Gastroenterology

WASHINGTON — The B cell–depleting agent inebilizumab (Uplizna) dramatically reduced the risk of flares and increased year-long remission of IgG4-related disease (RD), new research has found.

In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 135 adults with active IgG4-RD, treatment with inebilizumab resulted in a significant 87% reduction in flare risk and nearly fivefold greater likelihood of flare-free remission at 1 year. The results were published online November 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The drug’s manufacturer, Amgen, released top-line results of the trial, called MITIGATE, in June 2024.

 

Until now, the mainstay of management for the chronic multiorgan disease IgG4-RD has been glucocorticoids, which can cause numerous adverse effects. “It is hoped that inebilizumab can be used as an important steroid-sparing medication in this disease to reduce steroid toxicity,” lead author John H. Stone, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview, noting that it may not entirely eliminate the need for steroid treatment, but for many, it appears to work after the remission induction period as a monotherapy without steroids. 

Asked to comment, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology and manager of the Clinical Immunology Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said: “There has been anecdotal or observational evidence for some effect with other immunosuppressive agents, including rituximab, but no robust clinical trial until this study. This clearly has demonstrated efficacy by reducing the risk of flares. And most importantly, putting people into remission means no active disease in any given organ. ... This gives us another tool in the toolbox to attack B cell–directed diseases, and I think it really makes a lot of sense.”

Calabrese cautioned, though, that “this is a disease that extends over many years. This is just a 1-year study. Label extensions will be important.”

 

And several questions remain, Calabrese noted: “How long do patients need to remain on drug? What will happen when the drug is stopped? Can they be retreated? These are the natural questions that arise in any sentinel study like this. But this is extremely encouraging. And I think it’s great for patients. I also think it’s a clarion call to increase awareness about this disease since there’s now strong evidence of effective treatment.” 

 

Underrecognized, Often Misdiagnosed as Cancer

Indeed, IgG4-RD, a chronic, relapsing, autoimmune, fibro-inflammatory multiorgan disease, was only first described in Japan in 2003. Since then, it has been reported all over the world yet remains vastly underrecognized. It is often misdiagnosed as cancer because it produces lesions in multiple organs. It received an ICD-10 code only about a year ago. A previous study estimated a prevalence of about 5.3 persons per 100,000 but that is likely to be a three- to fourfold underestimate, said Stone, who is also executive chairman of the IgG4ward! Foundation. 

“Nobody had heard of the disease until about 20 years ago. ... And there are many people in the world who have still not heard of it despite the fact that it is a multiorgan autoimmune disease and is probably as common, or more common, than many other diseases that rheumatologists spend a lot of time thinking about, such as scleroderma.”

While knowledge about the disease is increasing in rheumatology circles, it’s less well-recognized among many of the specialties where patients present, depending on the location of their lesions. These include gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, neurology, and nephrology. “All would be likely to see this disease,” Stone said. 

The disease can be mistaken for tumors in many of those locations and even as metastatic cancer, he noted, adding that “any time a patient has a mass lesion in a typical organ, the pancreas, the major salivary glands, the lungs, or the kidneys, this should be on the differential diagnosis.” 

The diagnosis of IgG4-RD is a clinical one, involving “quadrangulation between clinical features, serological findings, IgG4 levels in the blood, radiology studies, and then pathology biopsies when those are available,” Stone said. 

Calabrese characterized the current situation as “we’re all blind men on the elephant. To the neurologist or the neurosurgeon, it’s a mass in the brain. It could present to the ophthalmologist as an [eye] tumor. It can be thyroid gland failure, pulmonary disease, retroperitoneal fibrosis, hepatobiliary disease, and beyond. So, whoever sees that patient, there’s often a long lag time in recognizing it.”

And interestingly, Stone noted that unlike other autoimmune diseases, IgG4-RD primarily affects middle-aged men rather than younger-to-middle-aged women. And when IgG4-RD is diagnosed, glucocorticoid treatment can be particularly toxic when the pancreas is involved, heightening the risk for hyperglycemia and potentially causing diabetes. 

 

Dramatic Improvement in Flares, Remission Achievement

MITIGATE is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 135 adults (mean age 58.2 years, 88 men) with active IgG4-RD were randomized 1:1 to receive 300-mg intravenous infusions of inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, and again at week 26. At baseline, 62 (45.9%) participants had newly diagnosed IgG4-RD and 73 (54.1%) had recurrent disease. 

Both groups received identical glucocorticoid tapers. Overall, 127 (94.1%) completed the 52 weeks of treatment. 

By 52 weeks, only seven patients in the inebilizumab group (10%) had experienced disease flares vs 40 (60%) in the placebo group, a significant difference with a hazard ratio of 0.13 (P < .001). 

The percentage of participants achieving flare-free, treatment-free complete remission was 59 with inebilizumab (57%), compared with just 15 (22%) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 4.68; P < .001). And for flare-free, glucocorticoid-free complete remission, those proportions were 40 (59%) vs 15 (22%), respectively (OR, 4.96; P < .001). 

Excluding the 8-week glucocorticoid taper period, mean total glucocorticoid use was 1264.2 mg less in the inebilizumab than the placebo group, a significant reduction. Overall, 61 participants (90%) were able to entirely discontinue glucocorticoids during the trial, compared with just 25 (37%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 12 participants (18%) in the inebilizumab group and 8 (12%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events occurred in 12 (18%) and 6 (9%), respectively. However, no serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant, and there were no deaths. Adverse events led to withdrawal from the trial in six patients (9%) in the inebilizumab group and three patients (4%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of participants in the inebilizumab group were COVID-19 in 16 participants (24%), lymphopenia in 11 (16%), and urinary tract infection in 8 (12%). 

Importantly, Stone noted, B-cell depletion can reduce responses to vaccines, so patients should receive all recommended vaccinations, including COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and others, prior to initiating therapy. 

Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in 2020. In October 2024, the FDA granted Amgen breakthrough therapy designation for use in IgG4-RD. The company is also developing the drug for use in myasthenia gravis.

The study was funded by Amgen. Stone has reported being a consultant for Amgen, Zenas, Argenx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and Horizon Pharma. Calabrese has reported being a consultant and/or speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Jansen, Sanofi, and UCB.

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

WASHINGTON — The B cell–depleting agent inebilizumab (Uplizna) dramatically reduced the risk of flares and increased year-long remission of IgG4-related disease (RD), new research has found.

In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 135 adults with active IgG4-RD, treatment with inebilizumab resulted in a significant 87% reduction in flare risk and nearly fivefold greater likelihood of flare-free remission at 1 year. The results were published online November 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The drug’s manufacturer, Amgen, released top-line results of the trial, called MITIGATE, in June 2024.

 

Until now, the mainstay of management for the chronic multiorgan disease IgG4-RD has been glucocorticoids, which can cause numerous adverse effects. “It is hoped that inebilizumab can be used as an important steroid-sparing medication in this disease to reduce steroid toxicity,” lead author John H. Stone, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview, noting that it may not entirely eliminate the need for steroid treatment, but for many, it appears to work after the remission induction period as a monotherapy without steroids. 

Asked to comment, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology and manager of the Clinical Immunology Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said: “There has been anecdotal or observational evidence for some effect with other immunosuppressive agents, including rituximab, but no robust clinical trial until this study. This clearly has demonstrated efficacy by reducing the risk of flares. And most importantly, putting people into remission means no active disease in any given organ. ... This gives us another tool in the toolbox to attack B cell–directed diseases, and I think it really makes a lot of sense.”

Calabrese cautioned, though, that “this is a disease that extends over many years. This is just a 1-year study. Label extensions will be important.”

 

And several questions remain, Calabrese noted: “How long do patients need to remain on drug? What will happen when the drug is stopped? Can they be retreated? These are the natural questions that arise in any sentinel study like this. But this is extremely encouraging. And I think it’s great for patients. I also think it’s a clarion call to increase awareness about this disease since there’s now strong evidence of effective treatment.” 

 

Underrecognized, Often Misdiagnosed as Cancer

Indeed, IgG4-RD, a chronic, relapsing, autoimmune, fibro-inflammatory multiorgan disease, was only first described in Japan in 2003. Since then, it has been reported all over the world yet remains vastly underrecognized. It is often misdiagnosed as cancer because it produces lesions in multiple organs. It received an ICD-10 code only about a year ago. A previous study estimated a prevalence of about 5.3 persons per 100,000 but that is likely to be a three- to fourfold underestimate, said Stone, who is also executive chairman of the IgG4ward! Foundation. 

“Nobody had heard of the disease until about 20 years ago. ... And there are many people in the world who have still not heard of it despite the fact that it is a multiorgan autoimmune disease and is probably as common, or more common, than many other diseases that rheumatologists spend a lot of time thinking about, such as scleroderma.”

While knowledge about the disease is increasing in rheumatology circles, it’s less well-recognized among many of the specialties where patients present, depending on the location of their lesions. These include gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, neurology, and nephrology. “All would be likely to see this disease,” Stone said. 

The disease can be mistaken for tumors in many of those locations and even as metastatic cancer, he noted, adding that “any time a patient has a mass lesion in a typical organ, the pancreas, the major salivary glands, the lungs, or the kidneys, this should be on the differential diagnosis.” 

The diagnosis of IgG4-RD is a clinical one, involving “quadrangulation between clinical features, serological findings, IgG4 levels in the blood, radiology studies, and then pathology biopsies when those are available,” Stone said. 

Calabrese characterized the current situation as “we’re all blind men on the elephant. To the neurologist or the neurosurgeon, it’s a mass in the brain. It could present to the ophthalmologist as an [eye] tumor. It can be thyroid gland failure, pulmonary disease, retroperitoneal fibrosis, hepatobiliary disease, and beyond. So, whoever sees that patient, there’s often a long lag time in recognizing it.”

And interestingly, Stone noted that unlike other autoimmune diseases, IgG4-RD primarily affects middle-aged men rather than younger-to-middle-aged women. And when IgG4-RD is diagnosed, glucocorticoid treatment can be particularly toxic when the pancreas is involved, heightening the risk for hyperglycemia and potentially causing diabetes. 

 

Dramatic Improvement in Flares, Remission Achievement

MITIGATE is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 135 adults (mean age 58.2 years, 88 men) with active IgG4-RD were randomized 1:1 to receive 300-mg intravenous infusions of inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, and again at week 26. At baseline, 62 (45.9%) participants had newly diagnosed IgG4-RD and 73 (54.1%) had recurrent disease. 

