The prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic idiopathic constipation among US adults rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a near doubling of the national rate of IBS over 2 years, a study has found.

The uptick is probably due to not only the direct impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the gastrointestinal tract but also to the psychological stress associated with pandemic life, the study team said. 

“COVID infection itself can definitely cause gastrointestinal symptoms like diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain — and for some people, those symptoms can linger and lead to chronic conditions like IBS,” Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, lead author and gastroenterologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, told GI & Hepatology News. 

“But the stress of living through the pandemic — lockdowns, fear, isolation — also likely played a major role as well in the increased prevalence of digestive disorders. Both the infection itself and the psychological toll of the pandemic can disrupt the gut-brain axis and trigger chronic digestive disorders like IBS,” Almario said. 

The study was published in Neurogastroenterology & Motility.

 

Growing Burden of Gut Disorders 

Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) are a heterogeneous group of conditions in which gastrointestinal symptoms occur without any detectable structural or biochemical abnormalities in the digestive tract. They include IBS, functional dyspepsia, and chronic idiopathic constipation, among others. 

DGBIs are highly prevalent. Research has shown that nearly 40% of people in the US meet Rome IV criteria for at least one DGBI. 

Almario and colleagues assessed trends in prevalence of these conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Starting in May 2020 through May 2022, they conducted a series of online surveys with more than 160,000 adults aged 18 or older using validated Rome IV diagnostic questionnaires. 

Results showed that during the pandemic, IBS prevalence rose from 6.1% in May 2020 to 11.0% by May 2022, an increase of 0.188% per month (adjusted P < .001). 

Chronic idiopathic constipation showed a smaller but statistically significant increase, from 6.0% to 6.4% (0.056% per month; adjusted P < .001). 

Within the IBS subtypes, mixed-type IBS showed the largest relative increase (0.085% per month), followed by IBS with constipation (0.041% per month) and IBS with diarrhea (0.037% per month). 

There were no significant changes in the prevalence of other DGBIs, such as functional bloating, functional diarrhea, or functional dyspepsia, during the study period. 

Almario told GI & Hepatology News only about 9% of those surveyed reported a positive COVID test at the time of the surveys, but that figure probably underrepresents actual infections, especially in the early months of the pandemic. “Most of the survey responses came in during the earlier phases of the pandemic, and the percentage reporting a positive test increased over time,” he explained. 

Almario also noted that this study did not directly compare digestive disorder rates between infected and uninfected individuals. However, a separate study by the Cedars-Sinai team currently undergoing peer review addresses that question more directly. “That study, along with several other studies, show that having COVID increases the risk of developing conditions like IBS and functional dyspepsia,” Almario said. 

Taken together, the findings “underscore the increasing healthcare and economic burden of DGBI in the post-pandemic era, emphasizing the need for targeted efforts to effectively diagnose and manage these complex conditions,” they wrote. 

“This will be especially challenging for healthcare systems to address, given the existing shortage of primary care physicians and gastroenterologists — clinicians who primarily manage individuals with DGBI,” they noted. 

Support for this study was received from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and Salix Pharmaceuticals in the form of institutional research grants to Cedars-Sinai. Almario has consulted for Exact Sciences, Greenspace Labs, Owlstone Medical, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Universal DX.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic idiopathic constipation among US adults rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a near doubling of the national rate of IBS over 2 years, a study has found.

The uptick is probably due to not only the direct impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the gastrointestinal tract but also to the psychological stress associated with pandemic life, the study team said. 

“COVID infection itself can definitely cause gastrointestinal symptoms like diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain — and for some people, those symptoms can linger and lead to chronic conditions like IBS,” Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, lead author and gastroenterologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, told GI & Hepatology News. 

“But the stress of living through the pandemic — lockdowns, fear, isolation — also likely played a major role as well in the increased prevalence of digestive disorders. Both the infection itself and the psychological toll of the pandemic can disrupt the gut-brain axis and trigger chronic digestive disorders like IBS,” Almario said. 

The study was published in Neurogastroenterology & Motility.

 

Growing Burden of Gut Disorders 

Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) are a heterogeneous group of conditions in which gastrointestinal symptoms occur without any detectable structural or biochemical abnormalities in the digestive tract. They include IBS, functional dyspepsia, and chronic idiopathic constipation, among others. 

DGBIs are highly prevalent. Research has shown that nearly 40% of people in the US meet Rome IV criteria for at least one DGBI. 

Almario and colleagues assessed trends in prevalence of these conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Starting in May 2020 through May 2022, they conducted a series of online surveys with more than 160,000 adults aged 18 or older using validated Rome IV diagnostic questionnaires. 

Results showed that during the pandemic, IBS prevalence rose from 6.1% in May 2020 to 11.0% by May 2022, an increase of 0.188% per month (adjusted P < .001). 

Chronic idiopathic constipation showed a smaller but statistically significant increase, from 6.0% to 6.4% (0.056% per month; adjusted P < .001). 

Within the IBS subtypes, mixed-type IBS showed the largest relative increase (0.085% per month), followed by IBS with constipation (0.041% per month) and IBS with diarrhea (0.037% per month). 

There were no significant changes in the prevalence of other DGBIs, such as functional bloating, functional diarrhea, or functional dyspepsia, during the study period. 

Almario told GI & Hepatology News only about 9% of those surveyed reported a positive COVID test at the time of the surveys, but that figure probably underrepresents actual infections, especially in the early months of the pandemic. “Most of the survey responses came in during the earlier phases of the pandemic, and the percentage reporting a positive test increased over time,” he explained. 

Almario also noted that this study did not directly compare digestive disorder rates between infected and uninfected individuals. However, a separate study by the Cedars-Sinai team currently undergoing peer review addresses that question more directly. “That study, along with several other studies, show that having COVID increases the risk of developing conditions like IBS and functional dyspepsia,” Almario said. 

Taken together, the findings “underscore the increasing healthcare and economic burden of DGBI in the post-pandemic era, emphasizing the need for targeted efforts to effectively diagnose and manage these complex conditions,” they wrote. 

“This will be especially challenging for healthcare systems to address, given the existing shortage of primary care physicians and gastroenterologists — clinicians who primarily manage individuals with DGBI,” they noted. 

Support for this study was received from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and Salix Pharmaceuticals in the form of institutional research grants to Cedars-Sinai. Almario has consulted for Exact Sciences, Greenspace Labs, Owlstone Medical, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Universal DX.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic idiopathic constipation among US adults rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a near doubling of the national rate of IBS over 2 years, a study has found.

The uptick is probably due to not only the direct impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the gastrointestinal tract but also to the psychological stress associated with pandemic life, the study team said. 

“COVID infection itself can definitely cause gastrointestinal symptoms like diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain — and for some people, those symptoms can linger and lead to chronic conditions like IBS,” Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, lead author and gastroenterologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, told GI & Hepatology News. 

“But the stress of living through the pandemic — lockdowns, fear, isolation — also likely played a major role as well in the increased prevalence of digestive disorders. Both the infection itself and the psychological toll of the pandemic can disrupt the gut-brain axis and trigger chronic digestive disorders like IBS,” Almario said. 

The study was published in Neurogastroenterology & Motility.

 

Growing Burden of Gut Disorders 

Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) are a heterogeneous group of conditions in which gastrointestinal symptoms occur without any detectable structural or biochemical abnormalities in the digestive tract. They include IBS, functional dyspepsia, and chronic idiopathic constipation, among others. 

DGBIs are highly prevalent. Research has shown that nearly 40% of people in the US meet Rome IV criteria for at least one DGBI. 

Almario and colleagues assessed trends in prevalence of these conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Starting in May 2020 through May 2022, they conducted a series of online surveys with more than 160,000 adults aged 18 or older using validated Rome IV diagnostic questionnaires. 

Results showed that during the pandemic, IBS prevalence rose from 6.1% in May 2020 to 11.0% by May 2022, an increase of 0.188% per month (adjusted P < .001). 

Chronic idiopathic constipation showed a smaller but statistically significant increase, from 6.0% to 6.4% (0.056% per month; adjusted P < .001). 

Within the IBS subtypes, mixed-type IBS showed the largest relative increase (0.085% per month), followed by IBS with constipation (0.041% per month) and IBS with diarrhea (0.037% per month). 

There were no significant changes in the prevalence of other DGBIs, such as functional bloating, functional diarrhea, or functional dyspepsia, during the study period. 

Almario told GI & Hepatology News only about 9% of those surveyed reported a positive COVID test at the time of the surveys, but that figure probably underrepresents actual infections, especially in the early months of the pandemic. “Most of the survey responses came in during the earlier phases of the pandemic, and the percentage reporting a positive test increased over time,” he explained. 

Almario also noted that this study did not directly compare digestive disorder rates between infected and uninfected individuals. However, a separate study by the Cedars-Sinai team currently undergoing peer review addresses that question more directly. “That study, along with several other studies, show that having COVID increases the risk of developing conditions like IBS and functional dyspepsia,” Almario said. 

Taken together, the findings “underscore the increasing healthcare and economic burden of DGBI in the post-pandemic era, emphasizing the need for targeted efforts to effectively diagnose and manage these complex conditions,” they wrote. 

“This will be especially challenging for healthcare systems to address, given the existing shortage of primary care physicians and gastroenterologists — clinicians who primarily manage individuals with DGBI,” they noted. 

