User login
‘At-Need’ Endoscopy Equal to Standard Surveillance in Barrett’s Patients?
based on results of a randomized controlled trial.
The Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Versus Endoscopy at Need Study (BOSS) showed that surveillance endoscopy did not significantly improve overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival, compared with “at-need” endoscopy requested by patients with symptoms, reported Oliver Old, MD, of Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, England, and colleagues.
“Surveillance endoscopy at regular intervals is advocated by major gastroenterology societies and practiced in numerous countries worldwide to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) early in these high-risk patients,” investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. However, “there are conflicting observational studies on the benefits of Barrett’s esophagus surveillance.”
To address this knowledge gap, Old and colleagues conducted the first randomized study of its kind. The BOSS trial was a multicenter trial conducted at 109 hospitals across the United Kingdom. Adults with an endoscopic and histologic diagnosis of BE were eligible if they were fit for endoscopy and had no history of high-grade dysplasia, esophageal adenocarcinoma, or prior upper gastrointestinal cancer. Patients with low-grade dysplasia were permitted to enroll, consistent with practice guidelines at the time.
A total of 3,453 participants were randomized between 2009 and 2011 to undergo surveillance endoscopy every 2 years or to receive at-need endoscopy triggered only by symptoms. Patients and clinicians were aware of treatment assignment. In the surveillance group, quadrantic biopsies were taken at 2-cm intervals throughout the Barrett’s segment.
The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific survival (deaths from any cancer), time to diagnosis of EAC, stage at diagnosis, number of endoscopies performed, and procedure-related adverse events.
Of the 3,453 patients randomized, 1,733 were assigned to surveillance and 1,719 to symptom-driven, at-need endoscopy. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; the mean age was 63 years, and about 70% were men.
Over the course of the trial, 25% of patients in the surveillance arm, and 9% in the at-need arm, withdrew from the trial back into clinical care, but allowed data collection of their outcomes. After a median of 12.8 years of follow-up, there was no significant difference in overall survival: 333 deaths occurred in the surveillance group (19.2%) and 356 in the at-need group (20.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10). Cancer-specific survival was also similar across groups, with 108 cancer-related deaths in the surveillance arm and 106 in the at-need arm (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33).
EAC was diagnosed in 40 patients in the surveillance arm (2.3%) and 31 in the at-need arm (1.8%), a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.82-2.11). Stage at diagnosis did not differ between the two groups.
Endoscopy use was higher in the surveillance arm, with 6,124 procedures compared with 2,424 in the at-need arm. Serious adverse events were rare, reported in 0.5% of surveillance patients and 0.4% of at-need patients, with most related to complications of endoscopy such as bleeding or perforation.
End-of-trial exit endoscopy, offered only to patients in the at-need group (based on data and safety monitoring committee recommendation), detected an additional eight cases of EAC and eight cases of high-grade dysplasia, but these findings were not included in the primary trial analysis.
“These data challenge current clinical practice where surveillance is advocated for all patients with BE,” the investigators wrote. “These results are likely to influence societal guidelines regarding surveillance for nondysplastic BE and inform decision making for individual patients and clinicians.”
The study was supported by the Health Technology Assessment Programme, United Kingdom. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Old et al report the results of a herculean effort to randomize patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) to either scheduled endoscopy at 2-year intervals or endoscopy “at need.” While the intent was to understand the protective effect of endoscopic surveillance, this goal was frustrated by the extensive use of endoscopy in the at-need arm. All told, 59% of at-need patients underwent endoscopy at a median of 25.7 month intervals (compared to the 24.8-month median interval in the surveillance group).
This degree of endoscopy use in at-need patients complicates interpretation, since, as the authors note, such contamination would likely bias the results to the null. Also, only 26% of randomized at-need patients took advantage of the study-end endoscopy. In this group, an additional eight cancers and nine high-grade dysplasia were noted, raising the specter that undiagnosed important disease was present in the at-need group.
Given these concerns, the BOSS results do not provide compelling evidence to change clinical practice. I continue to recommend endoscopic surveillance to my BE patients. However, the trial provides valuable insight. First, it prospectively confirms the low incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in low-risk BE, a rate of 0.23%/patient-year. Second, a lot of endoscopy is probably not better than some endoscopy in BE surveillance, and current trends seen in guidelines toward lengthening intervals in low-risk patients are likely merited. Finally, clinicians and patients may overestimate the utility of surveillance, and a patient-centered approach, acknowledging the uncertainties of the utility of endoscopy and the low risk of progression to cancer, is appropriate.
Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, is the Bozymski-Heizer Distinguished Professor of Medicine and senior associate dean for Clinical Research at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, N.C. He has no conflicts to report.
Old et al report the results of a herculean effort to randomize patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) to either scheduled endoscopy at 2-year intervals or endoscopy “at need.” While the intent was to understand the protective effect of endoscopic surveillance, this goal was frustrated by the extensive use of endoscopy in the at-need arm. All told, 59% of at-need patients underwent endoscopy at a median of 25.7 month intervals (compared to the 24.8-month median interval in the surveillance group).
This degree of endoscopy use in at-need patients complicates interpretation, since, as the authors note, such contamination would likely bias the results to the null. Also, only 26% of randomized at-need patients took advantage of the study-end endoscopy. In this group, an additional eight cancers and nine high-grade dysplasia were noted, raising the specter that undiagnosed important disease was present in the at-need group.
Given these concerns, the BOSS results do not provide compelling evidence to change clinical practice. I continue to recommend endoscopic surveillance to my BE patients. However, the trial provides valuable insight. First, it prospectively confirms the low incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in low-risk BE, a rate of 0.23%/patient-year. Second, a lot of endoscopy is probably not better than some endoscopy in BE surveillance, and current trends seen in guidelines toward lengthening intervals in low-risk patients are likely merited. Finally, clinicians and patients may overestimate the utility of surveillance, and a patient-centered approach, acknowledging the uncertainties of the utility of endoscopy and the low risk of progression to cancer, is appropriate.
Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, is the Bozymski-Heizer Distinguished Professor of Medicine and senior associate dean for Clinical Research at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, N.C. He has no conflicts to report.
Old et al report the results of a herculean effort to randomize patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) to either scheduled endoscopy at 2-year intervals or endoscopy “at need.” While the intent was to understand the protective effect of endoscopic surveillance, this goal was frustrated by the extensive use of endoscopy in the at-need arm. All told, 59% of at-need patients underwent endoscopy at a median of 25.7 month intervals (compared to the 24.8-month median interval in the surveillance group).
This degree of endoscopy use in at-need patients complicates interpretation, since, as the authors note, such contamination would likely bias the results to the null. Also, only 26% of randomized at-need patients took advantage of the study-end endoscopy. In this group, an additional eight cancers and nine high-grade dysplasia were noted, raising the specter that undiagnosed important disease was present in the at-need group.
Given these concerns, the BOSS results do not provide compelling evidence to change clinical practice. I continue to recommend endoscopic surveillance to my BE patients. However, the trial provides valuable insight. First, it prospectively confirms the low incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in low-risk BE, a rate of 0.23%/patient-year. Second, a lot of endoscopy is probably not better than some endoscopy in BE surveillance, and current trends seen in guidelines toward lengthening intervals in low-risk patients are likely merited. Finally, clinicians and patients may overestimate the utility of surveillance, and a patient-centered approach, acknowledging the uncertainties of the utility of endoscopy and the low risk of progression to cancer, is appropriate.
Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, is the Bozymski-Heizer Distinguished Professor of Medicine and senior associate dean for Clinical Research at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, N.C. He has no conflicts to report.
based on results of a randomized controlled trial.
The Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Versus Endoscopy at Need Study (BOSS) showed that surveillance endoscopy did not significantly improve overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival, compared with “at-need” endoscopy requested by patients with symptoms, reported Oliver Old, MD, of Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, England, and colleagues.
“Surveillance endoscopy at regular intervals is advocated by major gastroenterology societies and practiced in numerous countries worldwide to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) early in these high-risk patients,” investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. However, “there are conflicting observational studies on the benefits of Barrett’s esophagus surveillance.”
To address this knowledge gap, Old and colleagues conducted the first randomized study of its kind. The BOSS trial was a multicenter trial conducted at 109 hospitals across the United Kingdom. Adults with an endoscopic and histologic diagnosis of BE were eligible if they were fit for endoscopy and had no history of high-grade dysplasia, esophageal adenocarcinoma, or prior upper gastrointestinal cancer. Patients with low-grade dysplasia were permitted to enroll, consistent with practice guidelines at the time.
A total of 3,453 participants were randomized between 2009 and 2011 to undergo surveillance endoscopy every 2 years or to receive at-need endoscopy triggered only by symptoms. Patients and clinicians were aware of treatment assignment. In the surveillance group, quadrantic biopsies were taken at 2-cm intervals throughout the Barrett’s segment.
The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific survival (deaths from any cancer), time to diagnosis of EAC, stage at diagnosis, number of endoscopies performed, and procedure-related adverse events.
Of the 3,453 patients randomized, 1,733 were assigned to surveillance and 1,719 to symptom-driven, at-need endoscopy. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; the mean age was 63 years, and about 70% were men.
Over the course of the trial, 25% of patients in the surveillance arm, and 9% in the at-need arm, withdrew from the trial back into clinical care, but allowed data collection of their outcomes. After a median of 12.8 years of follow-up, there was no significant difference in overall survival: 333 deaths occurred in the surveillance group (19.2%) and 356 in the at-need group (20.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10). Cancer-specific survival was also similar across groups, with 108 cancer-related deaths in the surveillance arm and 106 in the at-need arm (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33).
EAC was diagnosed in 40 patients in the surveillance arm (2.3%) and 31 in the at-need arm (1.8%), a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.82-2.11). Stage at diagnosis did not differ between the two groups.
Endoscopy use was higher in the surveillance arm, with 6,124 procedures compared with 2,424 in the at-need arm. Serious adverse events were rare, reported in 0.5% of surveillance patients and 0.4% of at-need patients, with most related to complications of endoscopy such as bleeding or perforation.
End-of-trial exit endoscopy, offered only to patients in the at-need group (based on data and safety monitoring committee recommendation), detected an additional eight cases of EAC and eight cases of high-grade dysplasia, but these findings were not included in the primary trial analysis.
“These data challenge current clinical practice where surveillance is advocated for all patients with BE,” the investigators wrote. “These results are likely to influence societal guidelines regarding surveillance for nondysplastic BE and inform decision making for individual patients and clinicians.”
The study was supported by the Health Technology Assessment Programme, United Kingdom. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
based on results of a randomized controlled trial.
The Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Versus Endoscopy at Need Study (BOSS) showed that surveillance endoscopy did not significantly improve overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival, compared with “at-need” endoscopy requested by patients with symptoms, reported Oliver Old, MD, of Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, England, and colleagues.
“Surveillance endoscopy at regular intervals is advocated by major gastroenterology societies and practiced in numerous countries worldwide to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) early in these high-risk patients,” investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. However, “there are conflicting observational studies on the benefits of Barrett’s esophagus surveillance.”
To address this knowledge gap, Old and colleagues conducted the first randomized study of its kind. The BOSS trial was a multicenter trial conducted at 109 hospitals across the United Kingdom. Adults with an endoscopic and histologic diagnosis of BE were eligible if they were fit for endoscopy and had no history of high-grade dysplasia, esophageal adenocarcinoma, or prior upper gastrointestinal cancer. Patients with low-grade dysplasia were permitted to enroll, consistent with practice guidelines at the time.