Both groups received identical glucocorticoid tapers. Overall, 127 (94.1%) completed the 52 weeks of treatment. 

By 52 weeks, only seven patients in the inebilizumab group (10%) had experienced disease flares vs 40 (60%) in the placebo group, a significant difference with a hazard ratio of 0.13 (P < .001). 

The percentage of participants achieving flare-free, treatment-free complete remission was 59 with inebilizumab (57%), compared with just 15 (22%) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 4.68; P < .001). And for flare-free, glucocorticoid-free complete remission, those proportions were 40 (59%) vs 15 (22%), respectively (OR, 4.96; P < .001). 

Excluding the 8-week glucocorticoid taper period, mean total glucocorticoid use was 1264.2 mg less in the inebilizumab than the placebo group, a significant reduction. Overall, 61 participants (90%) were able to entirely discontinue glucocorticoids during the trial, compared with just 25 (37%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 12 participants (18%) in the inebilizumab group and 8 (12%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events occurred in 12 (18%) and 6 (9%), respectively. However, no serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant, and there were no deaths. Adverse events led to withdrawal from the trial in six patients (9%) in the inebilizumab group and three patients (4%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of participants in the inebilizumab group were COVID-19 in 16 participants (24%), lymphopenia in 11 (16%), and urinary tract infection in 8 (12%). 

Importantly, Stone noted, B-cell depletion can reduce responses to vaccines, so patients should receive all recommended vaccinations, including COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and others, prior to initiating therapy. 

Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in 2020. In October 2024, the FDA granted Amgen breakthrough therapy designation for use in IgG4-RD. The company is also developing the drug for use in myasthenia gravis.

The study was funded by Amgen. Stone has reported being a consultant for Amgen, Zenas, Argenx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and Horizon Pharma. Calabrese has reported being a consultant and/or speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Jansen, Sanofi, and UCB.

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

WASHINGTON — The B cell–depleting agent inebilizumab (Uplizna) dramatically reduced the risk of flares and increased year-long remission of IgG4-related disease (RD), new research has found.

In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 135 adults with active IgG4-RD, treatment with inebilizumab resulted in a significant 87% reduction in flare risk and nearly fivefold greater likelihood of flare-free remission at 1 year. The results were published online November 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The drug’s manufacturer, Amgen, released top-line results of the trial, called MITIGATE, in June 2024.

 

Until now, the mainstay of management for the chronic multiorgan disease IgG4-RD has been glucocorticoids, which can cause numerous adverse effects. “It is hoped that inebilizumab can be used as an important steroid-sparing medication in this disease to reduce steroid toxicity,” lead author John H. Stone, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview, noting that it may not entirely eliminate the need for steroid treatment, but for many, it appears to work after the remission induction period as a monotherapy without steroids. 

Asked to comment, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology and manager of the Clinical Immunology Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said: “There has been anecdotal or observational evidence for some effect with other immunosuppressive agents, including rituximab, but no robust clinical trial until this study. This clearly has demonstrated efficacy by reducing the risk of flares. And most importantly, putting people into remission means no active disease in any given organ. ... This gives us another tool in the toolbox to attack B cell–directed diseases, and I think it really makes a lot of sense.”

Calabrese cautioned, though, that “this is a disease that extends over many years. This is just a 1-year study. Label extensions will be important.”

 

And several questions remain, Calabrese noted: “How long do patients need to remain on drug? What will happen when the drug is stopped? Can they be retreated? These are the natural questions that arise in any sentinel study like this. But this is extremely encouraging. And I think it’s great for patients. I also think it’s a clarion call to increase awareness about this disease since there’s now strong evidence of effective treatment.” 

 

Underrecognized, Often Misdiagnosed as Cancer

Indeed, IgG4-RD, a chronic, relapsing, autoimmune, fibro-inflammatory multiorgan disease, was only first described in Japan in 2003. Since then, it has been reported all over the world yet remains vastly underrecognized. It is often misdiagnosed as cancer because it produces lesions in multiple organs. It received an ICD-10 code only about a year ago. A previous study estimated a prevalence of about 5.3 persons per 100,000 but that is likely to be a three- to fourfold underestimate, said Stone, who is also executive chairman of the IgG4ward! Foundation. 

“Nobody had heard of the disease until about 20 years ago. ... And there are many people in the world who have still not heard of it despite the fact that it is a multiorgan autoimmune disease and is probably as common, or more common, than many other diseases that rheumatologists spend a lot of time thinking about, such as scleroderma.”

While knowledge about the disease is increasing in rheumatology circles, it’s less well-recognized among many of the specialties where patients present, depending on the location of their lesions. These include gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, neurology, and nephrology. “All would be likely to see this disease,” Stone said. 

The disease can be mistaken for tumors in many of those locations and even as metastatic cancer, he noted, adding that “any time a patient has a mass lesion in a typical organ, the pancreas, the major salivary glands, the lungs, or the kidneys, this should be on the differential diagnosis.” 

The diagnosis of IgG4-RD is a clinical one, involving “quadrangulation between clinical features, serological findings, IgG4 levels in the blood, radiology studies, and then pathology biopsies when those are available,” Stone said. 

Calabrese characterized the current situation as “we’re all blind men on the elephant. To the neurologist or the neurosurgeon, it’s a mass in the brain. It could present to the ophthalmologist as an [eye] tumor. It can be thyroid gland failure, pulmonary disease, retroperitoneal fibrosis, hepatobiliary disease, and beyond. So, whoever sees that patient, there’s often a long lag time in recognizing it.”

And interestingly, Stone noted that unlike other autoimmune diseases, IgG4-RD primarily affects middle-aged men rather than younger-to-middle-aged women. And when IgG4-RD is diagnosed, glucocorticoid treatment can be particularly toxic when the pancreas is involved, heightening the risk for hyperglycemia and potentially causing diabetes. 

 

Dramatic Improvement in Flares, Remission Achievement

MITIGATE is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 135 adults (mean age 58.2 years, 88 men) with active IgG4-RD were randomized 1:1 to receive 300-mg intravenous infusions of inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, and again at week 26. At baseline, 62 (45.9%) participants had newly diagnosed IgG4-RD and 73 (54.1%) had recurrent disease. 

Both groups received identical glucocorticoid tapers. Overall, 127 (94.1%) completed the 52 weeks of treatment. 

By 52 weeks, only seven patients in the inebilizumab group (10%) had experienced disease flares vs 40 (60%) in the placebo group, a significant difference with a hazard ratio of 0.13 (P < .001). 

The percentage of participants achieving flare-free, treatment-free complete remission was 59 with inebilizumab (57%), compared with just 15 (22%) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 4.68; P < .001). And for flare-free, glucocorticoid-free complete remission, those proportions were 40 (59%) vs 15 (22%), respectively (OR, 4.96; P < .001). 

Excluding the 8-week glucocorticoid taper period, mean total glucocorticoid use was 1264.2 mg less in the inebilizumab than the placebo group, a significant reduction. Overall, 61 participants (90%) were able to entirely discontinue glucocorticoids during the trial, compared with just 25 (37%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 12 participants (18%) in the inebilizumab group and 8 (12%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events occurred in 12 (18%) and 6 (9%), respectively. However, no serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant, and there were no deaths. Adverse events led to withdrawal from the trial in six patients (9%) in the inebilizumab group and three patients (4%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of participants in the inebilizumab group were COVID-19 in 16 participants (24%), lymphopenia in 11 (16%), and urinary tract infection in 8 (12%). 

Importantly, Stone noted, B-cell depletion can reduce responses to vaccines, so patients should receive all recommended vaccinations, including COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and others, prior to initiating therapy. 

Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in 2020. In October 2024, the FDA granted Amgen breakthrough therapy designation for use in IgG4-RD. The company is also developing the drug for use in myasthenia gravis.

The study was funded by Amgen. Stone has reported being a consultant for Amgen, Zenas, Argenx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and Horizon Pharma. Calabrese has reported being a consultant and/or speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Jansen, Sanofi, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

I’ve just returned from the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), which was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

In this series, I’ll be giving you my top studies presented at ACG 2024, which will be split into two parts. These studies are not presented in any order of priority because I think they all have clinical applications, some of which are more immediate. Where possible, I’ll also provide you with some teaching points that occurred to me when I viewed the data in these presentations. 

 

Repetitive Use Injuries Among Endoscopists 

First is a study that assessed musculoskeletal injuries that occurred while performing endoscopy, which is a large part of what we do as gastroenterologists. I’ve personally experienced virtually all these injuries during my 45-plus years in the field. These findings provide a useful perspective of what we can do to potentially avoid such injuries going forward. 

This study comes to us from researchers at the University of Utah, who looked at an author-developed and validated questionnaire called QuickDash (Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand). Endoscopists were evaluated by occupational therapists in their department, who looked at strength testing as well as a series of provocative tests to identify injuries.

Thirty-five endoscopists were enrolled. Overall, 34% reported experiencing pain and 17% reported numbness. In the previous week, 48% had been bothered by pain and 11% by tingling, and 17% reported limitations on what they could do at work. 

Additionally, 17% experienced interrupted sleep. I think that finding is particularly important, because when you have fragmented sleep it lowers sensory thresholds. Essentially, this means that the day after interrupted sleep, you respond with a heightened sensory response. 

Physical testing showed reduction in grip strength in approximately half of participants, including both right and left grip. More than 70% had at least one abnormal positive provocative test.

There were a couple factors associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes. Those who performed 20 or more procedures a week were at higher risk of pain (P = .007). I recognize that some of you probably perform 20 or more endoscopies in a single day. 

Negative outcomes were also more likely to occur among physicians performing biliary endoscopy. Performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during 20%-60% of the week resulted in greater likelihood of experiencing decreased bilateral pinch strength. 

The bottom line is that there’s an extremely high prevalence of repetitive use injury among endoscopists. Whether you’re just starting out, mid-career, or more senior, you need to be aware of this. 

Kudos to the ACG who put together hands-on sessions across 2 days with extended ergonomics training provided by physical therapists with expertise in this area. These sessions were standing room only every time I visited them.