Support for this study was received from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and Salix Pharmaceuticals in the form of institutional research grants to Cedars-Sinai. Almario has consulted for Exact Sciences, Greenspace Labs, Owlstone Medical, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Universal DX.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Think your patient may have celiac disease? The harsh reality is that current diagnostic tests require patients to consume gluten for an accurate diagnosis, which poses challenges for individuals already avoiding gluten.

A more tolerable approach appears to be on the horizon. Researchers in Australia have developed a blood test that can identify celiac disease with high sensitivity and specificity, even without consuming gluten.

“This is a simple and accurate test that can provide a diagnosis within a very short time frame, without the need for patients to continue eating gluten and feeling sick, or to wait months for a gastroscopy,” Olivia Moscatelli, PhD candidate, Tye-Din Lab, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Most Cases Go Undiagnosed

Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by gluten found in wheat, rye, and barley. The only available treatment is a strict, life-long gluten-free diet.

The global prevalence of celiac disease is estimated at around 1%-2%, with 50%-80% of cases either undiagnosed or diagnosed late. That’s because the current reliable diagnosis of celiac disease requires the intake of gluten, which may deter people from seeking a diagnosis.

In earlier work, the researchers, working with Robert Anderson, MBChB, BMedSc, PhD, AGAF, now with Novoviah Pharmaceuticals, made the unexpected discovery that interleukin-2 (IL-2) spiked in the blood of people with celiac disease shortly after they ate gluten.

But would this signal be present when no gluten had been consumed?

The team developed and tested a simple whole blood assay measuring IL-2 release (WBAIL- 2) for detecting gluten-specific T cells to aid in diagnosing celiac disease.

They collected blood samples from 181 volunteers — 75 with treated celiac disease on a gluten-free diet, 13 with active untreated celiac disease, 32 with nonceliac gluten sensitivity and 61 healthy controls. The blood samples were mixed with gluten in a test tube for a day to see if the IL-2 signal appeared.

The WBAIL-2 assay demonstrated high accuracy for celiac disease, even in patients following a strict gluten-free diet.

For patients with HLA-DQ2.5+ genetics, sensitivity was 90% and specificity was 95%, with lower sensitivity (56%) for patients with HLA-DQ8+ celiac disease.

The WBAIL-2 assay correlated strongly with the frequency of tetramer-positive gluten-specific CD4+ T cells used to diagnose celiac disease and monitor treatment effectiveness, and with serum IL-2 levels after gluten challenge.

The strength of the IL-2 signal correlated with the severity of a patient’s symptoms, “allowing us to predict how severely a person with celiac disease might react to gluten, without them actually having to eat it,” Moscatelli said in a news release.

“Current diagnostic practice involves a blood-based serology test followed by a confirmatory gastroscopy if positive. Both tests require the patient to eat gluten daily for 6-12 weeks prior for accurate results. We envision the new blood test (IL-2 whole blood assay) will replace the invasive gastroscopy as the confirmatory test following positive serology,” Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.

“In people already following a gluten-free diet, we propose they would have this new blood test done on two separate occasions and two positive results would be required for a celiac diagnosis. This would allow a large number of people who previously have been unable to go through the current diagnostic process to receive a diagnosis,” Moscatelli said.

 

Practice Changing Potential 

A blood-based test that can accurately detect celiac disease without the need for a gluten challenge would be “welcome and practice changing,” said Christopher Cao, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Division of Gastroenterology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.

“A typical ‘gluten challenge’ involves eating the equivalent of 1-2 slices of bread daily for the course of 6 weeks, and this may be incredibly difficult for patients who have already been on a gluten-free diet prior to an official celiac disease diagnosis. Inability to perform a gluten challenge limits the ability to make an accurate celiac disease diagnosis,” Cao told GI & Hepatology News.

“This study shows that gluten-stimulated interleukin release 2 assays may correlate with the presence of pathogenic gluten-specific CD4+ T cell response in celiac disease,” Cao noted.

He cautioned that “further large cohort, multicenter prospective studies are needed to assess generalizability and may be helpful in evaluating the accuracy of WBAIL-2 in non-HLA DQ2.5 genotypes.” 

Other considerations prior to implementation may include reproducibility across different laboratories and overall cost effectiveness, Cao said. “Ultimately in clinic, the role of WBAIL-2 will need to be better defined within the algorithm of celiac disease testing,” he added.

 

The Path Ahead

The researchers plan to test the performance of the IL-2 whole blood assay in a pediatric cohort, as well as in other countries to demonstrate the reproducibility of the test. In these studies, the test will likely be performed alongside the current diagnostic tests (serology and gastroscopy), Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.

“There are some validation studies starting in other countries already as many celiac clinicians globally are interested in bringing this test to their clinical practice. I believe the plan is to have this as an approved diagnostic test for celiac disease worldwide,” she said.

Novoviah Pharmaceuticals is managing the commercialization of the test, and the plan is to get it into clinical practice in the next 2 years, Moscatelli said.

The research was supported by Coeliac Australia, Novoviah Pharmaceuticals (who provided the proprietary test for this study), Beck Family Foundation, Butterfield Family, the Veith Foundation. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Cao had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Think your patient may have celiac disease? The harsh reality is that current diagnostic tests require patients to consume gluten for an accurate diagnosis, which poses challenges for individuals already avoiding gluten.

A more tolerable approach appears to be on the horizon. Researchers in Australia have developed a blood test that can identify celiac disease with high sensitivity and specificity, even without consuming gluten.

“This is a simple and accurate test that can provide a diagnosis within a very short time frame, without the need for patients to continue eating gluten and feeling sick, or to wait months for a gastroscopy,” Olivia Moscatelli, PhD candidate, Tye-Din Lab, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Most Cases Go Undiagnosed

Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by gluten found in wheat, rye, and barley. The only available treatment is a strict, life-long gluten-free diet.

The global prevalence of celiac disease is estimated at around 1%-2%, with 50%-80% of cases either undiagnosed or diagnosed late. That’s because the current reliable diagnosis of celiac disease requires the intake of gluten, which may deter people from seeking a diagnosis.

In earlier work, the researchers, working with Robert Anderson, MBChB, BMedSc, PhD, AGAF, now with Novoviah Pharmaceuticals, made the unexpected discovery that interleukin-2 (IL-2) spiked in the blood of people with celiac disease shortly after they ate gluten.

But would this signal be present when no gluten had been consumed?

The team developed and tested a simple whole blood assay measuring IL-2 release (WBAIL- 2) for detecting gluten-specific T cells to aid in diagnosing celiac disease.

They collected blood samples from 181 volunteers — 75 with treated celiac disease on a gluten-free diet, 13 with active untreated celiac disease, 32 with nonceliac gluten sensitivity and 61 healthy controls. The blood samples were mixed with gluten in a test tube for a day to see if the IL-2 signal appeared.

The WBAIL-2 assay demonstrated high accuracy for celiac disease, even in patients following a strict gluten-free diet.

For patients with HLA-DQ2.5+ genetics, sensitivity was 90% and specificity was 95%, with lower sensitivity (56%) for patients with HLA-DQ8+ celiac disease.

The WBAIL-2 assay correlated strongly with the frequency of tetramer-positive gluten-specific CD4+ T cells used to diagnose celiac disease and monitor treatment effectiveness, and with serum IL-2 levels after gluten challenge.

The strength of the IL-2 signal correlated with the severity of a patient’s symptoms, “allowing us to predict how severely a person with celiac disease might react to gluten, without them actually having to eat it,” Moscatelli said in a news release.

“Current diagnostic practice involves a blood-based serology test followed by a confirmatory gastroscopy if positive. Both tests require the patient to eat gluten daily for 6-12 weeks prior for accurate results. We envision the new blood test (IL-2 whole blood assay) will replace the invasive gastroscopy as the confirmatory test following positive serology,” Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.

“In people already following a gluten-free diet, we propose they would have this new blood test done on two separate occasions and two positive results would be required for a celiac diagnosis. This would allow a large number of people who previously have been unable to go through the current diagnostic process to receive a diagnosis,” Moscatelli said.

 

Practice Changing Potential 

A blood-based test that can accurately detect celiac disease without the need for a gluten challenge would be “welcome and practice changing,” said Christopher Cao, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Division of Gastroenterology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.

“A typical ‘gluten challenge’ involves eating the equivalent of 1-2 slices of bread daily for the course of 6 weeks, and this may be incredibly difficult for patients who have already been on a gluten-free diet prior to an official celiac disease diagnosis. Inability to perform a gluten challenge limits the ability to make an accurate celiac disease diagnosis,” Cao told GI & Hepatology News.

“This study shows that gluten-stimulated interleukin release 2 assays may correlate with the presence of pathogenic gluten-specific CD4+ T cell response in celiac disease,” Cao noted.

He cautioned that “further large cohort, multicenter prospective studies are needed to assess generalizability and may be helpful in evaluating the accuracy of WBAIL-2 in non-HLA DQ2.5 genotypes.” 

Other considerations prior to implementation may include reproducibility across different laboratories and overall cost effectiveness, Cao said. “Ultimately in clinic, the role of WBAIL-2 will need to be better defined within the algorithm of celiac disease testing,” he added.

 

The Path Ahead

The researchers plan to test the performance of the IL-2 whole blood assay in a pediatric cohort, as well as in other countries to demonstrate the reproducibility of the test. In these studies, the test will likely be performed alongside the current diagnostic tests (serology and gastroscopy), Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.