A total of 3,453 participants were randomized between 2009 and 2011 to undergo surveillance endoscopy every 2 years or to receive at-need endoscopy triggered only by symptoms. Patients and clinicians were aware of treatment assignment. In the surveillance group, quadrantic biopsies were taken at 2-cm intervals throughout the Barrett’s segment.
The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific survival (deaths from any cancer), time to diagnosis of EAC, stage at diagnosis, number of endoscopies performed, and procedure-related adverse events.
Of the 3,453 patients randomized, 1,733 were assigned to surveillance and 1,719 to symptom-driven, at-need endoscopy. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; the mean age was 63 years, and about 70% were men.
Over the course of the trial, 25% of patients in the surveillance arm, and 9% in the at-need arm, withdrew from the trial back into clinical care, but allowed data collection of their outcomes. After a median of 12.8 years of follow-up, there was no significant difference in overall survival: 333 deaths occurred in the surveillance group (19.2%) and 356 in the at-need group (20.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10). Cancer-specific survival was also similar across groups, with 108 cancer-related deaths in the surveillance arm and 106 in the at-need arm (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33).
EAC was diagnosed in 40 patients in the surveillance arm (2.3%) and 31 in the at-need arm (1.8%), a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.82-2.11). Stage at diagnosis did not differ between the two groups.
Endoscopy use was higher in the surveillance arm, with 6,124 procedures compared with 2,424 in the at-need arm. Serious adverse events were rare, reported in 0.5% of surveillance patients and 0.4% of at-need patients, with most related to complications of endoscopy such as bleeding or perforation.
End-of-trial exit endoscopy, offered only to patients in the at-need group (based on data and safety monitoring committee recommendation), detected an additional eight cases of EAC and eight cases of high-grade dysplasia, but these findings were not included in the primary trial analysis.
“These data challenge current clinical practice where surveillance is advocated for all patients with BE,” the investigators wrote. “These results are likely to influence societal guidelines regarding surveillance for nondysplastic BE and inform decision making for individual patients and clinicians.”
The study was supported by the Health Technology Assessment Programme, United Kingdom. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
MASLD/MASH Global Consensus Recommendations Address Guideline Discordance
These recommendations aim to boost guideline adherence and disease awareness, which have lagged despite a surge of national and international guidance in recent years, lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of the Global NASH/MASH Council, Washington, DC, and colleagues, reported.
“Although these documents are similar in many ways, there are important differences in their recommendations, which have created some confusion within the field,” the panel wrote in Gastroenterology. “Areas of discordance among guidelines can be partly responsible for their low rate of implementation and the suboptimal awareness about this liver disease. Furthermore, these guidelines can be long and complex, making it challenging for busy clinicians to access the appropriate information quickly and efficiently.”
To address these gaps, more than 40 experts from around the world collaborated on the consensus project. The team reviewed 61 eligible documents published between 2018 and January 2025. Each guideline was evaluated across eight domains: epidemiology; screening; risk stratification using noninvasive tests (NITs); lifestyle management; treatment with existing medications; treatment with future medications; hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and preventive guidance; and pregnancy and pediatric populations.
Areas of discordance were advanced to a Delphi process using iterative online surveys, with a supermajority threshold of 67% required for acceptance. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, and by the end, all statements had achieved more than 90% agreement. The final recommendations were then summarized into practical algorithms for clinical use.
The results cover the full spectrum of MASLD care. For screening and diagnosis, experts agreed that individuals with type 2 diabetes, obesity plus cardiometabolic risk factors, or persistently elevated aminotransferases should be considered high risk. Alcohol thresholds were standardized, clarifying when to classify disease as MASLD, alcohol-related liver disease, or the hybrid “Met-ALD.”
For risk stratification, the panel endorsed a two-step algorithm beginning with the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, followed by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) or other NITs in patients above the threshold. This approach, the authors noted, was designed to be feasible in both primary care and specialty settings.
Lifestyle intervention remains the cornerstone of treatment, with weight-loss goals of 5% to reduce steatosis, 7%–10% to reduce inflammation, and at least 10% to improve fibrosis. To this end, the panel recommended a Mediterranean-style diet, increased physical activity, and reductions in sedentary time.
Drug therapy recommendations prioritized glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for patients with diabetes or obesity, though these were not considered MASH-specific agents. Pioglitazone was noted as an option for diabetes management but not as direct MASH therapy. The panel did not recommend vitamin E, ursodeoxycholic acid, or omega-3 fatty acids, citing insufficient evidence.
The document also provides structured guidance on resmetirom, the first FDA-approved therapy for MASH. Its use was endorsed in patients with F2–F3 fibrosis confirmed by NITs, with safety checks at 3, 6, and 12 months, and efficacy evaluation after 1 year. Treatment futility was defined as concordant worsening across two NITs.
Preventive recommendations included hepatitis A and B vaccination and HCC surveillance every 6 months in patients with cirrhosis. Surveillance in noncirrhotic MASH was left to clinician judgment, based on individualized risk factors. Special considerations were outlined for pediatric and pregnant populations, although the evidence base in these groups remains sparse.
“Further research is required to determine the effectiveness of this algorithm in raising awareness of MASLD and its treatment,” Dr. Younossi and colleagues concluded.
The study was supported by the Global NASH/MASH Council, Inova Health System, and an unrestricted educational grant from Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and others.
The new consensus MASLD recommendations should help reconcile the “important differences” between guidelines from around the world, said Dr. Jaideep Behari, of the the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
Behari highlighted several points that may be underappreciated in clinical practice. “While many clinicians associate MASLD with obesity and type 2 diabetes, approximately a fifth of people living with MASLD are lean,” he said. “It may also come as a surprise to non-liver specialists that cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of mortality in patients with MASLD.”
He underscored the consensus recommendation to screen patients with type 2 diabetes, those with obesity and at least one cardiometabolic risk factor, and individuals with persistently elevated liver enzymes.
“Since many patients in the first two groups are mainly seen in primary care or endocrinology practices, physicians in these specialties need to be cognizant of these global consensus recommendations,” Behari said.
Turning to therapeutics, he described resmetirom as “a major milestone in the management of MASLD since it is the first drug approved in the US for treatment of MASH with F2 (moderate) or F3 (advanced) fibrosis.”
He noted that treatment requires careful patient selection and monitoring, including VCTE in the 8–20 kPa range, followed by serial liver injury testing. Efficacy should be assessed at 12 months, he noted, since “resmetirom was found to be effective in approximately a quarter of all treated patients in the pivotal clinical trial.”
“These limitations highlight the gaps in the treatment of MASLD/MASH and the need to continue development of other therapies,” Behari said.
Jaideep Behari, MD, PhD, AGAF, is director of the liver steatosis and metabolic wellness program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He reported research grant support from AstraZeneca, Madrigal, and recently completed research grant support from Gilead and Pfizer.
The new consensus MASLD recommendations should help reconcile the “important differences” between guidelines from around the world, said Dr. Jaideep Behari, of the the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
Behari highlighted several points that may be underappreciated in clinical practice. “While many clinicians associate MASLD with obesity and type 2 diabetes, approximately a fifth of people living with MASLD are lean,” he said. “It may also come as a surprise to non-liver specialists that cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of mortality in patients with MASLD.”
He underscored the consensus recommendation to screen patients with type 2 diabetes, those with obesity and at least one cardiometabolic risk factor, and individuals with persistently elevated liver enzymes.
“Since many patients in the first two groups are mainly seen in primary care or endocrinology practices, physicians in these specialties need to be cognizant of these global consensus recommendations,” Behari said.
Turning to therapeutics, he described resmetirom as “a major milestone in the management of MASLD since it is the first drug approved in the US for treatment of MASH with F2 (moderate) or F3 (advanced) fibrosis.”
He noted that treatment requires careful patient selection and monitoring, including VCTE in the 8–20 kPa range, followed by serial liver injury testing. Efficacy should be assessed at 12 months, he noted, since “resmetirom was found to be effective in approximately a quarter of all treated patients in the pivotal clinical trial.”
“These limitations highlight the gaps in the treatment of MASLD/MASH and the need to continue development of other therapies,” Behari said.
Jaideep Behari, MD, PhD, AGAF, is director of the liver steatosis and metabolic wellness program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He reported research grant support from AstraZeneca, Madrigal, and recently completed research grant support from Gilead and Pfizer.
The new consensus MASLD recommendations should help reconcile the “important differences” between guidelines from around the world, said Dr. Jaideep Behari, of the the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
Behari highlighted several points that may be underappreciated in clinical practice. “While many clinicians associate MASLD with obesity and type 2 diabetes, approximately a fifth of people living with MASLD are lean,” he said. “It may also come as a surprise to non-liver specialists that cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of mortality in patients with MASLD.”
He underscored the consensus recommendation to screen patients with type 2 diabetes, those with obesity and at least one cardiometabolic risk factor, and individuals with persistently elevated liver enzymes.
“Since many patients in the first two groups are mainly seen in primary care or endocrinology practices, physicians in these specialties need to be cognizant of these global consensus recommendations,” Behari said.
Turning to therapeutics, he described resmetirom as “a major milestone in the management of MASLD since it is the first drug approved in the US for treatment of MASH with F2 (moderate) or F3 (advanced) fibrosis.”
He noted that treatment requires careful patient selection and monitoring, including VCTE in the 8–20 kPa range, followed by serial liver injury testing. Efficacy should be assessed at 12 months, he noted, since “resmetirom was found to be effective in approximately a quarter of all treated patients in the pivotal clinical trial.”
“These limitations highlight the gaps in the treatment of MASLD/MASH and the need to continue development of other therapies,” Behari said.
Jaideep Behari, MD, PhD, AGAF, is director of the liver steatosis and metabolic wellness program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He reported research grant support from AstraZeneca, Madrigal, and recently completed research grant support from Gilead and Pfizer.
These recommendations aim to boost guideline adherence and disease awareness, which have lagged despite a surge of national and international guidance in recent years, lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of the Global NASH/MASH Council, Washington, DC, and colleagues, reported.
“Although these documents are similar in many ways, there are important differences in their recommendations, which have created some confusion within the field,” the panel wrote in Gastroenterology. “Areas of discordance among guidelines can be partly responsible for their low rate of implementation and the suboptimal awareness about this liver disease. Furthermore, these guidelines can be long and complex, making it challenging for busy clinicians to access the appropriate information quickly and efficiently.”
To address these gaps, more than 40 experts from around the world collaborated on the consensus project. The team reviewed 61 eligible documents published between 2018 and January 2025. Each guideline was evaluated across eight domains: epidemiology; screening; risk stratification using noninvasive tests (NITs); lifestyle management; treatment with existing medications; treatment with future medications; hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and preventive guidance; and pregnancy and pediatric populations.
Areas of discordance were advanced to a Delphi process using iterative online surveys, with a supermajority threshold of 67% required for acceptance. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, and by the end, all statements had achieved more than 90% agreement. The final recommendations were then summarized into practical algorithms for clinical use.
The results cover the full spectrum of MASLD care. For screening and diagnosis, experts agreed that individuals with type 2 diabetes, obesity plus cardiometabolic risk factors, or persistently elevated aminotransferases should be considered high risk. Alcohol thresholds were standardized, clarifying when to classify disease as MASLD, alcohol-related liver disease, or the hybrid “Met-ALD.”
For risk stratification, the panel endorsed a two-step algorithm beginning with the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, followed by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) or other NITs in patients above the threshold. This approach, the authors noted, was designed to be feasible in both primary care and specialty settings.
Lifestyle intervention remains the cornerstone of treatment, with weight-loss goals of 5% to reduce steatosis, 7%–10% to reduce inflammation, and at least 10% to improve fibrosis. To this end, the panel recommended a Mediterranean-style diet, increased physical activity, and reductions in sedentary time.