During the meeting, the ACG also announced the publication of a new book, Ergonomics for Endoscopy: Optimal Preparation, Performance, and Recovery, that is available on the ACG’s website. I had the privilege to meet the two authors, survey the book, and briefly discuss it with them. It’s phenomenal, and something that I think every endoscopist can benefit from. 

So, in summary, don’t put aside these concerns. It’s your career, and the better we can do in preventing these injuries, I think the better you’ll feel going forward. 

 

On-Demand Vonoprazan for Heartburn 

The second study of note dealt with vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker.

The question surrounding vonoprazan is whether it has clinical value as an on-demand option rather than simply as maintenance therapy administered via daily dosing. Previous results have suggested that it may have a more rapid effect when it’s taken on demand. 

This post hoc analysis of a randomized trial evaluated a 4-week run-in period during which patients received vonoprazan 20 mg daily, followed by a 6-week period after which patients switched to on-demand therapy. To be eligible, during the run-in period patients had to be 80% compliant with the study drug and report no heartburn during the last 7 days of treatment. If so, they were then randomized to receive vonoprazan at 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg, or placebo.

Eligible patients reported 16% heartburn-free days during the screening period. During the run-in period, heartburn-free days increased to 83% among those taking vonoprazan 20 mg daily. When this was stopped and patients transitioned to on-demand vonoprazan, they still had a very high rate of heartburn-free days, ranging from 71% to 75%. Over 90% in the treatment group had their symptoms improved within 2 hours, with improvement noted as early as within 1 hour. 

We know that proton pump inhibitors don’t produce this effect, which presents a challenge for us. This study suggests there may be a very strong role for on-demand therapy in patients who have reflux, which certainly showed in terms of responsiveness during the 4-week run-in period.

 

Rifaximin Monotherapy Reduces Risk for Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy Recurrence

The next trial looked at rifaximin monotherapy for prevention of relapse of overt hepatic encephalopathy. 

Rifaximin has been added to the baseline primary treatment of lactulose, a combination that has been analyzed in pivotal studies. However, lactulose is a difficult drug to titrate. We typically ask patients to let us know if they have Bristol Stool Scale scores ≥ 6. This results in an inordinate number of calls back to the clinic or office. Diarrhea is a particular problem in these patients. 

This study, which was presented by Dr Jasmohan S. Bajaj from Virginia Commonwealth University, analyzed data from two randomized trials: a phase 3, double-blind trial and a phase 4 open-label trial. Both studies were conducted in patients with Child-Pugh classification A and B cirrhosis, whose overt hepatic encephalopathy was graded with a Conn score ≤ 1. Researchers only looked at those patients who received rifaximin 550 mg twice daily without lactulose, or lactulose titrated to a target of two to three soft stools a day plus placebo. The primary endpoint, which was used in both trials, was time to first breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episode, measured as a Conn score ≥ 2.

There were 125 patients in the rifaximin group and 145 patients in the lactulose group. Patients in both groups had mean age of 57 years and a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 12. 

Treatment with rifaximin produced significantly striking results. In the rifaximin group, the risk for breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episodes was reduced by 60%, with a number needed to treat of 4, which is extremely powerful. Regarding mortality reduction, the number needed to treat with rifaximin alone was 19. 

The take-away message here is that it’s difficult to use lactulose. We frequently have to stop it. These results provide reassurance that rifaximin has a dramatic effect even when used by itself. The recommended first-line therapy is still to begin with lactulose, but this study provides us with very strong data regarding the use of rifaximin alone. 

 

Apraglutide’s Efficacy in Short-Bowel Syndrome 

The fourth study I’d like to highlight adds to the growing data around a long-acting glucagon-like peptide 2 analog, apraglutide.

Results from the phase 3, double-blind STARS trial were first presented at Digestive Disease Week earlier in the year. They showed that apraglutide had efficacy and contributed to a reduction in the risk for needing parenteral support, maintenance of weight, and fluid requirements in patients with short-bowel syndrome and intestinal failure. However, questions remained regarding whether there were variations in response based on patient demographics and short-bowel syndrome–specific characteristics. 

Researchers looked at a subgroup of patients from the STARS trial. The primary endpoint remained the same as in the main trial: relative change from baseline in actual parenteral support weekly volume at week 24. However, rather than measure it in the overall population, they did so according to geographic region, gender, age, body weight, race and ethnicity, and short-bowel syndrome characteristics, including differences in parenteral support volume, length of the remnant small intestine, and time from short-bowel syndrome diagnosis.

Across all these demographic and disease characteristic categories, there was absolutely no difference in the primary endpoint. 

Apraglutide seems to be inordinately promising. This is a once-weekly treatment, as opposed to liraglutide, which is problematic because it has to be given daily. 

From what I understand, apraglutide has been offered a fast-track status by the US Food and Drug Administration. Again, from what I’ve heard, it will be evaluated upon submission beginning sometime in the first quarter of 2025, which may mean that apraglutide could be available as early as 2026. 

This would be a big deal for patients with short-bowel syndrome who would have a once-weekly treatment option as opposed to daily treatment and its accompanying problems of compliance and relatively reduced response.

 

Biologics for Treating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis

The final study I want to discuss in this presentation dealt with adverse responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. We see this increasingly in our clinics as ICIs become more widely used. They are wonderful drugs, but ICI-induced colitis can occur in up to 30% of patients. 

The oncologic approach is to try and stay the course, while gastroenterologists are tasked with treating the colitis so that these patients can maintain their cancer treatment. Steroid therapy is the primary first-line treatment against ICI colitis, but the use of biologic therapy with infliximab or vedolizumab has been associated with favorable outcomes as well. 

ICI colitis is graded on a scale. Whereas grade 1 ICI colitis indicates increased stool frequency of less than four a day and the absence of symptoms, grade 2 indicates a progression to a stool frequency of four to six times a day, the appearance of blood or mucus in the stool, and symptoms like abdominal pain.

Researchers sought to answer the question of which treatment is better for patients with moderate to severe ICI colitis: infliximab or vedolizumab? They performed a database analysis of patients at their institution who received at least one dose of these biologics. The endpoint was sustained clinical response (ie, without a recurrent colitis episode), as well as patients achieving improvement to grade 1 ICI colitis.

The data for infliximab and vedolizumab were quite good. Sustained clinical response was noted in 91% of patients receiving infliximab and 86% receiving vedolizumab. There was no difference in infection risk between the groups. 

There’s a teaching point in the study’s other key finding, which is that following biologic initiation, steroids were more rapidly discontinued with vedolizumab vs infliximab (median, 25 days vs 56 days, respectively). Therefore, vedolizumab may have the added benefit of patients being able to get off steroids more quickly. That’s the take-home message: Vedolizumab may be better. We certainly are comfortable with both biologics, but patients getting off steroids would be better.

There are two additional teaching points I’d like to convey.

First, don’t forget to perform a biopsy, because there are patients who may have cytomegalovirus colitis and we don’t want to miss it. A biopsy may also reveal whether they have a macroscopically normal rectosigmoid. So, you should biopsy to look for microscopic changes. As 98% of ICI colitis cases involve the left colon, you can get by with just using a flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Second, don’t forget to check for celiac disease. Patients taking ICIs may develop celiac disease as a side effect of treatment. So, I always order a celiac profile as well. 

These are, in my opinion, five of the top studies from ACG 2024, with the remaining studies to be discussed in my next video. They all provide opportunities to help us improve our patients’ health.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’ve just returned from the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), which was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

In this series, I’ll be giving you my top studies presented at ACG 2024, which will be split into two parts. These studies are not presented in any order of priority because I think they all have clinical applications, some of which are more immediate. Where possible, I’ll also provide you with some teaching points that occurred to me when I viewed the data in these presentations. 

 

Repetitive Use Injuries Among Endoscopists 

First is a study that assessed musculoskeletal injuries that occurred while performing endoscopy, which is a large part of what we do as gastroenterologists. I’ve personally experienced virtually all these injuries during my 45-plus years in the field. These findings provide a useful perspective of what we can do to potentially avoid such injuries going forward. 

This study comes to us from researchers at the University of Utah, who looked at an author-developed and validated questionnaire called QuickDash (Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand). Endoscopists were evaluated by occupational therapists in their department, who looked at strength testing as well as a series of provocative tests to identify injuries.

Thirty-five endoscopists were enrolled. Overall, 34% reported experiencing pain and 17% reported numbness. In the previous week, 48% had been bothered by pain and 11% by tingling, and 17% reported limitations on what they could do at work. 

Additionally, 17% experienced interrupted sleep. I think that finding is particularly important, because when you have fragmented sleep it lowers sensory thresholds. Essentially, this means that the day after interrupted sleep, you respond with a heightened sensory response. 

Physical testing showed reduction in grip strength in approximately half of participants, including both right and left grip. More than 70% had at least one abnormal positive provocative test.

There were a couple factors associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes. Those who performed 20 or more procedures a week were at higher risk of pain (P = .007). I recognize that some of you probably perform 20 or more endoscopies in a single day. 

Negative outcomes were also more likely to occur among physicians performing biliary endoscopy. Performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during 20%-60% of the week resulted in greater likelihood of experiencing decreased bilateral pinch strength. 

The bottom line is that there’s an extremely high prevalence of repetitive use injury among endoscopists. Whether you’re just starting out, mid-career, or more senior, you need to be aware of this. 

Kudos to the ACG who put together hands-on sessions across 2 days with extended ergonomics training provided by physical therapists with expertise in this area. These sessions were standing room only every time I visited them.

During the meeting, the ACG also announced the publication of a new book, Ergonomics for Endoscopy: Optimal Preparation, Performance, and Recovery, that is available on the ACG’s website. I had the privilege to meet the two authors, survey the book, and briefly discuss it with them. It’s phenomenal, and something that I think every endoscopist can benefit from. 

So, in summary, don’t put aside these concerns. It’s your career, and the better we can do in preventing these injuries, I think the better you’ll feel going forward. 

 

On-Demand Vonoprazan for Heartburn 

The second study of note dealt with vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker.

The question surrounding vonoprazan is whether it has clinical value as an on-demand option rather than simply as maintenance therapy administered via daily dosing. Previous results have suggested that it may have a more rapid effect when it’s taken on demand. 

This post hoc analysis of a randomized trial evaluated a 4-week run-in period during which patients received vonoprazan 20 mg daily, followed by a 6-week period after which patients switched to on-demand therapy. To be eligible, during the run-in period patients had to be 80% compliant with the study drug and report no heartburn during the last 7 days of treatment. If so, they were then randomized to receive vonoprazan at 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg, or placebo.