“There are some validation studies starting in other countries already as many celiac clinicians globally are interested in bringing this test to their clinical practice. I believe the plan is to have this as an approved diagnostic test for celiac disease worldwide,” she said.

Novoviah Pharmaceuticals is managing the commercialization of the test, and the plan is to get it into clinical practice in the next 2 years, Moscatelli said.

The research was supported by Coeliac Australia, Novoviah Pharmaceuticals (who provided the proprietary test for this study), Beck Family Foundation, Butterfield Family, the Veith Foundation. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Cao had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Think your patient may have celiac disease? The harsh reality is that current diagnostic tests require patients to consume gluten for an accurate diagnosis, which poses challenges for individuals already avoiding gluten.

A more tolerable approach appears to be on the horizon. Researchers in Australia have developed a blood test that can identify celiac disease with high sensitivity and specificity, even without consuming gluten.

“This is a simple and accurate test that can provide a diagnosis within a very short time frame, without the need for patients to continue eating gluten and feeling sick, or to wait months for a gastroscopy,” Olivia Moscatelli, PhD candidate, Tye-Din Lab, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Most Cases Go Undiagnosed

Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by gluten found in wheat, rye, and barley. The only available treatment is a strict, life-long gluten-free diet.

The global prevalence of celiac disease is estimated at around 1%-2%, with 50%-80% of cases either undiagnosed or diagnosed late. That’s because the current reliable diagnosis of celiac disease requires the intake of gluten, which may deter people from seeking a diagnosis.

In earlier work, the researchers, working with Robert Anderson, MBChB, BMedSc, PhD, AGAF, now with Novoviah Pharmaceuticals, made the unexpected discovery that interleukin-2 (IL-2) spiked in the blood of people with celiac disease shortly after they ate gluten.

But would this signal be present when no gluten had been consumed?

The team developed and tested a simple whole blood assay measuring IL-2 release (WBAIL- 2) for detecting gluten-specific T cells to aid in diagnosing celiac disease.

They collected blood samples from 181 volunteers — 75 with treated celiac disease on a gluten-free diet, 13 with active untreated celiac disease, 32 with nonceliac gluten sensitivity and 61 healthy controls. The blood samples were mixed with gluten in a test tube for a day to see if the IL-2 signal appeared.

The WBAIL-2 assay demonstrated high accuracy for celiac disease, even in patients following a strict gluten-free diet.

For patients with HLA-DQ2.5+ genetics, sensitivity was 90% and specificity was 95%, with lower sensitivity (56%) for patients with HLA-DQ8+ celiac disease.

The WBAIL-2 assay correlated strongly with the frequency of tetramer-positive gluten-specific CD4+ T cells used to diagnose celiac disease and monitor treatment effectiveness, and with serum IL-2 levels after gluten challenge.

The strength of the IL-2 signal correlated with the severity of a patient’s symptoms, “allowing us to predict how severely a person with celiac disease might react to gluten, without them actually having to eat it,” Moscatelli said in a news release.

“Current diagnostic practice involves a blood-based serology test followed by a confirmatory gastroscopy if positive. Both tests require the patient to eat gluten daily for 6-12 weeks prior for accurate results. We envision the new blood test (IL-2 whole blood assay) will replace the invasive gastroscopy as the confirmatory test following positive serology,” Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.

“In people already following a gluten-free diet, we propose they would have this new blood test done on two separate occasions and two positive results would be required for a celiac diagnosis. This would allow a large number of people who previously have been unable to go through the current diagnostic process to receive a diagnosis,” Moscatelli said.

 

Practice Changing Potential 

A blood-based test that can accurately detect celiac disease without the need for a gluten challenge would be “welcome and practice changing,” said Christopher Cao, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Division of Gastroenterology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.

“A typical ‘gluten challenge’ involves eating the equivalent of 1-2 slices of bread daily for the course of 6 weeks, and this may be incredibly difficult for patients who have already been on a gluten-free diet prior to an official celiac disease diagnosis. Inability to perform a gluten challenge limits the ability to make an accurate celiac disease diagnosis,” Cao told GI & Hepatology News.

“This study shows that gluten-stimulated interleukin release 2 assays may correlate with the presence of pathogenic gluten-specific CD4+ T cell response in celiac disease,” Cao noted.

He cautioned that “further large cohort, multicenter prospective studies are needed to assess generalizability and may be helpful in evaluating the accuracy of WBAIL-2 in non-HLA DQ2.5 genotypes.” 

Other considerations prior to implementation may include reproducibility across different laboratories and overall cost effectiveness, Cao said. “Ultimately in clinic, the role of WBAIL-2 will need to be better defined within the algorithm of celiac disease testing,” he added.

 

The Path Ahead

The researchers plan to test the performance of the IL-2 whole blood assay in a pediatric cohort, as well as in other countries to demonstrate the reproducibility of the test. In these studies, the test will likely be performed alongside the current diagnostic tests (serology and gastroscopy), Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.

“There are some validation studies starting in other countries already as many celiac clinicians globally are interested in bringing this test to their clinical practice. I believe the plan is to have this as an approved diagnostic test for celiac disease worldwide,” she said.

Novoviah Pharmaceuticals is managing the commercialization of the test, and the plan is to get it into clinical practice in the next 2 years, Moscatelli said.

The research was supported by Coeliac Australia, Novoviah Pharmaceuticals (who provided the proprietary test for this study), Beck Family Foundation, Butterfield Family, the Veith Foundation. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Cao had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can exercise “therapy” and diet improve survival in patients with colon cancer? It appears so, according to two pivotal studies presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

In the CHALLENGE trial, a structured exercise program after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy cut the risk for colon cancer recurrence in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II disease by more than one quarter and the risk for death by more than one third.

“The magnitude of benefit with exercise is substantial. In fact, it is comparable, and in some cases exceeds the magnitude of benefit of many of our very good standard medical therapies in oncology,” study presenter Christopher Booth, MD, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, told attendees.

Results of the study were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation at the meeting.

The findings are “nothing short of a major milestone,” said study discussant Peter Campbell, PhD, with Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center, Bronx, New York.

The other study showed that eating a less inflammatory diet may reduce the risk for death in patients with colon cancer, with the greatest benefits seen in those who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly.

“Putting these two abstracts into perspective, we as physicians need to be essentially prescribing healthy diet and exercise. The combination of the two are synergistic,” Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, told attendees.

Despite the benefits of these lifestyle changes, exercise and diet are meant to supplement, not replace, established colon cancer treatments.

It would be a false binary to frame this as lifestyle vs cancer treatment, explained Mark Lewis, MD, director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, Utah. With exercise, for instance, “the key is giving enough chemo to protect against recurrence and eliminate micrometastases but not so much that we cause neuropathy and reduce function and ability to follow the CHALLENGE structured program,” Lewis said.

Exercise and Survival

Colon cancer remains the second-leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Even with surgery and chemotherapy, roughly 30% of patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer will experience disease recurrence.

“As oncologists, one of the most common questions we get asked by patients is — what else can I do to improve my outcome?” Booth said.

Observational studies published nearly two decades ago hinted that physically active cancer survivors fare better, but no randomized trial has definitively tested whether exercise could alter disease course. That knowledge gap prompted the Canadian Cancer Trials Group to launch the CHALLENGE trial.

Between 2009 and 2023, the phase 3 study enrolled 889 adults (median age, 61 years; 51% women) who had completed surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III (90%) or high-risk stage II (10%) colon cancer. Most patients were from Canada and Australia and were enrolled 2-6 months after completing chemotherapy.

Half of study participants were randomly allocated to a structured exercise program (n = 445) and half to receive standard health education materials promoting physical activity and healthy eating (control individuals, n = 444).

As part of the structured exercise intervention, patients met with a physical activity consultant twice a month for the first 6 months. These sessions included exercise coaching and supervised exercise. Patients could choose their preferred aerobic exercise and most picked brisk walking.

The consultants gave each patient an “exercise prescription” to hit a specific amount of exercise. The target was an additional 10 metabolic equivalent (MET)–hours of aerobic activity per week — about three to four brisk walks each lasting 45-60 minutes. After 6 months, patients met with their consultants once a month, with additional sessions available for extra support if needed.

Structured exercise led to “substantial and sustained” increases in the amount of exercise participants did, as well as physiologic measures of their fitness, with “highly relevant” improvements in VO₂ max, 6-minute walk test, and patient-reported physical function, underscoring that participants were not only exercising more but also getting fitter, Booth said.

Exercise was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant 28% reduction in the risk for recurrent or new cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .017), with a 5-year disease free survival rate of 80% in the exercise group and 74% in the control group.

In other words, “for every 16 patients that went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from recurrent or new cancer” at 5 years, Booth reported.

Overall survival results were “even more impressive,” he said.

At 8 years, 90% of patients in the exercise program were alive vs 83% of those in the control group, which translated to a 37% lower risk for death (HR, 0.63; P = .022).

“For every 14 patients who went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from dying” at the 8-year mark, Booth noted.

“Notably, this difference in survival was not driven by difference in cardiovascular deaths but by a reduction in the risk of death from colon cancer,” he said.

Besides a slight uptick in musculoskeletal aches, no major safety signals emerged in the exercise group.

It’s important to note that the survival benefit associated with exercise came after patients had received surgery followed by chemotherapy — in other words, exercise did not replace established cancer treatments. It’s also unclear whether initiating an exercise intervention earlier in the treatment trajectory — before surgery or during chemotherapy, instead of after chemotherapy — could further improve cancer outcomes, the authors noted.