Drug therapy recommendations prioritized glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for patients with diabetes or obesity, though these were not considered MASH-specific agents. Pioglitazone was noted as an option for diabetes management but not as direct MASH therapy. The panel did not recommend vitamin E, ursodeoxycholic acid, or omega-3 fatty acids, citing insufficient evidence.
The document also provides structured guidance on resmetirom, the first FDA-approved therapy for MASH. Its use was endorsed in patients with F2–F3 fibrosis confirmed by NITs, with safety checks at 3, 6, and 12 months, and efficacy evaluation after 1 year. Treatment futility was defined as concordant worsening across two NITs.
Preventive recommendations included hepatitis A and B vaccination and HCC surveillance every 6 months in patients with cirrhosis. Surveillance in noncirrhotic MASH was left to clinician judgment, based on individualized risk factors. Special considerations were outlined for pediatric and pregnant populations, although the evidence base in these groups remains sparse.
“Further research is required to determine the effectiveness of this algorithm in raising awareness of MASLD and its treatment,” Dr. Younossi and colleagues concluded.
The study was supported by the Global NASH/MASH Council, Inova Health System, and an unrestricted educational grant from Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and others.
These recommendations aim to boost guideline adherence and disease awareness, which have lagged despite a surge of national and international guidance in recent years, lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of the Global NASH/MASH Council, Washington, DC, and colleagues, reported.
“Although these documents are similar in many ways, there are important differences in their recommendations, which have created some confusion within the field,” the panel wrote in Gastroenterology. “Areas of discordance among guidelines can be partly responsible for their low rate of implementation and the suboptimal awareness about this liver disease. Furthermore, these guidelines can be long and complex, making it challenging for busy clinicians to access the appropriate information quickly and efficiently.”
To address these gaps, more than 40 experts from around the world collaborated on the consensus project. The team reviewed 61 eligible documents published between 2018 and January 2025. Each guideline was evaluated across eight domains: epidemiology; screening; risk stratification using noninvasive tests (NITs); lifestyle management; treatment with existing medications; treatment with future medications; hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and preventive guidance; and pregnancy and pediatric populations.
Areas of discordance were advanced to a Delphi process using iterative online surveys, with a supermajority threshold of 67% required for acceptance. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, and by the end, all statements had achieved more than 90% agreement. The final recommendations were then summarized into practical algorithms for clinical use.
The results cover the full spectrum of MASLD care. For screening and diagnosis, experts agreed that individuals with type 2 diabetes, obesity plus cardiometabolic risk factors, or persistently elevated aminotransferases should be considered high risk. Alcohol thresholds were standardized, clarifying when to classify disease as MASLD, alcohol-related liver disease, or the hybrid “Met-ALD.”
For risk stratification, the panel endorsed a two-step algorithm beginning with the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, followed by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) or other NITs in patients above the threshold. This approach, the authors noted, was designed to be feasible in both primary care and specialty settings.
Lifestyle intervention remains the cornerstone of treatment, with weight-loss goals of 5% to reduce steatosis, 7%–10% to reduce inflammation, and at least 10% to improve fibrosis. To this end, the panel recommended a Mediterranean-style diet, increased physical activity, and reductions in sedentary time.
Drug therapy recommendations prioritized glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for patients with diabetes or obesity, though these were not considered MASH-specific agents. Pioglitazone was noted as an option for diabetes management but not as direct MASH therapy. The panel did not recommend vitamin E, ursodeoxycholic acid, or omega-3 fatty acids, citing insufficient evidence.
The document also provides structured guidance on resmetirom, the first FDA-approved therapy for MASH. Its use was endorsed in patients with F2–F3 fibrosis confirmed by NITs, with safety checks at 3, 6, and 12 months, and efficacy evaluation after 1 year. Treatment futility was defined as concordant worsening across two NITs.
Preventive recommendations included hepatitis A and B vaccination and HCC surveillance every 6 months in patients with cirrhosis. Surveillance in noncirrhotic MASH was left to clinician judgment, based on individualized risk factors. Special considerations were outlined for pediatric and pregnant populations, although the evidence base in these groups remains sparse.
“Further research is required to determine the effectiveness of this algorithm in raising awareness of MASLD and its treatment,” Dr. Younossi and colleagues concluded.
The study was supported by the Global NASH/MASH Council, Inova Health System, and an unrestricted educational grant from Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and others.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Long-Term Data Support Reduced-Dose Maintenance in EoE
, according to a recent meta-analysis of long-term data.
These findings support keeping patients on long-term maintenance therapy to prevent relapse, lead author Alberto Barchi, MD, of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, and colleagues, reported.
“Given the high relapse rate after treatment cessation, despite good initial response after induction, there is need for further information about long-term outcomes of maintenance treatments,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, few studies have focused on long-term effects of EoE therapies.”
In response, Dr. Barchi and colleagues conducted the present systematic review and meta-analysis, which included studies evaluating maintenance therapies for EoE with at least 48 weeks of follow-up. Eligible studies enrolled patients with confirmed EoE who had received an induction regimen and continued therapy long-term. The final dataset comprised 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 11 observational studies, with long-term outcomes were reported among 1,819 patients.
The primary outcome was histologic success, defined as fewer than 15 or 6 eosinophils per high-power field (HPF). Secondary outcomes included clinical and endoscopic response, treatment adherence, and safety events.
Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, with randomized trials and observational studies analyzed separately. Risk ratios for sustained remission versus placebo or induction therapy were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Safety outcomes included pooled rates of adverse events, severe adverse events, and treatment discontinuation.
Across 9 randomized controlled trials, swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) maintained histologic remission (less than 15 eosinophils/HPF) in 86% of patients, while biologics achieved a rate of 79%. At the stricter threshold of less than 6 eosinophils/HPF, remission rates for STCs and biologics were 59% and 70%, respectively.
Clinical remission rates were lower, at 58% for STCs and 59% for biologics. Endoscopic outcomes were less consistent-ly reported, but most trials showed stable or improved scores during long-term treatment.
In observational cohorts, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) maintained histologic remission in 64% of patients and clinical remission in 80%. For STCs in the real-world setting, histologic and clinical remission rates were 49% and 51%, respectively.
Stepping down the dose of maintenance therapy—whether conventional or biologic—did not increase relapse risk (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72–1.51). In contrast, treatment withdrawal was clearly associated with higher relapse rates: in pooled analyses, continuing therapy yielded nearly an 8-fold greater likelihood of sustained remission compared with discontinuation (RR 7.87; 95% CI, 4.19–14.77).
Safety signals were favorable. Severe adverse events occurred in 3% of patients in randomized trials and 5% in observational studies, while overall withdrawal rates were 10% and 4%, respectively. The most common adverse events with STCs were oropharyngeal candidiasis and reductions in morning cortisol, while biologics were mainly associated with injection-site reactions, headache, and nasopharyngitis.
“Results suggest that prolonging treatment is efficient in maintaining histologic and clinical remission, with overall drug-related safe profiles both in randomized trials and observational studies,” the investigators concluded, noting that more work is needed to determine if there is an optimal drug for maintenance therapy, and if certain patients can successfully discontinue treatment.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer, UCB Pharma, AstraZeneca, and others.
, according to a recent meta-analysis of long-term data.
These findings support keeping patients on long-term maintenance therapy to prevent relapse, lead author Alberto Barchi, MD, of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, and colleagues, reported.
“Given the high relapse rate after treatment cessation, despite good initial response after induction, there is need for further information about long-term outcomes of maintenance treatments,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, few studies have focused on long-term effects of EoE therapies.”
In response, Dr. Barchi and colleagues conducted the present systematic review and meta-analysis, which included studies evaluating maintenance therapies for EoE with at least 48 weeks of follow-up. Eligible studies enrolled patients with confirmed EoE who had received an induction regimen and continued therapy long-term. The final dataset comprised 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 11 observational studies, with long-term outcomes were reported among 1,819 patients.
The primary outcome was histologic success, defined as fewer than 15 or 6 eosinophils per high-power field (HPF). Secondary outcomes included clinical and endoscopic response, treatment adherence, and safety events.
Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, with randomized trials and observational studies analyzed separately. Risk ratios for sustained remission versus placebo or induction therapy were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Safety outcomes included pooled rates of adverse events, severe adverse events, and treatment discontinuation.
Across 9 randomized controlled trials, swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) maintained histologic remission (less than 15 eosinophils/HPF) in 86% of patients, while biologics achieved a rate of 79%. At the stricter threshold of less than 6 eosinophils/HPF, remission rates for STCs and biologics were 59% and 70%, respectively.
Clinical remission rates were lower, at 58% for STCs and 59% for biologics. Endoscopic outcomes were less consistent-ly reported, but most trials showed stable or improved scores during long-term treatment.
In observational cohorts, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) maintained histologic remission in 64% of patients and clinical remission in 80%. For STCs in the real-world setting, histologic and clinical remission rates were 49% and 51%, respectively.
Stepping down the dose of maintenance therapy—whether conventional or biologic—did not increase relapse risk (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72–1.51). In contrast, treatment withdrawal was clearly associated with higher relapse rates: in pooled analyses, continuing therapy yielded nearly an 8-fold greater likelihood of sustained remission compared with discontinuation (RR 7.87; 95% CI, 4.19–14.77).
Safety signals were favorable. Severe adverse events occurred in 3% of patients in randomized trials and 5% in observational studies, while overall withdrawal rates were 10% and 4%, respectively. The most common adverse events with STCs were oropharyngeal candidiasis and reductions in morning cortisol, while biologics were mainly associated with injection-site reactions, headache, and nasopharyngitis.
“Results suggest that prolonging treatment is efficient in maintaining histologic and clinical remission, with overall drug-related safe profiles both in randomized trials and observational studies,” the investigators concluded, noting that more work is needed to determine if there is an optimal drug for maintenance therapy, and if certain patients can successfully discontinue treatment.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer, UCB Pharma, AstraZeneca, and others.
, according to a recent meta-analysis of long-term data.
These findings support keeping patients on long-term maintenance therapy to prevent relapse, lead author Alberto Barchi, MD, of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, and colleagues, reported.
“Given the high relapse rate after treatment cessation, despite good initial response after induction, there is need for further information about long-term outcomes of maintenance treatments,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, few studies have focused on long-term effects of EoE therapies.”
In response, Dr. Barchi and colleagues conducted the present systematic review and meta-analysis, which included studies evaluating maintenance therapies for EoE with at least 48 weeks of follow-up. Eligible studies enrolled patients with confirmed EoE who had received an induction regimen and continued therapy long-term. The final dataset comprised 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 11 observational studies, with long-term outcomes were reported among 1,819 patients.
The primary outcome was histologic success, defined as fewer than 15 or 6 eosinophils per high-power field (HPF). Secondary outcomes included clinical and endoscopic response, treatment adherence, and safety events.
Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, with randomized trials and observational studies analyzed separately. Risk ratios for sustained remission versus placebo or induction therapy were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Safety outcomes included pooled rates of adverse events, severe adverse events, and treatment discontinuation.
Across 9 randomized controlled trials, swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) maintained histologic remission (less than 15 eosinophils/HPF) in 86% of patients, while biologics achieved a rate of 79%. At the stricter threshold of less than 6 eosinophils/HPF, remission rates for STCs and biologics were 59% and 70%, respectively.
Clinical remission rates were lower, at 58% for STCs and 59% for biologics. Endoscopic outcomes were less consistent-ly reported, but most trials showed stable or improved scores during long-term treatment.