Eligible patients reported 16% heartburn-free days during the screening period. During the run-in period, heartburn-free days increased to 83% among those taking vonoprazan 20 mg daily. When this was stopped and patients transitioned to on-demand vonoprazan, they still had a very high rate of heartburn-free days, ranging from 71% to 75%. Over 90% in the treatment group had their symptoms improved within 2 hours, with improvement noted as early as within 1 hour. 

We know that proton pump inhibitors don’t produce this effect, which presents a challenge for us. This study suggests there may be a very strong role for on-demand therapy in patients who have reflux, which certainly showed in terms of responsiveness during the 4-week run-in period.

 

Rifaximin Monotherapy Reduces Risk for Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy Recurrence

The next trial looked at rifaximin monotherapy for prevention of relapse of overt hepatic encephalopathy. 

Rifaximin has been added to the baseline primary treatment of lactulose, a combination that has been analyzed in pivotal studies. However, lactulose is a difficult drug to titrate. We typically ask patients to let us know if they have Bristol Stool Scale scores ≥ 6. This results in an inordinate number of calls back to the clinic or office. Diarrhea is a particular problem in these patients. 

This study, which was presented by Dr Jasmohan S. Bajaj from Virginia Commonwealth University, analyzed data from two randomized trials: a phase 3, double-blind trial and a phase 4 open-label trial. Both studies were conducted in patients with Child-Pugh classification A and B cirrhosis, whose overt hepatic encephalopathy was graded with a Conn score ≤ 1. Researchers only looked at those patients who received rifaximin 550 mg twice daily without lactulose, or lactulose titrated to a target of two to three soft stools a day plus placebo. The primary endpoint, which was used in both trials, was time to first breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episode, measured as a Conn score ≥ 2.

There were 125 patients in the rifaximin group and 145 patients in the lactulose group. Patients in both groups had mean age of 57 years and a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 12. 

Treatment with rifaximin produced significantly striking results. In the rifaximin group, the risk for breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episodes was reduced by 60%, with a number needed to treat of 4, which is extremely powerful. Regarding mortality reduction, the number needed to treat with rifaximin alone was 19. 

The take-away message here is that it’s difficult to use lactulose. We frequently have to stop it. These results provide reassurance that rifaximin has a dramatic effect even when used by itself. The recommended first-line therapy is still to begin with lactulose, but this study provides us with very strong data regarding the use of rifaximin alone. 

 

Apraglutide’s Efficacy in Short-Bowel Syndrome 

The fourth study I’d like to highlight adds to the growing data around a long-acting glucagon-like peptide 2 analog, apraglutide.

Results from the phase 3, double-blind STARS trial were first presented at Digestive Disease Week earlier in the year. They showed that apraglutide had efficacy and contributed to a reduction in the risk for needing parenteral support, maintenance of weight, and fluid requirements in patients with short-bowel syndrome and intestinal failure. However, questions remained regarding whether there were variations in response based on patient demographics and short-bowel syndrome–specific characteristics. 

Researchers looked at a subgroup of patients from the STARS trial. The primary endpoint remained the same as in the main trial: relative change from baseline in actual parenteral support weekly volume at week 24. However, rather than measure it in the overall population, they did so according to geographic region, gender, age, body weight, race and ethnicity, and short-bowel syndrome characteristics, including differences in parenteral support volume, length of the remnant small intestine, and time from short-bowel syndrome diagnosis.

Across all these demographic and disease characteristic categories, there was absolutely no difference in the primary endpoint. 

Apraglutide seems to be inordinately promising. This is a once-weekly treatment, as opposed to liraglutide, which is problematic because it has to be given daily. 

From what I understand, apraglutide has been offered a fast-track status by the US Food and Drug Administration. Again, from what I’ve heard, it will be evaluated upon submission beginning sometime in the first quarter of 2025, which may mean that apraglutide could be available as early as 2026. 

This would be a big deal for patients with short-bowel syndrome who would have a once-weekly treatment option as opposed to daily treatment and its accompanying problems of compliance and relatively reduced response.

 

Biologics for Treating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis

The final study I want to discuss in this presentation dealt with adverse responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. We see this increasingly in our clinics as ICIs become more widely used. They are wonderful drugs, but ICI-induced colitis can occur in up to 30% of patients. 

The oncologic approach is to try and stay the course, while gastroenterologists are tasked with treating the colitis so that these patients can maintain their cancer treatment. Steroid therapy is the primary first-line treatment against ICI colitis, but the use of biologic therapy with infliximab or vedolizumab has been associated with favorable outcomes as well. 

ICI colitis is graded on a scale. Whereas grade 1 ICI colitis indicates increased stool frequency of less than four a day and the absence of symptoms, grade 2 indicates a progression to a stool frequency of four to six times a day, the appearance of blood or mucus in the stool, and symptoms like abdominal pain.

Researchers sought to answer the question of which treatment is better for patients with moderate to severe ICI colitis: infliximab or vedolizumab? They performed a database analysis of patients at their institution who received at least one dose of these biologics. The endpoint was sustained clinical response (ie, without a recurrent colitis episode), as well as patients achieving improvement to grade 1 ICI colitis.

The data for infliximab and vedolizumab were quite good. Sustained clinical response was noted in 91% of patients receiving infliximab and 86% receiving vedolizumab. There was no difference in infection risk between the groups. 

There’s a teaching point in the study’s other key finding, which is that following biologic initiation, steroids were more rapidly discontinued with vedolizumab vs infliximab (median, 25 days vs 56 days, respectively). Therefore, vedolizumab may have the added benefit of patients being able to get off steroids more quickly. That’s the take-home message: Vedolizumab may be better. We certainly are comfortable with both biologics, but patients getting off steroids would be better.

There are two additional teaching points I’d like to convey.

First, don’t forget to perform a biopsy, because there are patients who may have cytomegalovirus colitis and we don’t want to miss it. A biopsy may also reveal whether they have a macroscopically normal rectosigmoid. So, you should biopsy to look for microscopic changes. As 98% of ICI colitis cases involve the left colon, you can get by with just using a flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Second, don’t forget to check for celiac disease. Patients taking ICIs may develop celiac disease as a side effect of treatment. So, I always order a celiac profile as well. 

These are, in my opinion, five of the top studies from ACG 2024, with the remaining studies to be discussed in my next video. They all provide opportunities to help us improve our patients’ health.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’ve just returned from the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), which was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

In this series, I’ll be giving you my top studies presented at ACG 2024, which will be split into two parts. These studies are not presented in any order of priority because I think they all have clinical applications, some of which are more immediate. Where possible, I’ll also provide you with some teaching points that occurred to me when I viewed the data in these presentations. 

 

Repetitive Use Injuries Among Endoscopists 

First is a study that assessed musculoskeletal injuries that occurred while performing endoscopy, which is a large part of what we do as gastroenterologists. I’ve personally experienced virtually all these injuries during my 45-plus years in the field. These findings provide a useful perspective of what we can do to potentially avoid such injuries going forward. 

This study comes to us from researchers at the University of Utah, who looked at an author-developed and validated questionnaire called QuickDash (Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand). Endoscopists were evaluated by occupational therapists in their department, who looked at strength testing as well as a series of provocative tests to identify injuries.

Thirty-five endoscopists were enrolled. Overall, 34% reported experiencing pain and 17% reported numbness. In the previous week, 48% had been bothered by pain and 11% by tingling, and 17% reported limitations on what they could do at work. 

Additionally, 17% experienced interrupted sleep. I think that finding is particularly important, because when you have fragmented sleep it lowers sensory thresholds. Essentially, this means that the day after interrupted sleep, you respond with a heightened sensory response. 

Physical testing showed reduction in grip strength in approximately half of participants, including both right and left grip. More than 70% had at least one abnormal positive provocative test.

There were a couple factors associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes. Those who performed 20 or more procedures a week were at higher risk of pain (P = .007). I recognize that some of you probably perform 20 or more endoscopies in a single day. 

Negative outcomes were also more likely to occur among physicians performing biliary endoscopy. Performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during 20%-60% of the week resulted in greater likelihood of experiencing decreased bilateral pinch strength. 

The bottom line is that there’s an extremely high prevalence of repetitive use injury among endoscopists. Whether you’re just starting out, mid-career, or more senior, you need to be aware of this. 

Kudos to the ACG who put together hands-on sessions across 2 days with extended ergonomics training provided by physical therapists with expertise in this area. These sessions were standing room only every time I visited them.

During the meeting, the ACG also announced the publication of a new book, Ergonomics for Endoscopy: Optimal Preparation, Performance, and Recovery, that is available on the ACG’s website. I had the privilege to meet the two authors, survey the book, and briefly discuss it with them. It’s phenomenal, and something that I think every endoscopist can benefit from. 

So, in summary, don’t put aside these concerns. It’s your career, and the better we can do in preventing these injuries, I think the better you’ll feel going forward. 

 

On-Demand Vonoprazan for Heartburn 

The second study of note dealt with vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker.

The question surrounding vonoprazan is whether it has clinical value as an on-demand option rather than simply as maintenance therapy administered via daily dosing. Previous results have suggested that it may have a more rapid effect when it’s taken on demand. 

This post hoc analysis of a randomized trial evaluated a 4-week run-in period during which patients received vonoprazan 20 mg daily, followed by a 6-week period after which patients switched to on-demand therapy. To be eligible, during the run-in period patients had to be 80% compliant with the study drug and report no heartburn during the last 7 days of treatment. If so, they were then randomized to receive vonoprazan at 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg, or placebo.

Eligible patients reported 16% heartburn-free days during the screening period. During the run-in period, heartburn-free days increased to 83% among those taking vonoprazan 20 mg daily. When this was stopped and patients transitioned to on-demand vonoprazan, they still had a very high rate of heartburn-free days, ranging from 71% to 75%. Over 90% in the treatment group had their symptoms improved within 2 hours, with improvement noted as early as within 1 hour. 

We know that proton pump inhibitors don’t produce this effect, which presents a challenge for us. This study suggests there may be a very strong role for on-demand therapy in patients who have reflux, which certainly showed in terms of responsiveness during the 4-week run-in period.