Still, “exercise as an intervention is a no brainer and should be implemented broadly,” said ASCO expert Pamela Kunz, MD, with Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Marco Gerlinger, MD, with Barts Cancer Institute, London, England, agreed.

“Oncologists can now make a very clear evidence-based recommendation for patients who just completed their chemotherapy for bowel cancer and are fit enough for such an exercise program,” Gerlinger said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre.

Booth noted that knowledge alone will not be sufficient to allow most patients to change their lifestyle and realize the health benefits.

“The policy implementation piece of this is really key, and we need health systems, hospitals, and payers to invest in these behavior support programs so that patients have access to a physical activity consultant and can realize the health benefits,” he said.

“This intervention is empowering and achievable for patients and with much, much lower cost than many of our therapies. It is also sustainable for health systems,” he concluded.

Diet and Survival

Diet can also affect outcomes in patients with colon cancer.

In the same session describing the CHALLENGE results, Sara Char, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported findings showing that consuming a diet high in proinflammatory foods was associated with worse overall survival in patients with stage III colon cancer. A proinflammatory diet includes red and processed meats, sugary drinks, and refined grains, while an anti-inflammatory diet focuses on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, and olive oil.

Chronic systemic inflammation has been implicated in both colon cancer development and in its progression, and elevated levels of inflammatory markers in the blood have previously been associated with worse survival outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer.

Char and colleagues analyzed dietary patterns of a subset of 1625 patients (mean age, 61 years) with resected stage III colon cancer enrolled in the phase 3 CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance) clinical trial, which compared 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without the anti-inflammatory medication celecoxib.

As part of the trial, participants reported their diet and exercise habits at various timepoints. Their diets were scored using the validated empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) tool, which is a weighted sum of 18 food groups — nine proinflammatory and nine anti-inflammatory. A high EDIP score marks a proinflammatory diet, and a low EDIP score indicates a less inflammatory diet.

During median follow-up of nearly 4 years, researchers noted a trend toward worse disease-free survival in patients with high proinflammatory diets (HR, 1.46), but this association was not significant in the multivariable adjusted model (HR, 1.36; P = .22), Char reported.

However, higher intake of proinflammatory foods was associated with significantly worse overall survival.

Patients who consumed the most proinflammatory foods (top 20%) had an 87% higher risk for death compared with those who consumed the least (bottom 20%; HR, 1.87). The median overall survival in the highest quintile was 7.7 years and was not reached in the lowest quintile.

Combine Exercise and Diet for Best Results

To examine the joint effect of physical activity and diet on overall survival, patients were divided into higher and lower levels of physical activity using a cut-off of 9 MET hours per week, which roughly correlates to 30 minutes of vigorous walking five days a week with a little bit of light yoga, Char explained.

In this analysis, patients with less proinflammatory diets and higher physical activity levels had the best overall survival outcomes, with a 63% lower risk for death compared with peers who consumed more pro-inflammatory diets and exercised less (HR, 0.37; P < .0001).

Daily celecoxib use and low-dose aspirin use (< 100 mg/d) did not affect the association between inflammatory diet and survival.

Char cautioned, that while the EDIP tool is useful to measure the inflammatory potential of a diet, “this is not a dietary recommendation, and we need further studies to be able to tailor our findings into dietary recommendations that can be provided to patients at the bedside.”

Gralow said this “early but promising observational study suggests a powerful synergy: Patients with stage III colon cancer who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly showed the best overall survival compared to those with inflammatory diets and limited exercise.”

The CHALLENGE trial was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, and the University of Sydney Cancer Research Fund. Booth had no disclosures. The diet study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Pfizer, and the Project P Fund. Char disclosed an advisory/consultant role with Goodpath. Kunz, Gralow and Campbell had no relevant disclosures.

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

Can exercise “therapy” and diet improve survival in patients with colon cancer? It appears so, according to two pivotal studies presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

In the CHALLENGE trial, a structured exercise program after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy cut the risk for colon cancer recurrence in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II disease by more than one quarter and the risk for death by more than one third.

“The magnitude of benefit with exercise is substantial. In fact, it is comparable, and in some cases exceeds the magnitude of benefit of many of our very good standard medical therapies in oncology,” study presenter Christopher Booth, MD, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, told attendees.

Results of the study were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation at the meeting.

The findings are “nothing short of a major milestone,” said study discussant Peter Campbell, PhD, with Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center, Bronx, New York.

The other study showed that eating a less inflammatory diet may reduce the risk for death in patients with colon cancer, with the greatest benefits seen in those who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly.

“Putting these two abstracts into perspective, we as physicians need to be essentially prescribing healthy diet and exercise. The combination of the two are synergistic,” Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, told attendees.

Despite the benefits of these lifestyle changes, exercise and diet are meant to supplement, not replace, established colon cancer treatments.

It would be a false binary to frame this as lifestyle vs cancer treatment, explained Mark Lewis, MD, director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, Utah. With exercise, for instance, “the key is giving enough chemo to protect against recurrence and eliminate micrometastases but not so much that we cause neuropathy and reduce function and ability to follow the CHALLENGE structured program,” Lewis said.

Exercise and Survival

Colon cancer remains the second-leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Even with surgery and chemotherapy, roughly 30% of patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer will experience disease recurrence.

“As oncologists, one of the most common questions we get asked by patients is — what else can I do to improve my outcome?” Booth said.

Observational studies published nearly two decades ago hinted that physically active cancer survivors fare better, but no randomized trial has definitively tested whether exercise could alter disease course. That knowledge gap prompted the Canadian Cancer Trials Group to launch the CHALLENGE trial.

Between 2009 and 2023, the phase 3 study enrolled 889 adults (median age, 61 years; 51% women) who had completed surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III (90%) or high-risk stage II (10%) colon cancer. Most patients were from Canada and Australia and were enrolled 2-6 months after completing chemotherapy.

Half of study participants were randomly allocated to a structured exercise program (n = 445) and half to receive standard health education materials promoting physical activity and healthy eating (control individuals, n = 444).

As part of the structured exercise intervention, patients met with a physical activity consultant twice a month for the first 6 months. These sessions included exercise coaching and supervised exercise. Patients could choose their preferred aerobic exercise and most picked brisk walking.

The consultants gave each patient an “exercise prescription” to hit a specific amount of exercise. The target was an additional 10 metabolic equivalent (MET)–hours of aerobic activity per week — about three to four brisk walks each lasting 45-60 minutes. After 6 months, patients met with their consultants once a month, with additional sessions available for extra support if needed.

Structured exercise led to “substantial and sustained” increases in the amount of exercise participants did, as well as physiologic measures of their fitness, with “highly relevant” improvements in VO₂ max, 6-minute walk test, and patient-reported physical function, underscoring that participants were not only exercising more but also getting fitter, Booth said.

Exercise was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant 28% reduction in the risk for recurrent or new cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .017), with a 5-year disease free survival rate of 80% in the exercise group and 74% in the control group.

In other words, “for every 16 patients that went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from recurrent or new cancer” at 5 years, Booth reported.

Overall survival results were “even more impressive,” he said.

At 8 years, 90% of patients in the exercise program were alive vs 83% of those in the control group, which translated to a 37% lower risk for death (HR, 0.63; P = .022).

“For every 14 patients who went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from dying” at the 8-year mark, Booth noted.

“Notably, this difference in survival was not driven by difference in cardiovascular deaths but by a reduction in the risk of death from colon cancer,” he said.

Besides a slight uptick in musculoskeletal aches, no major safety signals emerged in the exercise group.

It’s important to note that the survival benefit associated with exercise came after patients had received surgery followed by chemotherapy — in other words, exercise did not replace established cancer treatments. It’s also unclear whether initiating an exercise intervention earlier in the treatment trajectory — before surgery or during chemotherapy, instead of after chemotherapy — could further improve cancer outcomes, the authors noted.

Still, “exercise as an intervention is a no brainer and should be implemented broadly,” said ASCO expert Pamela Kunz, MD, with Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Marco Gerlinger, MD, with Barts Cancer Institute, London, England, agreed.

“Oncologists can now make a very clear evidence-based recommendation for patients who just completed their chemotherapy for bowel cancer and are fit enough for such an exercise program,” Gerlinger said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre.

Booth noted that knowledge alone will not be sufficient to allow most patients to change their lifestyle and realize the health benefits.

“The policy implementation piece of this is really key, and we need health systems, hospitals, and payers to invest in these behavior support programs so that patients have access to a physical activity consultant and can realize the health benefits,” he said.

“This intervention is empowering and achievable for patients and with much, much lower cost than many of our therapies. It is also sustainable for health systems,” he concluded.

Diet and Survival

Diet can also affect outcomes in patients with colon cancer.

In the same session describing the CHALLENGE results, Sara Char, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported findings showing that consuming a diet high in proinflammatory foods was associated with worse overall survival in patients with stage III colon cancer. A proinflammatory diet includes red and processed meats, sugary drinks, and refined grains, while an anti-inflammatory diet focuses on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, and olive oil.

Chronic systemic inflammation has been implicated in both colon cancer development and in its progression, and elevated levels of inflammatory markers in the blood have previously been associated with worse survival outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer.

Char and colleagues analyzed dietary patterns of a subset of 1625 patients (mean age, 61 years) with resected stage III colon cancer enrolled in the phase 3 CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance) clinical trial, which compared 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without the anti-inflammatory medication celecoxib.