In observational cohorts, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) maintained histologic remission in 64% of patients and clinical remission in 80%. For STCs in the real-world setting, histologic and clinical remission rates were 49% and 51%, respectively.
Stepping down the dose of maintenance therapy—whether conventional or biologic—did not increase relapse risk (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72–1.51). In contrast, treatment withdrawal was clearly associated with higher relapse rates: in pooled analyses, continuing therapy yielded nearly an 8-fold greater likelihood of sustained remission compared with discontinuation (RR 7.87; 95% CI, 4.19–14.77).
Safety signals were favorable. Severe adverse events occurred in 3% of patients in randomized trials and 5% in observational studies, while overall withdrawal rates were 10% and 4%, respectively. The most common adverse events with STCs were oropharyngeal candidiasis and reductions in morning cortisol, while biologics were mainly associated with injection-site reactions, headache, and nasopharyngitis.
“Results suggest that prolonging treatment is efficient in maintaining histologic and clinical remission, with overall drug-related safe profiles both in randomized trials and observational studies,” the investigators concluded, noting that more work is needed to determine if there is an optimal drug for maintenance therapy, and if certain patients can successfully discontinue treatment.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer, UCB Pharma, AstraZeneca, and others.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Simpler Approach Increases Diagnostic Accuracy of Timed Barium Esophagram for Achalasia
, according to investigators.
The classification tree offers a practical alternative for evaluating esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow disorders when more advanced methods like high-resolution manometry (HRM) or functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry are unavailable, lead author Ofer Z. Fass, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues reported.
“[T]here are limited data on normative TBE values,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Furthermore, data supporting the accuracy of TBE as a screening test for esophageal motility disorders, as well as clinically relevant test thresholds, remains limited.”
TBE is conventionally interpreted using a handful of single measurements, most often the barium column height at 1, 2, or 5 minutes. Although these metrics are simple to obtain, variability in technique, cutoff values, and interpretation across centers limits reproducibility and weakens diagnostic accuracy, according to the investigators. The role of TBE has therefore been largely confined to adjudicating inconclusive manometry findings, but even in that setting, the absence of validated reference standards constrains its utility as a reliable screening tool.
To address this gap, Fass and colleagues conducted a prospective analysis of 290 patients who underwent TBE at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, with HRM and FLIP panometry, interpreted according to the Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0), serving as the diagnostic reference standards.
Patients were included if they had both TBE and manometry performed within a short interval, ensuring that the two tests could be meaningfully compared. The study population represented a broad spectrum of esophageal motility presentations, allowing the model to be trained on clinically relevant variation.
Beyond column height, the investigators measured barium height at multiple timepoints, maximal esophageal body width, maximum EGJ diameter, and tablet passage. These variables were incorporated into a recursive partitioning algorithm to build a multimetric classification tree aimed at distinguishing EGJ outflow obstruction from other motility disorders.
The optimal tree incorporated three sequential decision levels. At the top was maximum esophageal body width, followed by EGJ diameter and barium height at the second level, and tablet passage at the third. This stepwise structure allowed the model to refine diagnoses by combining simple, reproducible TBE metrics that are already collected in routine practice.
Among the 290 patients, 121 (42%) had EGJ outflow disorders, 151 (52%) had no outflow disorder, and 18 (6%) had inconclusive manometry findings. Using conventional interpretation with column height and tablet passage, TBE demonstrated a sensitivity of 77.8%, a specificity of 86.0%, and an accuracy of 82.2%. The multimetric classification tree improved diagnostic performance across all parameters, with a sensitivity of 84.2%, a specificity of 92.1%, and an accuracy of 88.3%.
The advantages of multimetric interpretation were most notable in patients with borderline column heights, which single-metric approaches often misclassify, underscoring the value of integrating multiple measurements into a unified model.
“[T]his study demonstrated that TBE can accurately identify achalasia when analyzed using multiple metrics in a classification tree model,” Fass and colleagues wrote. “Future studies should explore the use of TBE metrics and models to identify more specific esophageal motor disorders (such as esophageal spasm and absent contractility), as well as validation in a larger, multicenter cohort.”
Clinical Takeaways
Rishi Naik, MD, of the Center for Swallowing and Esophageal Disorders, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, said the study represents a step forward in how clinicians can use a widely accessible esophageal imaging test.
“This study is important in that it has updated the way we use a very common, readily available imaging test and compared it to the current gold standard of HRM and FLIP,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “This provides a practical, standardized framework for clinicians evaluating patients with suspected esophageal motility disorders.”
Naik noted that while HRM and FLIP provide highly detailed information, both carry drawbacks that limit their universal adoption.
“Practically, HRM is a transnasal test that can be cumbersome, and FLIP is performed during a sedated procedure,” he said. “From a comfort and cost perspective, the esophagram outcompetes. What the TBE lacked was adequate sensitivity and specificity when just looking at column height, which is how the authors overcame this by leveraging the comparisons using CCv4.0.”
Implementation, however, requires discipline.
“A timed barium esophagram is a protocol, not a single esophagram,” Naik said. “Without proper measurements, you can’t follow the decision tree.”
Still, he pointed to radiology’s increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) as a promising way forward.
“AI has already transformed radiological reads, and I’m optimistic it will eventually allow us to incorporate not only width, height, and tablet clearance but also 3D [three-dimensional] reconstructions of bolus retention and pressure to enhance predictive modeling,” Naik said.
This study was supported by the Public Health Service.
The investigators disclosed having relationships with Takeda, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and others. Naik is a consultant for Sanofi/Regeneron, Eli Lilly and Company, and Renexxion.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to investigators.
The classification tree offers a practical alternative for evaluating esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow disorders when more advanced methods like high-resolution manometry (HRM) or functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry are unavailable, lead author Ofer Z. Fass, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues reported.
“[T]here are limited data on normative TBE values,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Furthermore, data supporting the accuracy of TBE as a screening test for esophageal motility disorders, as well as clinically relevant test thresholds, remains limited.”
TBE is conventionally interpreted using a handful of single measurements, most often the barium column height at 1, 2, or 5 minutes. Although these metrics are simple to obtain, variability in technique, cutoff values, and interpretation across centers limits reproducibility and weakens diagnostic accuracy, according to the investigators. The role of TBE has therefore been largely confined to adjudicating inconclusive manometry findings, but even in that setting, the absence of validated reference standards constrains its utility as a reliable screening tool.
To address this gap, Fass and colleagues conducted a prospective analysis of 290 patients who underwent TBE at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, with HRM and FLIP panometry, interpreted according to the Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0), serving as the diagnostic reference standards.
Patients were included if they had both TBE and manometry performed within a short interval, ensuring that the two tests could be meaningfully compared. The study population represented a broad spectrum of esophageal motility presentations, allowing the model to be trained on clinically relevant variation.
Beyond column height, the investigators measured barium height at multiple timepoints, maximal esophageal body width, maximum EGJ diameter, and tablet passage. These variables were incorporated into a recursive partitioning algorithm to build a multimetric classification tree aimed at distinguishing EGJ outflow obstruction from other motility disorders.
The optimal tree incorporated three sequential decision levels. At the top was maximum esophageal body width, followed by EGJ diameter and barium height at the second level, and tablet passage at the third. This stepwise structure allowed the model to refine diagnoses by combining simple, reproducible TBE metrics that are already collected in routine practice.
Among the 290 patients, 121 (42%) had EGJ outflow disorders, 151 (52%) had no outflow disorder, and 18 (6%) had inconclusive manometry findings. Using conventional interpretation with column height and tablet passage, TBE demonstrated a sensitivity of 77.8%, a specificity of 86.0%, and an accuracy of 82.2%. The multimetric classification tree improved diagnostic performance across all parameters, with a sensitivity of 84.2%, a specificity of 92.1%, and an accuracy of 88.3%.
The advantages of multimetric interpretation were most notable in patients with borderline column heights, which single-metric approaches often misclassify, underscoring the value of integrating multiple measurements into a unified model.
“[T]his study demonstrated that TBE can accurately identify achalasia when analyzed using multiple metrics in a classification tree model,” Fass and colleagues wrote. “Future studies should explore the use of TBE metrics and models to identify more specific esophageal motor disorders (such as esophageal spasm and absent contractility), as well as validation in a larger, multicenter cohort.”
Clinical Takeaways
Rishi Naik, MD, of the Center for Swallowing and Esophageal Disorders, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, said the study represents a step forward in how clinicians can use a widely accessible esophageal imaging test.
“This study is important in that it has updated the way we use a very common, readily available imaging test and compared it to the current gold standard of HRM and FLIP,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “This provides a practical, standardized framework for clinicians evaluating patients with suspected esophageal motility disorders.”
Naik noted that while HRM and FLIP provide highly detailed information, both carry drawbacks that limit their universal adoption.
“Practically, HRM is a transnasal test that can be cumbersome, and FLIP is performed during a sedated procedure,” he said. “From a comfort and cost perspective, the esophagram outcompetes. What the TBE lacked was adequate sensitivity and specificity when just looking at column height, which is how the authors overcame this by leveraging the comparisons using CCv4.0.”
Implementation, however, requires discipline.
“A timed barium esophagram is a protocol, not a single esophagram,” Naik said. “Without proper measurements, you can’t follow the decision tree.”
Still, he pointed to radiology’s increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) as a promising way forward.
“AI has already transformed radiological reads, and I’m optimistic it will eventually allow us to incorporate not only width, height, and tablet clearance but also 3D [three-dimensional] reconstructions of bolus retention and pressure to enhance predictive modeling,” Naik said.
This study was supported by the Public Health Service.
The investigators disclosed having relationships with Takeda, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and others. Naik is a consultant for Sanofi/Regeneron, Eli Lilly and Company, and Renexxion.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to investigators.
The classification tree offers a practical alternative for evaluating esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow disorders when more advanced methods like high-resolution manometry (HRM) or functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry are unavailable, lead author Ofer Z. Fass, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues reported.
“[T]here are limited data on normative TBE values,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Furthermore, data supporting the accuracy of TBE as a screening test for esophageal motility disorders, as well as clinically relevant test thresholds, remains limited.”
TBE is conventionally interpreted using a handful of single measurements, most often the barium column height at 1, 2, or 5 minutes. Although these metrics are simple to obtain, variability in technique, cutoff values, and interpretation across centers limits reproducibility and weakens diagnostic accuracy, according to the investigators. The role of TBE has therefore been largely confined to adjudicating inconclusive manometry findings, but even in that setting, the absence of validated reference standards constrains its utility as a reliable screening tool.
To address this gap, Fass and colleagues conducted a prospective analysis of 290 patients who underwent TBE at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, with HRM and FLIP panometry, interpreted according to the Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0), serving as the diagnostic reference standards.
Patients were included if they had both TBE and manometry performed within a short interval, ensuring that the two tests could be meaningfully compared. The study population represented a broad spectrum of esophageal motility presentations, allowing the model to be trained on clinically relevant variation.
Beyond column height, the investigators measured barium height at multiple timepoints, maximal esophageal body width, maximum EGJ diameter, and tablet passage. These variables were incorporated into a recursive partitioning algorithm to build a multimetric classification tree aimed at distinguishing EGJ outflow obstruction from other motility disorders.
The optimal tree incorporated three sequential decision levels. At the top was maximum esophageal body width, followed by EGJ diameter and barium height at the second level, and tablet passage at the third. This stepwise structure allowed the model to refine diagnoses by combining simple, reproducible TBE metrics that are already collected in routine practice.