 

Rifaximin Monotherapy Reduces Risk for Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy Recurrence

The next trial looked at rifaximin monotherapy for prevention of relapse of overt hepatic encephalopathy. 

Rifaximin has been added to the baseline primary treatment of lactulose, a combination that has been analyzed in pivotal studies. However, lactulose is a difficult drug to titrate. We typically ask patients to let us know if they have Bristol Stool Scale scores ≥ 6. This results in an inordinate number of calls back to the clinic or office. Diarrhea is a particular problem in these patients. 

This study, which was presented by Dr Jasmohan S. Bajaj from Virginia Commonwealth University, analyzed data from two randomized trials: a phase 3, double-blind trial and a phase 4 open-label trial. Both studies were conducted in patients with Child-Pugh classification A and B cirrhosis, whose overt hepatic encephalopathy was graded with a Conn score ≤ 1. Researchers only looked at those patients who received rifaximin 550 mg twice daily without lactulose, or lactulose titrated to a target of two to three soft stools a day plus placebo. The primary endpoint, which was used in both trials, was time to first breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episode, measured as a Conn score ≥ 2.

There were 125 patients in the rifaximin group and 145 patients in the lactulose group. Patients in both groups had mean age of 57 years and a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 12. 

Treatment with rifaximin produced significantly striking results. In the rifaximin group, the risk for breakthrough overt hepatic encephalopathy episodes was reduced by 60%, with a number needed to treat of 4, which is extremely powerful. Regarding mortality reduction, the number needed to treat with rifaximin alone was 19. 

The take-away message here is that it’s difficult to use lactulose. We frequently have to stop it. These results provide reassurance that rifaximin has a dramatic effect even when used by itself. The recommended first-line therapy is still to begin with lactulose, but this study provides us with very strong data regarding the use of rifaximin alone. 

 

Apraglutide’s Efficacy in Short-Bowel Syndrome 

The fourth study I’d like to highlight adds to the growing data around a long-acting glucagon-like peptide 2 analog, apraglutide.

Results from the phase 3, double-blind STARS trial were first presented at Digestive Disease Week earlier in the year. They showed that apraglutide had efficacy and contributed to a reduction in the risk for needing parenteral support, maintenance of weight, and fluid requirements in patients with short-bowel syndrome and intestinal failure. However, questions remained regarding whether there were variations in response based on patient demographics and short-bowel syndrome–specific characteristics. 

Researchers looked at a subgroup of patients from the STARS trial. The primary endpoint remained the same as in the main trial: relative change from baseline in actual parenteral support weekly volume at week 24. However, rather than measure it in the overall population, they did so according to geographic region, gender, age, body weight, race and ethnicity, and short-bowel syndrome characteristics, including differences in parenteral support volume, length of the remnant small intestine, and time from short-bowel syndrome diagnosis.

Across all these demographic and disease characteristic categories, there was absolutely no difference in the primary endpoint. 

Apraglutide seems to be inordinately promising. This is a once-weekly treatment, as opposed to liraglutide, which is problematic because it has to be given daily. 

From what I understand, apraglutide has been offered a fast-track status by the US Food and Drug Administration. Again, from what I’ve heard, it will be evaluated upon submission beginning sometime in the first quarter of 2025, which may mean that apraglutide could be available as early as 2026. 

This would be a big deal for patients with short-bowel syndrome who would have a once-weekly treatment option as opposed to daily treatment and its accompanying problems of compliance and relatively reduced response.

 

Biologics for Treating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis

The final study I want to discuss in this presentation dealt with adverse responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. We see this increasingly in our clinics as ICIs become more widely used. They are wonderful drugs, but ICI-induced colitis can occur in up to 30% of patients. 

The oncologic approach is to try and stay the course, while gastroenterologists are tasked with treating the colitis so that these patients can maintain their cancer treatment. Steroid therapy is the primary first-line treatment against ICI colitis, but the use of biologic therapy with infliximab or vedolizumab has been associated with favorable outcomes as well. 

ICI colitis is graded on a scale. Whereas grade 1 ICI colitis indicates increased stool frequency of less than four a day and the absence of symptoms, grade 2 indicates a progression to a stool frequency of four to six times a day, the appearance of blood or mucus in the stool, and symptoms like abdominal pain.

Researchers sought to answer the question of which treatment is better for patients with moderate to severe ICI colitis: infliximab or vedolizumab? They performed a database analysis of patients at their institution who received at least one dose of these biologics. The endpoint was sustained clinical response (ie, without a recurrent colitis episode), as well as patients achieving improvement to grade 1 ICI colitis.

The data for infliximab and vedolizumab were quite good. Sustained clinical response was noted in 91% of patients receiving infliximab and 86% receiving vedolizumab. There was no difference in infection risk between the groups. 

There’s a teaching point in the study’s other key finding, which is that following biologic initiation, steroids were more rapidly discontinued with vedolizumab vs infliximab (median, 25 days vs 56 days, respectively). Therefore, vedolizumab may have the added benefit of patients being able to get off steroids more quickly. That’s the take-home message: Vedolizumab may be better. We certainly are comfortable with both biologics, but patients getting off steroids would be better.

There are two additional teaching points I’d like to convey.

First, don’t forget to perform a biopsy, because there are patients who may have cytomegalovirus colitis and we don’t want to miss it. A biopsy may also reveal whether they have a macroscopically normal rectosigmoid. So, you should biopsy to look for microscopic changes. As 98% of ICI colitis cases involve the left colon, you can get by with just using a flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Second, don’t forget to check for celiac disease. Patients taking ICIs may develop celiac disease as a side effect of treatment. So, I always order a celiac profile as well. 

These are, in my opinion, five of the top studies from ACG 2024, with the remaining studies to be discussed in my next video. They all provide opportunities to help us improve our patients’ health.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains risky in terms of morbidity and mortality, but the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score could help predict that risk, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In a predominantly Hispanic population in Texas, 2.5% of post-PCI patients on DAPT had GI bleeding in the first year. The PRECISE-DAPT score helped to predict GI bleeding among high-risk and moderate-risk patients.

“Our study established that the PRECISE-DAPT score possesses a moderate predictive accuracy not only for overall bleeding risk but also specifically for gastrointestinal bleeding,” said lead author Jesus Guzman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso.

Current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommend DAPT for 6-12 months post-PCI, with consideration for shorter durations in patients with lower ischemic risks but higher bleeding risks.

“Interestingly, some of these patients were on DAPT for more than 2 years, which goes beyond the guidelines,” he said. “In this patient population, this has to do with them being lost to follow-up and getting reestablished, and they kept refilling their prescriptions.”

Guzman and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving DAPT after PCI from 2014 to 2021. They looked for GI bleeding rates at 1 year and across the duration of the study period, as well as endoscopic indications, findings, concurrent antiplatelet therapy, and the primary cause of bleeding.

In addition, the research team evaluated the predictive value of the PRECISE-DAPT score, which categorizes patients based on low risk (≤ 17), moderate risk (18-24), and high risk (≥ 25) for bleeding. The score aims to optimize the balance between bleeding and ischemic risks, Guzman said, by incorporating five factors: Age, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and history of spontaneous bleeding.

Among 1067 patients, 563 (57.9%) received clopidogrel and 409 (42%) received ticagrelor. The overall cohort was 66.6% men, 77.1% Hispanic, and had a mean age of 62 years.

The GI bleeding rate was 2.5% at 1-year post-PCI among 27 patients and 3.7% for the study duration among 39 patients, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years.

Among the 39 GI bleeds, 41% were lower GI bleeds, 28% were upper GI bleeds, 15% were small bowel bleeds, and 15% were undetermined. The most frequent etiology was colon cancer, accounting for 18% of bleeds, followed by 15% for gastric ulcers, 10% for diverticular bleeds, and 10% for hemorrhoidal bleeds.

In general, analyses indicated no significant differences in GI bleeding between patients on clopidogrel (21.2%) and those on ticagrelor (19.2%).

However, the odds of GI bleeding were significantly higher in patients with high-risk PRECISE-DAPT scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.5) and moderate-risk scores (OR, 2.8) than in those with low-risk scores. The majority of patients without GI bleeding had scores < 17, whereas the majority of patients with GI bleeding had scores > 24. An optimal threshold for the PRECISE-DAPT score was identified as ≥ 19.

“When patients on DAPT present with GI bleeding, it can be a clinical conundrum for gastroenterologists and cardiologists, especially when it can be a life-or-death event, and stopping DAPT can increase risk of thrombosis,” said Jeff Taclob, MD, a hepatology fellow at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis. Taclob, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.

“In this population in El Paso, in particular, many patients don’t have adequate healthcare, may be lost to follow-up, and get their prescriptions filled elsewhere, such as Juárez, Mexico,” he said. “Then they come in with this life-threatening bleed, so we need to focus more on their risks.”

Paying attention to specific patient populations, cultures, and values remains important for patient communication and clinical decision-making, Taclob noted.

“In this population of older men, there’s often a macho persona where they don’t want to seek help,” he said. “DAPT criteria could differ in other populations, but here, the PRECISE-DAPT score appeared to help.”

The study was awarded the ACG Outstanding Research Award in the GI Bleeding Category (Trainee). Guzman and Taclob reported no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains risky in terms of morbidity and mortality, but the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score could help predict that risk, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In a predominantly Hispanic population in Texas, 2.5% of post-PCI patients on DAPT had GI bleeding in the first year. The PRECISE-DAPT score helped to predict GI bleeding among high-risk and moderate-risk patients.

“Our study established that the PRECISE-DAPT score possesses a moderate predictive accuracy not only for overall bleeding risk but also specifically for gastrointestinal bleeding,” said lead author Jesus Guzman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso.

Current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommend DAPT for 6-12 months post-PCI, with consideration for shorter durations in patients with lower ischemic risks but higher bleeding risks.

“Interestingly, some of these patients were on DAPT for more than 2 years, which goes beyond the guidelines,” he said. “In this patient population, this has to do with them being lost to follow-up and getting reestablished, and they kept refilling their prescriptions.”

Guzman and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving DAPT after PCI from 2014 to 2021. They looked for GI bleeding rates at 1 year and across the duration of the study period, as well as endoscopic indications, findings, concurrent antiplatelet therapy, and the primary cause of bleeding.