As part of the trial, participants reported their diet and exercise habits at various timepoints. Their diets were scored using the validated empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) tool, which is a weighted sum of 18 food groups — nine proinflammatory and nine anti-inflammatory. A high EDIP score marks a proinflammatory diet, and a low EDIP score indicates a less inflammatory diet.

During median follow-up of nearly 4 years, researchers noted a trend toward worse disease-free survival in patients with high proinflammatory diets (HR, 1.46), but this association was not significant in the multivariable adjusted model (HR, 1.36; P = .22), Char reported.

However, higher intake of proinflammatory foods was associated with significantly worse overall survival.

Patients who consumed the most proinflammatory foods (top 20%) had an 87% higher risk for death compared with those who consumed the least (bottom 20%; HR, 1.87). The median overall survival in the highest quintile was 7.7 years and was not reached in the lowest quintile.

Combine Exercise and Diet for Best Results

To examine the joint effect of physical activity and diet on overall survival, patients were divided into higher and lower levels of physical activity using a cut-off of 9 MET hours per week, which roughly correlates to 30 minutes of vigorous walking five days a week with a little bit of light yoga, Char explained.

In this analysis, patients with less proinflammatory diets and higher physical activity levels had the best overall survival outcomes, with a 63% lower risk for death compared with peers who consumed more pro-inflammatory diets and exercised less (HR, 0.37; P < .0001).

Daily celecoxib use and low-dose aspirin use (< 100 mg/d) did not affect the association between inflammatory diet and survival.

Char cautioned, that while the EDIP tool is useful to measure the inflammatory potential of a diet, “this is not a dietary recommendation, and we need further studies to be able to tailor our findings into dietary recommendations that can be provided to patients at the bedside.”

Gralow said this “early but promising observational study suggests a powerful synergy: Patients with stage III colon cancer who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly showed the best overall survival compared to those with inflammatory diets and limited exercise.”

The CHALLENGE trial was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, and the University of Sydney Cancer Research Fund. Booth had no disclosures. The diet study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Pfizer, and the Project P Fund. Char disclosed an advisory/consultant role with Goodpath. Kunz, Gralow and Campbell had no relevant disclosures.

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

Can exercise “therapy” and diet improve survival in patients with colon cancer? It appears so, according to two pivotal studies presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

In the CHALLENGE trial, a structured exercise program after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy cut the risk for colon cancer recurrence in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II disease by more than one quarter and the risk for death by more than one third.

“The magnitude of benefit with exercise is substantial. In fact, it is comparable, and in some cases exceeds the magnitude of benefit of many of our very good standard medical therapies in oncology,” study presenter Christopher Booth, MD, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, told attendees.

Results of the study were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation at the meeting.

The findings are “nothing short of a major milestone,” said study discussant Peter Campbell, PhD, with Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center, Bronx, New York.

The other study showed that eating a less inflammatory diet may reduce the risk for death in patients with colon cancer, with the greatest benefits seen in those who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly.

“Putting these two abstracts into perspective, we as physicians need to be essentially prescribing healthy diet and exercise. The combination of the two are synergistic,” Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, told attendees.

Despite the benefits of these lifestyle changes, exercise and diet are meant to supplement, not replace, established colon cancer treatments.

It would be a false binary to frame this as lifestyle vs cancer treatment, explained Mark Lewis, MD, director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, Utah. With exercise, for instance, “the key is giving enough chemo to protect against recurrence and eliminate micrometastases but not so much that we cause neuropathy and reduce function and ability to follow the CHALLENGE structured program,” Lewis said.

Exercise and Survival

Colon cancer remains the second-leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Even with surgery and chemotherapy, roughly 30% of patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer will experience disease recurrence.

“As oncologists, one of the most common questions we get asked by patients is — what else can I do to improve my outcome?” Booth said.

Observational studies published nearly two decades ago hinted that physically active cancer survivors fare better, but no randomized trial has definitively tested whether exercise could alter disease course. That knowledge gap prompted the Canadian Cancer Trials Group to launch the CHALLENGE trial.

Between 2009 and 2023, the phase 3 study enrolled 889 adults (median age, 61 years; 51% women) who had completed surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III (90%) or high-risk stage II (10%) colon cancer. Most patients were from Canada and Australia and were enrolled 2-6 months after completing chemotherapy.

Half of study participants were randomly allocated to a structured exercise program (n = 445) and half to receive standard health education materials promoting physical activity and healthy eating (control individuals, n = 444).

As part of the structured exercise intervention, patients met with a physical activity consultant twice a month for the first 6 months. These sessions included exercise coaching and supervised exercise. Patients could choose their preferred aerobic exercise and most picked brisk walking.

The consultants gave each patient an “exercise prescription” to hit a specific amount of exercise. The target was an additional 10 metabolic equivalent (MET)–hours of aerobic activity per week — about three to four brisk walks each lasting 45-60 minutes. After 6 months, patients met with their consultants once a month, with additional sessions available for extra support if needed.

Structured exercise led to “substantial and sustained” increases in the amount of exercise participants did, as well as physiologic measures of their fitness, with “highly relevant” improvements in VO₂ max, 6-minute walk test, and patient-reported physical function, underscoring that participants were not only exercising more but also getting fitter, Booth said.

Exercise was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant 28% reduction in the risk for recurrent or new cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .017), with a 5-year disease free survival rate of 80% in the exercise group and 74% in the control group.

In other words, “for every 16 patients that went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from recurrent or new cancer” at 5 years, Booth reported.

Overall survival results were “even more impressive,” he said.

At 8 years, 90% of patients in the exercise program were alive vs 83% of those in the control group, which translated to a 37% lower risk for death (HR, 0.63; P = .022).

“For every 14 patients who went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from dying” at the 8-year mark, Booth noted.

“Notably, this difference in survival was not driven by difference in cardiovascular deaths but by a reduction in the risk of death from colon cancer,” he said.

Besides a slight uptick in musculoskeletal aches, no major safety signals emerged in the exercise group.

It’s important to note that the survival benefit associated with exercise came after patients had received surgery followed by chemotherapy — in other words, exercise did not replace established cancer treatments. It’s also unclear whether initiating an exercise intervention earlier in the treatment trajectory — before surgery or during chemotherapy, instead of after chemotherapy — could further improve cancer outcomes, the authors noted.

Still, “exercise as an intervention is a no brainer and should be implemented broadly,” said ASCO expert Pamela Kunz, MD, with Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Marco Gerlinger, MD, with Barts Cancer Institute, London, England, agreed.

“Oncologists can now make a very clear evidence-based recommendation for patients who just completed their chemotherapy for bowel cancer and are fit enough for such an exercise program,” Gerlinger said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre.

Booth noted that knowledge alone will not be sufficient to allow most patients to change their lifestyle and realize the health benefits.

“The policy implementation piece of this is really key, and we need health systems, hospitals, and payers to invest in these behavior support programs so that patients have access to a physical activity consultant and can realize the health benefits,” he said.

“This intervention is empowering and achievable for patients and with much, much lower cost than many of our therapies. It is also sustainable for health systems,” he concluded.

Diet and Survival

Diet can also affect outcomes in patients with colon cancer.

In the same session describing the CHALLENGE results, Sara Char, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported findings showing that consuming a diet high in proinflammatory foods was associated with worse overall survival in patients with stage III colon cancer. A proinflammatory diet includes red and processed meats, sugary drinks, and refined grains, while an anti-inflammatory diet focuses on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, and olive oil.

Chronic systemic inflammation has been implicated in both colon cancer development and in its progression, and elevated levels of inflammatory markers in the blood have previously been associated with worse survival outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer.

Char and colleagues analyzed dietary patterns of a subset of 1625 patients (mean age, 61 years) with resected stage III colon cancer enrolled in the phase 3 CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance) clinical trial, which compared 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without the anti-inflammatory medication celecoxib.

As part of the trial, participants reported their diet and exercise habits at various timepoints. Their diets were scored using the validated empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) tool, which is a weighted sum of 18 food groups — nine proinflammatory and nine anti-inflammatory. A high EDIP score marks a proinflammatory diet, and a low EDIP score indicates a less inflammatory diet.

During median follow-up of nearly 4 years, researchers noted a trend toward worse disease-free survival in patients with high proinflammatory diets (HR, 1.46), but this association was not significant in the multivariable adjusted model (HR, 1.36; P = .22), Char reported.

However, higher intake of proinflammatory foods was associated with significantly worse overall survival.

Patients who consumed the most proinflammatory foods (top 20%) had an 87% higher risk for death compared with those who consumed the least (bottom 20%; HR, 1.87). The median overall survival in the highest quintile was 7.7 years and was not reached in the lowest quintile.

Combine Exercise and Diet for Best Results

To examine the joint effect of physical activity and diet on overall survival, patients were divided into higher and lower levels of physical activity using a cut-off of 9 MET hours per week, which roughly correlates to 30 minutes of vigorous walking five days a week with a little bit of light yoga, Char explained.

In this analysis, patients with less proinflammatory diets and higher physical activity levels had the best overall survival outcomes, with a 63% lower risk for death compared with peers who consumed more pro-inflammatory diets and exercised less (HR, 0.37; P < .0001).

Daily celecoxib use and low-dose aspirin use (< 100 mg/d) did not affect the association between inflammatory diet and survival.