Among the 290 patients, 121 (42%) had EGJ outflow disorders, 151 (52%) had no outflow disorder, and 18 (6%) had inconclusive manometry findings. Using conventional interpretation with column height and tablet passage, TBE demonstrated a sensitivity of 77.8%, a specificity of 86.0%, and an accuracy of 82.2%. The multimetric classification tree improved diagnostic performance across all parameters, with a sensitivity of 84.2%, a specificity of 92.1%, and an accuracy of 88.3%.
The advantages of multimetric interpretation were most notable in patients with borderline column heights, which single-metric approaches often misclassify, underscoring the value of integrating multiple measurements into a unified model.
“[T]his study demonstrated that TBE can accurately identify achalasia when analyzed using multiple metrics in a classification tree model,” Fass and colleagues wrote. “Future studies should explore the use of TBE metrics and models to identify more specific esophageal motor disorders (such as esophageal spasm and absent contractility), as well as validation in a larger, multicenter cohort.”
Clinical Takeaways
Rishi Naik, MD, of the Center for Swallowing and Esophageal Disorders, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, said the study represents a step forward in how clinicians can use a widely accessible esophageal imaging test.
“This study is important in that it has updated the way we use a very common, readily available imaging test and compared it to the current gold standard of HRM and FLIP,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “This provides a practical, standardized framework for clinicians evaluating patients with suspected esophageal motility disorders.”
Naik noted that while HRM and FLIP provide highly detailed information, both carry drawbacks that limit their universal adoption.
“Practically, HRM is a transnasal test that can be cumbersome, and FLIP is performed during a sedated procedure,” he said. “From a comfort and cost perspective, the esophagram outcompetes. What the TBE lacked was adequate sensitivity and specificity when just looking at column height, which is how the authors overcame this by leveraging the comparisons using CCv4.0.”
Implementation, however, requires discipline.
“A timed barium esophagram is a protocol, not a single esophagram,” Naik said. “Without proper measurements, you can’t follow the decision tree.”
Still, he pointed to radiology’s increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) as a promising way forward.
“AI has already transformed radiological reads, and I’m optimistic it will eventually allow us to incorporate not only width, height, and tablet clearance but also 3D [three-dimensional] reconstructions of bolus retention and pressure to enhance predictive modeling,” Naik said.
This study was supported by the Public Health Service.
The investigators disclosed having relationships with Takeda, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and others. Naik is a consultant for Sanofi/Regeneron, Eli Lilly and Company, and Renexxion.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Large Language Models Cut Time, Cost of Guideline Development
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Most GI Service Chiefs Support POCUS Training, But Uptake Is Slow
, according to a national survey.
Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.
“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”
To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.
Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.
Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.
Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.
Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.
Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial.
Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds.
Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them.
Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.
“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway.
They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.
The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
, according to a national survey.
Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.
“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”
To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.
Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.
Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.
Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.
Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.
Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial.
Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds.
Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them.
Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.
“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway.
They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.
The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
, according to a national survey.
Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.
“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”
To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.
Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.
Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.
Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.
Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.
Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial.
Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds.
Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them.
Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.
“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway.
They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.
The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
IBD Medications Show No Link with Breast Cancer Recurrence
, according to investigators.
These findings diminish concerns that IBD therapy could theoretically reactivate dormant micrometastases, lead author Guillaume Le Cosquer, MD, of Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France, and colleagues, reported.
“In patients with IBD, medical management of subjects with a history of breast cancer is a frequent and unresolved problem for clinicians,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.09.034).
Previous studies have reported that conventional immunosuppressants and biologics do not increase risk of incident cancer among IBD patients with a prior nondigestive malignancy; however, recent guidelines from the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) suggest that data are insufficient to make associated recommendations, prompting the present study.
“[T]he major strength of our work is that it is the first to focus on the most frequent cancer (breast cancer) in patients with IBD only, with the longest follow-up after breast cancer in patients with IBD ever published,” Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues noted.
The dataset included 207 patients with IBD and a history of breast cancer, drawn from 7 tertiary centers across France.
The index date was the time of breast cancer diagnosis, and patients were followed for a median of 71 months. The median time from cancer diagnosis to initiation of IBD treatment was 28 months.
First-line post-cancer treatments included conventional immunosuppressants (19.3%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents (19.8%), vedolizumab (7.2%), and ustekinumab (1.9%). Approximately half (51.6%) received no immunosuppressive therapy during follow-up.
Over the study period, 42 incident cancers were recorded (20.3%), among which 34 were breast cancer recurrences. Adjusted incidence rates per 1000 person-years were 10.2 (95% CI, 6.0–16.4) in the untreated group and 28.9 (95% CI, 11.6–59.6) in patients exposed to immunosuppressive or biologic therapies (P = .0519). Incident cancer–free survival did not differ significantly between treated and untreated groups (P = .4796).
On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of incident cancer included T4d stage (P = .036), triple-negative status (P = .016), and follow-up duration shorter than 71 months (P = .005).
“[I]mmunosuppressant and biologic use in selected patients with IBD with prior breast cancer does not seem to increase the risk of incident cancer,” the investigators wrote, noting that the main predictors of cancer recurrence were known poor prognostic features of breast cancer.
Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues acknowledged a lack of prospective safety data for biologic therapies among patients with prior malignancy, as these individuals are often excluded from clinical trials. Still, they underscored alignment between their findings and earlier retrospective studies, including analyses from the SAPPHIRE registry and Medicare data, which also found no significant increase in breast cancer recurrence with anti-TNF agents or newer biologics such as vedolizumab and ustekinumab.
“Our findings will help clinicians to make decisions in multidisciplinary meetings to start immunosuppressants or biologics in case of IBD flare-up in these patients,” they concluded.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, and others.
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at risk for a host of other illnesses, including cancer, at rates similar to or greater than the general population. When faced with uncertainty about drug safety with a cancer diagnosis, the reflex is to avoid the therapy altogether. This may lead to significant flares which may in turn lead to difficulty in tolerating cancer therapy and a shortened and lower quality life.
Le Cosquer et al. address the question of the risk of incident cancer among patients with a history of breast cancer. The authors found that the risk was related to poor prognostic factors for breast cancer and not IBD therapy. This should be interpreted with caution as the numbers, though the largest reported, are 207 patients. After propensity score matching, crude incidence rates per 1000 person years appeared greater in the treatment arm (28.9) versus the untreated arm (10.2), P = .0519. With a greater number of patients, it is conceivable the difference is significant.
On the flip side, prior to diagnosis, the majority of IBD patients received immunosuppressant or biologic therapy; however, after the index cancer, 51.6% of patients received no treatment. The survival curves show a near 25% difference in favor of treated patients after 300 months, albeit with very small numbers, raising the question of whether withholding IBD therapy is more harmful.
It is reassuring that the multiple papers cited in the article have not shown an increase in solid organ tumors to date. However, the practitioner needs to balance maintenance of IBD remission and overall health with the risk of complications in the patient with underlying malignancy. This complex decision making will shift over time and should involve the patient, the oncologist, and the gastroenterologist. In my practice, thiopurines are avoided and anti-integrins and IL-23s are preferred. However, anti-TNF agents and JAK-inhibitors are used when the patients’ overall benefit from disease control outweighs their (theoretical) risk for recurrence, infection, and thromboembolism.
Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, is the Lynne and Marc Benioff Professor of Gastroenterology, and director of the Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center at the University of California, San Francisco. She declared research support from the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Trust, and has served as a consultant for multiple pharmaceutical firms.
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at risk for a host of other illnesses, including cancer, at rates similar to or greater than the general population. When faced with uncertainty about drug safety with a cancer diagnosis, the reflex is to avoid the therapy altogether. This may lead to significant flares which may in turn lead to difficulty in tolerating cancer therapy and a shortened and lower quality life.
Le Cosquer et al. address the question of the risk of incident cancer among patients with a history of breast cancer. The authors found that the risk was related to poor prognostic factors for breast cancer and not IBD therapy. This should be interpreted with caution as the numbers, though the largest reported, are 207 patients. After propensity score matching, crude incidence rates per 1000 person years appeared greater in the treatment arm (28.9) versus the untreated arm (10.2), P = .0519. With a greater number of patients, it is conceivable the difference is significant.
On the flip side, prior to diagnosis, the majority of IBD patients received immunosuppressant or biologic therapy; however, after the index cancer, 51.6% of patients received no treatment. The survival curves show a near 25% difference in favor of treated patients after 300 months, albeit with very small numbers, raising the question of whether withholding IBD therapy is more harmful.
It is reassuring that the multiple papers cited in the article have not shown an increase in solid organ tumors to date. However, the practitioner needs to balance maintenance of IBD remission and overall health with the risk of complications in the patient with underlying malignancy. This complex decision making will shift over time and should involve the patient, the oncologist, and the gastroenterologist. In my practice, thiopurines are avoided and anti-integrins and IL-23s are preferred. However, anti-TNF agents and JAK-inhibitors are used when the patients’ overall benefit from disease control outweighs their (theoretical) risk for recurrence, infection, and thromboembolism.
Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, is the Lynne and Marc Benioff Professor of Gastroenterology, and director of the Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center at the University of California, San Francisco. She declared research support from the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Trust, and has served as a consultant for multiple pharmaceutical firms.
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at risk for a host of other illnesses, including cancer, at rates similar to or greater than the general population. When faced with uncertainty about drug safety with a cancer diagnosis, the reflex is to avoid the therapy altogether. This may lead to significant flares which may in turn lead to difficulty in tolerating cancer therapy and a shortened and lower quality life.
Le Cosquer et al. address the question of the risk of incident cancer among patients with a history of breast cancer. The authors found that the risk was related to poor prognostic factors for breast cancer and not IBD therapy. This should be interpreted with caution as the numbers, though the largest reported, are 207 patients. After propensity score matching, crude incidence rates per 1000 person years appeared greater in the treatment arm (28.9) versus the untreated arm (10.2), P = .0519. With a greater number of patients, it is conceivable the difference is significant.
On the flip side, prior to diagnosis, the majority of IBD patients received immunosuppressant or biologic therapy; however, after the index cancer, 51.6% of patients received no treatment. The survival curves show a near 25% difference in favor of treated patients after 300 months, albeit with very small numbers, raising the question of whether withholding IBD therapy is more harmful.
It is reassuring that the multiple papers cited in the article have not shown an increase in solid organ tumors to date. However, the practitioner needs to balance maintenance of IBD remission and overall health with the risk of complications in the patient with underlying malignancy. This complex decision making will shift over time and should involve the patient, the oncologist, and the gastroenterologist. In my practice, thiopurines are avoided and anti-integrins and IL-23s are preferred. However, anti-TNF agents and JAK-inhibitors are used when the patients’ overall benefit from disease control outweighs their (theoretical) risk for recurrence, infection, and thromboembolism.
Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, is the Lynne and Marc Benioff Professor of Gastroenterology, and director of the Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center at the University of California, San Francisco. She declared research support from the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Trust, and has served as a consultant for multiple pharmaceutical firms.
, according to investigators.
These findings diminish concerns that IBD therapy could theoretically reactivate dormant micrometastases, lead author Guillaume Le Cosquer, MD, of Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France, and colleagues, reported.
“In patients with IBD, medical management of subjects with a history of breast cancer is a frequent and unresolved problem for clinicians,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.09.034).
Previous studies have reported that conventional immunosuppressants and biologics do not increase risk of incident cancer among IBD patients with a prior nondigestive malignancy; however, recent guidelines from the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) suggest that data are insufficient to make associated recommendations, prompting the present study.
“[T]he major strength of our work is that it is the first to focus on the most frequent cancer (breast cancer) in patients with IBD only, with the longest follow-up after breast cancer in patients with IBD ever published,” Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues noted.
