. Potential future topics will include information about major new public and private funding initiatives, comments and input from National Institutes of Health officials, and reports of funding trends relevant to both physician scientists and clinicians. We are fortunate to have Prateek Sharma, MD, lead this section, and his depth of experience as an exceptional mentor has provided the requisite expertise.

Additionally, we offer a reduction in page charges to junior investigators (within 7 years of fellowship) who are the corresponding authors of exceedingly important original Gastroenterology manuscripts. These manuscripts from junior investigators will be highlighted in both print and online versions of Gastroenterology. We are using the journal to expand electronic access to educational offerings for new technologies, training, self-assessment, and practice improvement to establish the AGA as the ultimate resource for junior academicians and practicing physicians. We are also currently integrating Gastroenterology more closely into other AGA educational efforts that target young physicians, such as the AGA Education and Training Committee.

At Gastroenterology, we are acutely aware of the needs and obstacles facing trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. We have boldly adopted a multidimensional approach to provide guidance and opportunities to overcome these challenges, including the creation of the nascent Editorial Fellowship. We welcome applications for the next fellowship, which will be announced by the AGA in the spring of 2018!
 

Dr. Peek is the Mina Wallace Professor of Medicine, Cancer Biology, and Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, and director, division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. He has no conflicts of interest.