Char cautioned, that while the EDIP tool is useful to measure the inflammatory potential of a diet, “this is not a dietary recommendation, and we need further studies to be able to tailor our findings into dietary recommendations that can be provided to patients at the bedside.”

Gralow said this “early but promising observational study suggests a powerful synergy: Patients with stage III colon cancer who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly showed the best overall survival compared to those with inflammatory diets and limited exercise.”

The CHALLENGE trial was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, and the University of Sydney Cancer Research Fund. Booth had no disclosures. The diet study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Pfizer, and the Project P Fund. Char disclosed an advisory/consultant role with Goodpath. Kunz, Gralow and Campbell had no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — Low fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAPs) dietary advice has been shown to be effective in easing bloating and abdominal pain, especially in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but limited availability of dietitians makes delivering this advice challenging. Researchers from Thailand have successfully enlisted a chatbot to help.

In a randomized controlled trial, they found that chatbot-assisted dietary advice with brief guidance effectively reduced high FODMAP intake, bloating severity, and improved dietary knowledge, particularly in patients with bothersome bloating.

“Chatbot-assisted dietary advice for FODMAPs restriction was feasible and applicable in patients with bloating symptoms that had baseline symptoms of moderate severity,” study chief Pochara Somvanapanich, with the Division of Gastroenterology, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, told GI & Hepatology News.

Somvanapanich, who developed the chatbot algorithm, presented the study results at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

More Knowledge, Less Bloating

The trial enrolled 86 adults with disorders of gut-brain interaction experiencing bloating symptoms for more than 6 months and consuming more than seven high-FODMAPs items per week. Half of them had IBS.

At baseline, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and the ability to identify FODMAPs were assessed. All participants received a 5-minute consultation on FODMAPs avoidance from a GI fellow and were randomly allocated (stratified by IBS diagnosis and education) into two groups.

The chatbot-assisted group received real-time dietary advice via a chatbot which helped them identify high, low, and non-FODMAP foods from a list of more than 300 ingredients/dishes of Thai and western cuisines.

The control group received only brief advice on high FODMAPs restriction. Both groups used a diary app to log food intake and postprandial symptoms. Baseline bloating, abdominal pain and global symptoms severity were similar between the two groups. Data on 64 participants (32 in each group) were analyzed.

After 4 weeks, significantly more people in the chatbot group than the control group responded — achieving a 30% or greater reduction in daily worst bloating, abdominal pain or global symptoms (19 [59%] vs 10 [31%], P < .05). Responder rates were similar in the IBS and non-IBS subgroups.

Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences between groups only for participants with bothersome bloating, not those with mild bloating severity.

In those with bothersome bloating severity, the chatbot group had a higher response rate (69.5% vs 36.3%) and fewer bloating symptoms (P < .05). They also had a greater reduction in high FODMAPs intake (10 vs 23 items/week) and demonstrated improved knowledge in identifying FODMAPs (P < .05).

“Responders in a chatbot group consistently engaged more with the app, performing significantly more weekly item searches than nonresponders (P < .05),” the authors noted in their conference abstract.

“Our next step is to develop the chatbot-assisted approach for the reintroduction and personalization phase based on messenger applications (including Facebook Messenger and other messaging platforms),” Somvanapanich told GI & Hepatology News.

“Once we’ve gathered enough data to confirm these are working effectively, we definitely plan to create a one-stop service application for FODMAPs dietary advice,” Somvanapanich added.

Lack of Robust Data on Digital GI Health Apps

Commenting on this research for GI & Hepatology News, Sidhartha R. Sinha, MD, Director of Digital Health and Innovation, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University in Stanford, California, noted that there is a “notable lack of robust data supporting digital health tools in gastroenterology. Despite hundreds of apps available, very few are supported by well-designed trials.”

“The study demonstrated that chatbot-assisted dietary advice significantly improved bloating symptoms, reduced intake of high-FODMAP foods, and enhanced patients’ dietary knowledge compared to brief dietary counseling alone, especially in those with bothersome symptoms,” said Sinha, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Patients actively used the chatbot to manage their symptoms, achieving a higher response rate than those in the control arm who received brief counseling on avoiding high-FODMAP food,” he noted.

Sinha said in his practice at Stanford, “in the heart of Silicon Valley,” patients do use digital resources to manage their GI symptoms, including diseases like IBS and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) — and he believes this is “increasingly common nationally.”

“However, the need for evidence-based tools is critical and the lack here often prevents many practitioners from regularly recommending them to patients. This study aligns well with clinical practice, and supports the use of this particular app to improve IBS symptoms, particularly when access to dietitians is limited. These results support chatbot-assisted dietary management as a feasible, effective, and scalable approach to patient care,” Sinha told GI & Hepatology News.

The study received no commercial funding. Somvanapanich and Sinha had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

SAN DIEGO — Low fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAPs) dietary advice has been shown to be effective in easing bloating and abdominal pain, especially in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but limited availability of dietitians makes delivering this advice challenging. Researchers from Thailand have successfully enlisted a chatbot to help.

In a randomized controlled trial, they found that chatbot-assisted dietary advice with brief guidance effectively reduced high FODMAP intake, bloating severity, and improved dietary knowledge, particularly in patients with bothersome bloating.

“Chatbot-assisted dietary advice for FODMAPs restriction was feasible and applicable in patients with bloating symptoms that had baseline symptoms of moderate severity,” study chief Pochara Somvanapanich, with the Division of Gastroenterology, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, told GI & Hepatology News.

Somvanapanich, who developed the chatbot algorithm, presented the study results at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

More Knowledge, Less Bloating

The trial enrolled 86 adults with disorders of gut-brain interaction experiencing bloating symptoms for more than 6 months and consuming more than seven high-FODMAPs items per week. Half of them had IBS.

At baseline, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and the ability to identify FODMAPs were assessed. All participants received a 5-minute consultation on FODMAPs avoidance from a GI fellow and were randomly allocated (stratified by IBS diagnosis and education) into two groups.

The chatbot-assisted group received real-time dietary advice via a chatbot which helped them identify high, low, and non-FODMAP foods from a list of more than 300 ingredients/dishes of Thai and western cuisines.

The control group received only brief advice on high FODMAPs restriction. Both groups used a diary app to log food intake and postprandial symptoms. Baseline bloating, abdominal pain and global symptoms severity were similar between the two groups. Data on 64 participants (32 in each group) were analyzed.

After 4 weeks, significantly more people in the chatbot group than the control group responded — achieving a 30% or greater reduction in daily worst bloating, abdominal pain or global symptoms (19 [59%] vs 10 [31%], P < .05). Responder rates were similar in the IBS and non-IBS subgroups.

Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences between groups only for participants with bothersome bloating, not those with mild bloating severity.

In those with bothersome bloating severity, the chatbot group had a higher response rate (69.5% vs 36.3%) and fewer bloating symptoms (P < .05). They also had a greater reduction in high FODMAPs intake (10 vs 23 items/week) and demonstrated improved knowledge in identifying FODMAPs (P < .05).

“Responders in a chatbot group consistently engaged more with the app, performing significantly more weekly item searches than nonresponders (P < .05),” the authors noted in their conference abstract.

“Our next step is to develop the chatbot-assisted approach for the reintroduction and personalization phase based on messenger applications (including Facebook Messenger and other messaging platforms),” Somvanapanich told GI & Hepatology News.

“Once we’ve gathered enough data to confirm these are working effectively, we definitely plan to create a one-stop service application for FODMAPs dietary advice,” Somvanapanich added.

Lack of Robust Data on Digital GI Health Apps

Commenting on this research for GI & Hepatology News, Sidhartha R. Sinha, MD, Director of Digital Health and Innovation, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University in Stanford, California, noted that there is a “notable lack of robust data supporting digital health tools in gastroenterology. Despite hundreds of apps available, very few are supported by well-designed trials.”

“The study demonstrated that chatbot-assisted dietary advice significantly improved bloating symptoms, reduced intake of high-FODMAP foods, and enhanced patients’ dietary knowledge compared to brief dietary counseling alone, especially in those with bothersome symptoms,” said Sinha, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Patients actively used the chatbot to manage their symptoms, achieving a higher response rate than those in the control arm who received brief counseling on avoiding high-FODMAP food,” he noted.

Sinha said in his practice at Stanford, “in the heart of Silicon Valley,” patients do use digital resources to manage their GI symptoms, including diseases like IBS and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) — and he believes this is “increasingly common nationally.”

“However, the need for evidence-based tools is critical and the lack here often prevents many practitioners from regularly recommending them to patients. This study aligns well with clinical practice, and supports the use of this particular app to improve IBS symptoms, particularly when access to dietitians is limited. These results support chatbot-assisted dietary management as a feasible, effective, and scalable approach to patient care,” Sinha told GI & Hepatology News.

The study received no commercial funding. Somvanapanich and Sinha had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

SAN DIEGO — Low fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAPs) dietary advice has been shown to be effective in easing bloating and abdominal pain, especially in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but limited availability of dietitians makes delivering this advice challenging. Researchers from Thailand have successfully enlisted a chatbot to help.

In a randomized controlled trial, they found that chatbot-assisted dietary advice with brief guidance effectively reduced high FODMAP intake, bloating severity, and improved dietary knowledge, particularly in patients with bothersome bloating.