The dataset included 207 patients with IBD and a history of breast cancer, drawn from 7 tertiary centers across France.
The index date was the time of breast cancer diagnosis, and patients were followed for a median of 71 months. The median time from cancer diagnosis to initiation of IBD treatment was 28 months.
First-line post-cancer treatments included conventional immunosuppressants (19.3%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents (19.8%), vedolizumab (7.2%), and ustekinumab (1.9%). Approximately half (51.6%) received no immunosuppressive therapy during follow-up.
Over the study period, 42 incident cancers were recorded (20.3%), among which 34 were breast cancer recurrences. Adjusted incidence rates per 1000 person-years were 10.2 (95% CI, 6.0–16.4) in the untreated group and 28.9 (95% CI, 11.6–59.6) in patients exposed to immunosuppressive or biologic therapies (P = .0519). Incident cancer–free survival did not differ significantly between treated and untreated groups (P = .4796).
On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of incident cancer included T4d stage (P = .036), triple-negative status (P = .016), and follow-up duration shorter than 71 months (P = .005).
“[I]mmunosuppressant and biologic use in selected patients with IBD with prior breast cancer does not seem to increase the risk of incident cancer,” the investigators wrote, noting that the main predictors of cancer recurrence were known poor prognostic features of breast cancer.
Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues acknowledged a lack of prospective safety data for biologic therapies among patients with prior malignancy, as these individuals are often excluded from clinical trials. Still, they underscored alignment between their findings and earlier retrospective studies, including analyses from the SAPPHIRE registry and Medicare data, which also found no significant increase in breast cancer recurrence with anti-TNF agents or newer biologics such as vedolizumab and ustekinumab.
“Our findings will help clinicians to make decisions in multidisciplinary meetings to start immunosuppressants or biologics in case of IBD flare-up in these patients,” they concluded.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, and others.
, according to investigators.
These findings diminish concerns that IBD therapy could theoretically reactivate dormant micrometastases, lead author Guillaume Le Cosquer, MD, of Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France, and colleagues, reported.
“In patients with IBD, medical management of subjects with a history of breast cancer is a frequent and unresolved problem for clinicians,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.09.034).
Previous studies have reported that conventional immunosuppressants and biologics do not increase risk of incident cancer among IBD patients with a prior nondigestive malignancy; however, recent guidelines from the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) suggest that data are insufficient to make associated recommendations, prompting the present study.
“[T]he major strength of our work is that it is the first to focus on the most frequent cancer (breast cancer) in patients with IBD only, with the longest follow-up after breast cancer in patients with IBD ever published,” Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues noted.
The dataset included 207 patients with IBD and a history of breast cancer, drawn from 7 tertiary centers across France.
The index date was the time of breast cancer diagnosis, and patients were followed for a median of 71 months. The median time from cancer diagnosis to initiation of IBD treatment was 28 months.
First-line post-cancer treatments included conventional immunosuppressants (19.3%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents (19.8%), vedolizumab (7.2%), and ustekinumab (1.9%). Approximately half (51.6%) received no immunosuppressive therapy during follow-up.
Over the study period, 42 incident cancers were recorded (20.3%), among which 34 were breast cancer recurrences. Adjusted incidence rates per 1000 person-years were 10.2 (95% CI, 6.0–16.4) in the untreated group and 28.9 (95% CI, 11.6–59.6) in patients exposed to immunosuppressive or biologic therapies (P = .0519). Incident cancer–free survival did not differ significantly between treated and untreated groups (P = .4796).
On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of incident cancer included T4d stage (P = .036), triple-negative status (P = .016), and follow-up duration shorter than 71 months (P = .005).
“[I]mmunosuppressant and biologic use in selected patients with IBD with prior breast cancer does not seem to increase the risk of incident cancer,” the investigators wrote, noting that the main predictors of cancer recurrence were known poor prognostic features of breast cancer.
Dr. Le Cosquer and colleagues acknowledged a lack of prospective safety data for biologic therapies among patients with prior malignancy, as these individuals are often excluded from clinical trials. Still, they underscored alignment between their findings and earlier retrospective studies, including analyses from the SAPPHIRE registry and Medicare data, which also found no significant increase in breast cancer recurrence with anti-TNF agents or newer biologics such as vedolizumab and ustekinumab.
“Our findings will help clinicians to make decisions in multidisciplinary meetings to start immunosuppressants or biologics in case of IBD flare-up in these patients,” they concluded.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, and others.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Sterile Water Bottles Deemed Unnecessary for Endoscopy
Like diners saving on drinks,
“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”
After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.
Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.
“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”
Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.
They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.
Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use.
They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
In an editorial accompanying the study and comments to GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Seth A. Gross of NYU Langone Health urged gastroenterologists to reconsider the use of sterile water in endoscopy.
While the rationale for bottled water has centered on infection prevention, Gross argued that the evidence does not hold up, noting that this practice contradicts modern values around sustainability and evidence-based care.
The two relevant clinical studies comparing sterile versus tap water in endoscopy are almost 30 years old, he said, and neither detected an increased risk of infection with tap water, leading both to conclude that tap water is “safe and practical” for routine endoscopy.
Gross also pointed out the inconsistency of sterile water use in medical practice, noting that tap water is acceptable in procedures with higher infection risk than endoscopy.
“Lastly,” he added, “most people drink tap water and not sterile water on a daily basis without outbreaks of gastroenteritis from bacterial infections.”
Gross’s comments went beyond the data to emphasize the obvious but overlooked environmental impacts of sterile water bottles. He suggested several challenging suggestions to make medicine more ecofriendly, like reducing travel to conferences, increasing the availability of telehealth, and choosing reusable devices over disposables.
But “what’s hiding in plain sight,” he said, “is our use of sterile water.”
While acknowledging that some patients, like those who are immunocompromised, might still warrant sterile water, Gross supported the review’s recommendation to use tap water instead. He called on GI societies and regulatory bodies to re-examine current policy and pursue updated guidance.
“Sometimes going back to the basics,” he concluded, “could be the most innovative strategy with tremendous impact.”
Seth A. Gross, MD, AGAF, is clinical chief in the Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology at NYU Langone Health, and professor at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York City. He reported no conflicts of interest.
In an editorial accompanying the study and comments to GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Seth A. Gross of NYU Langone Health urged gastroenterologists to reconsider the use of sterile water in endoscopy.
While the rationale for bottled water has centered on infection prevention, Gross argued that the evidence does not hold up, noting that this practice contradicts modern values around sustainability and evidence-based care.
The two relevant clinical studies comparing sterile versus tap water in endoscopy are almost 30 years old, he said, and neither detected an increased risk of infection with tap water, leading both to conclude that tap water is “safe and practical” for routine endoscopy.
Gross also pointed out the inconsistency of sterile water use in medical practice, noting that tap water is acceptable in procedures with higher infection risk than endoscopy.
“Lastly,” he added, “most people drink tap water and not sterile water on a daily basis without outbreaks of gastroenteritis from bacterial infections.”
Gross’s comments went beyond the data to emphasize the obvious but overlooked environmental impacts of sterile water bottles. He suggested several challenging suggestions to make medicine more ecofriendly, like reducing travel to conferences, increasing the availability of telehealth, and choosing reusable devices over disposables.
But “what’s hiding in plain sight,” he said, “is our use of sterile water.”
While acknowledging that some patients, like those who are immunocompromised, might still warrant sterile water, Gross supported the review’s recommendation to use tap water instead. He called on GI societies and regulatory bodies to re-examine current policy and pursue updated guidance.
“Sometimes going back to the basics,” he concluded, “could be the most innovative strategy with tremendous impact.”
Seth A. Gross, MD, AGAF, is clinical chief in the Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology at NYU Langone Health, and professor at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York City. He reported no conflicts of interest.
In an editorial accompanying the study and comments to GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Seth A. Gross of NYU Langone Health urged gastroenterologists to reconsider the use of sterile water in endoscopy.
While the rationale for bottled water has centered on infection prevention, Gross argued that the evidence does not hold up, noting that this practice contradicts modern values around sustainability and evidence-based care.
The two relevant clinical studies comparing sterile versus tap water in endoscopy are almost 30 years old, he said, and neither detected an increased risk of infection with tap water, leading both to conclude that tap water is “safe and practical” for routine endoscopy.
Gross also pointed out the inconsistency of sterile water use in medical practice, noting that tap water is acceptable in procedures with higher infection risk than endoscopy.
“Lastly,” he added, “most people drink tap water and not sterile water on a daily basis without outbreaks of gastroenteritis from bacterial infections.”
Gross’s comments went beyond the data to emphasize the obvious but overlooked environmental impacts of sterile water bottles. He suggested several challenging suggestions to make medicine more ecofriendly, like reducing travel to conferences, increasing the availability of telehealth, and choosing reusable devices over disposables.
But “what’s hiding in plain sight,” he said, “is our use of sterile water.”
While acknowledging that some patients, like those who are immunocompromised, might still warrant sterile water, Gross supported the review’s recommendation to use tap water instead. He called on GI societies and regulatory bodies to re-examine current policy and pursue updated guidance.
“Sometimes going back to the basics,” he concluded, “could be the most innovative strategy with tremendous impact.”
Seth A. Gross, MD, AGAF, is clinical chief in the Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology at NYU Langone Health, and professor at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York City. He reported no conflicts of interest.
Like diners saving on drinks,
“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”
After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.
Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.
“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”
Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.
They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.
Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use.
They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
Like diners saving on drinks,
“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”
After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.
Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.
“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”
Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.
They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.
Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use.
They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
Wearable Devices May Predict IBD Flares Weeks in Advance
according to investigators.
These findings suggest that widely used consumer wearables could support long-term monitoring of IBD and other chronic inflammatory conditions, lead author Robert P. Hirten, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues reported.
“Wearable devices are an increasingly accepted tool for monitoring health and disease,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “They are frequently used in non–inflammatory-based diseases for remote patient monitoring, allowing individuals to be monitored outside of the clinical setting, which has resulted in improved outcomes in multiple disease states.”
Progress has been slower for inflammatory conditions, the investigators noted, despite interest from both providers and patients. Prior studies have explored activity and sleep tracking, or sweat-based biomarkers, as potential tools for monitoring IBD.
Hirten and colleagues took a novel approach, focusing on physiologic changes driven by autonomic nervous system dysfunction — a hallmark of chronic inflammation. Conditions like IBD are associated with reduced parasympathetic activity and increased sympathetic tone, which in turn affect heart rate and heart rate variability. Heart rate tends to rise during flares, while heart rate variability decreases.
Their prospective cohort study included 309 adults with Crohn’s disease (n = 196) or ulcerative colitis (n = 113). Participants used their own or a study-provided Apple Watch, Fitbit, or Oura Ring to passively collect physiological data, including heart rate, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, and step count. A subset of Apple Watch users also contributed oxygen saturation data.
Participants also completed daily symptom surveys using a custom smartphone app and reported laboratory values such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, as part of routine care. These data were used to identify symptomatic and inflammatory flare periods.
Over a mean follow-up of about 7 months, the physiological data consistently distinguished both types of flares from periods of remission. Heart rate variability dropped significantly during flares, while heart rate and resting heart rate increased. Step counts decreased during inflammatory flares but not during symptom-only flares. Oxygen saturation stayed mostly the same, except for a slight drop seen in participants with Crohn’s disease.
These physiological changes could be detected as early as 7 weeks before a flare. Predictive models that combined multiple metrics — heart rate variability, heart rate, resting heart rate, and step count — were highly accurate, with F1 scores as high as 0.90 for predicting inflammatory flares and 0.83 for predicting symptomatic flares.