In addition, the research team evaluated the predictive value of the PRECISE-DAPT score, which categorizes patients based on low risk (≤ 17), moderate risk (18-24), and high risk (≥ 25) for bleeding. The score aims to optimize the balance between bleeding and ischemic risks, Guzman said, by incorporating five factors: Age, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and history of spontaneous bleeding.

Among 1067 patients, 563 (57.9%) received clopidogrel and 409 (42%) received ticagrelor. The overall cohort was 66.6% men, 77.1% Hispanic, and had a mean age of 62 years.

The GI bleeding rate was 2.5% at 1-year post-PCI among 27 patients and 3.7% for the study duration among 39 patients, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years.

Among the 39 GI bleeds, 41% were lower GI bleeds, 28% were upper GI bleeds, 15% were small bowel bleeds, and 15% were undetermined. The most frequent etiology was colon cancer, accounting for 18% of bleeds, followed by 15% for gastric ulcers, 10% for diverticular bleeds, and 10% for hemorrhoidal bleeds.

In general, analyses indicated no significant differences in GI bleeding between patients on clopidogrel (21.2%) and those on ticagrelor (19.2%).

However, the odds of GI bleeding were significantly higher in patients with high-risk PRECISE-DAPT scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.5) and moderate-risk scores (OR, 2.8) than in those with low-risk scores. The majority of patients without GI bleeding had scores < 17, whereas the majority of patients with GI bleeding had scores > 24. An optimal threshold for the PRECISE-DAPT score was identified as ≥ 19.

“When patients on DAPT present with GI bleeding, it can be a clinical conundrum for gastroenterologists and cardiologists, especially when it can be a life-or-death event, and stopping DAPT can increase risk of thrombosis,” said Jeff Taclob, MD, a hepatology fellow at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis. Taclob, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.

“In this population in El Paso, in particular, many patients don’t have adequate healthcare, may be lost to follow-up, and get their prescriptions filled elsewhere, such as Juárez, Mexico,” he said. “Then they come in with this life-threatening bleed, so we need to focus more on their risks.”

Paying attention to specific patient populations, cultures, and values remains important for patient communication and clinical decision-making, Taclob noted.

“In this population of older men, there’s often a macho persona where they don’t want to seek help,” he said. “DAPT criteria could differ in other populations, but here, the PRECISE-DAPT score appeared to help.”

The study was awarded the ACG Outstanding Research Award in the GI Bleeding Category (Trainee). Guzman and Taclob reported no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains risky in terms of morbidity and mortality, but the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score could help predict that risk, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In a predominantly Hispanic population in Texas, 2.5% of post-PCI patients on DAPT had GI bleeding in the first year. The PRECISE-DAPT score helped to predict GI bleeding among high-risk and moderate-risk patients.

“Our study established that the PRECISE-DAPT score possesses a moderate predictive accuracy not only for overall bleeding risk but also specifically for gastrointestinal bleeding,” said lead author Jesus Guzman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso.

Current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommend DAPT for 6-12 months post-PCI, with consideration for shorter durations in patients with lower ischemic risks but higher bleeding risks.

“Interestingly, some of these patients were on DAPT for more than 2 years, which goes beyond the guidelines,” he said. “In this patient population, this has to do with them being lost to follow-up and getting reestablished, and they kept refilling their prescriptions.”

Guzman and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving DAPT after PCI from 2014 to 2021. They looked for GI bleeding rates at 1 year and across the duration of the study period, as well as endoscopic indications, findings, concurrent antiplatelet therapy, and the primary cause of bleeding.

In addition, the research team evaluated the predictive value of the PRECISE-DAPT score, which categorizes patients based on low risk (≤ 17), moderate risk (18-24), and high risk (≥ 25) for bleeding. The score aims to optimize the balance between bleeding and ischemic risks, Guzman said, by incorporating five factors: Age, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and history of spontaneous bleeding.

Among 1067 patients, 563 (57.9%) received clopidogrel and 409 (42%) received ticagrelor. The overall cohort was 66.6% men, 77.1% Hispanic, and had a mean age of 62 years.

The GI bleeding rate was 2.5% at 1-year post-PCI among 27 patients and 3.7% for the study duration among 39 patients, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years.

Among the 39 GI bleeds, 41% were lower GI bleeds, 28% were upper GI bleeds, 15% were small bowel bleeds, and 15% were undetermined. The most frequent etiology was colon cancer, accounting for 18% of bleeds, followed by 15% for gastric ulcers, 10% for diverticular bleeds, and 10% for hemorrhoidal bleeds.

In general, analyses indicated no significant differences in GI bleeding between patients on clopidogrel (21.2%) and those on ticagrelor (19.2%).

However, the odds of GI bleeding were significantly higher in patients with high-risk PRECISE-DAPT scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.5) and moderate-risk scores (OR, 2.8) than in those with low-risk scores. The majority of patients without GI bleeding had scores < 17, whereas the majority of patients with GI bleeding had scores > 24. An optimal threshold for the PRECISE-DAPT score was identified as ≥ 19.

“When patients on DAPT present with GI bleeding, it can be a clinical conundrum for gastroenterologists and cardiologists, especially when it can be a life-or-death event, and stopping DAPT can increase risk of thrombosis,” said Jeff Taclob, MD, a hepatology fellow at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis. Taclob, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.

“In this population in El Paso, in particular, many patients don’t have adequate healthcare, may be lost to follow-up, and get their prescriptions filled elsewhere, such as Juárez, Mexico,” he said. “Then they come in with this life-threatening bleed, so we need to focus more on their risks.”

Paying attention to specific patient populations, cultures, and values remains important for patient communication and clinical decision-making, Taclob noted.

“In this population of older men, there’s often a macho persona where they don’t want to seek help,” he said. “DAPT criteria could differ in other populations, but here, the PRECISE-DAPT score appeared to help.”

The study was awarded the ACG Outstanding Research Award in the GI Bleeding Category (Trainee). Guzman and Taclob reported no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — “My child is a poor eater” is a complaint frequently heard during medical consultations. Such concerns are often unjustified but a source of much parental frustration. 

Marc Bellaïche, MD, a pediatrician at Robert-Debré Hospital in Paris, addressed this issue at France’s annual general medicine conference (JNMG 2024). His presentation focused on distinguishing between parental perception, typical childhood behaviors, and feeding issues that require intervention.

In assessing parental worries, tools such as The Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale for children aged 6 months to 6 years and the Baby Eating Behavior Questionnaire for those under 6 months can help identify and monitor feeding issues. Observing the child eat, when possible, is also valuable.

 

Key Phases and Development

Bellaïche focused on children under 6 years, as they frequently experience feeding challenges during critical development phases, such as weaning or when the child is able to sit up.

A phase of neophilia (interest in new foods) typically occurs before 12 months, followed by a phase of neophobia (fear of new foods) between ages 1 and 3 years. This neophobia is a normal part of neuropsychological, sensory, and taste development and can persist if a key developmental moment is marked by a choking incident, mealtime stress, or forced feeding. “Challenges differ between a difficult 3-year-old and a 6- or 7-year-old who still refuses new foods,” he explained.

 

Parental Pressure and Nutritional Balance

Nutritional balance is essential, but “parental pressure is often too high.” Parents worry because they see food as a “nutraceutical.” Bellaïche recommended defusing anxiety by keeping mealtimes calm, allowing the child to eat at their pace, avoiding force-feeding, keeping meals brief, and avoiding snacks. While “it’s important to stay vigilant — as it’s incorrect to assume a child won’t let themselves starve — most cases can be managed in general practice through parental guidance, empathy, and a positive approach.”

Monitoring growth and weight curves is crucial, with the Kanawati index (ratio of arm circumference to head circumference) being a reliable indicator for specialist referral if < 0.31. A varied diet is important for nutritional balance; when this isn’t achieved, continued consumption of toddler formula after age 3 can prevent iron and calcium deficiencies.

When eating difficulties are documented, healthcare providers should investigate for underlying organic, digestive, or extra-digestive diseases (neurologic, cardiac, renal, etc.). “It’s best not to hastily diagnose cow’s milk protein allergy,” Bellaïche advised, as cases are relatively rare and unnecessarily eliminating milk can complicate a child’s relationship with food. Similarly, gastroesophageal reflux disease should be objectively diagnosed to avoid unnecessary proton pump inhibitor treatment and associated side effects.

For children with low birth weight, mild congenital heart disease, or suggestive dysmorphology, consider evaluating for a genetic syndrome.

 

Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID)

ARFID is marked by a lack of interest in food and avoidance due to sensory characteristics. Often observed in anxious children, ARFID is diagnosed in approximately 20% of children with autism spectrum disorder, where food selectivity is prevalent. This condition can hinder a child’s development and may necessitate nutritional supplementation.

Case Profiles in Eating Issues

Bellaïche outlined three typical cases among children considered “picky eaters”:

• The small eater: Often near the lower growth curve limits, this child “grazes and doesn’t sit still.” These children are usually active and have a family history of similar eating habits. Parents should encourage psychomotor activities, discourage snacks outside of mealtimes, and consider fun family picnics on the floor, offering a mezze-style variety of foods. 
• The child with a history of trauma: Children with trauma (from intubation, nasogastric tubes, severe vomiting, forced feeding, or choking) may develop aversions requiring behavioral intervention. 
• The child with high sensory sensitivity: This child dislikes getting the hands dirty, avoids mouthing objects, or resists certain textures, such as grass and sand. Gradual behavioral approaches with sensory play and visually appealing new foods can be beneficial. Guided self-led food exploration (baby-led weaning) may also help, though dairy intake is often needed to prevent deficiencies during this stage. 

Finally, gastroesophageal reflux disease or constipation can contribute to appetite loss. Studies have shown that treating these issues can improve appetite in small eaters.

 

This story was translated from Univadis France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — “My child is a poor eater” is a complaint frequently heard during medical consultations. Such concerns are often unjustified but a source of much parental frustration. 

Marc Bellaïche, MD, a pediatrician at Robert-Debré Hospital in Paris, addressed this issue at France’s annual general medicine conference (JNMG 2024). His presentation focused on distinguishing between parental perception, typical childhood behaviors, and feeding issues that require intervention.

In assessing parental worries, tools such as The Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale for children aged 6 months to 6 years and the Baby Eating Behavior Questionnaire for those under 6 months can help identify and monitor feeding issues. Observing the child eat, when possible, is also valuable.

 

Key Phases and Development

Bellaïche focused on children under 6 years, as they frequently experience feeding challenges during critical development phases, such as weaning or when the child is able to sit up.