“Chatbot-assisted dietary advice for FODMAPs restriction was feasible and applicable in patients with bloating symptoms that had baseline symptoms of moderate severity,” study chief Pochara Somvanapanich, with the Division of Gastroenterology, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, told GI & Hepatology News.

Somvanapanich, who developed the chatbot algorithm, presented the study results at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

More Knowledge, Less Bloating

The trial enrolled 86 adults with disorders of gut-brain interaction experiencing bloating symptoms for more than 6 months and consuming more than seven high-FODMAPs items per week. Half of them had IBS.

At baseline, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and the ability to identify FODMAPs were assessed. All participants received a 5-minute consultation on FODMAPs avoidance from a GI fellow and were randomly allocated (stratified by IBS diagnosis and education) into two groups.

The chatbot-assisted group received real-time dietary advice via a chatbot which helped them identify high, low, and non-FODMAP foods from a list of more than 300 ingredients/dishes of Thai and western cuisines.

The control group received only brief advice on high FODMAPs restriction. Both groups used a diary app to log food intake and postprandial symptoms. Baseline bloating, abdominal pain and global symptoms severity were similar between the two groups. Data on 64 participants (32 in each group) were analyzed.

After 4 weeks, significantly more people in the chatbot group than the control group responded — achieving a 30% or greater reduction in daily worst bloating, abdominal pain or global symptoms (19 [59%] vs 10 [31%], P < .05). Responder rates were similar in the IBS and non-IBS subgroups.

Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences between groups only for participants with bothersome bloating, not those with mild bloating severity.

In those with bothersome bloating severity, the chatbot group had a higher response rate (69.5% vs 36.3%) and fewer bloating symptoms (P < .05). They also had a greater reduction in high FODMAPs intake (10 vs 23 items/week) and demonstrated improved knowledge in identifying FODMAPs (P < .05).

“Responders in a chatbot group consistently engaged more with the app, performing significantly more weekly item searches than nonresponders (P < .05),” the authors noted in their conference abstract.

“Our next step is to develop the chatbot-assisted approach for the reintroduction and personalization phase based on messenger applications (including Facebook Messenger and other messaging platforms),” Somvanapanich told GI & Hepatology News.

“Once we’ve gathered enough data to confirm these are working effectively, we definitely plan to create a one-stop service application for FODMAPs dietary advice,” Somvanapanich added.

Lack of Robust Data on Digital GI Health Apps

Commenting on this research for GI & Hepatology News, Sidhartha R. Sinha, MD, Director of Digital Health and Innovation, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University in Stanford, California, noted that there is a “notable lack of robust data supporting digital health tools in gastroenterology. Despite hundreds of apps available, very few are supported by well-designed trials.”

“The study demonstrated that chatbot-assisted dietary advice significantly improved bloating symptoms, reduced intake of high-FODMAP foods, and enhanced patients’ dietary knowledge compared to brief dietary counseling alone, especially in those with bothersome symptoms,” said Sinha, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Patients actively used the chatbot to manage their symptoms, achieving a higher response rate than those in the control arm who received brief counseling on avoiding high-FODMAP food,” he noted.

Sinha said in his practice at Stanford, “in the heart of Silicon Valley,” patients do use digital resources to manage their GI symptoms, including diseases like IBS and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) — and he believes this is “increasingly common nationally.”

“However, the need for evidence-based tools is critical and the lack here often prevents many practitioners from regularly recommending them to patients. This study aligns well with clinical practice, and supports the use of this particular app to improve IBS symptoms, particularly when access to dietitians is limited. These results support chatbot-assisted dietary management as a feasible, effective, and scalable approach to patient care,” Sinha told GI & Hepatology News.

The study received no commercial funding. Somvanapanich and Sinha had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

SAN DIEGO — A real-time, blood-sensing capsule (PillSense) is a safe and effective diagnostic tool for patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding that can aid patient triage, reduce unnecessary procedures, and optimize resource use, a study found.

Notably, patients with negative capsule results had shorter hospital stays and lower acuity markers, and in more than one third of cases, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was avoided altogether without any observed adverse events or readmissions, the study team found.

“Our study shows that this novel capsule that detects blood in the upper GI tract (PillSense) was highly sensitive and specific (> 90%) for detecting recent or active upper GI blood, influenced clinical management in 80% of cases and allowed about one third of patients to be safely discharged from the emergency department, with close outpatient follow-up,” Linda Lee, MD, AGAF, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

 

Real-World Insights

EGD is the gold standard for diagnosing suspected upper GI bleeding, but limited access to timely EGD complicates diagnosis and resource allocation.

Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, PillSense (EnteraSense) is an ingestible capsule with a reusable receiver that provides a rapid, noninvasive method for detecting upper GI bleeding. The capsule analyzes light absorption to identify blood and transmits the result within 10 minutes.

Lee and colleagues evaluated the real-world impact of this point-of-care device on clinical triage and resource allocation, while assessing its safety profile.

They analyzed data on 43 patients (mean age 60 years; 72% men) with clinical suspicion of upper GI bleeding in whom the device was used. The most common symptoms were symptomatic anemia (70%), melena (67%), and hematemesis (33%).

Sixteen PillSense studies (37%) were positive for blood detection, and 27 (63%) were negative.

Compared to patients with a positive capsule results, those without blood detected by the capsule had shorter hospital stays (mean, 3.8 vs 13.4 days, P = .02), lower GBS scores (mean, 7.93 vs 12.81; P = .005), and fewer units of blood transfused (mean, 1.19 vs 10.94; P = .01) and were less apt to be hemodynamically unstable (5 vs 8 patients; P = .03).

Capsule results influenced clinical management in 80% of cases, leading to avoidance of EGD in 37% and prioritization of urgent EGD in 18% (all had active bleeding on EGD).

Capsule use improved resource allocation in 51% of cases. This included 12 patients who were discharged from the ED, six who were assigned an inpatient bed early, and four who underwent expedited colonoscopy as upper GI bleeding was ruled out, they noted.

Among the eight patients who did not undergo EGD, there were no readmissions within 30 days and no adverse events. There were no capsule-related adverse events.

“Clinicians should consider using this novel capsule PillSense as another data point in the management of suspected upper GI bleed,” Lee told GI & Hepatology News.

“This could include in helping to triage patients for safe discharge from the ED or to more urgent endoscopy, to differentiate between upper vs lower GI bleed and to manage ICU patients with possible rebleeding,” Lee said.

 

Important Real-World Evidence

Reached for comment, Shahin Ayazi, MD, esophageal surgeon, Director, Allegheny Health Network Chevalier Jackson Esophageal Research Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said this study is important for several reasons.

“Prior investigations have established that PillSense possesses a high negative predictive value for detecting upper GI bleeding and have speculated on its utility in triage, decision-making, and potentially avoiding unnecessary endoscopy. This study is important because it substantiates that speculation with clinical data,” Ayazi, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

“These findings support the capsule’s practical application in patient stratification and clinical workflow, particularly when diagnostic uncertainty is high and endoscopic resources are limited,” Ayazi noted.

In his experience, PillSense is “highly useful as a triage adjunct in the evaluation of suspected upper GI bleeding. It provides direct and objective evidence as to whether blood is currently present in the stomach,” he said.

“In patients whose presentation is ambiguous or whose clinical scores fall into an intermediate risk zone, this binary result can provide clarity that subjective assessment alone may not achieve. This is particularly relevant in settings where the goal is to perform endoscopy within 24 hours, but the volume of consults exceeds procedural capacity,” Ayazi explained.

“In such scenarios, PillSense enables physicians to stratify patients based on objective evidence of active bleeding, helping to prioritize those who require urgent endoscopy and defer or even avoid endoscopic evaluation in those who do not. The result is a more efficient allocation of endoscopic resources without compromising patient safety,” he added.

Ayazi cautioned that the PillSense capsule should not be used as a replacement for clinical evaluation or established risk stratification protocols.

“It is intended for hemodynamically stable patients and has not been validated in cases of active or massive bleeding. Its diagnostic yield depends on the presence of blood in the stomach at the time of capsule transit; intermittent or proximal bleeding that has ceased may not be detected, introducing the potential for false-negative results,” Ayazi told GI & Hepatology News.

“However, in prior studies, the negative predictive value was high, and in the present study, no adverse outcomes were observed in patients who did not undergo endoscopy following a negative PillSense result,” Ayazi noted.

“It must also be understood that PillSense does not localize the source of bleeding or replace endoscopy in patients with a high likelihood of active hemorrhage. It is not designed to detect bleeding from the lower GI tract or distal small bowel. Rather, it serves as an adjunct that can provide immediate clarity when the need for endoscopy is uncertain, and should be interpreted within the broader context of clinical findings, laboratory data, and established risk stratification tools,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Lee and Ayazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A real-time, blood-sensing capsule (PillSense) is a safe and effective diagnostic tool for patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding that can aid patient triage, reduce unnecessary procedures, and optimize resource use, a study found.

Notably, patients with negative capsule results had shorter hospital stays and lower acuity markers, and in more than one third of cases, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was avoided altogether without any observed adverse events or readmissions, the study team found.

“Our study shows that this novel capsule that detects blood in the upper GI tract (PillSense) was highly sensitive and specific (> 90%) for detecting recent or active upper GI blood, influenced clinical management in 80% of cases and allowed about one third of patients to be safely discharged from the emergency department, with close outpatient follow-up,” Linda Lee, MD, AGAF, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

 

Real-World Insights

EGD is the gold standard for diagnosing suspected upper GI bleeding, but limited access to timely EGD complicates diagnosis and resource allocation.

Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, PillSense (EnteraSense) is an ingestible capsule with a reusable receiver that provides a rapid, noninvasive method for detecting upper GI bleeding. The capsule analyzes light absorption to identify blood and transmits the result within 10 minutes.

Lee and colleagues evaluated the real-world impact of this point-of-care device on clinical triage and resource allocation, while assessing its safety profile.

They analyzed data on 43 patients (mean age 60 years; 72% men) with clinical suspicion of upper GI bleeding in whom the device was used. The most common symptoms were symptomatic anemia (70%), melena (67%), and hematemesis (33%).

Sixteen PillSense studies (37%) were positive for blood detection, and 27 (63%) were negative.

Compared to patients with a positive capsule results, those without blood detected by the capsule had shorter hospital stays (mean, 3.8 vs 13.4 days, P = .02), lower GBS scores (mean, 7.93 vs 12.81; P = .005), and fewer units of blood transfused (mean, 1.19 vs 10.94; P = .01) and were less apt to be hemodynamically unstable (5 vs 8 patients; P = .03).

Capsule results influenced clinical management in 80% of cases, leading to avoidance of EGD in 37% and prioritization of urgent EGD in 18% (all had active bleeding on EGD).

Capsule use improved resource allocation in 51% of cases. This included 12 patients who were discharged from the ED, six who were assigned an inpatient bed early, and four who underwent expedited colonoscopy as upper GI bleeding was ruled out, they noted.

Among the eight patients who did not undergo EGD, there were no readmissions within 30 days and no adverse events. There were no capsule-related adverse events.

“Clinicians should consider using this novel capsule PillSense as another data point in the management of suspected upper GI bleed,” Lee told GI & Hepatology News.

“This could include in helping to triage patients for safe discharge from the ED or to more urgent endoscopy, to differentiate between upper vs lower GI bleed and to manage ICU patients with possible rebleeding,” Lee said.

 

Important Real-World Evidence

Reached for comment, Shahin Ayazi, MD, esophageal surgeon, Director, Allegheny Health Network Chevalier Jackson Esophageal Research Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said this study is important for several reasons.

“Prior investigations have established that PillSense possesses a high negative predictive value for detecting upper GI bleeding and have speculated on its utility in triage, decision-making, and potentially avoiding unnecessary endoscopy. This study is important because it substantiates that speculation with clinical data,” Ayazi, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

“These findings support the capsule’s practical application in patient stratification and clinical workflow, particularly when diagnostic uncertainty is high and endoscopic resources are limited,” Ayazi noted.

In his experience, PillSense is “highly useful as a triage adjunct in the evaluation of suspected upper GI bleeding. It provides direct and objective evidence as to whether blood is currently present in the stomach,” he said.

“In patients whose presentation is ambiguous or whose clinical scores fall into an intermediate risk zone, this binary result can provide clarity that subjective assessment alone may not achieve. This is particularly relevant in settings where the goal is to perform endoscopy within 24 hours, but the volume of consults exceeds procedural capacity,” Ayazi explained.

“In such scenarios, PillSense enables physicians to stratify patients based on objective evidence of active bleeding, helping to prioritize those who require urgent endoscopy and defer or even avoid endoscopic evaluation in those who do not. The result is a more efficient allocation of endoscopic resources without compromising patient safety,” he added.

Ayazi cautioned that the PillSense capsule should not be used as a replacement for clinical evaluation or established risk stratification protocols.

“It is intended for hemodynamically stable patients and has not been validated in cases of active or massive bleeding. Its diagnostic yield depends on the presence of blood in the stomach at the time of capsule transit; intermittent or proximal bleeding that has ceased may not be detected, introducing the potential for false-negative results,” Ayazi told GI & Hepatology News.

“However, in prior studies, the negative predictive value was high, and in the present study, no adverse outcomes were observed in patients who did not undergo endoscopy following a negative PillSense result,” Ayazi noted.

“It must also be understood that PillSense does not localize the source of bleeding or replace endoscopy in patients with a high likelihood of active hemorrhage. It is not designed to detect bleeding from the lower GI tract or distal small bowel. Rather, it serves as an adjunct that can provide immediate clarity when the need for endoscopy is uncertain, and should be interpreted within the broader context of clinical findings, laboratory data, and established risk stratification tools,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Lee and Ayazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A real-time, blood-sensing capsule (PillSense) is a safe and effective diagnostic tool for patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding that can aid patient triage, reduce unnecessary procedures, and optimize resource use, a study found.

Notably, patients with negative capsule results had shorter hospital stays and lower acuity markers, and in more than one third of cases, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was avoided altogether without any observed adverse events or readmissions, the study team found.

“Our study shows that this novel capsule that detects blood in the upper GI tract (PillSense) was highly sensitive and specific (> 90%) for detecting recent or active upper GI blood, influenced clinical management in 80% of cases and allowed about one third of patients to be safely discharged from the emergency department, with close outpatient follow-up,” Linda Lee, MD, AGAF, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

 

Real-World Insights

EGD is the gold standard for diagnosing suspected upper GI bleeding, but limited access to timely EGD complicates diagnosis and resource allocation.

Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, PillSense (EnteraSense) is an ingestible capsule with a reusable receiver that provides a rapid, noninvasive method for detecting upper GI bleeding. The capsule analyzes light absorption to identify blood and transmits the result within 10 minutes.

Lee and colleagues evaluated the real-world impact of this point-of-care device on clinical triage and resource allocation, while assessing its safety profile.

They analyzed data on 43 patients (mean age 60 years; 72% men) with clinical suspicion of upper GI bleeding in whom the device was used. The most common symptoms were symptomatic anemia (70%), melena (67%), and hematemesis (33%).

Sixteen PillSense studies (37%) were positive for blood detection, and 27 (63%) were negative.

Compared to patients with a positive capsule results, those without blood detected by the capsule had shorter hospital stays (mean, 3.8 vs 13.4 days, P = .02), lower GBS scores (mean, 7.93 vs 12.81; P = .005), and fewer units of blood transfused (mean, 1.19 vs 10.94; P = .01) and were less apt to be hemodynamically unstable (5 vs 8 patients; P = .03).

Capsule results influenced clinical management in 80% of cases, leading to avoidance of EGD in 37% and prioritization of urgent EGD in 18% (all had active bleeding on EGD).

Capsule use improved resource allocation in 51% of cases. This included 12 patients who were discharged from the ED, six who were assigned an inpatient bed early, and four who underwent expedited colonoscopy as upper GI bleeding was ruled out, they noted.

Among the eight patients who did not undergo EGD, there were no readmissions within 30 days and no adverse events. There were no capsule-related adverse events.

“Clinicians should consider using this novel capsule PillSense as another data point in the management of suspected upper GI bleed,” Lee told GI & Hepatology News.

“This could include in helping to triage patients for safe discharge from the ED or to more urgent endoscopy, to differentiate between upper vs lower GI bleed and to manage ICU patients with possible rebleeding,” Lee said.

 

Important Real-World Evidence

Reached for comment, Shahin Ayazi, MD, esophageal surgeon, Director, Allegheny Health Network Chevalier Jackson Esophageal Research Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said this study is important for several reasons.

“Prior investigations have established that PillSense possesses a high negative predictive value for detecting upper GI bleeding and have speculated on its utility in triage, decision-making, and potentially avoiding unnecessary endoscopy. This study is important because it substantiates that speculation with clinical data,” Ayazi, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

“These findings support the capsule’s practical application in patient stratification and clinical workflow, particularly when diagnostic uncertainty is high and endoscopic resources are limited,” Ayazi noted.

In his experience, PillSense is “highly useful as a triage adjunct in the evaluation of suspected upper GI bleeding. It provides direct and objective evidence as to whether blood is currently present in the stomach,” he said.

“In patients whose presentation is ambiguous or whose clinical scores fall into an intermediate risk zone, this binary result can provide clarity that subjective assessment alone may not achieve. This is particularly relevant in settings where the goal is to perform endoscopy within 24 hours, but the volume of consults exceeds procedural capacity,” Ayazi explained.

“In such scenarios, PillSense enables physicians to stratify patients based on objective evidence of active bleeding, helping to prioritize those who require urgent endoscopy and defer or even avoid endoscopic evaluation in those who do not. The result is a more efficient allocation of endoscopic resources without compromising patient safety,” he added.

Ayazi cautioned that the PillSense capsule should not be used as a replacement for clinical evaluation or established risk stratification protocols.

“It is intended for hemodynamically stable patients and has not been validated in cases of active or massive bleeding. Its diagnostic yield depends on the presence of blood in the stomach at the time of capsule transit; intermittent or proximal bleeding that has ceased may not be detected, introducing the potential for false-negative results,” Ayazi told GI & Hepatology News.

“However, in prior studies, the negative predictive value was high, and in the present study, no adverse outcomes were observed in patients who did not undergo endoscopy following a negative PillSense result,” Ayazi noted.

“It must also be understood that PillSense does not localize the source of bleeding or replace endoscopy in patients with a high likelihood of active hemorrhage. It is not designed to detect bleeding from the lower GI tract or distal small bowel. Rather, it serves as an adjunct that can provide immediate clarity when the need for endoscopy is uncertain, and should be interpreted within the broader context of clinical findings, laboratory data, and established risk stratification tools,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Lee and Ayazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.