In addition, wearable data helped differentiate between flares caused by active inflammation and those driven by symptoms alone. Even when symptoms were similar, heart rate variability, heart rate, and resting heart rate were significantly higher when inflammation was present—suggesting wearable devices may help address the common mismatch between symptoms and actual disease activity in IBD.
“These findings support the further evaluation of wearable devices in the monitoring of IBD,” the investigators concluded.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Ms. Jenny Steingart. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Agomab, Lilly, Merck, and others.
Dana J. Lukin, MD, PhD, AGAF, of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, described the study by Hirten et al as “provocative.”
“While the data require a machine learning approach to transform the recorded values into predictive algorithms, it is intriguing that routinely recorded information from smart devices can be used in a manner to inform disease activity,” Lukin said in an interview. “Furthermore, the use of continuously recorded physiological data in this study likely reflects longitudinal health status more accurately than cross-sectional use of patient-reported outcomes or episodic biomarker testing.”
In addition to offering potentially higher accuracy than conventional monitoring, the remote strategy is also more convenient, he noted.
“The use of these devices is likely easier to adhere to than the use of other contemporary monitoring strategies involving the collection of stool or blood samples,” Lukin said. “It may become possible to passively monitor a larger number of patients at risk for flares remotely,” especially given that “almost half of Americans utilize wearables, such as the Apple Watch, Oura Ring, and Fitbit.”
Still, Lukin predicted challenges with widespread adoption.
“More than half of Americans do not routinely [use these devices],” Lukin said. “Cost, access to internet and smartphones, and adoption of new technology may all be barriers to more widespread use.”
He suggested that the present study offers proof of concept, but more prospective data are needed to demonstrate how this type of remote monitoring might improve real-world IBD care.
“Potential studies will assess change in healthcare utilization, corticosteroids, surgery, and clinical flare activity with the use of these data,” Lukin said. “As we learn more about how to handle the large amount of data generated by these devices, our algorithms can be refined to make a feasible platform for practices to employ in routine care.”
Lukin disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Vedanta, and others.
Dana J. Lukin, MD, PhD, AGAF, of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, described the study by Hirten et al as “provocative.”
“While the data require a machine learning approach to transform the recorded values into predictive algorithms, it is intriguing that routinely recorded information from smart devices can be used in a manner to inform disease activity,” Lukin said in an interview. “Furthermore, the use of continuously recorded physiological data in this study likely reflects longitudinal health status more accurately than cross-sectional use of patient-reported outcomes or episodic biomarker testing.”
In addition to offering potentially higher accuracy than conventional monitoring, the remote strategy is also more convenient, he noted.
“The use of these devices is likely easier to adhere to than the use of other contemporary monitoring strategies involving the collection of stool or blood samples,” Lukin said. “It may become possible to passively monitor a larger number of patients at risk for flares remotely,” especially given that “almost half of Americans utilize wearables, such as the Apple Watch, Oura Ring, and Fitbit.”
Still, Lukin predicted challenges with widespread adoption.
“More than half of Americans do not routinely [use these devices],” Lukin said. “Cost, access to internet and smartphones, and adoption of new technology may all be barriers to more widespread use.”
He suggested that the present study offers proof of concept, but more prospective data are needed to demonstrate how this type of remote monitoring might improve real-world IBD care.
“Potential studies will assess change in healthcare utilization, corticosteroids, surgery, and clinical flare activity with the use of these data,” Lukin said. “As we learn more about how to handle the large amount of data generated by these devices, our algorithms can be refined to make a feasible platform for practices to employ in routine care.”
Lukin disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Vedanta, and others.
Dana J. Lukin, MD, PhD, AGAF, of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, described the study by Hirten et al as “provocative.”
“While the data require a machine learning approach to transform the recorded values into predictive algorithms, it is intriguing that routinely recorded information from smart devices can be used in a manner to inform disease activity,” Lukin said in an interview. “Furthermore, the use of continuously recorded physiological data in this study likely reflects longitudinal health status more accurately than cross-sectional use of patient-reported outcomes or episodic biomarker testing.”
In addition to offering potentially higher accuracy than conventional monitoring, the remote strategy is also more convenient, he noted.
“The use of these devices is likely easier to adhere to than the use of other contemporary monitoring strategies involving the collection of stool or blood samples,” Lukin said. “It may become possible to passively monitor a larger number of patients at risk for flares remotely,” especially given that “almost half of Americans utilize wearables, such as the Apple Watch, Oura Ring, and Fitbit.”
Still, Lukin predicted challenges with widespread adoption.
“More than half of Americans do not routinely [use these devices],” Lukin said. “Cost, access to internet and smartphones, and adoption of new technology may all be barriers to more widespread use.”
He suggested that the present study offers proof of concept, but more prospective data are needed to demonstrate how this type of remote monitoring might improve real-world IBD care.
“Potential studies will assess change in healthcare utilization, corticosteroids, surgery, and clinical flare activity with the use of these data,” Lukin said. “As we learn more about how to handle the large amount of data generated by these devices, our algorithms can be refined to make a feasible platform for practices to employ in routine care.”
Lukin disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Vedanta, and others.
according to investigators.
These findings suggest that widely used consumer wearables could support long-term monitoring of IBD and other chronic inflammatory conditions, lead author Robert P. Hirten, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues reported.
“Wearable devices are an increasingly accepted tool for monitoring health and disease,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “They are frequently used in non–inflammatory-based diseases for remote patient monitoring, allowing individuals to be monitored outside of the clinical setting, which has resulted in improved outcomes in multiple disease states.”
Progress has been slower for inflammatory conditions, the investigators noted, despite interest from both providers and patients. Prior studies have explored activity and sleep tracking, or sweat-based biomarkers, as potential tools for monitoring IBD.
Hirten and colleagues took a novel approach, focusing on physiologic changes driven by autonomic nervous system dysfunction — a hallmark of chronic inflammation. Conditions like IBD are associated with reduced parasympathetic activity and increased sympathetic tone, which in turn affect heart rate and heart rate variability. Heart rate tends to rise during flares, while heart rate variability decreases.
Their prospective cohort study included 309 adults with Crohn’s disease (n = 196) or ulcerative colitis (n = 113). Participants used their own or a study-provided Apple Watch, Fitbit, or Oura Ring to passively collect physiological data, including heart rate, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, and step count. A subset of Apple Watch users also contributed oxygen saturation data.
Participants also completed daily symptom surveys using a custom smartphone app and reported laboratory values such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, as part of routine care. These data were used to identify symptomatic and inflammatory flare periods.
Over a mean follow-up of about 7 months, the physiological data consistently distinguished both types of flares from periods of remission. Heart rate variability dropped significantly during flares, while heart rate and resting heart rate increased. Step counts decreased during inflammatory flares but not during symptom-only flares. Oxygen saturation stayed mostly the same, except for a slight drop seen in participants with Crohn’s disease.
These physiological changes could be detected as early as 7 weeks before a flare. Predictive models that combined multiple metrics — heart rate variability, heart rate, resting heart rate, and step count — were highly accurate, with F1 scores as high as 0.90 for predicting inflammatory flares and 0.83 for predicting symptomatic flares.
In addition, wearable data helped differentiate between flares caused by active inflammation and those driven by symptoms alone. Even when symptoms were similar, heart rate variability, heart rate, and resting heart rate were significantly higher when inflammation was present—suggesting wearable devices may help address the common mismatch between symptoms and actual disease activity in IBD.
“These findings support the further evaluation of wearable devices in the monitoring of IBD,” the investigators concluded.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Ms. Jenny Steingart. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Agomab, Lilly, Merck, and others.
according to investigators.
These findings suggest that widely used consumer wearables could support long-term monitoring of IBD and other chronic inflammatory conditions, lead author Robert P. Hirten, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues reported.
“Wearable devices are an increasingly accepted tool for monitoring health and disease,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “They are frequently used in non–inflammatory-based diseases for remote patient monitoring, allowing individuals to be monitored outside of the clinical setting, which has resulted in improved outcomes in multiple disease states.”
Progress has been slower for inflammatory conditions, the investigators noted, despite interest from both providers and patients. Prior studies have explored activity and sleep tracking, or sweat-based biomarkers, as potential tools for monitoring IBD.
Hirten and colleagues took a novel approach, focusing on physiologic changes driven by autonomic nervous system dysfunction — a hallmark of chronic inflammation. Conditions like IBD are associated with reduced parasympathetic activity and increased sympathetic tone, which in turn affect heart rate and heart rate variability. Heart rate tends to rise during flares, while heart rate variability decreases.
Their prospective cohort study included 309 adults with Crohn’s disease (n = 196) or ulcerative colitis (n = 113). Participants used their own or a study-provided Apple Watch, Fitbit, or Oura Ring to passively collect physiological data, including heart rate, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, and step count. A subset of Apple Watch users also contributed oxygen saturation data.
Participants also completed daily symptom surveys using a custom smartphone app and reported laboratory values such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, as part of routine care. These data were used to identify symptomatic and inflammatory flare periods.
Over a mean follow-up of about 7 months, the physiological data consistently distinguished both types of flares from periods of remission. Heart rate variability dropped significantly during flares, while heart rate and resting heart rate increased. Step counts decreased during inflammatory flares but not during symptom-only flares. Oxygen saturation stayed mostly the same, except for a slight drop seen in participants with Crohn’s disease.
These physiological changes could be detected as early as 7 weeks before a flare. Predictive models that combined multiple metrics — heart rate variability, heart rate, resting heart rate, and step count — were highly accurate, with F1 scores as high as 0.90 for predicting inflammatory flares and 0.83 for predicting symptomatic flares.
In addition, wearable data helped differentiate between flares caused by active inflammation and those driven by symptoms alone. Even when symptoms were similar, heart rate variability, heart rate, and resting heart rate were significantly higher when inflammation was present—suggesting wearable devices may help address the common mismatch between symptoms and actual disease activity in IBD.
“These findings support the further evaluation of wearable devices in the monitoring of IBD,” the investigators concluded.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Ms. Jenny Steingart. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Agomab, Lilly, Merck, and others.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Low-Quality Food Environments Increase MASLD-related Mortality
according to investigators.
These findings highlight the importance of addressing disparities in food environments and social determinants of health to help reduce MASLD-related mortality, lead author Annette Paik, MD, of Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, and colleagues reported.
“Recent studies indicate that food swamps and deserts, as surrogates for food insecurity, are linked to poor glycemic control and higher adult obesity rates,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Understanding the intersection of these factors with sociodemographic and clinical variables offers insights into MASLD-related outcomes, including mortality.”
To this end, the present study examined the association between food environments and MASLD-related mortality across more than 2,195 US counties. County-level mortality data were obtained from the CDC WONDER database (2016-2020) and linked to food environment data from the US Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas using Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes. Food deserts were defined as low-income areas with limited access to grocery stores, while food swamps were characterized by a predominance of unhealthy food outlets relative to healthy ones.
Additional data on obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and nine social determinants of health were obtained from CDC PLACES and other publicly available datasets. Counties were stratified into quartiles based on MASLD-related mortality rates. Population-weighted mixed-effects linear regression models were used to evaluate associations between food environment exposures and MASLD mortality, adjusting for region, rural-urban status, age, sex, race, insurance coverage, chronic dis-ease prevalence, SNAP participation, and access to exercise facilities.