A phase of neophilia (interest in new foods) typically occurs before 12 months, followed by a phase of neophobia (fear of new foods) between ages 1 and 3 years. This neophobia is a normal part of neuropsychological, sensory, and taste development and can persist if a key developmental moment is marked by a choking incident, mealtime stress, or forced feeding. “Challenges differ between a difficult 3-year-old and a 6- or 7-year-old who still refuses new foods,” he explained.

 

Parental Pressure and Nutritional Balance

Nutritional balance is essential, but “parental pressure is often too high.” Parents worry because they see food as a “nutraceutical.” Bellaïche recommended defusing anxiety by keeping mealtimes calm, allowing the child to eat at their pace, avoiding force-feeding, keeping meals brief, and avoiding snacks. While “it’s important to stay vigilant — as it’s incorrect to assume a child won’t let themselves starve — most cases can be managed in general practice through parental guidance, empathy, and a positive approach.”

Monitoring growth and weight curves is crucial, with the Kanawati index (ratio of arm circumference to head circumference) being a reliable indicator for specialist referral if < 0.31. A varied diet is important for nutritional balance; when this isn’t achieved, continued consumption of toddler formula after age 3 can prevent iron and calcium deficiencies.

When eating difficulties are documented, healthcare providers should investigate for underlying organic, digestive, or extra-digestive diseases (neurologic, cardiac, renal, etc.). “It’s best not to hastily diagnose cow’s milk protein allergy,” Bellaïche advised, as cases are relatively rare and unnecessarily eliminating milk can complicate a child’s relationship with food. Similarly, gastroesophageal reflux disease should be objectively diagnosed to avoid unnecessary proton pump inhibitor treatment and associated side effects.

For children with low birth weight, mild congenital heart disease, or suggestive dysmorphology, consider evaluating for a genetic syndrome.

 

Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID)

ARFID is marked by a lack of interest in food and avoidance due to sensory characteristics. Often observed in anxious children, ARFID is diagnosed in approximately 20% of children with autism spectrum disorder, where food selectivity is prevalent. This condition can hinder a child’s development and may necessitate nutritional supplementation.

Case Profiles in Eating Issues

Bellaïche outlined three typical cases among children considered “picky eaters”:

• The small eater: Often near the lower growth curve limits, this child “grazes and doesn’t sit still.” These children are usually active and have a family history of similar eating habits. Parents should encourage psychomotor activities, discourage snacks outside of mealtimes, and consider fun family picnics on the floor, offering a mezze-style variety of foods. 
• The child with a history of trauma: Children with trauma (from intubation, nasogastric tubes, severe vomiting, forced feeding, or choking) may develop aversions requiring behavioral intervention. 
• The child with high sensory sensitivity: This child dislikes getting the hands dirty, avoids mouthing objects, or resists certain textures, such as grass and sand. Gradual behavioral approaches with sensory play and visually appealing new foods can be beneficial. Guided self-led food exploration (baby-led weaning) may also help, though dairy intake is often needed to prevent deficiencies during this stage. 

Finally, gastroesophageal reflux disease or constipation can contribute to appetite loss. Studies have shown that treating these issues can improve appetite in small eaters.

 

This story was translated from Univadis France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — “My child is a poor eater” is a complaint frequently heard during medical consultations. Such concerns are often unjustified but a source of much parental frustration. 

Marc Bellaïche, MD, a pediatrician at Robert-Debré Hospital in Paris, addressed this issue at France’s annual general medicine conference (JNMG 2024). His presentation focused on distinguishing between parental perception, typical childhood behaviors, and feeding issues that require intervention.

In assessing parental worries, tools such as The Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale for children aged 6 months to 6 years and the Baby Eating Behavior Questionnaire for those under 6 months can help identify and monitor feeding issues. Observing the child eat, when possible, is also valuable.

 

Key Phases and Development

Bellaïche focused on children under 6 years, as they frequently experience feeding challenges during critical development phases, such as weaning or when the child is able to sit up.

A phase of neophilia (interest in new foods) typically occurs before 12 months, followed by a phase of neophobia (fear of new foods) between ages 1 and 3 years. This neophobia is a normal part of neuropsychological, sensory, and taste development and can persist if a key developmental moment is marked by a choking incident, mealtime stress, or forced feeding. “Challenges differ between a difficult 3-year-old and a 6- or 7-year-old who still refuses new foods,” he explained.

 

Parental Pressure and Nutritional Balance

Nutritional balance is essential, but “parental pressure is often too high.” Parents worry because they see food as a “nutraceutical.” Bellaïche recommended defusing anxiety by keeping mealtimes calm, allowing the child to eat at their pace, avoiding force-feeding, keeping meals brief, and avoiding snacks. While “it’s important to stay vigilant — as it’s incorrect to assume a child won’t let themselves starve — most cases can be managed in general practice through parental guidance, empathy, and a positive approach.”

Monitoring growth and weight curves is crucial, with the Kanawati index (ratio of arm circumference to head circumference) being a reliable indicator for specialist referral if < 0.31. A varied diet is important for nutritional balance; when this isn’t achieved, continued consumption of toddler formula after age 3 can prevent iron and calcium deficiencies.

When eating difficulties are documented, healthcare providers should investigate for underlying organic, digestive, or extra-digestive diseases (neurologic, cardiac, renal, etc.). “It’s best not to hastily diagnose cow’s milk protein allergy,” Bellaïche advised, as cases are relatively rare and unnecessarily eliminating milk can complicate a child’s relationship with food. Similarly, gastroesophageal reflux disease should be objectively diagnosed to avoid unnecessary proton pump inhibitor treatment and associated side effects.

For children with low birth weight, mild congenital heart disease, or suggestive dysmorphology, consider evaluating for a genetic syndrome.

 

Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID)

ARFID is marked by a lack of interest in food and avoidance due to sensory characteristics. Often observed in anxious children, ARFID is diagnosed in approximately 20% of children with autism spectrum disorder, where food selectivity is prevalent. This condition can hinder a child’s development and may necessitate nutritional supplementation.

Case Profiles in Eating Issues

Bellaïche outlined three typical cases among children considered “picky eaters”:

• The small eater: Often near the lower growth curve limits, this child “grazes and doesn’t sit still.” These children are usually active and have a family history of similar eating habits. Parents should encourage psychomotor activities, discourage snacks outside of mealtimes, and consider fun family picnics on the floor, offering a mezze-style variety of foods. 
• The child with a history of trauma: Children with trauma (from intubation, nasogastric tubes, severe vomiting, forced feeding, or choking) may develop aversions requiring behavioral intervention. 
• The child with high sensory sensitivity: This child dislikes getting the hands dirty, avoids mouthing objects, or resists certain textures, such as grass and sand. Gradual behavioral approaches with sensory play and visually appealing new foods can be beneficial. Guided self-led food exploration (baby-led weaning) may also help, though dairy intake is often needed to prevent deficiencies during this stage. 

Finally, gastroesophageal reflux disease or constipation can contribute to appetite loss. Studies have shown that treating these issues can improve appetite in small eaters.

 

This story was translated from Univadis France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, what is MASLD?

Paul N. Williams, MD: MASLD is metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. 

Watto: We talked about a really stripped-down way of testing people for MASLD. If we see mildly elevated liver enzymes, what should we be testing, and how does alcohol factor in?

Williams: Before you can make a definitive diagnosis of MASLD, you need to rule out other causes of liver inflammation — things that would cause a patient’s transaminases to increase. Alcohol is synergistic with everything that can harm the liver.

A great place to start is to gauge someone’s alcohol intake to make sure it isn’t causing hepatic inflammation. The phosphatidyl ethanol level is a serologic test to determine chronic, heavy alcohol use. It’s a new kid on the block. I’ve seen it mostly ordered by hepatologists. It is a way of determining whether someone has had fairly consistent alcohol use up to 4 weeks after the fact. The cutoff for a positive test is 20 ng/mL.

Dr Tapper frames the test this way. He isn’t using the test to catch someone in a lie about their alcohol use. He tells patients that he orders this test for all patients with liver inflammation, because alcohol is a common cause. The test helps him better understand the factors that might be affecting the patient’s liver function. 

If the test comes back positive, you can have a conversation about that, and if it’s not positive, you move on to the next possible cause. Other fairly common causes of liver inflammation are relatively easy to address. 

Watto: Instead of ordering ceruloplasmin or alpha-1 antitrypsin tests, for example, the first thing Dr Tapper recommends is checking for hepatitis B and C. We can cure hepatitis C. We can’t cure hepatitis B, but it’s important to know if the patient has it. Primary care physicians should be comfortable ordering these tests. 

Really high ALT levels (eg, in the 200s) don’t usually happen from steatotic liver disease. In those cases, we would send an expanded panel that might include tests for autoimmune hepatitis-ANA, anti–smooth muscle antibody, and IgG levels. Otherwise, most of these patients don’t need much more testing.

What is a FIB4 score and how does that factor in?

Williams: The FIB4 score estimates the degree of fibrosis based on the ALT and AST levels, platelet count, and the patient’s age. These data are plugged into a formula. If the FIB4 score is low (meaning not much fibrosis is present), you can stop there and do your counseling about lifestyle changes and address the reversible factors.

If the FIB4 score is above a certain threshold (1.3 in young adults and 2.0 in older adults), you need to find a more concrete way to determine the degree of fibrosis, typically through imaging. 

Elastography can be done either with ultrasound or MRI. Ultrasound is typically ordered, but Dr Tapper recommends doing MRI on patients with a BMI > 40. Those patients are probably better served by doing MRI to determine the degree of liver fibrosis.

Watto: Patients with low FIB4 scores probably don’t need elastography but those with high FIB4 scores do. For the interpretation of ultrasound-based elastography results, Dr Tapper gave us the “rule of 5s”.

Elastography results are reported in kilopascal (kPa) units. A finding of 5 kPa or less is normal. Forty percent of those with a result of 10 kPa might have advanced liver disease. Above 15 kPa, the likelihood of cirrhosis is high, becoming very likely at 25 kPa. Finally, with a result of > 25 kPa, portal hypertension is likely, and you might need to have a conversation about starting the patient on medicine to prevent variceal bleeding.

We are moving toward more noninvasive testing and avoiding biopsies. We have cutoff values for MRI-based elastography as well. Both of these tests can help stage the liver. 

What can we tell people about diet? 

Williams: Weight loss is helpful. You can reverse fibrosis with weight loss. You can truly help your liver and bring it closer to its healthy baseline with weight loss. A loss of 7.5% body weight can reduce steatohepatitis, and with around 10% of body weight loss, you can actually resolve fibrosis, which is remarkable.

We all know that weight loss can be very therapeutic for many conditions. It’s just very hard to achieve. As primary care doctors, we should use what we have in our armamentarium to achieve that goal. Often, that will include certain medications.

Watto: I like giving patients the 10% number because if they weigh 220 pounds, they need to lose 22 pounds. If they weigh 300 pounds, it’s 30 pounds. Most people who weigh 300 pounds think they need to lose 100 pounds to have any sort of health benefit, but it’s much less than that. So, I do find that helpful.

But now a new drug has been approved. It’s a thyroid memetic called resmetirom. It was from the MAESTRO-NASH trial. Without weight loss, it helped to reverse fibrosis.

This is going to be used more and more in the future. It’s still being worked out exactly where the place is for that drug, so much so that Dr Tapper, as a liver expert, hadn’t even had the chance to prescribe it yet. Of course, it was very recently approved. 

Dr. Tapper is one of our most celebrated guests, so check out the full podcast here.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, what is MASLD?

Paul N. Williams, MD: MASLD is metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. 

Watto: We talked about a really stripped-down way of testing people for MASLD. If we see mildly elevated liver enzymes, what should we be testing, and how does alcohol factor in?

Williams: Before you can make a definitive diagnosis of MASLD, you need to rule out other causes of liver inflammation — things that would cause a patient’s transaminases to increase. Alcohol is synergistic with everything that can harm the liver.

A great place to start is to gauge someone’s alcohol intake to make sure it isn’t causing hepatic inflammation. The phosphatidyl ethanol level is a serologic test to determine chronic, heavy alcohol use. It’s a new kid on the block. I’ve seen it mostly ordered by hepatologists. It is a way of determining whether someone has had fairly consistent alcohol use up to 4 weeks after the fact. The cutoff for a positive test is 20 ng/mL.

Dr Tapper frames the test this way. He isn’t using the test to catch someone in a lie about their alcohol use. He tells patients that he orders this test for all patients with liver inflammation, because alcohol is a common cause. The test helps him better understand the factors that might be affecting the patient’s liver function. 

If the test comes back positive, you can have a conversation about that, and if it’s not positive, you move on to the next possible cause. Other fairly common causes of liver inflammation are relatively easy to address. 

Watto: Instead of ordering ceruloplasmin or alpha-1 antitrypsin tests, for example, the first thing Dr Tapper recommends is checking for hepatitis B and C. We can cure hepatitis C. We can’t cure hepatitis B, but it’s important to know if the patient has it. Primary care physicians should be comfortable ordering these tests. 

Really high ALT levels (eg, in the 200s) don’t usually happen from steatotic liver disease. In those cases, we would send an expanded panel that might include tests for autoimmune hepatitis-ANA, anti–smooth muscle antibody, and IgG levels. Otherwise, most of these patients don’t need much more testing.

What is a FIB4 score and how does that factor in?

Williams: The FIB4 score estimates the degree of fibrosis based on the ALT and AST levels, platelet count, and the patient’s age. These data are plugged into a formula. If the FIB4 score is low (meaning not much fibrosis is present), you can stop there and do your counseling about lifestyle changes and address the reversible factors.

If the FIB4 score is above a certain threshold (1.3 in young adults and 2.0 in older adults), you need to find a more concrete way to determine the degree of fibrosis, typically through imaging. 

Elastography can be done either with ultrasound or MRI. Ultrasound is typically ordered, but Dr Tapper recommends doing MRI on patients with a BMI > 40. Those patients are probably better served by doing MRI to determine the degree of liver fibrosis.

Watto: Patients with low FIB4 scores probably don’t need elastography but those with high FIB4 scores do. For the interpretation of ultrasound-based elastography results, Dr Tapper gave us the “rule of 5s”.

Elastography results are reported in kilopascal (kPa) units. A finding of 5 kPa or less is normal. Forty percent of those with a result of 10 kPa might have advanced liver disease. Above 15 kPa, the likelihood of cirrhosis is high, becoming very likely at 25 kPa. Finally, with a result of > 25 kPa, portal hypertension is likely, and you might need to have a conversation about starting the patient on medicine to prevent variceal bleeding.

We are moving toward more noninvasive testing and avoiding biopsies. We have cutoff values for MRI-based elastography as well. Both of these tests can help stage the liver. 

What can we tell people about diet? 

Williams: Weight loss is helpful. You can reverse fibrosis with weight loss. You can truly help your liver and bring it closer to its healthy baseline with weight loss. A loss of 7.5% body weight can reduce steatohepatitis, and with around 10% of body weight loss, you can actually resolve fibrosis, which is remarkable.

We all know that weight loss can be very therapeutic for many conditions. It’s just very hard to achieve. As primary care doctors, we should use what we have in our armamentarium to achieve that goal. Often, that will include certain medications.

Watto: I like giving patients the 10% number because if they weigh 220 pounds, they need to lose 22 pounds. If they weigh 300 pounds, it’s 30 pounds. Most people who weigh 300 pounds think they need to lose 100 pounds to have any sort of health benefit, but it’s much less than that. So, I do find that helpful.

But now a new drug has been approved. It’s a thyroid memetic called resmetirom. It was from the MAESTRO-NASH trial. Without weight loss, it helped to reverse fibrosis.

This is going to be used more and more in the future. It’s still being worked out exactly where the place is for that drug, so much so that Dr Tapper, as a liver expert, hadn’t even had the chance to prescribe it yet. Of course, it was very recently approved. 

Dr. Tapper is one of our most celebrated guests, so check out the full podcast here.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, what is MASLD?

Paul N. Williams, MD: MASLD is metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. 

Watto: We talked about a really stripped-down way of testing people for MASLD. If we see mildly elevated liver enzymes, what should we be testing, and how does alcohol factor in?

Williams: Before you can make a definitive diagnosis of MASLD, you need to rule out other causes of liver inflammation — things that would cause a patient’s transaminases to increase. Alcohol is synergistic with everything that can harm the liver.

A great place to start is to gauge someone’s alcohol intake to make sure it isn’t causing hepatic inflammation. The phosphatidyl ethanol level is a serologic test to determine chronic, heavy alcohol use. It’s a new kid on the block. I’ve seen it mostly ordered by hepatologists. It is a way of determining whether someone has had fairly consistent alcohol use up to 4 weeks after the fact. The cutoff for a positive test is 20 ng/mL.

Dr Tapper frames the test this way. He isn’t using the test to catch someone in a lie about their alcohol use. He tells patients that he orders this test for all patients with liver inflammation, because alcohol is a common cause. The test helps him better understand the factors that might be affecting the patient’s liver function. 

If the test comes back positive, you can have a conversation about that, and if it’s not positive, you move on to the next possible cause. Other fairly common causes of liver inflammation are relatively easy to address. 

Watto: Instead of ordering ceruloplasmin or alpha-1 antitrypsin tests, for example, the first thing Dr Tapper recommends is checking for hepatitis B and C. We can cure hepatitis C. We can’t cure hepatitis B, but it’s important to know if the patient has it. Primary care physicians should be comfortable ordering these tests. 

Really high ALT levels (eg, in the 200s) don’t usually happen from steatotic liver disease. In those cases, we would send an expanded panel that might include tests for autoimmune hepatitis-ANA, anti–smooth muscle antibody, and IgG levels. Otherwise, most of these patients don’t need much more testing.

What is a FIB4 score and how does that factor in?

Williams: The FIB4 score estimates the degree of fibrosis based on the ALT and AST levels, platelet count, and the patient’s age. These data are plugged into a formula. If the FIB4 score is low (meaning not much fibrosis is present), you can stop there and do your counseling about lifestyle changes and address the reversible factors.

If the FIB4 score is above a certain threshold (1.3 in young adults and 2.0 in older adults), you need to find a more concrete way to determine the degree of fibrosis, typically through imaging. 

Elastography can be done either with ultrasound or MRI. Ultrasound is typically ordered, but Dr Tapper recommends doing MRI on patients with a BMI > 40. Those patients are probably better served by doing MRI to determine the degree of liver fibrosis.

Watto: Patients with low FIB4 scores probably don’t need elastography but those with high FIB4 scores do. For the interpretation of ultrasound-based elastography results, Dr Tapper gave us the “rule of 5s”.

Elastography results are reported in kilopascal (kPa) units. A finding of 5 kPa or less is normal. Forty percent of those with a result of 10 kPa might have advanced liver disease. Above 15 kPa, the likelihood of cirrhosis is high, becoming very likely at 25 kPa. Finally, with a result of > 25 kPa, portal hypertension is likely, and you might need to have a conversation about starting the patient on medicine to prevent variceal bleeding.

We are moving toward more noninvasive testing and avoiding biopsies. We have cutoff values for MRI-based elastography as well. Both of these tests can help stage the liver. 

What can we tell people about diet? 

Williams: Weight loss is helpful. You can reverse fibrosis with weight loss. You can truly help your liver and bring it closer to its healthy baseline with weight loss. A loss of 7.5% body weight can reduce steatohepatitis, and with around 10% of body weight loss, you can actually resolve fibrosis, which is remarkable.

We all know that weight loss can be very therapeutic for many conditions. It’s just very hard to achieve. As primary care doctors, we should use what we have in our armamentarium to achieve that goal. Often, that will include certain medications.

Watto: I like giving patients the 10% number because if they weigh 220 pounds, they need to lose 22 pounds. If they weigh 300 pounds, it’s 30 pounds. Most people who weigh 300 pounds think they need to lose 100 pounds to have any sort of health benefit, but it’s much less than that. So, I do find that helpful.

But now a new drug has been approved. It’s a thyroid memetic called resmetirom. It was from the MAESTRO-NASH trial. Without weight loss, it helped to reverse fibrosis.

This is going to be used more and more in the future. It’s still being worked out exactly where the place is for that drug, so much so that Dr Tapper, as a liver expert, hadn’t even had the chance to prescribe it yet. Of course, it was very recently approved. 

Dr. Tapper is one of our most celebrated guests, so check out the full podcast here.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.