Counties with the worst food environments had significantly higher MASLD-related mortality, even after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Compared with counties in the lowest quartile of MASLD mortality, those in the highest quartile had a greater proportion of food deserts (22.3% vs 14.9%; P < .001) and food swamps (73.1% vs 65.7%; P < .001). They also had a significantly higher prevalence of obesity (40.5% vs 32.5%), type 2 diabetes (15.8% vs 11.4%), and physical inactivity (33.7% vs 24.9%).
Demographically, counties with higher MASLD mortality had significantly larger proportions of Black and Hispanic residents, and were more likely to be rural and located in the South. These counties also had significantly lower median household incomes, higher poverty rates, fewer adults with a college education, lower access to exercise opportunities, greater SNAP participation, less broadband access, and more uninsured adults.
In multivariable regression models, both food deserts and food swamps remained independently associated with MASLD mortality. Counties in the highest quartile of food desert exposure had a 14.5% higher MASLD mortality rate, compared with the lowest quartile (P = .001), and those in the highest quartile for food swamp exposure had a 13.9% higher mortality rate (P = .005).
Type 2 diabetes, physical inactivity, and lack of health insurance were also independently associated with increased MASLD-related mortality.
“Implementing public health interventions that address the specific environmental factors of each county can help US policymakers promote access to healthy, culturally appropriate food choices at affordable prices and reduce the consumption of poor-quality food,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, improving access to parks and exercise facilities can further enhance the impact of healthy nutrition. These strategies could help curb the growing epidemic of metabolic diseases, including MASLD and related mortality.”
This study was supported by King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, the Global NASH Council, Center for Outcomes Research in Liver Diseases, and the Beatty Liver and Obesity Research Fund, Inova Health System. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
A healthy lifestyle continues to be foundational to the management of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). Poor diet quality is a risk factor for developing MASLD in the US general population. Food deserts and food swamps are symptoms of socioeconomic hardship, as they both are characterized by limited access to healthy food (as described by the US Department of Agriculture Dietary Guidelines for Americans) owing to the absence of grocery stores/supermarkets. However, food swamps suffer from abundant access to unhealthy, energy-dense, yet nutritionally sparse (EDYNS) foods.
The article by Paik et al shows that food deserts and food swamps are not only associated with the burden of MASLD in the United States but also with MASLD-related mortality. The counties with the highest MASLD-related mortality carried higher food swamps and food deserts, poverty, unemployment, household crowding, absence of broadband internet access, lack of high school education, and elderly, Hispanic residents and likely to be located in the South.
MASLD appears to have origins in the dark underbelly of socioeconomic hardship that might preclude many of our patients from complying with lifestyle changes. Policy changes are urgently needed at a national level, from increasing incentives to establish grocery stores in the food deserts to limiting the proportion of EDYNS foods in grocery stores and conspicuous labeling by the Food and Drug Administration of EDYNS foods. At an individual practice level, supporting MASLD patients in the clinic with a dietitian, educational material, and, where possible, utilizing applications to assist healthy dietary habits to empower them in choosing healthy food options.
Niharika Samala, MD, is assistant professor of medicine, associate program director of the GI Fellowship, and director of the IUH MASLD/NAFLD Clinic at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A healthy lifestyle continues to be foundational to the management of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). Poor diet quality is a risk factor for developing MASLD in the US general population. Food deserts and food swamps are symptoms of socioeconomic hardship, as they both are characterized by limited access to healthy food (as described by the US Department of Agriculture Dietary Guidelines for Americans) owing to the absence of grocery stores/supermarkets. However, food swamps suffer from abundant access to unhealthy, energy-dense, yet nutritionally sparse (EDYNS) foods.
The article by Paik et al shows that food deserts and food swamps are not only associated with the burden of MASLD in the United States but also with MASLD-related mortality. The counties with the highest MASLD-related mortality carried higher food swamps and food deserts, poverty, unemployment, household crowding, absence of broadband internet access, lack of high school education, and elderly, Hispanic residents and likely to be located in the South.
MASLD appears to have origins in the dark underbelly of socioeconomic hardship that might preclude many of our patients from complying with lifestyle changes. Policy changes are urgently needed at a national level, from increasing incentives to establish grocery stores in the food deserts to limiting the proportion of EDYNS foods in grocery stores and conspicuous labeling by the Food and Drug Administration of EDYNS foods. At an individual practice level, supporting MASLD patients in the clinic with a dietitian, educational material, and, where possible, utilizing applications to assist healthy dietary habits to empower them in choosing healthy food options.
Niharika Samala, MD, is assistant professor of medicine, associate program director of the GI Fellowship, and director of the IUH MASLD/NAFLD Clinic at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A healthy lifestyle continues to be foundational to the management of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). Poor diet quality is a risk factor for developing MASLD in the US general population. Food deserts and food swamps are symptoms of socioeconomic hardship, as they both are characterized by limited access to healthy food (as described by the US Department of Agriculture Dietary Guidelines for Americans) owing to the absence of grocery stores/supermarkets. However, food swamps suffer from abundant access to unhealthy, energy-dense, yet nutritionally sparse (EDYNS) foods.
The article by Paik et al shows that food deserts and food swamps are not only associated with the burden of MASLD in the United States but also with MASLD-related mortality. The counties with the highest MASLD-related mortality carried higher food swamps and food deserts, poverty, unemployment, household crowding, absence of broadband internet access, lack of high school education, and elderly, Hispanic residents and likely to be located in the South.
MASLD appears to have origins in the dark underbelly of socioeconomic hardship that might preclude many of our patients from complying with lifestyle changes. Policy changes are urgently needed at a national level, from increasing incentives to establish grocery stores in the food deserts to limiting the proportion of EDYNS foods in grocery stores and conspicuous labeling by the Food and Drug Administration of EDYNS foods. At an individual practice level, supporting MASLD patients in the clinic with a dietitian, educational material, and, where possible, utilizing applications to assist healthy dietary habits to empower them in choosing healthy food options.
Niharika Samala, MD, is assistant professor of medicine, associate program director of the GI Fellowship, and director of the IUH MASLD/NAFLD Clinic at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
according to investigators.
These findings highlight the importance of addressing disparities in food environments and social determinants of health to help reduce MASLD-related mortality, lead author Annette Paik, MD, of Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, and colleagues reported.
“Recent studies indicate that food swamps and deserts, as surrogates for food insecurity, are linked to poor glycemic control and higher adult obesity rates,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Understanding the intersection of these factors with sociodemographic and clinical variables offers insights into MASLD-related outcomes, including mortality.”
To this end, the present study examined the association between food environments and MASLD-related mortality across more than 2,195 US counties. County-level mortality data were obtained from the CDC WONDER database (2016-2020) and linked to food environment data from the US Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas using Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes. Food deserts were defined as low-income areas with limited access to grocery stores, while food swamps were characterized by a predominance of unhealthy food outlets relative to healthy ones.
Additional data on obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and nine social determinants of health were obtained from CDC PLACES and other publicly available datasets. Counties were stratified into quartiles based on MASLD-related mortality rates. Population-weighted mixed-effects linear regression models were used to evaluate associations between food environment exposures and MASLD mortality, adjusting for region, rural-urban status, age, sex, race, insurance coverage, chronic dis-ease prevalence, SNAP participation, and access to exercise facilities.
Counties with the worst food environments had significantly higher MASLD-related mortality, even after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Compared with counties in the lowest quartile of MASLD mortality, those in the highest quartile had a greater proportion of food deserts (22.3% vs 14.9%; P < .001) and food swamps (73.1% vs 65.7%; P < .001). They also had a significantly higher prevalence of obesity (40.5% vs 32.5%), type 2 diabetes (15.8% vs 11.4%), and physical inactivity (33.7% vs 24.9%).
Demographically, counties with higher MASLD mortality had significantly larger proportions of Black and Hispanic residents, and were more likely to be rural and located in the South. These counties also had significantly lower median household incomes, higher poverty rates, fewer adults with a college education, lower access to exercise opportunities, greater SNAP participation, less broadband access, and more uninsured adults.
In multivariable regression models, both food deserts and food swamps remained independently associated with MASLD mortality. Counties in the highest quartile of food desert exposure had a 14.5% higher MASLD mortality rate, compared with the lowest quartile (P = .001), and those in the highest quartile for food swamp exposure had a 13.9% higher mortality rate (P = .005).
Type 2 diabetes, physical inactivity, and lack of health insurance were also independently associated with increased MASLD-related mortality.
“Implementing public health interventions that address the specific environmental factors of each county can help US policymakers promote access to healthy, culturally appropriate food choices at affordable prices and reduce the consumption of poor-quality food,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, improving access to parks and exercise facilities can further enhance the impact of healthy nutrition. These strategies could help curb the growing epidemic of metabolic diseases, including MASLD and related mortality.”
This study was supported by King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, the Global NASH Council, Center for Outcomes Research in Liver Diseases, and the Beatty Liver and Obesity Research Fund, Inova Health System. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
according to investigators.
These findings highlight the importance of addressing disparities in food environments and social determinants of health to help reduce MASLD-related mortality, lead author Annette Paik, MD, of Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, and colleagues reported.
“Recent studies indicate that food swamps and deserts, as surrogates for food insecurity, are linked to poor glycemic control and higher adult obesity rates,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Understanding the intersection of these factors with sociodemographic and clinical variables offers insights into MASLD-related outcomes, including mortality.”
To this end, the present study examined the association between food environments and MASLD-related mortality across more than 2,195 US counties. County-level mortality data were obtained from the CDC WONDER database (2016-2020) and linked to food environment data from the US Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas using Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes. Food deserts were defined as low-income areas with limited access to grocery stores, while food swamps were characterized by a predominance of unhealthy food outlets relative to healthy ones.
Additional data on obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and nine social determinants of health were obtained from CDC PLACES and other publicly available datasets. Counties were stratified into quartiles based on MASLD-related mortality rates. Population-weighted mixed-effects linear regression models were used to evaluate associations between food environment exposures and MASLD mortality, adjusting for region, rural-urban status, age, sex, race, insurance coverage, chronic dis-ease prevalence, SNAP participation, and access to exercise facilities.
Counties with the worst food environments had significantly higher MASLD-related mortality, even after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Compared with counties in the lowest quartile of MASLD mortality, those in the highest quartile had a greater proportion of food deserts (22.3% vs 14.9%; P < .001) and food swamps (73.1% vs 65.7%; P < .001). They also had a significantly higher prevalence of obesity (40.5% vs 32.5%), type 2 diabetes (15.8% vs 11.4%), and physical inactivity (33.7% vs 24.9%).
Demographically, counties with higher MASLD mortality had significantly larger proportions of Black and Hispanic residents, and were more likely to be rural and located in the South. These counties also had significantly lower median household incomes, higher poverty rates, fewer adults with a college education, lower access to exercise opportunities, greater SNAP participation, less broadband access, and more uninsured adults.
In multivariable regression models, both food deserts and food swamps remained independently associated with MASLD mortality. Counties in the highest quartile of food desert exposure had a 14.5% higher MASLD mortality rate, compared with the lowest quartile (P = .001), and those in the highest quartile for food swamp exposure had a 13.9% higher mortality rate (P = .005).
Type 2 diabetes, physical inactivity, and lack of health insurance were also independently associated with increased MASLD-related mortality.
“Implementing public health interventions that address the specific environmental factors of each county can help US policymakers promote access to healthy, culturally appropriate food choices at affordable prices and reduce the consumption of poor-quality food,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, improving access to parks and exercise facilities can further enhance the impact of healthy nutrition. These strategies could help curb the growing epidemic of metabolic diseases, including MASLD and related mortality.”
This study was supported by King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, the Global NASH Council, Center for Outcomes Research in Liver Diseases, and the Beatty Liver and Obesity Research Fund, Inova Health System. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY